Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[ScottDarg]

I'd be surprised if that was too taxing a load for a 47. I wonder if the really slow pull away meant that the AWS/TPWS tripped as the signal seemed to go back on before the loco had fully cleared it.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the loco at fault, it had a similar episode earlier in the week whilst bringing in the stock for 1M11 - departed Polmadie 5E and couldn't get enough power to get up Eglinton St based on a post elsewhere (someone else may correct this if false), arrived into GLC 111L.

 

[43096]

Arrived 1213 - 295 late.
A wee birdie tells me that the reason it was still divided at Carstairs was that NetworkRail wouldn’t allow it to run straight to Central undivided at that time of day. Not enough room presumably.

The alternative, of course, might be that the passengers on the Edinburgh portion wanted to go to Edinburgh and CS and GBRf were committed to doing that. Otherwise they’d be probably another 90 mins+ late on an already massively delayed journey.

I realise that doesn’t fit with some people’s agenda on the MDTR...

 

[najaB]

The alternative, of course, might be that the passengers on the Edinburgh portion wanted to go to Edinburgh and CS and GBRf were committed to doing that. Otherwise they’d be probably another 90 mins+ late on an already massively delayed journey.

I actually find the 'too long for Central at time of day' argument quite persuasive - and I've not got any agenda.

 

[wipers]

Anyone know which locos will be leaving Euston this evening on the CS service? Many thanks

 

[Fred43123]

92033 - 1S25
92028 - 1S26

 

[wipers]

92033 - 1S25
92028 - 1S26

Thank you, sir!

 

[TimboM]

The alternative, of course, might be that the passengers on the Edinburgh portion wanted to go to Edinburgh and CS and GBRf were committed to doing that. Otherwise they’d be probably another 90 mins+ late on an already massively delayed journey.

I realise that doesn’t fit with some people’s agenda on the MDTR...

I actually find the 'too long for Central at time of day' argument quite persuasive - and I've not got any agenda.

There's a photo I cannot lay my finger on right now of the Sleeper a few months back when it was delayed and went into GLC as a Load 16. The 92 used as the ECS loco is right up to (if not slightly beyond) the starter signal. It's a fairly persuasive argument that 2x locos + a Load 16 + an ECS loco on the back won't fit in GLC (incidentally they don't fit at EUS either).

 

[marks87]

Obviously the issue at Euston is that the points are immediately outside the platforms, so any overhang cuts off the adjacent platform as well.

However at Glasgow Central, P1 ends quite a bit before the points. So while not ideal, I'm sure that if there was absolutely no other option then a load 16 + 3 locos could fit without encroaching on the station throat. Obviously the ECS loco would be beyond the starting signal but, again, I'm sure that's not completely fatal to using this as a very last-ditch solution for whatever reason.

 

[snakeeyes]

Tonight's sleeper, 92028 brought the stock in?
92033 for haulage.

 

[TimboM]

Tonight's sleeper, 92028 brought the stock in?
92033 for haulage.

The 5S95 (Highlander ECS) loco works 1S26 (Lowlander), so after bringing the stock in 028 is now waiting for the Lowlander ECS (5S96) to be brought in (by 90016) then will go on top of that to work the train to Glasgow.

 

[TimboM]

Obviously the issue at Euston is that the points are immediately outside the platforms, so any overhang cuts off the adjacent platform as well.

However at Glasgow Central, P1 ends quite a bit before the points. So while not ideal, I'm sure that if there was absolutely no other option then a load 16 + 3 locos could fit without encroaching on the station throat. Obviously the ECS loco would be beyond the starting signal but, again, I'm sure that's not completely fatal to using this as a very last-ditch solution for whatever reason.

Didn't think P1 was anywhere near long enough for Load 16 (may be wrong...) It's one in the middle (P11?) they use when there's no split at Carstairs and the Load 16 goes to Glasgow.

Every time I can recall 1S26 has been significantly delayed the Carstairs split hasn't happened, so I think it's likely that operational reasons resulted in the split happening on Saturday morning - with the most likely reason being the 2 locos on the front as that wasn't the case on the other delayed 1S26s that have continued directly on to GLC without splitting.

 

[route101]

Didn't think P1 was anywhere near long enough for Load 16 (may be wrong...) It's one in the middle (P11?) they use when there's no split at Carstairs and the Load 16 goes to Glasgow.

Every time I can recall 1S26 has been significantly delayed the Carstairs split hasn't happened, so I think it's likely that operational reasons resulted in the split happening on Saturday morning - with the most likely reason being the 2 locos on the front as that wasn't the case on the other delayed 1S26s that have continued directly on to GLC without splitting.

When it was diverted via Dumfries from Glasgow it was a two portions combined with 2 47s hauling i think . From platform 11

 

[JModulo]

Didn't think P1 was anywhere near long enough for Load 16 (may be wrong...) It's one in the middle (P11?) they use when there's no split at Carstairs and the Load 16 goes to Glasgow.

Right enough with P11, it's the one that extends outside of the canopy further up the concourse. P1/2 can acomodate load 11/12 I'm sure.

 

[richa2002]

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the loco at fault, it had a similar episode earlier in the week whilst bringing in the stock for 1M11 - departed Polmadie 5E and couldn't get enough power to get up Eglinton St based on a post elsewhere (someone else may correct this if false), arrived into GLC 111L.

That seems about right. You can tell from the sound that it doesn't seem to be producing many amps.

 

[TimboM]

When it was diverted via Dumfries from Glasgow it was a two portions combined with 2 47s hauling i think . From platform 11

Only one particular night of course, but this video suggests when the 47s hauled the combined train via the GSW it was short-formed - this one was only a Load 11 (seats + lounge + 5 sleepers + lounge + 5 sleepers).

Right enough with P11, it's the one that extends outside of the canopy further up the concourse. P1/2 can accommodate load 11/12 I'm sure.

P1/2 can fit the 11 car Pendos in, plus the 91s + 9x Mk4s + DVT, but I think that's about it, so a Load 11/12 (incl loco?) sounds about right.

 

[JModulo]

the 91s + 9x Mk5s + DVT

Is that the new Mk5s that Met Cam have just released

 

[gsnedders]

P1/2 can fit the 11 car Pendos in, plus the 91s + 9x Mk5s + DVT, but I think that's about it, so a Load 11/12 (incl loco?) sounds about right.

Not much space beyond an 11 car Pendo, far as I recall.

 

[TimboM]

Is that the new Mk5s that Met Cam have just released

I've edited it, no-one will ever know

 

[ScottDarg]

87002 remained in Scotland last night and worked 5S26 out of Glasgow this morning.

 

[Carntyne]

P11 can accommodate load 16, but it involves putting additional Scotrail staff at the platform end as the width reduces considerably where the roof ends. It does also cause congestion in the station at peak when it's done.

 

[TimboM]

P11 can accommodate load 16, but it involves putting additional Scotrail staff at the platform end as the width reduces considerably where the roof ends. It does also cause congestion in the station at peak when it's done.

Presumably Load 16 + 3 locos causes more issues (if it even fits)?

 

[PaxVobiscum]

The alternative, of course, might be that the passengers on the Edinburgh portion wanted to go to Edinburgh and CS and GBRf were committed to doing that. Otherwise they’d be probably another 90 mins+ late on an already massively delayed journey.

I realise that doesn’t fit with some people’s agenda on the MDTR...

What’s the MDTR?

I have no agenda either.

 

[najaB]

What’s the MDTR?

Mechanically Deboned Turkey Residue according to an acronym finder. Not sure of the relevance.

 

[Highlandspring]

The "Modern Dynamic Thrusting Railway"

 

[43096]

The "Modern Dynamic Thrusting Railway"

Correct. An ironic name to describe the privatised railway, coined by the late Neil Morgan.

 

[najaB]

Correct. An ironic name to describe the privatised railway, coined by the late Neil Morgan.

Well, platform lengths at Central were basically the same under BR as they are in the Modern Dynamic Thrusting Railway.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Anyway, we may safely take it that CS (work that one out) were telt to split by Network Rail.

What is not at all clear (and at no point did I hear any discussion on the subject on the train) is what the failure with the loco actually was. We had made perfectly normal progress as far as I could tell until it unexpectedly stopped at Tring. ‘Fault’ became ‘Failure’ over a period of time.

A dodgy coach jumper was colourfully commented on at Carstairs, but that did not delay the split, so I don’t think that had anything to do with the failure, but might have had something to do with the cold and dark seated coach.

Any ideas on what went wrong with to lock? the loco? (Damn this auto correct!)

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Thanks for the answer received - no need for speculation on the above now.

 

[SC318250]

Wasit not traction motor problems with 90045

 

[PaxVobiscum]

I could not possibly confirm or deny, or indeed comment further.