Class 73/9 for Caledonian Sleeper

[route:oxford]

I still think it's a very weird idea. I'd have thought that if old locos were to be used, then old 37s, 47s or other locos that have been "local" would be the answer, even fitted, as with the 73s, with new power units.

Given all the investment, it seems a shame that brand new locos aren't accompanying the new coaches

Who knows?

If they are successful, perhaps one day a 37 may well find itself with all-new insides?

Being 10ft longer (including nose), there may well be more room inside...

4*750hp engines perhaps? A 3000hp 37 would have quite a bit of pulling power.

 

[47271]

July 30th, 67007 failed near Aviemore, no rescue loco available until the following morning, passengers spent the night on the train. Double-headed almost every day since.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=118901

There's a graphic, and funny, description of the incident in the thread above.

 

[Smudger105e]

Who knows?

If they are successful, perhaps one day a 37 may well find itself with all-new insides?

Being 10ft longer (including nose), there may well be more room inside...

4*750hp engines perhaps? A 3000hp 37 would have quite a bit of pulling power.

Why 4 750 hp engines? The 73/9s have a 1600 hp MTU so a larger one of those or two 1600s would be adequate.

Maybe a 37 with 2 engines, each running a bogie, might give reliability benefits in case of engine failure. ..

 

[route:oxford]

Why 4 750 hp engines? The 73/9s have a 1600 hp MTU so a larger one of those or two 1600s would be adequate.

Maybe a 37 with 2 engines, each running a bogie, might give reliability benefits in case of engine failure. ..

Some 73/9s have 2x 750hp engines, others have 1x 1600hp engine.

 

[captainbigun]

Some 73/9s have 2x 750hp engines, others have 1x 1600hp engine.

Brush conversions are single MTU, RVEL conversions are dual Cummins. Not seen a RVEL conversion move itself yet.

 

[Smudger105e]

Some 73/9s have 2x 750hp engines, others have 1x 1600hp engine.

Having worked on both,I realise that. The Caledonian locos are GBRF and therefore ex Brush and thrrefore MTU powered.

 

[jopsuk]

They really should be two separate sub classes, it's plain daft they're not

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They really should be two separate sub classes, it's plain daft they're not

Even with the one they chose they had to go halfway up, with 73901-4(?) used for the old Merseyrail allocation. Presumably 738xx and 737xx are in use on EMU vehicles?

 

[Smudger105e]

They really should be two separate sub classes, it's plain daft they're not

Why does it matter? The Brush ones are 73961 up and the RVEL ones are 73951 up.

You think the Brush ones should each have different sub classes too to reflect the differences between the phases?

 

[Jonny]

Why 4 750 hp engines? The 73/9s have a 1600 hp MTU so a larger one of those or two 1600s would be adequate.

Maybe a 37 with 2 engines, each running a bogie, might give reliability benefits in case of engine failure. ..

I'm reminded of a video of a Class 52 "Western", running on one engine and one bogie, that had a bad episode of wheelslip (it might have been at South Queensferry) that I saw embedded on this forum. It would be better to have each engine to all 6 axles, which is much easier when the loco is a diesel-electric, in order to prevent such situations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why does it matter? The Brush ones are 73961 up and the RVEL ones are 73951 up.

You think the Brush ones should each have different sub classes too to reflect the differences between the phases?

I suspect that there are too many 73xxx numbers in use with with EMU vehicles to make anything else viable, bearing in mind that each vehicle has to have a unique TOPS number (as well as the number of any unit that it forms part of).

 

[Smudger105e]

I must admit that I have always found the need to have coaches and locos to have different numbers a little puzzling.

I you are looking for a loco on TOPS you do an E3 enquiry, for a coach it's a J6 1 and a wagon it's an A9 B so presumably each is kept in a different dataset.

 

[CosherB]

I take it that the 73/9s are quietly going about their business on the CS? No news is good news?!

 

[Clansman]

I take it that the 73/9s are quietly going about their business on the CS? No news is good news?!

No news mainly because it's 67013 on the Inverness sleeper, so punctuality has been decent North of Edinburgh recently.

The 73s for all I care can go and do one in Iran

 

[captainbigun]

Riiiiight. So the fact that the other 2/3 of the service are 73s and have been for a good has escaped you?

As soon as the bent 769 is back 67013 will head back to DBS.

 

[fgwrich]

I take it that the 73/9s are quietly going about their business on the CS? No news is good news?!

Ignoring the above post, it does seem to be that way. I haven't heard anything for a while about the CS 73s and have seen pictures of single 73s on the Fort William.

Meanwhile, the 67s aren't infallible to failing. It's not like there was an issue with one recently including fuel leak / some major issue.

 

[Clansman]

Riiiiight. So the fact that the other 2/3 of the service are 73s and have been for a good has escaped you?

As soon as the bent 769 is back 67013 will head back to DBS.

Any locomotive can do the odd Aberdeen and Fort Willy with 4 carriages most of the time. But the real deal is Slochd summit with 8 carriages, so given the 73s general performance on the Inverness portion, it's quite justified to be glad to see the back of them on this service.

Says it all that it takes 2 x 73s to work the Inverness portion when a sole 67 can smash their punctuality on a good day.

 

[43096]

Any locomotive can do the odd Aberdeen and Fort Willy with 4 carriages most of the time. But the real deal is Slochd summit with 8 carriages, so given the 73s general performance on the Inverness portion, it's quite justified to be glad to see the back of them on this service.



Says it all that it takes 2 x 73s to work the Inverness portion when a sole 67 can smash their punctuality on a good day.

How do you expect a 1600hp 73 working solo to match a 3200hp 67?

I rather suspect the pair of 73s will be welcome in the autumn when 8 powered axles will be somewhat helpful. They're better geared for the job, too, than a 67.

 

[Clansman]

How do you expect a 1600hp 73 working solo to match a 3200hp 67?

I rather suspect the pair of 73s will be welcome in the autumn when 8 powered axles will be somewhat helpful. They're better geared for the job, too, than a 67.

Given that I was speaking in the context of the Inverness sleeper's punctuality, the 73s weren't consistent enough to justify to fare paying customers that they're up for scratch, which is why I said that no one would bat an eyelid if they were binned for more reliable (well, a little less crap) 67s.

Hopefully, the 73s will show their worth on the Inverness. I was pleasantly surprised to see how well the doubled units managed the 11 coaches all the way up to Inverness when it took the Fort Willy portion last month. Maybe that's what blown them out?

 

[InOban]

The 67s drink fuel like they have a private oilwell when they're on anything like full throttle, I've heard.

 

[Clansman]

The 67s drink fuel like they have a private oilwell when they're on anything like full throttle, I've heard.

It's little wonder how they've not seen Aberdeen in a while then

 

[Highland37]

2-stroke 710 EMD, pretty much the same as a Class 66. Reliable but thirsty.

I have seen 67013 on the sleeper the last few nights out of Inverness/

 

[TimboM]

I haven't heard anything for a while about the CS 73s and have seen pictures of single 73s on the Fort William.

Meanwhile, the 67s aren't infallible to failing. It's not like there was an issue with one recently including fuel leak / some major issue.

Going by my recollection only, over the past few months there have been two significant delays on the Inverness-Edinburgh section itself (i.e. not delays to the Inverness service caused by issues South of Edinburgh). The only one due to loco reliability/failure was a 67 - when 67010 went bang fairly soon after being loaned to GBRf. This was the first 67 VTEC/DB loaned GBRf after bashing up 73969. It was swiftly replaced by 67013, which has indeed been very reliable.

The other delay was when 2x73s were working the service, but despite many jumping to the conclusion the locos were at fault, it transpired the leading loco hit a lineside obstruction of some sort and wiped out its radio/emergency comms and was restricted to 30 (or 40) mph.

In the interest of balance I believe a 73/9 has failed the odd time on either the Aberdeen and/or FW portion in the last few months resulting in the odd significant delay/cancellations (but again no more than any other locos suffer failures I suspect).

Hopefully, the 73s will show their worth on the Inverness. I was pleasantly surprised to see how well the doubled units managed the 11 coaches all the way up to Inverness when it took the Fort Willy portion last month. Maybe that's what blown them out?

I'm not aware any 73/9s have "blown out" recently? The 67 is working the Inverness for the foreseeable as VTEC bumped 73969 at Craigentinny so are loaning GBRf the DB 67 in lieu. 969 is still in Loughborough being repaired (and being fitted with the new couplings for testing with the new stock), and 971 is also in currently, so makes sense to use the 67 where it can replace 2 locos during the period they're 'short'.

The 2x 73s worked the odd Inverness run over the recent Easter/Bank Holiday weekends when the 67 was needed for workings between Glasgow and Edinburgh when the electrified route via Carstairs was closed for engineering. As soon as that was over, the 67 went back on Inverness.

That said, during the last (MayDay) BH weekend, a solo 73 worked the 8-coach Glasgow portion to Edinburgh and also hauled the 8-coach Edinburgh-Polmadie ECS plus 126 tonnes of DIT Class 92 on one occasion.