Caledonian Sleeper

[Scotrail84]

The 73/9 modification was specified to haul RHTT and other Infrastructure trains. This was then stretched to haul mark 3 sleepers. This was then stretched to haul the much heavier Mk5 sleepers with their much higher ETH load. There's also been creep with the challenging Fort William route increasing to 5 coaches for much of the year.
It would be interesting to know how much power at the rail a 73/9 has hauling 5 Mk5 s.

2 of them occasionally haul a load 12 to Inverness when the WHL is closed, that will be happening again fairly soon as well with some more closures coming up in the coming months.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Theres no other locos around capable of hauling the sleepers or supplying the ETH so until such times there are new locos available that can provide ETH and have suitable delner couplers then the sleepers are stuck with the 73s and 92s. Both of which have their problems.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Sep 2024 ==

What about Class 68?

• RA7 (same as a class 66)
• ETS index 96 (same as a 73/9)
• Can work with Mk 5 stock
• Currently underused since TPE withdrew its loco-hauled sets

The 73/9 modification was specified to haul RHTT and other Infrastructure trains. This was then stretched to haul mark 3 sleepers.

When did they ever haul Mark 3s?

 

[Scotrail84]

What about Class 68?

• RA7 (same as a class 66)
• ETS index 96 (same as a 73/9)
• Can work with Mk 5 stock
• Currently underused since TPE withdrew its loco-hauled sets

When did they ever haul Mark 3s?

Do 68s have delner couplers? Do GBRF own any 68s?

73s hauled mark 2s/3s loads of times before they were withdrawn, theres plenty video and picture evidence.

 

[JonathanH]

When did they ever haul Mark 3s?

73/9s hauled Mark 3s between February 2016 and October 2019 when the Mark 3 sleepers finished.

 

[ajrm]

What about Class 68?

• Can work with Mk 5 stock

With the TPE stock, yes, which has conventional coupling gear. But the sleepers have Dellners. This is one of the other issues with the 73/9s; there's a fleet of 6 to cover in theory 4 in service every night (2x Inverness, 1x FW and 1x Aberdeen), which doesn't leave much room for maneouvre when nothing else on the network is capable of coupling or providing hotel power, especially if you look at the vulnerability during the leaf fall season.

 

[Krokodil]

Do 68s have delner couplers?

Not at the moment, but nor did 92s and 73s until they were converted.

 

[Scotrail84]

Not at the moment, but nor did 92s and 73s until they were converted.

I highly doubt there are any plans to convert DRS 68s to make them capable of hauling the sleeper stock.

 

[paul1609]

What about Class 68?

• RA7 (same as a class 66)
• ETS index 96 (same as a 73/9)
• Can work with Mk 5 stock
• Currently underused since TPE withdrew its loco-hauled sets

Whilst the 68s are the same ETS index as a 73/9 are their inverters capable of supplying the higher voltage specified for the Mk5 s because of the 16 coach train length? I suspect that requires a rebuild along with the Dellners.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Whilst the 68s are the same ETS index as a 73/9 are their inverters capable of supplying the higher voltage specified for the Mk5 s because of the 16 coach train length? I suspect that requires a rebuild along with the Dellners.

I seem to recall the Mk5 sleeper voltage is double the standard for all other trains so it is not just a fudge it amount.

 

[Bill57p9]

I seem to recall the Mk5 sleeper voltage is double the standard for all other trains so it is not just a fudge it amount.

I may be wrong but believe the 73s provide standard ETS voltage.
It's the 92s that can provide the higher voltage, which is required for ETS loads of >100.

 

[Essexman]

I'm reluctant to use the Highlander at the moment, after the southbound sleeper was cancelled shortly after we were due to board in Fort William a few weeks ago, due to a problem with hotel power from the 73. I don't mind the train being late but it needs to be reliable in running and not giving passengers a concern that they will be put on a road coach.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Whilst the 68s are the same ETS index as a 73/9 are their inverters capable of supplying the higher voltage specified for the Mk5 s because of the 16 coach train length? I suspect that requires a rebuild along with the Dellners.

The 68's ETS index isn't enough for 16 coaches anyway. It is the same as a 73/9, which can take eight (maybe nine at a pinch).

A 92 is the only class with an ETS high enough for 16 mark 5s, at 180. (they were originally designed to operate the Nightstar international sleeper services)

 

[BRX]

The 73/9 modification was specified to haul RHTT and other Infrastructure trains. This was then stretched to haul mark 3 sleepers. This was then stretched to haul the much heavier Mk5 sleepers with their much higher ETH load. There's also been creep with the challenging Fort William route increasing to 5 coaches for much of the year.
It would be interesting to know how much power at the rail a 73/9 has hauling 5 Mk5 s.

I thought they were designed from the outset for use with the mk5s. It was planned that they'd haul the mk3s for an interim period but that interim period turned out to be rather longer than initially intended due to the dealys in getting the mk 5s fully into service.

 

[norbitonflyer]

There's also been creep with the challenging Fort William route increasing to 5 coaches for much of the year.

Has a 73 ever been tasked with five Mark 5s on the West Highland without assistance from a 66?

 

[JonathanH]

Has a 73 ever been tasked with five Mark 5s on the West Highland without assistance from a 66?

Yes, that has happened from time to time, as have pairs of 73s. A single 73 has worked an 8 coach Mark 5 formation on the Highland line on a few occasions when circumstances have dictated it.

Photograph here of a single 73 with six Mark 5s on the West Highland Line. It will be noted that this is in the summer months.

Early morn at Gorton

Late summer wild flowers dot the hillside as 73966 climbs towards Gorton loop with CS's 1Y11 2117 London Euston to Fort William sleeper portion. 31st August 2022

www.flickr.com

 

[paul1609]

I thought they were designed from the outset for use with the mk5s. It was planned that they'd haul the mk3s for an interim period but that interim period turned out to be rather longer than initially intended due to the dealys in getting the mk 5s fully into service.

When the 73/9 was specified GBRF didn't have the sleeper contract. The specification was basically limited to increasing the size of the diesel to provide the same output at the rail that the 73/1 had enjoyed on dc.
The resulting 73/9 was basically half a 66 which made them ideal for topping and trailing a rail testing or other Infrastructure trains.
I think they were reasonably successful on the Mk3 sleeper stock
The problem is that a Mk5 coach as well as having a higher ETS electrical load weighs around a third more than a mk 3 so a 4 coach Mk5 train on the WHL is the equivalent of about 6 mk 3s, a 5 coach is nearly 8. That is really going to test a 1600 HP bo-bo loco day in day out especially on lines that are known to suffer from poor Railhead conditions.
Problem is there isnt any obvious replacements and a bespoke package of new or rebuilt locos is likely unaffordable given the sleepers well known economics.

 

[Essexman]

Has a 73 ever been tasked with five Mark 5s on the West Highland without assistance from a 66?

I was on the Inverness southbound a couple of years ago with just a 73. Very wet weather, autumn / winter.
It managed about ten minutes but couldn't get up the hill out of Inverness.
After saying we'd spend the night in the platform they then found a 66 and that got us to Edinburgh with the 73 OK.

 

[31160]

Send the 57s up to replace the 73s

 

[Scotrail84]

When the 73/9 was specified GBRF didn't have the sleeper contract. The specification was basically limited to increasing the size of the diesel to provide the same output at the rail that the 73/1 had enjoyed on dc.
The resulting 73/9 was basically half a 66 which made them ideal for topping and trailing a rail testing or other Infrastructure trains.
I think they were reasonably successful on the Mk3 sleeper stock
The problem is that a Mk5 coach as well as having a higher ETS electrical load weighs around a third more than a mk 3 so a 4 coach Mk5 train on the WHL is the equivalent of about 6 mk 3s, a 5 coach is nearly 8. That is really going to test a 1600 HP bo-bo loco day in day out especially on lines that are known to suffer from poor Railhead conditions.
Problem is there isnt any obvious replacements and a bespoke package of new or rebuilt locos is likely unaffordable given the sleepers well known economics.

A mk5 is 43 tonnes, the same as a mk3 is it not?

 

[JonathanH]

Send the 57s up to replace the 73s

They seem to be quite happy doing stock moves.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Send the 57s up to replace the 73s

I think having 66s floating around the area already is the best bet. GBRF seem to add a 66 on the front of a 73/9 quite often. No conversion work required.

 

[Scotrail84]

I think having 66s floating around the area already is the best bet. GBRF seem to add a 66 on the front of a 73/9 quite often. No conversion work required.

66 is purely there as 'insurance' due to the unreliability of the 73s with all the gradients on the HML and WHL. That in turn limits the top speed of the train to 75mph which is no good when running late unless it can 'skip' stations.

 

[Peter Sarf]

66 is purely there as 'insurance' due to the unreliability of the 73s with all the gradients on the HML and WHL. That in turn limits the top speed of the train to 75mph which is no good when running late unless it can 'skip' stations.

Is the line speed much more than 75mph on the HML and WHL?. I would have thought power was of more use. Getting reliability sorted out further South would be better as that impacts the lowlander as well.

I suppose if GBRF had an important use for the 73/9s elsewhere then converted 57s might be justifiable. Possibly running in pairs if 12 are on the Inverness ?. But we do not know what the costs of the 73/9s are - maybe far cheaper than any alternative.

 

[Scotrail84]

Is the line speed much more than 75mph on the HML and WHL?. I would have thought power was of more use. Getting reliability sorted out further South would be better as that impacts the lowlander as well.

I suppose if GBRF had an important use for the 73/9s elsewhere then converted 57s might be justifiable. Possibly running in pairs if 12 are on the Inverness ?. But we do not know what the costs of the 73/9s are - maybe far cheaper than any alternative.

Theres lots of sections where the line speed is over 75mph on the HML, not so sure about the WHL though.

Further south the 92s are of course limited to 87.5 mph but a generous padded timetable usually helps the Lowlander but the Highlander always struggles make up time heading south of Edinburgh. (except on a Sunday)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Sep 2024 ==

Southbound Inverness 20 late leaving although it will likely make up that time before Edinburgh.

 

[Bill57p9]

Theres lots of sections where the line speed is over 75mph on the HML, not so sure about the WHL though.

50mph is the max for the WHL itself (north of Craigendoran).
There are some stretches rated at 90mph east of Airdrie. The North Clyde line west of Airdrie has nothing cleared above 60mph.

Send the 57s up to replace the 73s

57s, especially the already Dellner equipped 57/3s might be an interesting option, though no doubt the Dellners will be different in some way. 57s, even using rebuild date as a zero, are also rather long in the tooth now and therefore they presumably would only offer a medium term solution.

GBRf also have 68s, which are typically in low demand. They might offer an alternative to the 66 on the Inverness portion, leaving the 66 for freight use, or presumably could have a Dellner fitted - though as was discovered in the 00s, 68s require severe speed restrictions on and brake modifications for WHL.

 

[JonathanH]

GBRf also have 68s, which are typically in low demand. They might offer an alternative to the 66 on the Inverness portion, leaving the 66 for freight use, or presumably could have a Dellner fitted - though as was discovered in the 00s, 68s require severe speed restrictions on and brake modifications for WHL.

GBRf returned 67023 and 67027 to whoever they got them from. They reportedly couldn't be put into appropriate shape for the sleeper portions.

 

[12LDA28C]

GBRf also have 68s, which are typically in low demand. They might offer an alternative to the 66 on the Inverness portion, leaving the 66 for freight use, or presumably could have a Dellner fitted - though as was discovered in the 00s, 68s require severe speed restrictions on and brake modifications for WHL.

GBRf don't have any 68s.

 

[paul1609]

A mk5 is 43 tonnes, the same as a mk3 is it not?

I believe (according to a Platform 5 book I have) Mk3 s were in the region of 33 to 36 tons depending on the configuration.

 

[Scotrail84]

I believe (according to a Platform 5 book I have) Mk3 s were in the region of 33 to 36 tons depending on the configuration.

I think thats wrong mate. A Mk2 was 34 tonnes, a Mk3 was 43 tonnes and I'm pretty certain a Mk5 is also 43 tonnes.

 

[AdamWW]

I think thats wrong mate. A Mk2 was 34 tonnes, a Mk3 was 43 tonnes and I'm pretty certain a Mk5 is also 43 tonnes.

Empty or with the water tanks for the showers on a Mk 5 full?