Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[Emblematic]

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)

I would hope the Mk5s can also take the 1000v 'traditional' ETS when running in shorter rakes, otherwise that's going to be very restrictive. Pretty common for coaching stock on the continent to accept multiple systems.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

2033 is the other possible 'fly in the ointment' as its been to Craigentinny for attention of some sort but showing on TOPS as back in traffic - and still being at the depot, so that may get in on the act at some point.

I had this on the Glasgow - Euston last night 22nd; we got to Euston this morning 40 minutes early.

 

[43096]

I would hope the Mk5s can also take the 1000v 'traditional' ETS when running in shorter rakes, otherwise that's going to be very restrictive. Pretty common for coaching stock on the continent to accept multiple systems.

You would hope so. AIUI the 73s supply around 900V for train supply, which is taken from the DC link - there's no separate train supply alternator on them.

 

[TimboM]

Retro 90s Railfreight Triple Grey all round on the northbound Sleepers tonight:

92044 on 1S25 (Highlander)
90047 on 1S26 (Lowlander)

(subject to the usual caveat about any last minute hitches...!)

 

[Scotrail84]

Retro 90s Railfreight Triple Grey all round on the northbound Sleepers tonight:

92044 on 1S25 (Highlander)
90047 on 1S26 (Lowlander)

(subject to the usual caveat about any last minute hitches...!)

044 is a howler.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

By howler, do you mean grimy and still clearly sporting the muck of an old BR logo:


90044 with 048 on 4M27 Coatbridge to Daventry by Timothy Young, on Flickr

47 doesn't look much better, love the green door though


90047 at London Euston by Timothy Young, on Flickr

 

[Scotrail84]

I mean the 92.

 

[TimboM]

By howler, do you mean grimy and still clearly sporting the muck of an old BR logo:

Scotrail84's referring to 92044, not 90044 - although interestingly the 90 (047) on 1S26 tonight has failed 4 times (that I know of) when it's supposed to have been working the Sleeper over the past 6 months - has been bailed-out three times by an 86 and once by a 92.

On the other-hand over this same period 92044 hasn't failed (yet...) [044 was the chief suspect for the cancellation of 1M16 at Waverley due to ETS issues in mid-June, however it was subsequently reported on another forum that no fault was ever found with 044's ETS, so whilst the jury's still out to a degree, it was probably an issue with the connections/stock rather than the loco itself.]

I know which loco I'd prefer to see on the front to get me to Scotland... and I suspect Scotrail84 and I will have to agree to disagree on that one

 

[TimboM]

In other traction news, the hired-in DB 67's are due to be swapped tonight.

67022 will work 1M16 Inverness to Waverley then head to Mossend. 67013 is at Polmadie currently and will take the Lowlander ECS (5C11) to Edinburgh with 92033 (per TOPS) on the rear for 1C11. 67013 wil then will take 1S25 north from Waverley in the early hours.

IIRC 67013 had a really good stint on the Inverness portion earlier in the year, so hopefully that will be repeated this time around.

 

[Lrd]

I know which loco I'd prefer to see on the front to get me to Scotland... and I suspect Scotrail84 and I will have to agree to disagree on that one

Class 37? One can only hope

 

[TimboM]

Class 37? One can only hope

On a Load 16 out of Euston up Camden Bank... I'm not sure a (single) 37 would get too far...

Up in the Highlands, though...

 

[Scotrail84]

The 92 shut down at Watford. Needed a full reset to get it going.

 

[Whistler40145]

The 92 shut down at Watford. Needed a full reset to get it going.

Which 92 is the culprit?

 

[Scotrail84]

which 92 is the culprit?

92 044.

 

[TimboM]

92 044.

Told you 044 was pretty reliable :roll:

Pretty standard 92 behaviour though (needing a reboot), and looks like it was a relatively short delay and back ahead of schedule now.

Best of luck for the rest of the journey to Edinburgh - at least you've just made it through Colwich

 

[Scotrail84]

Told you 044 was pretty reliable :roll:

Pretty standard 92 behaviour though (needing a reboot), and looks like it was a relatively short delay and back ahead of schedule now.

Best of luck for the rest of the journey to Edinburgh - at least you've just made it through Colwich

Also shut down at Crewe, Farington curve jn, Carlisle station and the approach to midcalder jn. Full resets needed every time.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Im thinking this one shouldnt be allowed out to play on long journeys!

 

[Caleb2010]

Be my luck for it to be on the highlander Thursday night from Euston.

 

[TimboM]

Im thinking this one shouldnt be allowed out to play on long journeys!

Be my luck for it to be on the highlander Thursday night from Euston.

92044 is used as cover only - does approx. 2 return trips a month when others are in for repair/exam etc. If it stays on more than the one return trip this time it'll be on the southbound from Scotland Thurs night anyway. Best guess for 1S25 on Thurs would be 92018.

044 was evidently playing up a bit last night with the number of reboots, but ultimately was only 13 Late into Waverley (and was on time before the final reboot required at Midcalder Jnc) - and all 3 Highlander portions arrived early. Job more or less done.

There's only one 92 that's not failed when working (or due to work) the Sleeper in the last 6+ months - and it's not a midnight teal or orange & blue one...

 

[Far north 37]

will 92044 be working back south tonight

 

[Whistler40145]

Hoping 92044 behaves herself tonight.

 

[Sleeper69]

92018 on 1S25
92014 on the buffers so should be on 1S26

 

[Scotrail84]

92044 is used as cover only - does approx. 2 return trips a month when others are in for repair/exam etc. If it stays on more than the one return trip this time it'll be on the southbound from Scotland Thurs night anyway. Best guess for 1S25 on Thurs would be 92018.

044 was evidently playing up a bit last night with the number of reboots, but ultimately was only 13 Late into Waverley (and was on time before the final reboot required at Midcalder Jnc) - and all 3 Highlander portions arrived early. Job more or less done.

There's only one 92 that's not failed when working (or due to work) the Sleeper in the last 6+ months - and it's not a midnight teal or orange & blue one...

Its the quality of ride behind the locos that are an issue, especially 044 a non refurb. The banging together of coaches when the train is braking is terrible.

 

[MCR247]

Is this down to the brakes being more effective? (too effective even?)

 

[TimboM]

will 92044 be working back south tonight

Should be on 1M16 (Highlander) from Waverley. Only other option would be if 90042 that's taken out 5C11 (Lowlander Edinburgh portion ECS) swaps with it for some reason.

 

[TimboM]

Its the quality of ride behind the locos that are an issue, especially 044 a non refurb. The banging together of coaches when the train is braking is terrible.

Is this down to the brakes being more effective? (too effective even?)

I'm guessing it's something to do with a 92 being 50% heavier than a 90 (126 tonnes vs 84.5 tonnes) and having a greater brake force (53 tonnes vs 40 tonnes). The stock is of course braked itself, but having that differential in mass/brake force on the front presumably makes a difference as to whether the loco in effect "out-brakes" the stock and the stock therefore ends up banging into the back of the loco as Scotrail84 describes.

 

[Scotrail84]

Should be on 1M16 (Highlander) from Waverley. Only other option would be if 90042 that's taken out 5C11 (Lowlander Edinburgh portion ECS) swaps with it for some reason.

92 044 could be a duffer tonight.

 

[Scotrail84]

I'm guessing it's something to do with a 92 being 50% heavier than a 90 (126 tonnes vs 84.5 tonnes) and having a greater brake force (53 tonnes vs 40 tonnes). The stock is of course braked itself, but having that differential in mass/brake force on the front presumably makes a difference as to whether the loco in effect "out-brakes" the stock and the stock therefore ends up banging into the back of the loco as Scotrail84 describes.

Its the rheo brake that causes all the issues. On a 90 they are isolated but not so on a 92.

 

[TimboM]

Its the rheo brake that causes all the issues. On a 90 they are isolated but not so on a 92.

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not sure it's isolated as part of the mods on the 92s (I may be wrong) but the general overhaul of bogies/brakes etc may improve matters anyway.

92 044 could be a duffer tonight.

Decided to work in the end - clattered its passengers into Euston Right Time this morning.

 

[Mag_seven]

Its the rheo brake that causes all the issues. On a 90 they are isolated but not so on a 92.

Even back in BR days there was an instruction that the rheo brake (on say a Class 87) should be isolated when working a sleeper.