Caledonian Sleeper

[PaxVobiscum]

Any ideas why 1Y11 (Edinburgh-Fort William) lost time on the West Highland part of the run this morning?
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G65080/2019/07/10/advanced
From my armchair perusal of RTT it didn’t look like the sleeper had to wait for any other late running service to cross (but it looked like the Alcan freight ran early).
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H01271/2019/07/10/advanced

The sleeper was 50 mins late, not a huge deal perhaps, apart from those hoping to catch the kettle to Mallaig.

 

[87015]

73970 unable to keep time up hills due to low power.

 

[pitdiver]

50% Delay Pay due

 

[DarloRich]

The only issue on my recent trip was that the blind flew open as we moved over a rough bit of track. That confused the hell out of me!

I have booked it back south tomorrow night. Wish me luck..........

 

[PaxVobiscum]

73970 unable to keep time up hills due to low power.

Thanks for that info.
I understand from another forum it is due to be replaced by 73971 (currently at Craigentinny) tonight.

 

[Highlandspring]

73970 unable to keep time up hills due to low power.

One traction motor isolated actually.

 

[MrEd]

73970 unable to keep time up hills due to low power.

Was 73970 by any chance the loco hauling 1Y11 northbound on the morning of Thursday 4th July? I didn’t get the number of the 73 on that train as I got off at Spean Bridge, but what I do know is that I arrived 31 late because the 73 had slipped to a stand on the 1 in 53 out of Rannoch (on the left hand curve coming off the viaduct) and had to set back into Rannoch station and have another go at the climb (with ETS switched off), which it managed successfully. The guard seemed to think that appalling railhead conditions were a partial factor, as the rails had been soaked in continual fine drizzle overnight and all through the morning, and the driver of the southbound Sprinter which we crossed at Rannoch warned our driver and guard of very low adhesion on this gradient. But if the loco had been 73970 on three traction motors, that would also explain the issue.

That said, this particular 73 seemed to manage fine on all the other tricky gradients (like the 1 in 60 out of Crianlarich and the 1 in 74 out of Bridge of Orchy) in similarly poor railhead conditions and had not noticeably lost time, so I wonder what caused all the trouble coming out of Rannoch on 4th July?

Despite the 73-drama, that was an excellent trip on the sleeper, with the lounge cars working on both sections, excellent food and fantastic staff (the Fort William crew were as wonderful as ever), with dramatic views to be enjoyed from the lounge car in the morning.

 

[paul1609]

I'd be surprised if its the 73s causing the problem (obviously the traction motor isolation excepted) I've experienced a 73/9 on summer load Fort William Southbound pull back nearly an hour by Edinburgh after a late departure because of a rolling stock problem.

 

[Edward Cairns]

Anyone know the reason why any sleeper train going past Drumgelloch has no mention of actually going past the station when you search up the schedule? I'm currently looking at the train (1B01) Fort William to Edinburgh Waverley that should be going past me and the station tonight at around 00:40 (should go by Airdrie at 00:36 so 00:40 is a guess) but it doesn't recorded that it's actually been through it.
This isn't a isolated thing as I hear the sleeper train go past every night but I have never seen it mention on any schedule that it does.
Could it be that Drumgelloch isn't that important of a station and doesn't require any knowledge of it existing for the sleeper?

 

[Morayshire]

Drumgelloch appears in the Real Time Trains entry for tonights Fort William sleeper as passing through around 00:34 if that helps

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G65045/2019/07/10/advanced

Link for Drumgelloch itself:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/DRU/2019/07/11/0037

 

[Edward Cairns]

Drumgelloch appears in the Real Time Trains entry for tonights Fort William sleeper as passing through around 00:34 if that helps

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G65045/2019/07/10/advanced

Link for Drumgelloch itself:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/DRU/2019/07/11/0037

Ah thank you, I must have just used a different website that didn’t have it show

 

[alangla]

Ah thank you, I must have just used a different website that didn’t have it show

I think it’s a quirk of the way the timetable is set up and the way RTT shows it. If you look more than about a week ahead, trains only show as having passing times at mandatory timing points, as you get closer, I believe RTT “fills in the gaps” using normal running times between all the possible timing points on the route. As a result, everything will show for Airdrie but only stopping trains have real timings for Drumgelloch

 

[185143]

Had a pleasant trip last night from Crewe to Dundee. Slept quite well considering I was in the seats and only onboard for just over 6 hours. Thought the Aberdeen portion was more than 4 carriages long though?

 

[marks87]

Had a pleasant trip last night from Crewe to Dundee. Slept quite well considering I was in the seats and only onboard for just over 6 hours. Thought the Aberdeen portion was more than 4 carriages long though?

It varies. They lengthen the Fort William during the peak season when there’s more demand.

It used to be the “normal” split was 4 sleepers to Aberdeen and 2 to Fort William but I think I’m now right in saying it’s 3:3, with 2:4 in the summer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It varies. They lengthen the Fort William during the peak season when there’s more demand.

It used to be the “normal” split was 4 sleepers to Aberdeen and 2 to Fort William but I think I’m now right in saying it’s 3:3, with 2:4 in the summer.

FW seems to be going from strength to strength whereas demand for Aberdeen is dropping (one for those making BR's withdrawal proposal to place in their proverbial pipe and smoke...albeit outside the station! ). This isn't overly surprising when you consider that "rich tourists" are now the target market - tourism to Aberdeen (outside of major golf events) is rather limited, whereas pretty much all long-distance travel to FW is tourism.

 

[alistairlees]

FW seems to be going from strength to strength whereas demand for Aberdeen is dropping (one for those making BR's withdrawal proposal to place in their proverbial pipe and smoke...albeit outside the station! ). This isn't overly surprising when you consider that "rich tourists" are now the target market - tourism to Aberdeen (outside of major golf events) is rather limited, whereas pretty much all long-distance travel to FW is tourism.

Fort William was buoyant long before the new trains were in sight.

 

[marks87]

FW seems to be going from strength to strength whereas demand for Aberdeen is dropping (one for those making BR's withdrawal proposal to place in their proverbial pipe and smoke...albeit outside the station! ). This isn't overly surprising when you consider that "rich tourists" are now the target market - tourism to Aberdeen (outside of major golf events) is rather limited, whereas pretty much all long-distance travel to FW is tourism.

It does make you wonder if they will eventually swap the Aberdeen and Fort William lounge/seats so that the latter gets them throughout.

I know it’s been mentioned many times before but reported low demand on the Aberdeen portion must surely mean it’ll at least be considered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does make you wonder if they will eventually swap the Aberdeen and Fort William lounge/seats so that the latter gets them throughout.

I know it’s been mentioned many times before but reported low demand on the Aberdeen portion must surely mean it’ll at least be considered.

The lounge doesn't overly matter, as nobody really wants to use it while it's not there (it closes quite late on and opens very early on). The seats might be a good plan.

 

[marks87]

The lounge doesn't overly matter, as nobody really wants to use it while it's not there (it closes quite late on and opens very early on).

True, although I guess operationally it makes sense to keep the lounge and seats as a pair.

 

[VT 390]

73970 unable to keep time up hills due to low power.

I thought it felt very slow at times and this would explain it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True, although I guess operationally it makes sense to keep the lounge and seats as a pair.

Yes, probably.

 

[MrEd]

I'd be surprised if its the 73s causing the problem (obviously the traction motor isolation excepted) I've experienced a 73/9 on summer load Fort William Southbound pull back nearly an hour by Edinburgh after a late departure because of a rolling stock problem.

I think that I agree- I’ve had a 73 on load 6 on the Fort William many times and they’ve generally always coped very well. I’m beginning to think that there was a serious adhesion issue outside Rannoch this time last week.

 

[MrEd]

It does make you wonder if they will eventually swap the Aberdeen and Fort William lounge/seats so that the latter gets them throughout.

I know it’s been mentioned many times before but reported low demand on the Aberdeen portion must surely mean it’ll at least be considered.

I’m wondering whether one obstacle to this might be the need to re-write crew diagrams quite considerably. As the Fort William lounge car is attached and detached at Edinburgh, it makes sense for it to be worked by a Fort William crew every night that the sleeper runs, while the Aberdeen lounge car which works through to London is worked by London/Aberdeen crews on alternating nights. Obviously if this changed, the London, Aberdeen and Fort William crew bases would all need to follow different diagrams, unless the Aberdeen-bound crew swapped lounge cars at Edinburgh (which doesn’t seem to me to be very practical), and the through Fort William lounge simply underwent a crew change. But I don’t see what commercial advantage could be gained from these changes, as the Fort William bound passengers are only without a lounge car in the middle of the night for about an hour leading up to and fifteen minutes after the Edinburgh split (when almost no-one needs these facilities anyway).

With the seats, that may be an advantage. But how many passengers actually do the full journey Euston-Fort William in the seats? Is this a popular option? I’m not sure myself, as whenever I see the Fort William seated coach, it always looks reasonably busy, but can never tell which of the passengers are from south of Edinburgh, and which are simply local travellers between Edinburgh and Fort William.

 

[Kendalian]

Northbound Highlander left 86L delayed at depot having to remove defective coach.
Then delayed near Penrith by signal fault currently 173L (Inverness), 170L FW, 168L ABD.
Likely to be a late departure tonight as crews will be out of rest hours etc

 

[Chrism20]

Northbound Highlander left 86L delayed at depot having to remove defective coach.
Then delayed near Penrith by signal fault currently 173L (Inverness), 170L FW, 168L ABD.
Likely to be a late departure tonight as crews will be out of rest hours etc

Wouldn’t surprise me if the Fort William passengers are bussed to Edinburgh and the stock goes ECS. Pretty sure that’s what happened the other week when the crew were out of hours.

 

[_toommm_]

Aberdeen portion currently has an ETA of 10:10; Inverness portion ETA of 11:10, but it has skipped Dundee; and Fort Bill portion ETA of 12:36, but it has skipped Glasgow QS.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aberdeen portion currently has an ETA of 10:10; Inverness portion ETA of 11:10, but it has skipped Dundee; and Fort Bill portion ETA of 12:36, but it has skipped Glasgow QS.

And yet another load of full Delay Repay refunds...they aren't going to be making any money out of this debacle, are they?

 

[87015]

Aberdeen in more trouble, been showing passengers the superb views from Thornton loop for the best part of two hours.

 

[Highlandspring]

Air problems on 73968. Yesterday 1Y11 also suffered a loss of air and came to a stand in the middle of Rannoch Moor with 73971 but luckily it was able to be overcome before West Coast had to fire up the 37...

 

[VT 390]

Aberdeen portion currently has an ETA of 10:10; Inverness portion ETA of 11:10, but it has skipped Dundee; and Fort Bill portion ETA of 12:36, but it has skipped Glasgow QS.

As it is so late it is not really a problem missing out Queen Street as the next Scot Rail service is not far behind the delayed sleeper.
Why skip Dundee though as I thought out of all the places on the Aberdeen portion Dundee would have the most passengers?