Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[Scotrail84]

Id personally have stayed where I was, partly as I need the bits at Wemly but also as I much prefer dear old Euston to the cross any day.

Around half chose to alight at Peterborough and board the 09:30 GN service to kings cross (arr 10:47). Saved them a good hour and ten minutes to be honest.

 

[Please Explain]

Are they still using the GBRF 66's on 1Y11/1B01? And the IC MK2's?? Thanks in advance.

 

[Scotrail84]

Are they still using the GBRF 66's on 1Y11/1B01? And the IC MK2's?? Thanks in advance.

No, 73s on the service and the only non sleeper coach is now 9507, the virgin liveried riviera brake coach.

 

[43096]

I don't know. How long was it? And did they achieve reliability during the period before they met the spec, unlike the 73s, or were unreliable and didn't met the spec.



How much is this GBRf contract worth? £100 million?

The 67s still do not meet the spec.

As for the 73s on 1M16, it is reported elsewhere that the train hit an object that damaged the AWS/TPWS antenna so went forward at 40mph to Perth where the locos were swapped round to get the good one leading. Looking at RTT the train then maintained timings to Edinburgh.

So not actually a fault with the 73s. Humble pie anyone?

 

[marks87]

The 67s still do not meet the spec.

As for the 73s on 1M16, it is reported elsewhere that the train hit an object that damaged the AWS/TPWS antenna so went forward at 40mph to Perth where the locos were swapped round to get the good one leading. Looking at RTT the train then maintained timings to Edinburgh.

So not actually a fault with the 73s. Humble pie anyone?

Yea, but a 67/47/37 would have used its magical powers to detect the obstruction and stop before hitting it. The 73s, being the worst things ever in history, aren't equipped with such abilities, clearly making them unsuitable for use on the Sleeper.

 

[GW43125]

A friend of mine reports seeing a 47 at Waverley this morning. Did it work any of the sleeper portions last night?

 

[Highland37]

The 67s still do not meet the spec.

As for the 73s on 1M16, it is reported elsewhere that the train hit an object that damaged the AWS/TPWS antenna so went forward at 40mph to Perth where the locos were swapped round to get the good one leading. Looking at RTT the train then maintained timings to Edinburgh.

So not actually a fault with the 73s. Humble pie anyone?

Point taken. I didn't realise it hit something.

However, I think most people would recognise that their introduction has been far from a success so far.

Does anyone know when they were originally scheduled to take over the sleeper?

 

[TimboM]

A friend of mine reports seeing a 47 at Waverley this morning. Did it work any of the sleeper portions last night?

It would have been Colas 47739. I believe it worked the Carstairs-Waverley portion last night/this morning.

90043 then took the ECS back to Polmadie this morning after bringing the n/bound Highlander from Euston.

 

[CosherB]

If I were transport minister I would be seriously looking at it right now.

Are well another week I guess, hope all goes well with it given the numbers that are likely to be traveling over Easter

Look at what, precisely?

 

[CosherB]

Point taken. I didn't realise it hit something.

However, I think most people would recognise that their introduction has been far from a success so far.

Does anyone know when they were originally scheduled to take over the sleeper?

Are you aware of the alternator problems that were discovered on the introduction of the GBRf CS 73/9s, and that they are being fixed?

 

[TimboM]

Point taken. I didn't realise it hit something.

However, I think most people would recognise that their introduction has been far from a success so far.

Does anyone know when they were originally scheduled to take over the sleeper?

The GBRf press release in Feb 2017 announcing the traction contract stated the 73s would be in use "from Oct 2015". I know they weren't ready/first introduced until some time after this date - into 2016 I think; I'm sure someone can elaborate...

Interestingly, with the 73/9s (and refurbed 92s) I think the challenges GBRf have faced have been from trying/needing to get them into service TOO quickly, rather than them taking a long time - in doing this, it's resulted in problems that ultimately have taken the length of time they have to get things right.

At the time the contract was won both main traction options weren't 'ready to go' and hence GBRf/Wabtec Brush et al were under pressure to get 6x 92s and 6x 73/9s out and working ASAP. A lot of the rebuilt 73/9s were in a very bad way previously; so evidently needed a lot of work. Where the 92s were concerned, it was probably always a bit ambitious to expect 20 year-old locos which were somewhat temperamental when in regular service to come of long-term store (in many cases), have a quickish overhaul and then perform reliably.

What's since happened is what maybe would have happened had GBRf/Wabtec Brush had more time in the first place; i.e. issues with the initial rebuild/refurb being thoroughly tested and resolved (e.g. the multiple mods on the 92; alternator problem on the 73/9s). They're eventually now getting the planned traction options back on the rails and in a reliable state [from what I've seen the 92s and 73s that have been back through Loughborough have shown decent reliability, bearing in mind things do breakdown sometimes].

Unfortunately, it's been a somewhat long and painful route getting there. However, looks like they'll be there or thereabouts for the new stock, which maybe was the ultimate aim all along...!?

 

[BRX]

Once the new stock is in use... are they then completely reliant on 92s and 73/9s? Or will other classes be able to provide haulage in cases of failure?

 

[GW43125]

It would have been Colas 47739. I believe it worked the Carstairs-Waverley portion last night/this morning.

90043 then took the ECS back to Polmadie this morning after bringing the n/bound Highlander from Euston.

Thanks.

 

[CosherB]

Once the new stock is in use... are they then completely reliant on 92s and 73/9s? Or will other classes be able to provide haulage in cases of failure?

For the Anglo-Scottish runs, it's 92s or nothing as no other loco can match the 92s ETS output. For the hundredth time on here ....!

IIRC, the ETH index of a 73/9 for the CS is 70, compared with the Class 67 at 66 and Class 68 at 96.

 

[TimboM]

For the Anglo-Scottish runs, it's 92s or nothing as no other loco can match the 92s ETS output. For the hundredth time on here ....!

IIRC, the ETH index of a 73/9 for the CS is 70, compared with the Class 67 at 66 and Class 68 at 96.

I know it's your favourite topic, but for the record - 92 ETS (on 25kv) = 180. Class 90 (only other current feasible option under wires) = 95.

Probably one reason why GBRf are getting all 10 of their currently operational 92s the 'modifications' at Brush to improve their reliability so they have options/back-up for when the new stock is in use; as presumably won't then be able to sub in a 90 or 86/87 at last minute.

 

[CosherB]

I know it's your favourite topic, but for the record - 92 ETS (on 25kv) = 180. Class 90 (only other current feasible option under wires) = 95.

Probably one reason why GBRf are getting all 10 of their currently operational 92s the 'modifications' at Brush to improve their reliability so they have options/back-up for when the new stock is in use; as presumably won't then be able to sub in a 90 or 86/87 at last minute.

Don't get me started on the ETS chestnut again!

Good to hear that the available 92s will be refurbed to the same standard, makes good sense.

Will GBRf retain the 86s and 87 for stock moves in London? I assume they will ...

 

[Scotrail84]

Don't get me started on the ETS chestnut again!

Good to hear that the available 92s will be refurbed to the same standard, makes good sense.

Will GBRf retain the 86s and 87 for stock moves in London? I assume they will ...

92s will still only be able to 87mph though. Unable to make up time after heavy delays.

 

[marks87]

Following on from the planning application for Perth, ScotRail have applied for a building warrant for upgrades to the platform-level facilities at Dundee.

http://idoxwam.dundeecity.gov.uk/id...o?activeTab=relatedCases&keyVal=ONOSNWGCLGT00

I wonder if it's for similar purposes? Even though the sleeper is a separate franchise, the station is still operated by ScotRail so presumably such applications go in in their name.

 

[Marklund]

For the Anglo-Scottish runs, it's 92s or nothing as no other loco can match the 92s ETS output. For the hundredth time on here ....!

IIRC, the ETH index of a 73/9 for the CS is 70, compared with the Class 67 at 66 and Class 68 at 96.

Wouldn't be the first time a locomotive has had it's ETH modified just to haul the sleepers though!

 

[CosherB]

92s will still only be able to 87mph though. Unable to make up time after heavy delays.

Tough. Are you going to ask GBRf to buy a micro fleet of 'super ETS' 88s?

 

[CosherB]

Wouldn't be the first time a locomotive has had it's ETH modified just to haul the sleepers though!

Ah, the good old days!

 

[Highland37]

Are you aware of the alternator problems that were discovered on the introduction of the GBRf CS 73/9s, and that they are being fixed?

Yes I am aware. That's the point I am making - there are, or were, problems which are taking some considerable time to address.

 

[Highland37]

The GBRf press release in Feb 2017 announcing the traction contract stated the 73s would be in use "from Oct 2015". I know they weren't ready/first introduced until some time after this date - into 2016 I think; I'm sure someone can elaborate...

Interestingly, with the 73/9s (and refurbed 92s) I think the challenges GBRf have faced have been from trying/needing to get them into service TOO quickly, rather than them taking a long time - in doing this, it's resulted in problems that ultimately have taken the length of time they have to get things right.

At the time the contract was won both main traction options weren't 'ready to go' and hence GBRf/Wabtec Brush et al were under pressure to get 6x 92s and 6x 73/9s out and working ASAP. A lot of the rebuilt 73/9s were in a very bad way previously; so evidently needed a lot of work. Where the 92s were concerned, it was probably always a bit ambitious to expect 20 year-old locos which were somewhat temperamental when in regular service to come of long-term store (in many cases), have a quickish overhaul and then perform reliably.

What's since happened is what maybe would have happened had GBRf/Wabtec Brush had more time in the first place; i.e. issues with the initial rebuild/refurb being thoroughly tested and resolved (e.g. the multiple mods on the 92; alternator problem on the 73/9s). They're eventually now getting the planned traction options back on the rails and in a reliable state [from what I've seen the 92s and 73s that have been back through Loughborough have shown decent reliability, bearing in mind things do breakdown sometimes].

Unfortunately, it's been a somewhat long and painful route getting there. However, looks like they'll be there or thereabouts for the new stock, which maybe was the ultimate aim all along...!?

Thanks for your information. I don't have any particular knowledge of the detailed issues. My only observation is that the entire situation will be dependent on the 92s when the new coaches arrive so let's hope they improve the reliability given the critical nature of the locomotive relative to the ETS.

 

[43096]

92s will still only be able to 87mph though. Unable to make up time after heavy delays.

And?

HSTs can only do 125mph, so can't make up time after heavy delays.

I don't see how the situation with the 92s is any different with the vast majority of other trains around the country.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

In the old days , sleepers were restricted to 80 mph , for comfort reasons.

 

[Highland37]

And?

HSTs can only do 125mph, so can't make up time after heavy delays.

I don't see how the situation with the 92s is any different with the vast majority of other trains around the country.

I think you are both in agreement. He was merely pointing out that the 92s will make it harder to recover time as they are not as fast.

A few years ago I was travelling to Bourg St Maurice and had a connection at St Pancras. The sleeper was late and the 90 was doing 100mph much of the way to recover time on the southern section of the route. I wouldn't have made my connection with a 92 as it was so tight.

 

[Surreytraveller]

And?

HSTs can only do 125mph, so can't make up time after heavy delays.

I don't see how the situation with the 92s is any different with the vast majority of other trains around the country.

Because the Sleepers are timed for 80mph, but can run at 100mph to make up time.

 

[47271]

Yes, and when you're on the sleeper and it's doing 100 you know it.

I totally get situations like Monday morning, and maybe the new stock will be a revelation, but being in bed in a mk3 sleeper at full pelt is an experience outside my comfort zone, especially when I'm over the bogies...

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Yes, and when you're on the sleeper and it's doing 100 you know it.

I totally get situations like Monday morning, and maybe the new stock will be a revelation, but being in bed in a mk3 sleeper at full pelt is an experience outside my comfort zone, especially when I'm over the bogies...

This. Being a tall chap I can testify that waking in the night on a high speed curve is pretty disorientating when in the pitch dark your brain is telling you that you're standing sideways on the wall of the compartment! Quite an effective route to travel sickness.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Yes, and when you're on the sleeper and it's doing 100 you know it.

I totally get situations like Monday morning, and maybe the new stock will be a revelation, but being in bed in a mk3 sleeper at full pelt is an experience outside my comfort zone, especially when I'm over the bogies...

Hmmm... Different tastes for different people showing up here again: I have a Glasgow return Sleeper booking for later this year; the computer allocated me J5 both ways; I promptly used the selector function to switch it manually to J23 both ways...