• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Caledonian Sleeper discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
TimboM

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,734
Far north 37 said:
cheers for that hopefully will get 73967 one of the ones i havent had previously
Click to expand...

TOPS doesn't seem to know which one is where at the moment... this morning it was reporting 970 was at Craigentinny and 967 on the ECS move at Aberdeen. This afternoon it's now saying 970 is in Aberdeen and 967 at Craigentinny....!

EDIT: TOPS latest offering is now that 971 is working the ECS move in Aberdeen this evening! You're probably best to check which of the three it is when you get off tomorrow morning!

Meanwhile TOPS is indicating 92010 is the Highlander (1S25) loco as we expected (92014 bringing in the ECS and then working 1S26 later). But see above re TOPS accuracy health warning!
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Far north 37

Far north 37

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2011
Messages
1,951
TimboM said:
TOPS doesn't seem to know which one is where at the moment... this morning it was reporting 970 was at Craigentinny and 967 on the ECS move at Aberdeen. This afternoon it's now saying 970 is in Aberdeen and 967 at Craigentinny....!

EDIT: TOPS latest offering is now that 971 is working the ECS move in Aberdeen this evening! You're probably best to check which of the three it is when you get off tomorrow morning!

Meanwhile TOPS is indicating 92010 is the Highlander (1S25) loco as we expected (92014 bringing in the ECS and then working 1S26 later). But see above re TOPS accuracy health warning!
Click to expand...

haha tops seems to be all over the place 92014 was the ecs loco never seen what was on the front though as was running to get on
 
D

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,414
Kite159 said:
Good luck getting some sleep when the 92 gets going at good speed. They are not the quietest of locos
Click to expand...

As my user name implies, I'm not easily disturbed by noise! At the very front ofM too, right next to the 92! I don't mind, as never been hauled by a 92 before (not a sleeper regular alas) Never been hauled by a 73 before either. Any ideas what taking Aberdeen forward?
 
Far north 37

Far north 37

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2011
Messages
1,951
deafdoggie said:
as my user name implies, i'm not easily disturbed by noise! At the very front ofm too, right next to the 92! I don't mind, as never been hauled by a 92 before (not a sleeper regular alas) never been hauled by a 73 before either. Any ideas what taking aberdeen forward?
Click to expand...

73971
 
S

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,491
Are the 92s very much noisier than a 91 (is it the traction blowers that making most of the noise in both cases?)?
 
najaB

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,592
Location
Scotland
SpacePhoenix said:
Are the 92s very much noisier than a 91 (is it the traction blowers that making most of the noise in both cases?)?
Click to expand...
They certainly are quite a bit louder if you're trackside, I'm not sure if the noise profile (largely out the sides) means they are as loud when you're being hauled by one.
 
TimboM

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,734
SpacePhoenix said:
Are the 92s very much noisier than a 91 (is it the traction blowers that making most of the noise in both cases?)?
Click to expand...

The 91s definitely make a racket, but from my experience tends to be more 'regular'/constant. The fans shut down quickly when at a stand (e.g. in the station) then you get the big whoosh/roar just before they take power.

As with najaB I'd vote for 92s being louder. The fans also move through the "steps" in response to the heat of various components and the loudest noise is actually to do with the braking rather the traction motor blowers. There's an interesting post explaining it in more detail from a few years back here.

Consequently, the 92's fans can kick in (and step-up) at what appear to be more 'random' times which may (or may not) be more disturbing to sleep...?
As an example, here's 92010 coming into Crewe last Friday on 1S25 - pretty noisy as it comes in, then the fans step down just as it passes.

All most probably a hypothetical comparison though as 91s are unlikely to ever operate a Sleeper.
 
D

DimTim

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2013
Messages
194
But weren’t the class91 designed to haul the sleepers originally?

I’ve read the class92 will be the only electric capable of hauling the new stock - what’s the deficiency in eth preventing class 91 use?
 
TimboM

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,734
DimTim said:
But weren’t the class91 designed to haul the sleepers originally?

I’ve read the class92 will be the only electric capable of hauling the new stock - what’s the deficiency in eth preventing class 91 use?
Click to expand...

That was one of the ideas originally for the 'blunt end' of the 91s, but never materialised - largely as Sleeper services dwindled at the time they were introduced. I'm not too sure either how realistic it was either that a relatively small fleet of locos would ever be reliable enough to work services all day and then all night...

The 91s are some way short of the ETS required for the new MkV Sleeper stock. Not sure what the exact requirement is (someone will know) - but it's well over 100 (something in the 120-150 range I think). 91s' ETS is just below 100 (95 IIRC). The 92 (on 25kV) is 180, so almost double.

In addition, the new MkV stock requires the supply to be at a higher Potential Difference (aka "voltage") of 1500v, which 92s can be easily modified to provide, as it's effectively reverting them to their original set up for the Nightstar European sleepers. The 91s provide a lower voltage (1000v I believe) so not only do they not provide enough ETS it's at the wrong voltage too.
 
Last edited:
E

Emblematic

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Messages
659
DimTim said:
But weren’t the class91 designed to haul the sleepers originally?

I’ve read the class92 will be the only electric capable of hauling the new stock - what’s the deficiency in eth preventing class 91 use?
Click to expand...

Most likely the full rakes from London will need the 1500v/800A system that presently only class 92 is fitted with. The present rakes are close to the ETH limit of 95 that the alternative electric traction can provide. The new rakes won't need to consume much more for the 92 to be the sole capable loco. It would be good to know what the CAF coaches are rated at.
 
TimboM

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,734
Emblematic said:
Most likely the full rakes from London will need the 1500v/800A system that presently only class 92 is fitted with. The present rakes are close to the ETH limit of 95 that the alternative electric traction can provide. The new rakes won't need to consume much more for the 92 to be the sole capable loco. It would be good to know what the CAF coaches are rated at.
Click to expand...

Yes, the MkV's are 1500v/800A. The ETS load (for a 16-coach rake) will be comfortably less than the 180 Class 92s can supply on AC and significantly more than any alternative loco can provide... (e.g. 86101/401 = 74; 87002/Class 90s = 95)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top