Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[Highland37]

I am surprised at your thinking on this.

We have a supplier who IS delivering the contract, not as specified but by interim means, but by incurring significant additional costs both in loco hires, extra management costs and has experienced very significant problems with the equipment they intended to use.

Meanwhile, millions of pounds of public money have been invested in new coaching stock which will be arriving relatively soon. To date, no solution to has been found to deliver the contract on the original spec. Given that they have a finite time frame to do this as only the 92s can supply the ETC for the new stock, Serco should be very concerned. A lot of time and money has been spent on the the 73s and 92s and neither have worked as planned. Take the blinkers off. There is reason for concern here.

 

[captainbigun]

I know. There is pretty much no reliable loco available. Unless a bespoke 88 is built. Some seem to think contract delivered = no problem. Well yes if you don't pay any attention to how your suppliers are doing.

SERCO and GB meet daily. There's not exactly a lack of visibility. Frankly, if you're SERCO, TfS then if contract is delivered then there is no issue.

90s will start to wind down soon.

92014 has already shown what is possible. I maintain there's a load of platform end wibble, then there's reality and those that need to know, know.

 

[captainbigun]

I am surprised at your thinking on this.

We have a supplier who IS delivering the contract, not as specified but by interim means, but by incurring significant additional costs both in loco hires, extra management costs and has experienced very significant problems with the equipment they intended to use.

Meanwhile, millions of pounds of public money have been invested in new coaching stock which will be arriving relatively soon. To date, no solution to has been found to deliver the contract on the original spec. Given that they have a finite time frame to do this as only the 92s can supply the ETC for the new stock, Serco should be very concerned. A lot of time and money has been spent on the the 73s and 92s and neither have worked as planned. Take the blinkers off. There is reason for concern here.

So you know that for fact? Do you know what the contract is? I suspect not, in which case you are very wide of the mark.

 

[najaB]

A lot of time and money has been spent on the the 73s and 92s and neither have worked as planned. Take the blinkers off. There is reason for concern here.

Agreed that there is a reason for concern. However the root-cause of the 73 problems has, apparently, been identified and a fix is in progress. The 92s are a little more problematic but, again, a root-cause has been identified (at least to the problems around Warrington). I don't know if a fix has been put in place as yet though?

 

[Highland37]

So you know that for fact? Do you know what the contract is? I suspect not, in which case you are very wide of the mark.

Know what? No I don't know what the contract is. It's irrelevant in this context as the critical piece of the jigsaw (92s) are not reliable but at the same time new stock is arriving which is dependent on them.

The new stock is arriving soon. You appear to be unconcerned about no solution as yet being in place for a critical piece of the jigsaw.

 

[Highland37]

Let me put it another way, the critical piece of the system, the 92s, is currently unreliable due to electrical issues reportedly. It's unreliable in the context of the coaching stock which requires less ETS than the new stock.

It would seem common sense to consider that the new coaching stock may place an additional stress on the 92s as they require more power. Therefore, given that the 92s are unable to be reliable currently, which may change, the time is reducing each day to 1) test the modifications on the 92s for the current coaching stock and 2) and until the 92s are a key piece of the system and for which there is no alternative.

Those are the reasons for concern.

 

[captainbigun]

The new stock is arriving when?

In what way is the stress going to increase upon the 92s? Train heat is taken directly from the train heat winding, its massively rated, it's not an issue.

You don't seem to have any real insight into the 92 as a loco, how it is designed or how it functions. I'd suggest filling those gaps before passing further comment.

I'd let the folk at GBRf and Brush be concerned, if there is any concern to be had.

 

[gsnedders]

The new stock is arriving soon. You appear to be unconcerned about no solution as yet being in place for a critical piece of the jigsaw.

There are only three options, realistically:

• Get the 92s working,
• Order a new-build (and to at least some degree design!) loco which meets the ETS requirements and hope it's reliable out of the starting blocks, or
• Run the new stock in shorter rakes.

The middle option is practically going to be a non-starter given the timeline; there simply isn't going to be any other locomotive that's an option when the stock arrives. One assume's Serco and GBRf's fallback option with the new stock would simply be to run shorter trains (and that's going to be fun down the WCML!), as it's not obvious there is any other fallback option available.

 

[47271]

There are only three options, realistically:

• Get the 92s working,
• Order a new-build (and to at least some degree design!) loco which meets the ETS requirements and hope it's reliable out of the starting blocks, or
• Run the new stock in shorter rakes.

The middle option is practically going to be a non-starter given the timeline; there simply isn't going to be any other locomotive that's an option when the stock arrives. One assume's Serco and GBRf's fallback option with the new stock would simply be to run shorter trains (and that's going to be fun down the WCML!), as it's not obvious there is any other fallback option available.

Assuming the shorter trains will all run on the West Coast.

 

[Liam]

Is it possible to double up Class 90's (or another locomotive) to beef up the power? It would probably result in issues with fouling points and platform lengths.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Is it possible to double up Class 90's (or another locomotive) to beef up the power? It would probably result in issues with fouling points and platform lengths.

The sleeper already has a loco at both ends at Euston. This would be the fourth remaining option, although as far as I understand it the new CAF stock uses a higher voltage ETS supply that only the 92s can currently deliver.

 

[thealexweb]

Is it possible to double up Class 90's (or another locomotive) to beef up the power?

I remember that being asked before earlier in the thread and the answer is no. Sadly ETS cannot be doubled up.

 

[fgwrich]

Agreed that there is a reason for concern. However the root-cause of the 73 problems has, apparently, been identified and a fix is in progress. The 92s are a little more problematic but, again, a root-cause has been identified (at least to the problems around Warrington). I don't know if a fix has been put in place as yet though?

Several solutions are already in the pipeline for the 92s and what we've seen with 92014 isn't the final solution yet. GBRF / Wabtec & Serco all know when the stock is due to arrive from CAF, and the 92s will then be modified - as I've stated previously - to match the Mk5s from CAF. This will include the required wiring changes, and changes to the front ends of the locos.

The 73 issue is under warranty - It's a design fault from the Wabtec / MTU designed set up, and is costing Wabtec dearly until they fix the issue. Also as before, the 92s are a sensitive loco with complex 90s Electronics. The issues with them include electrical interference from NRs infrastructure, and NR & Wabtec are again working on solutions to these issues.

In answer to another point raised a few pages ago, the Mk2s are ropey. Even First knew that. But, the simple problem is, is that you cannot replace them yet. To replace the Mk2s with Mk3s - which was looked at in the past - would have either meant a sleeper would have had to have been dropped from at least 1 portion each, because the additional length of the Mk3 would have caused the length of the sleeper to be too long for Euston & other platforms.

I'm not worried at all. GBRF / MTU / Wabtec are all very competent companies and have some top engineering staff. GBRF Are equally as frustrated as anyone else, but there are plans in place with plenty of time before the new coaches arrive. And considering all the issues GB has had to deal with over the past year - Running down the ECML/Durham Coast line / Lamington Viaduct, and still provided it's service, I don't see how they've failed to deliver at all.

 

[Essexman]

Is it possible to double up Class 90's (or another locomotive) to beef up the power? It would probably result in issues with fouling points and platform lengths.

What about a 92 at each end. One to haul the train and the other to provide ETH?

 

[IanXC]

What about a 92 at each end. One to haul the train and the other to provide ETH?

Remind me, what was the 'problem' these schemes are proposing to resolve?

 

[fgwrich]

What about a 92 at each end. One to haul the train and the other to provide ETH?

Remind me, what was the 'problem' these schemes are proposing to resolve?

Indeed. And actually these suggestions create more problems, as people seem to be forgetting that both sets of Caledonian Sleeper rakes split en route. Why then create the extra hassle of shunting more locos around?

 

[captainbigun]

92014 is fully modified and has been for some time. Another has just escaped the Brush, 23 I think.

 

[43096]

The 73 issue is under warranty - It's a design fault from the Wabtec / MTU designed set up, and is costing Wabtec dearly until they fix the issue.

It is specifically an MTU issue, as they supplied the complete engine and alternator sets for the locos. Although the warranty is obviously via Wabtec.

 

[87015]

87002 worked north (unavailable skoda presumably) last night so will be spending Christmas in Scotland.

As a 92 related aside Willesden TMD now has Bombardier management rather than LOROL and whilst little on the ground seems to have changed, there may be subtle differences available to the maintenance approach under new management if it is desired.

 

[CosherB]

Potentially the fact that despite the 90's being initially a short term fix to the ongoing Sleeper Loco issue, have now turned into a long term hire fix. All I can see ahead for Serco is changing contracts, and moving to Freightliner permanently instead of GBRf when looking for motive power for their sleepers. The 90's have definitely proved themselves the solution, and I'm starting to doubt the 92's will ever be back on the front of the mainline sleepers again.

Another anti-GBRf rant and an argument based on a complete lack of understanding. This is getting very tiresome. Get a grip - the 92s and the 73/9s will get sorted.

I can't even be bothered anymore to pick holes in your suggestion for lining up Freightliner as the new traction provider. :roll:

 

[43096]

I can't even be bothered anymore to pick holes in your suggestion for lining up Freightliner as the new traction provider. :roll:

You mean like the lack of ETH diesels?

 

[fgwrich]

92014 is fully modified and has been for some time. Another has just escaped the Brush, 23 I think.

It's not at the fully final stage yet though - these will receive their final mods closer to the time of the arrival of the CAFs. They are fully modified for this stage in the program, but haven't received the modified front fairing and new couplers yet.

 

[captainbigun]

It's not at the fully final stage yet though - these will receive their final mods closer to the time of the arrival of the CAFs. They are fully modified for this stage in the program, but haven't received the modified front fairing and new couplers yet.

Well, yes, clearly they haven't had their Dellners yet, that's a major undertaking. The ETS will need reverting to as built though that's a quick config change. All of the traction related mods have been completed.

 

[Furrball]

Tonights 1B16 (s/b from Aberdeen leg) cancelled

 

[87015]

Tonights 1B16 (s/b from Aberdeen leg) cancelled

Nice. No train heat from the ED again as it's running empties?

 

[TimboM]

Tonights 1B16 (s/b from Aberdeen leg) cancelled

UP sleeper from Inverness also just been cancelled due to "a problem with the traction equipment". Having a bit of a mare tonight!

 

[Scotrail84]

87 002 brought 1M11 down from Glasgow Central.

 

[6Z09]

Are these problems related to the fact the Locos have lain idle from Saturday morning until Tuesday night?
Similar issue has occurred on Sunday nights in the past!

 

[najaB]

Are these problems related to the fact the Locos have lain idle from Saturday morning until Tuesday night?

It could possibly be because the stock has sat idle. While it's not been particularly cold, they'll still have had longer to lose any residual heat than they would on a typical mid-week night.

 

[JonathanH]

It could possibly be because the stock has sat idle. While it's not been particularly cold, they'll still have had longer to lose any residual heat than they would on a typical mid-week night.

Ironically the Inverness portion went to Polmadie on Christmas Eve and returned to Inverness yesterday in order to deal with the issue of sitting idle.

It arrived at Inverness just before the southbound departure time, rather late, and then appears to have failed.