They can't (yet) couple to the new stock but at 66, the 67 should have enough ETS index for an 8-coach train of Mk 5 stock if previous discussions on the subject are correct. The 73s had to be completely rebuilt to haul the sleepers. It would appear to be more a question of ownership / lease terms.
Useful to know, was worried about hearing the engine all night.
Oh I was talking about the quality of the noise and questioning why he would want to listen to a 92 lol!
69/4 is clearly the answer.
Good shout, but I doubt they'd be ready before the end of the franchise!
I thought there was an issue with the 67s on the West Highland - speed limited because of axle loads if I recall correctly. Which would suggest the 67s are for the Inverness or Aberdeen portions.
Why would they want to resolve it? With staff off and trains not running, the cost savings are considered well worth it.
There was an issue which required different brake blocks to be fitted and speed restricted on certain 67s used on the West Highland Line (67004/07/09/11/30, I think) but they successfully ran there for nearly 15 years.
What staff are off?
I believe they are on strike. Hence the original message about industrial disputes with trade unions.
They are not on strike! There have been a few strike days, but the massive disruption to passengers is being caused by staff not working overtime or working on rest days. They are all still getting paid their salaries.
And it's still saving money not paying then overtime
I'd imagine that laying on Road Transport and refunds to passengers eats into any savings you imagine.
I don’t think the Fort William would ever go over to 67s, as none of the crews who currently work that leg have ever signed them, I don’t think (when 67s worked the Fort William train they had Scotrail drivers, not GBRf as now). Also, 023 & 027 don’t have RETB equipment and are subject to severe speed restrictions on the West Highland Line. I’d expect to see them on the Inverness and Aberdeen portions, leaving the Fort William for one or two 73s.
Sorry, but most of the above is uninformed wibble. 66 to 67 conversion = 2 days. Refresher = 1 day. Changing brake blocks one type to another isn't a 'modification', and where do you suppose the FW drivers came from at GBRF? As for the RETB, a simple mod as it's not a permanent fixture in the cab.
Interestingly, 67004/007/009/011/030 were all fitted with RETB for working the Fort William route, and were assigned to the WABN pool (as was), but 030 never had the cast-iron brake blocks fitted. The rationale was that 004/007/009/011 were the dedicated locos and could work that section for days at a time, whereas 030 would be available to deputise if the other dedicated locos were unavailable; having 030 permanently RETB-fitted at least avoided the issue of obtaining a portable RETB set. I believe 030 was restricted to one round trip from Edinburgh to Fort William before it had to be stopped to have its brake blocks changed. That was how poorly the original carbon-fibre blocks coped on that route. In time, the 67s with cast-iron brake blocks came to be preferred on the Inverness run too, as the descents from Slochd and Druimuachdar took quite a toll on them.
The FW GBrf men used to sign the 67s same as the INV men used to, so no probs getting them back competent again.
The 37s are for stock movements due to 47s not being available, not the sleeper. A 73 would still be needed for ETS.
Had read of the advert, surprised they're expected to be able to perform Team Leader / host role too !! Wouldn't have thought this would be acceptable to RMT. Does this ever happen - eg. if spare does anyone know ? Salary isn't too good considering it's obviously all night shifts either.I'm not sure if its been posted, or if people would find it useful to the discussion, but CS (Serco) are hiring a (multiple?) Train Manager(s)
Don't think it's acceptable to any current staff!
Probably just fair treatment and retaining long fought for terms and conditions. The members are the Union, not a bunch of sheep blindly following!
Can you explain this please, as to an outsider the Team leader and train manager roles sound pretty much the same thing, and doing a bit of hosting as well sounds like the way a small hotel or restaurant would work - which in a way the sleeper is.
On a train with few stops and few passengers I dont really see that those two roles cant be the same person. Having a 'train manager' managing the staff on said train doesn't seem a huge ask - how many staff are they and do they really need much supervision?
Don't think the Lounge customers would be too happy when the person serving food & drink isn't because they are dealing with dispatch or checking tickets in seated coaches !
