Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[GW43125]

yeah i was meaning the loco that takes the train north isnt hauled dead on the back but runs light behind the ecs using another path

Correct.

 

[Far north 37]

Correct.

i thought it was hauled dead on the back for some reason to save paths but obviously runs from willesden tmd light then

 

[TimboM]

i thought it was hauled dead on the back for some reason to save paths but obviously runs from willesden tmd light then

The most common approach is they run the Highlander loco down in the late afternoon just before 5pm and leave it in the siding next to P15. Both the Highlander and Lowlander locos come in together from Willesden TMD, Highlander leading. It's then detached and left on the blocks in Euston.

The Lowlander loco goes back to Wembley. It then brings in the Highlander ECS and the loco that's been left in Euston runs round and attaches to the north end and takes the Highlander away.

Now released, the Lowlander loco runs round onto the Lowlander stock, which is brought in by a third ECS-only loco.

That ECS loco, once the Lowlander has left, normally stables in the Up Carriage Sidings for the night then the reverse happens in the morning (ECS loco takes Up Lowlander stock back, Lowlander loco is left on blocks and runs round when Highlander arrives and takes that ECS back to Wembley + Up Highlander loco on rear).

The above only needs 3 locos and less drivers/paths I presume.

As you've noted, for whatever operational reason the Highlander loco has come in light after the ECS today - and has happened a couple of times recently (today 92014 actually left Willesden ahead of the ECS and hung round just outside Euston for it to "overtake").

There's no doubt many operational reasons for which method is chosen (availability of drivers/paths etc) but a couple of times recently it's been when there's been a late change in loco and hence they couldn't take one down in the afternoon - e.g. on Friday when 90049 was delayed getting to Willesden from Crewe by 2 hours. It was due to haul 1S25, but in the end 92014 took its place and ran down light from Willesden after the ECS.

Either loco coming in on the back of its ECS happens very rarely - I guess by the time they've run a loco north from Willesden to Wembley, then run round the whole train and attached it to the far end it's easier/quicker just to run it in light loco from Willesden to Euston.

 

[Far north 37]

The most common approach is they run the Highlander loco down in the late afternoon just before 5pm and leave it in the siding next to P15. Both the Highlander and Lowlander locos come in together from Willesden TMD, Highlander leading. It's then detached and left on the blocks in Euston.

The Lowlander loco goes back to Wembley. It then brings in the Highlander ECS and the loco that's been left in Euston runs round and attaches to the north end and takes the Highlander away.

Now released, the Lowlander loco runs round onto the Lowlander stock, which is brought in by a third ECS-only loco.

That ECS loco, once the Lowlander has left, normally stables in the Up Carriage Sidings for the night then the reverse happens in the morning (ECS loco takes Up Lowlander stock back, Lowlander loco is left on blocks and runs round when Highlander arrives and takes that ECS back to Wembley + Up Highlander loco on rear).

The above only needs 3 locos and less drivers/paths I presume.

As you've noted, for whatever operational reason the Highlander loco has come in light after the ECS today - and has happened a couple of times recently (today 92014 actually left Willesden ahead of the ECS and hung round just outside Euston for it to "overtake").

There's no doubt many reasons (drivers/paths etc) but a couple of times recently it's been when there's been a late change in loco and hence they couldn't take one down in the afternoon - e.g. on Friday when 90049 was delayed getting to Willesden from Crewe by 2 hours. It was due to haul 1S25, but in the end 92014 ran down light from Willesden after the ECS.

i was wondering why 92014 was stopped at a signal outside euston and the ecs wasnt in yet but it was on the front of the highlander when i left

 

[TimboM]

i was wondering why 92014 was stopped at a signal outside euston and the ecs wasnt in yet but it was on the front of the highlander when i left

Was slightly unusual. When they do it this way the loco normally comes out of Willesden just after the ECS passes and "chases" the ECS in via the next path. The ECS was c.10 mins late leaving Wembley tonight so guess they just got out of sync.

 

[Scotrail84]

The most common approach is they run the Highlander loco down in the late afternoon just before 5pm and leave it in the siding next to P15. Both the Highlander and Lowlander locos come in together from Willesden TMD, Highlander leading. It's then detached and left on the blocks in Euston.

The Lowlander loco goes back to Wembley. It then brings in the Highlander ECS and the loco that's been left in Euston runs round and attaches to the north end and takes the Highlander away.

Now released, the Lowlander loco runs round onto the Lowlander stock, which is brought in by a third ECS-only loco.

That ECS loco, once the Lowlander has left, normally stables in the Up Carriage Sidings for the night then the reverse happens in the morning (ECS loco takes Up Lowlander stock back, Lowlander loco is left on blocks and runs round when Highlander arrives and takes that ECS back to Wembley + Up Highlander loco on rear).

The above only needs 3 locos and less drivers/paths I presume.

As you've noted, for whatever operational reason the Highlander loco has come in light after the ECS today - and has happened a couple of times recently (today 92014 actually left Willesden ahead of the ECS and hung round just outside Euston for it to "overtake").

There's no doubt many operational reasons for which method is chosen (availability of drivers/paths etc) but a couple of times recently it's been when there's been a late change in loco and hence they couldn't take one down in the afternoon - e.g. on Friday when 90049 was delayed getting to Willesden from Crewe by 2 hours. It was due to haul 1S25, but in the end 92014 took its place and ran down light from Willesden after the ECS.

Either loco coming in on the back of its ECS happens very rarely - I guess by the time they've run a loco north from Willesden to Wembley, then run round the whole train and attached it to the far end it's easier/quicker just to run it in light loco from Willesden to Euston.

When drivers permit they do it like this as stabling the loco on the engine road causes issues with the train being without power for a long period of time, this prevents MA failures as the coach batteries are not great. It can take a while for the loco to get out and go up to change ends before coupling on. At least when it follows the ecs down it gets coupled on very quickly.

When they are short on drivers they usually leave the engine in the engine road then the driver has brought the ecs in he then has to go and pan up the lecy then shunt it out and the back on to the set. All takes more time so it's better to have the loco follow the set down from Wembley.

 

[Scotrail84]

I'm pretty sure Scotrail84 (who knows these things) has confirmed on here before that it's max Load 13 + 2 locos (ties in with your estimate of 14 at a push).

12 plus 2 locos, or 13 with one loco which they won't do.

Standard working for kings cross is 12 vice 16 or run seperate trains where staffing and paths etc permit.

 

[TimboM]

When drivers permit they do it like this as stabling the loco on the engine road causes issues with the train being without power for a long period of time, this prevents MA failures as the coach batteries are not great. It can take a while for the loco to get out and go up to change ends before coupling on. At least when it follows the ecs down it gets coupled on very quickly.

When they are short on drivers they usually leave the engine in the engine road then the driver has brought the ecs in he then has to go and pan up the lecy then shunt it out and the back on to the set. All takes more time so it's better to have the loco follow the set down from Wembley.

Guessing they are a bit short on drivers as in recent weeks I'd say it's been the "leave engine in the engine road" method 90% of the time. I did see an advert for GBRf drivers at Willesden recently - may be unrelated of course...

Can the loco that's brought the ECS in not keep the power on until the leading loco has been attached, or is that not feasible as the driver has to shut it down before he leaves it unattended to get the other one?

 

[Scotrail84]

Guessing they are a bit short on drivers as in recent weeks I'd say it's been the "leave engine in the engine road" method 90% of the time. I did see an advert for GBRf drivers at Willesden recently - may be unrelated of course...

Can the loco that's brought the ECS in not keep the power on until the leading loco has been attached, or is that not feasible as the driver has to shut it down before he leaves it unattended to get the other one?

It could but he'd still need to walk all the down to the buffer end loco to switch eth off and disconnect the jumper cables then walk all the way back to the front to connect the jumper cables then switch eth on. You can't disconnect an eth jumper with power on unless you have a death wish, the loop must be complete at all times or it won't work.

 

[captainbigun]

ETS jumpers are designed to be safe. As soon as you rotate the jumper to disengage the pin the interlock is broken and the supply drops out at the loco.

 

[TimboM]

It could but he'd still need to walk all the down to the buffer end loco to switch eth off and disconnect the jumper cables then walk all the way back to the front to connect the jumper cables then switch eth on. You can't disconnect an eth jumper with power on unless you have a death wish, the loop must be complete at all times or it won't work.

I'm assuming if everything is on time, there's sufficient time to do that (i.e. if the loco is in the Engine Road rather than brought down from Willesden) and minimise the time the coaches are without power. Good exercise too

Wonder if there's a prescribed procedure as to what should happen if all is going to plan, or if it's left to the train crew's discretion/judgement depending on the circumstances?

 

[Scotrail84]

ETS jumpers are designed to be safe. As soon as you rotate the jumper to disengage the pin the interlock is broken and the supply drops out at the loco.

Aye, there will also be a loud bang and a flash if the supply from the loco is on when the jumper is disconnected.

 

[captainbigun]

Aye, there will also be a loud bang and a flash if the supply from the loco is on when the jumper is disconnected.

Only if there is a fault.

The ETS jumper has the main power connection and a control connection which provides the interlock. Any breakage in the interlock and the ETS supply will drop out at the supply end. Rotating the ETS jumper to dislocate the pin will break the interlock before the power connection is broken. Thus it should be safe.

 

[TimboM]

90s on the Down beds tonight - 90047 on the Highlander again, 90049 on the Lowlander again. 90047 followed the ECS in light loco again tonight.

92s on the Up beds (probably 92014 on the Highlander and 92018 on the Lowlander unless there's a switch around with 92033 at Waverley, which is looking the favourite for the Edinburgh/Carstairs portion).

 

[Scotrail84]

Only if there is a fault.

The ETS jumper has the main power connection and a control connection which provides the interlock. Any breakage in the interlock and the ETS supply will drop out at the supply end. Rotating the ETS jumper to dislocate the pin will break the interlock before the power connection is broken. Thus it should be safe.

Would you trust it? Dam sure I don't and will always confirm ETS is off before going in between as per instructions.

 

[cf111]

Could someone please tell me what took the Inverness portion north from Waverley last night (Tuesday)?

I only caught a glimpse as I was passing through the station but it looked like a 67 with something (a 66?) on the front of the rake in platform 1 this afternoon.

 

[alexf380]

Scot-rail.co.uk gen site reports the northbound train last night/this morning was 67030 on its own, but the southbound train tonight does indeed include a 66. That being 66746+67030.

Alex

 

[TimboM]

Scot-rail.co.uk gen site reports the northbound train last night/this morning was 67030 on its own, but the southbound train tonight does indeed include a 66. That being 66746+67030.

Alex

Aye - I've seen it reported elsewhere that it was just 67030 north last night and 66746 is accompanying it south this evening.

66746 was on this working this morning - which I believe is a Royal Scotsman and/or "Golf Ex" working (746 is one of the Royal Scotsman 66s) http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/U55376/2017/06/28/advanced

It's also been on "Golf Ex" workings last couple of days between Waverley, Tain and Aviemore.

I would expect it's a loco move to get the 66 to Craigentinny for whatever reason. I think the 66 has to lead though, as only the 67 can provide the 'hotel' power, so needs to be next to the coaches AFAIK.

Either way, quite a treat for those on the Up Highlander tonight who like their EMD traction and/or burgundy/maroon liveries.

 

[Clansman]

92010 on the Northbound Lowlander.

 

[Scotrail84]

Tonight's lucky numbers are 1C11/1B26 90 049

1M11 - 92 010.

 

[MylesHSG]

Why don't they just top and tail every sleeper with a 92. They have more than enough locos to do this and it would mean much less shunting. Plus if the leading loco fails you have the loco on the back at all times as a back up.

 

[JohnR]

can anyone tell me what the benefits of the new "Family Ticket" are, and why they are worth paying so much extra for?

Looking at travelling down with my wife and son (and babe-in-arms), and the family ticket seemed like an option - but the cost is £295 compared to £234 for tickets with a F&F railcard. Even if I get a ticket for the baby to get the sole use of the second compartment, its still cheaper.

 

[JohnR]

can anyone tell me what the benefits of the new "Family Ticket" are, and why they are worth paying so much extra for?

Looking at travelling down with my wife and son (and babe-in-arms), and the family ticket seemed like an option - but the cost is £295 compared to £234 for tickets with a F&F railcard. Even if I get a ticket for the baby to get the sole use of the second compartment, its still cheaper.

 

[Scotrail84]

Why don't they just top and tail every sleeper with a 92. They have more than enough locos to do this and it would mean much less shunting. Plus if the leading loco fails you have the loco on the back at all times as a back up.

Not allowed to have a dead loco on the back of the sleeper, if its got a key in it, it must have a driver in it incase of fire or something to do with fire system.

Plus if its dead at the back the loco automatically reverts to goods train mode with its braking system and that means a very bumpy ride for passengers. Serco ops mgrs banned it.

 

[Scotrail84]

can anyone tell me what the benefits of the new "Family Ticket" are, and why they are worth paying so much extra for?

Looking at travelling down with my wife and son (and babe-in-arms), and the family ticket seemed like an option - but the cost is £295 compared to £234 for tickets with a F&F railcard. Even if I get a ticket for the baby to get the sole use of the second compartment, its still cheaper.

A new train?? :?

 

[CosherB]

A new train?? :?

Aren't the Westminster and Scottish Governments essentially paying for the Mk5s, with a £50 million 'grant' from each?

 

[87015]

Not allowed to have a dead loco on the back of the sleeper, if its got a key in it, it must have a driver in it incase of fire or something to do with fire system.

Plus if its dead at the back the loco automatically reverts to goods train mode with its braking system and that means a very bumpy ride for passengers. Serco ops mgrs banned it.

Is the latter point another 92 issue? Most mdoern classes can be dead on read in air-pass mode and its been retrofitted to many not so modern - shouldn't be a big ask... 92s are rough enough taking power, don't think one on the rear would make it hugely worse TBH.

 

[TimboM]

Is the latter point another 92 issue? Most mdoern classes can be dead on read in air-pass mode and its been retrofitted to many not so modern - shouldn't be a big ask... 92s are rough enough taking power, don't think one on the rear would make it hugely worse TBH.

It's not really an issue as there's very little benefit in the T'n'T proposal in the first place, nor do they have enough locos.

On the long list of things GBRf/Brush have been working on with the 92 mods to make sure they can reliably do the things they need to do I don't expect a "fix" for something that isn't actually needed is/was high on the list.

Why don't they just top and tail every sleeper with a 92. They have more than enough locos to do this and it would mean much less shunting. Plus if the leading loco fails you have the loco on the back at all times as a back up.

Without going over old ground, the 92s don't fail that often these days - and even for those rare occasions when they do having an extra loco on the train isn't a magic answer. The other week when 90046 failed just outside Edinburgh by chance 92010 was hitching a ride back to London (a rare occurrence) - but even then it took something like 1.5-2 hours to get the 90 off, get the 92 hooked up etc. and the train on its way again. That's not a lot different (depending on where you are) from the time to get a loco from the depot (if at either end) or rustle up a rescue 66.

Also, there's the wear and tear on locos being dragged 400+ miles when they don't need to be - both the wear on the wheels and other components of the dead-on-rear loco and also the leading one lugging around an extra 120 tonnes it doesn't need to. Then there's the cost of extra drivers, maintenance etc... and the fact the locos can't be earning revenue elsewhere if they're dead on the rear of the sleeper - all of which doesn't make economic sense for something that might be useful once in a blue moon.

There also isn't really that much shunting overall that would be saved by T'n'T either when you think it through...

If the Highlander was T'n'T you'd have an extra headache added to the shunting at Waverley (both ways) as there'd be an electric loco to take off (and add on southbound) the rear as well as the front. I suspect this would counter-act any (minor) benefits gained at the Euston end. The Lowlander loco almost always does the Highlander ECS at the Euston end, too - so it's already an efficient approach loco-wise.

On the Lowlander, you'd logically keep the Glasgow and Edinburgh operations as they are - otherwise you'd end up with two sets of 8 coaches in Carstairs both with locos on each end which doesn't help joining them together (or having to add on when they're separated). But then you'd save none of the 'shunting' for the Polmadie-Glasgow ECS move, nor the Waverley run-around by the 1C11/1B26 loco.

...and the net result is you still have exactly the same "shunting" needed in Scotland and you've dragged a loco 350 miles from Carstairs all just to save the ECS loco at Euston moving 100 yards out of the Up Carriage Shed and hooking on to the back of 1M11...!?

In terms of loco numbers, ignoring the ECS locos, they currently operate with 6 or 7 90s/92s - 5 working each night (1M11, 1M16, 1S25, 1S26, 1C11+1B26), plus one or two in the depot "spare" / under-going exams/maintenance/wheel-turning etc.

To T'n'T them you'd need 9 or 10 locos (assuming the Glasgow/Edinburgh portion locos would just stay on as above) - 2 on each of the "main" runs = 8 each night, plus 1 or 2 spare.

GBRf currently only have 10 operational 92s (with the F/liner 90s subbing currently for the 1 or 2 which are in Loughborough at any given time as the mods are completed). There's talk of GBRf bringing 2 more into service as well (006/020) but they're a way off I expect.

So that would mean come the new 92-only Mk5 stock they'd have pretty much all their 92s tied up on the Sleeper (3 of which each night doing next to nothing other than being dragged up and down the UK!) - and none to operate other workings e.g. the Channel Tunnel (china clays/Class 700 deliveries) which have to be a 92 (2x 92s for the china clays), and things like the Dagenham-Garston cars which they prefer to use a 92 for. In a nutshell, they don't have enough locos either.

T'n'T doesn't stack up, and therefore nor does sorting the locos to do something they're hardly ever going to do.

 

[AlterEgo]

Booked on the sleeper southbound, Fort William to Euston, next week. Is Coach X at the rear of the formation between Fort William and Edinburgh?

 

[marks87]

It's not really an issue as there's very little benefit in the T'n'T proposal in the first place, nor do they have enough locos.

On the long list of things GBRf/Brush have been working on with the 92 mods to make sure they can reliably do the things they need to do I don't expect a "fix" for something that isn't actually needed is/was high on the list.



Without going over old ground, the 92s don't fail that often these days - and even for those rare occasions when they do having an extra loco on the train isn't a magic answer. The other week when 90046 failed just outside Edinburgh by chance 92010 was hitching a ride back to London (a rare occurrence) - but even then it took something like 1.5-2 hours to get the 90 off, get the 92 hooked up etc. and the train on its way again. That's not a lot different (depending on where you are) from the time to get a loco from the depot (if at either end) or rustle up a rescue 66.

Also, there's the wear and tear on locos being dragged 400+ miles when they don't need to be - both the wear on the wheels and other components of the dead-on-rear loco and also the leading one lugging around an extra 120 tonnes it doesn't need to. Then there's the cost of extra drivers, maintenance etc... and the fact the locos can't be earning revenue elsewhere if they're dead on the rear of the sleeper - all of which doesn't make economic sense for something that might be useful once in a blue moon.

There also isn't really that much shunting overall that would be saved by T'n'T either when you think it through...

If the Highlander was T'n'T you'd have an extra headache added to the shunting at Waverley (both ways) as there'd be an electric loco to take off (and add on southbound) the rear as well as the front. I suspect this would counter-act any (minor) benefits gained at the Euston end. The Lowlander loco almost always does the Highlander ECS at the Euston end, too - so it's already an efficient approach loco-wise.

On the Lowlander, you'd logically keep the Glasgow and Edinburgh operations as they are - otherwise you'd end up with two sets of 8 coaches in Carstairs both with locos on each end which doesn't help joining them together (or having to add on when they're separated). But then you'd save none of the 'shunting' for the Polmadie-Glasgow ECS move, nor the Waverley run-around by the 1C11/1B26 loco.

...and the net result is you still have exactly the same "shunting" needed in Scotland and you've dragged a loco 350 miles from Carstairs all just to save the ECS loco at Euston moving 100 yards out of the Up Carriage Shed and hooking on to the back of 1M11...!?

In terms of loco numbers, ignoring the ECS locos, they currently operate with 6 or 7 90s/92s - 5 working each night (1M11, 1M16, 1S25, 1S26, 1C11+1B26), plus one or two in the depot "spare" / under-going exams/maintenance/wheel-turning etc.

To T'n'T them you'd need 9 or 10 locos (assuming the Glasgow/Edinburgh portion locos would just stay on as above) - 2 on each of the "main" runs = 8 each night, plus 1 or 2 spare.

GBRf currently only have 10 operational 92s (with the F/liner 90s subbing currently for the 1 or 2 which are in Loughborough at any given time as the mods are completed). There's talk of GBRf bringing 2 more into service as well (006/020) but they're a way off I expect.

So that would mean come the new 92-only Mk5 stock they'd have pretty much all their 92s tied up on the Sleeper (3 of which each night doing next to nothing other than being dragged up and down the UK!) - and none to operate other workings e.g. the Channel Tunnel (china clays/Class 700 deliveries) which have to be a 92 (2x 92s for the china clays), and things like the Dagenham-Garston cars which they prefer to use a 92 for. In a nutshell, they don't have enough locos either.

T'n'T doesn't stack up, and therefore nor does sorting the locos to do something they're hardly ever going to do.

This post makes me think of this scene in the Simpsons:

[youtube]ik0BPKM9WQg[/youtube]