Caledonian Sleeper Mk5 Discussion

[Mag_seven]

There was a rake of CS Mk5s in Carlisle platform 3 at 2340 last night with a 90 running around them. They had London Euston on the external displays, though clearly ECS heading back north.

Are you sure it was a class 90 and not CS Class 92 no 92038?

 

[CAF397]

I'll bow down to your knowledge on this one, I only observed the loco running around from the platform, the loco being behind the coaches so I just saw the pantograph. Have to say though it didn't sound anywhere like a 92 which is why I instinctively presumed it was a 90.

 

[sprinterguy]

I'll bow down to your knowledge on this one, I only observed the loco running around from the platform, the loco being behind the coaches so I just saw the pantograph. Have to say though it didn't sound anywhere like a 92 which is why I instinctively presumed it was a 90.

I don't think that the Caledonian Sleeper mark 5s are compatible with any loco not fitted with a Dellner coupler, so it would have to be a 92 (The 73/9s are also being so fitted).

 

[TimboM]

I'll bow down to your knowledge on this one, I only observed the loco running around from the platform, the loco being behind the coaches so I just saw the pantograph. Have to say though it didn't sound anywhere like a 92 which is why I instinctively presumed it was a 90.

I don't think that the Caledonian Sleeper mark 5s are compatible with any loco not fitted with a Dellner coupler, so it would have to be a 92 (The 73/9s are also being so fitted).

More specifically, right now there is only one a/c locomotive able to haul the Mk5 stock (and provide ETS) = 92038

All six Sleeper 73/9s already have Dellners and other CAF mods and all have hauled the Mk5s at various points on tests.

Eight of the ten 92s that are to receive CAF mods (including Dellners) have had them completed - 006 (undergoing reinstatement, due out Q1 2019) and 043 are the two left to go.

Only 038 has been re-configured to its original (Nightstar) 1500v ETS for the MK5s though (038 - being used for testing as it has been most nights this week). The others still have their ETS modified to "classic" 900v so they can work the Mk3s/Mk2s in the interim. They'll be switched over just ahead of the new stock launch.

The distinctive 92 fan noise comes from the traction motor blowers, particularly when on Vent 3; but more so from the fans that cool the rheostatic braking system. When they're not cooling down traction equipment or braking systems (which isn't that often!) they're quite quiet.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Will the Caledonian sleep actually run with 16 coaches like i some have stated? As if it does then that is a very long and very heavy train. How much does a MK5 Sleeper weigh? The total weight has got to be well over 600 tonnes?

 

[TimboM]

Will the Caledonian sleep actually run with 16 coaches like i some have stated? As if it does then that is a very long and very heavy train. How much does a MK5 Sleeper weigh? The total weight has got to be well over 600 tonnes?

Yes - as they do already and have done for years!
It will weigh about 600 tonnes (not dissimilar from the weight of the old stock).

The Class 92s which will haul the full rakes on the WCML were designed to haul 2,200 tonnes up the steep gradients out of the tunnel and regularly worked freights of up to 2,000 tonnes on the WCML. They hardly notice 600 tonnes on the draw-hook / Dellner!!

Passenger stock is comparatively light compared to freight - to put it in context, the record haulage for a single locomotive in Europe is held by 59005 which shifted 11,793 tonnes in May 1991 - so more than 11,000 tonnes more than a full length Sleeper train!

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Yes - as they do already and have done for years!
It will weigh about 600 tonnes (not dissimilar from the weight of the old stock).

The Class 92s which will haul the full rakes on the WCML were designed to haul 2,200 tonnes up the steep gradients out of the tunnel and regularly worked freights of up to 2,000 tonnes on the WCML. They hardly notice 600 tonnes on the draw-hook / Dellner!!

Passenger stock is comparatively light compared to freight - to put it in context, the record haulage for a single locomotive in Europe is held by 59005 which shifted 11,793 tonnes in May 1991 - so more than 11,000 tonnes more than a full length Sleeper train!

Ah ok thanks for the information. Any idea how much each coach will weigh?

 

[TimboM]

Ah ok thanks for the information. Any idea how much each coach will weigh?

About 43 tonne (excluding load).

 

[Charlie Smythe]

About 43 tonne (excluding load).

That is a fair old weight

 

[Erniescooper]

The Sleeper car weighs 38 tonnes , Accessible 35.5 tonnes , Club 33 tonnes and Seated 32.5 tonnes.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

The Sleeper car weighs 38 tonnes , Accessible 35.5 tonnes , Club 33 tonnes and Seated 32.5 tonnes.

Do you know what order and the number of each type of car are in a 16 car set?

 

[TimboM]

Do you know what order and the number of each type of car are in a 16 car set?

Same as it is now.
Two half-sets of Seats/Brake + Lounge/Club + 6x Sleepers.
In that order usually from the blocks at Euston.

 

[47271]

I've heard claims, okay third hand gossip, that the mk5 sleepers provide an inferior ride because they're not as heavy as the mk3s, which are 43t each. Time will tell, but it does appear that each carriage is slightly lighter.

 

[Erniescooper]

I've heard claims, okay third hand gossip, that the mk5 sleepers provide an inferior ride because they're not as heavy as the mk3s, which are 43t each. Time will tell, but it does appear that each carriage is slightly lighter.

I’ve been on a Mk5a at 100mph on the WCML and I thought it rode well.

 

[Sleeperwaking]

I've heard claims, okay third hand gossip, that the mk5 sleepers provide an inferior ride because they're not as heavy as the mk3s, which are 43t each. Time will tell, but it does appear that each carriage is slightly lighter.

I would take that with a massive pinch of salt. Ride comfort is affected by many factors in addition to weight, such as suspension design and where you happen to be sat in the coach. Just looking at weight, it matters how that weight is distributed between the body / bogie, how much is sprung or un-sprung mass, and where the centre of gravity is. This isn't to say that the Mark 5s will have better ride comfort, just that I will wait until I've travelled on one before making any judgements.

Also, the non-sleeper Mark 3s weigh between 33t and 38t in tare (no passengers), depending on what layout / type, so I don't know how accurate the 43t figure is quoted above. The Porterbrook Mark 3 brochure quotes 9.375t axle load in tare, so ~37.5t per coach (ETA the 37.5t is for normal passenger layouts; I didn't find a weight for a Mark 3 sleeper coach during my very brief Google).

 

[TimboM]

I would take that with a massive pinch of salt. Ride comfort is affected by many factors in addition to weight, such as suspension design and where you happen to be sat in the coach. Just looking at weight, it matters how that weight is distributed between the body / bogie, how much is sprung or un-sprung mass, and where the centre of gravity is. This isn't to say that the Mark 5s will have better ride comfort, just that I will wait until I've travelled on one before making any judgements.

Also, the non-sleeper Mark 3s weigh between 33t and 38t in tare (no passengers), depending on what layout / type, so I don't know how accurate the 43t figure is quoted above. The Porterbrook Mark 3 brochure quotes 9.375t axle load in tare, so ~37.5t per coach (ETA the 37.5t is for normal passenger layouts; I didn't find a weight for a Mark 3 sleeper coach during my very brief Google).

Based on the weight logic alone, a 127 tonne Class 66 should give a very comfortable ride...

 

[hwl]

Based on the weight logic alone, a 127 tonne Class 66 should give a very comfortable ride...

And a 70 at 129tonnes even more comfortable than a 66. The reality is only more comfortable if you like roller coasters!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Also, the non-sleeper Mark 3s weigh between 33t and 38t in tare (no passengers), depending on what layout / type, so I don't know how accurate the 43t figure is quoted above. The Porterbrook Mark 3 brochure quotes 9.375t axle load in tare, so ~37.5t per coach (ETA the 37.5t is for normal passenger layouts; I didn't find a weight for a Mark 3 sleeper coach during my very brief Google).

The Combined Volume quotes 41 tonnes for the SLEP and 43.5 tonnes for the SLE vehicles ( but 42.5 tonnes for 10734, which is an ex-Royal vehicle and so probably has a different internal layout.

The extra weight is probably going to be mostly all those extra walls inside plus the beds and basins are going to weight more than normal seats.

Logically, therefore, the Sleeper Mk5s will be heavier than the day carriages by a similar percentage.

 

[33Hz]

New video of the coach interiors:

https://railcolornews.com/2019/01/0...coaches-for-the-caledonian-sleeper-franchise/

 

[BRX]

Coffee machine at 1:06!

I don't want to see the mk3s go really, but have to admit, the new stock does look quite nice.

 

[theshillito]

Glad to see visual confirmation of a full kitchen. A big oven and conveyer toaster should make meals more varied, along with a dishwasher.

At 27 seconds into the video, is that meant to be the club room with the double bed? I guess they couldn't fit a double mattress in, so they have two singles in instead?

 

[33Hz]

The double room has a double bed, the club room has 2 bunks and an en suite. See the website.

 

[theshillito]

The double room has a double bed, the club room has 2 bunks and an en suite. See the website.

Sorry I meant the "suite" room, which they've apparently renamed to the "Caledonian Double", not Club.

 

[CEN60]

A wee birdie tells me that the connecting corridor is not terribly comfortable if you are on the "hefty" side and you also have difficulty pulling a large wheeled bag along it!

 

[33Hz]

If you go to https://www.caf.net/en/productos-servicios/proyectos/proyecto-detalle.php?p=277 there appears to be a double accessible room and a bunk bed accessible room as well.

https://www.caf.net/upload/productos/caledonian-sleeper-01.jpg

https://www.caf.net/upload/productos/caledonian-sleeper-00[1].jpg

 

[theshillito]

https://www.caf.net/upload/productos/caledonian-sleeper-01.jpg

I suspect it's just the perspective, but that looks like a very very narrow corridor!

 

[gsnedders]

I suspect it's just the perspective, but that looks like a very very narrow corridor!

I'm always surprised by how narrow the Mk3 sleeper corridors are! I can't imagine they'll be any narrower than that? If they are, with a suitcase it'll very quickly become very hard.

 

[Mag_seven]

I'm always surprised by how narrow the Mk3 sleeper corridors are! I can't imagine they'll be any narrower than that? If they are, with a suitcase it'll very quickly become very hard.

There will have to be a trade off between the corridor width and the room size - I'd rather a narrow corridor and a larger room. I notice however that the windows are still very small like the Mark 3's which is a bit disappointing.

 

[33Hz]

The video shows the corridor size at 0m40s.

 

[bastien]

I suspect it's just the perspective, but that looks like a very very narrow corridor!

It's a very wide angle photo.