Class 73/9 for Caledonian Sleeper

[Edward101]

I was wondering about this as I haven't heard any updates for some time. When are the refurbished Class 73/9s supposed to be taking over from Class 67s on the Highland portions, and have any 73s been painted in Caledonian Sleeper livery? I have heard that they were supposed to be starting in October but I don't know if that's true.

 

[fgwrich]

Not sure of the date, but 73965? Is now outside in Brush Loughborough in Caley Sleeper Teal, with snowploughs so can't be far away.

 

[craig87034]

A 73/9 was ment to run light engine Loughborough-Craigentinny on Monday 7th September but this got cancelled.

 

[Boothby97]

Not sure of the date, but 73965? Is now outside in Brush Loughborough in Caley Sleeper Teal, with snowploughs so can't be far away.

That would be 73966, 73965 is in GBRf livery (not my pic) https://www.flickr.com/photos/andyv...RH-y6fdUJ-egu1y7-vYnWvQ-wZ3jFj-owwNpJ-wAYLA1/

 

[fgwrich]

That would be 73966, 73965 is in GBRf livery (not my pic) https://www.flickr.com/photos/andyv...RH-y6fdUJ-egu1y7-vYnWvQ-wZ3jFj-owwNpJ-wAYLA1/

That's the one, thanks. Was at work so couldn't link to the pictures on Flickr. Of note is the Sprinter Style Ploughs that the Scottish 73/9s appear to have been fitted with.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/theoriginalwhiskygalore/20543407822/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/64345695@N06/20776237322/

(That last one also has one of the ex TPE/SWT 170/3s in Chiltern)

 

[61653 HTAFC]

In the first photo, that 73 looks like the arse-end of a 91 to me, especially in GNER-style blue!

 

[XCTurbostar]

I suppose these are all going to get named at some point as well?

Thanks,
Ross

 

[Bungle965]

I suppose these are all going to get named at some point as well?

Thanks,
Ross

I would imagine so, Gb Railfright do like to name there locos.
Sam.

 

[59CosG95]

I would imagine so, Gb Railfright do like to name there locos.
Sam.

In that case, I'm surprised none of the 92s have been named. Suppose they're waiting out on the 73/9s to be ready.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/64345695@N06/20776237322/

(That last one also has one of the ex TPE/SWT 170/3s in Chiltern)

Yeah, can we have them back please?....

 

[FQ]

Yeah, can we have them back please?....

I would happily give them back if I could! I want more loco hauled sets down here, not units!

A quick question though. What number is that 170/168?

 

[Boothby97]

I would happily give them back if I could! I want more loco hauled sets down here, not units!

A quick question though. What number is that 170/168?

As the photo was taken nearly a month ago, it may be 168329 (ex 170309) which departed last week. https://www.flickr.com/photos/84539378@N07/20461216042/in/photolist-ykEpTS-xb65EW

Above photo is not mine.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

309 is the "odd" one that came from central trains/porterbrook's speculative order which was quickly snapped up. The others 301-308 are the former South West Trains units

 

[FQ]

Thanks guys. I have seen pictures of that unit on the Chiltern Mainline. When are the 168/3s meant to come into passenger service?

 

[Boothby97]

309 is the "odd" one that came from central trains/porterbrook's speculative order which was quickly snapped up.

And of course before working with TPE was numbered 170399

 

[Observer]

They should hope that the 73/9s for the sleeper end up being able to do its job well. Given the electric traction problems which have been a huge issue since the Serco takeover (which they are fortunate that Freightliner have more Class 90s available for their use), if the diesels run into significant issues it will not look good for them, especially as there have been plenty of concerns about utilising 73s about this.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They should hope that the 73/9s for the sleeper end up being able to do its job well. Given the electric traction problems which have been a huge issue since the Serco takeover (which they are fortunate that Freightliner have more Class 90s available for their use), if the diesels run into significant issues it will not look good for them, especially as there have been plenty of concerns about utilising 73s about this.

I think the concerns came from a misunderstanding of just how thorough the rebuilding and retractioning of the 73s is. They no longer have the puny little leafblower engines on board that they were built with!

 

[GM228]

I think the concerns came from a misunderstanding of just how thorough the rebuilding and retractioning of the 73s is. They no longer have the puny little leafblower engines on board that they were built with!

Bar the body and bogies they are essentially a new loco, which no-doubt will cause it's own teething problems!

 

[fgwrich]

309 is the "odd" one that came from central trains/porterbrook's speculative order which was quickly snapped up. The others 301-308 are the former South West Trains units

As the photo was taken nearly a month ago, it may be 168329 (ex 170309) which departed last week. https://www.flickr.com/photos/84539378@N07/20461216042/in/photolist-ykEpTS-xb65EW

Above photo is not mine.

And is probably one of the most high mileage 170s as well, having been tagged onto the SWT order by Porterbrook (hence it's SWT interior), and has worked for ScotRail, Anglia Railways, Central Trains - where it spent most of it's life, TransPennine Express and now Chiltern. It may well have worked for SWT too.

As for the 73/9s. I'm sure that after a little run in they should be fine, I do however wonder when any ETS testing will be carried out outside of BRUSH, and still wonder how their performances will be on the Inverness Portions.

 

[59CosG95]

And is probably one of the most high mileage 170s as well, having been tagged onto the SWT order by Porterbrook (hence it's SWT interior), and has worked for ScotRail, Anglia Railways, Central Trains - where it spent most of it's life, TransPennine Express and now Chiltern. It may well have worked for SWT too.

As for the 73/9s. I'm sure that after a little run in they should be fine, I do however wonder when any ETS testing will be carried out outside of BRUSH, and still wonder how their performances will be on the Inverness Portions.

IIRC, the 73/9s will be double-heading on the Inverness portions.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Bar the body and bogies they are essentially a new loco, which no-doubt will cause it's own teething problems!

GBRF won the contract with the offer of 92s and 73s, but who knows what was offered by other bidders? Possibly 88s and 68s were considered as a DRS bid assuming they bid? Whatever there were as other options, Serco decided to go with GBRF (presumably beforehand agreements were signed in-principle). Whether that was a good decision remains to be seen, of course.

 

[captainbigun]

It didn't work like that. Each of the bidders partnered with a traction provider.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It didn't work like that. Each of the bidders partnered with a traction provider.

Wasn't sure of the technicalities. Though presumably when Serco were putting their bid together they would have had an idea what was needed and negotiated a partnership with the traction company they felt was best able to fulfil those requirements.
I'd guess at the starting point of that process (Serco putting their bid for the franchise together) that GBRF weren't the only traction provider considered.

 

[GM228]

IIRC, the 73/9s will be double-heading on the Inverness portions.

That is correct

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Seems daft having a loco equipped with third rail electrical traction to be tied up on diesel in the scottish highlands. The juice rail doesnt run any further north than watford!

 

[route:oxford]

Seems daft having a loco equipped with third rail electrical traction to be tied up on diesel in the scottish highlands. The juice rail doesnt run any further north than watford!

Not true.

There is plenty of juice on the rail in Merseyside.

 

[snakeeyes]

why were class 37's not used, or re engine 37's, or would a 58 not be a better alternative?

 

[sprinterguy]

why were class 37's not used, or re engine 37's, or would a 58 not be a better alternative?

Primarily I should think because GBRf don't operate any class 37s, but were already embarking on a re-engining programme for the class 73s that they do operate before they gained the Caledonian Sleeper contract. The class 73s are lightweight, with a low axle loading, and with smaller, modern power units are presumably more economic on fuel than, say, a class 67.

Class 58s would be a terrible choice for the sleeper, as they are weighty, fuel thirsty, heavy freight locomotives and cannot provide train supply!

 

[Edward101]

why were class 37's not used, or re engine 37's, or would a 58 not be a better alternative?

Do you mean a 58 or a 68? I certainly do not think a 58 would be at all suitable, even if GBRf had any to use: they have no ETS capability (probably expensive to retro-fit), are geared for heavy freight as opposed to passenger operations, and at RA7 they have too high an RA for the West Highland route (meaning that they would suffer severe speed restrictions as the 67s do currently). The 73s (RA5/RA6?) may be able to speed up the Fort William service as they do not suffer these restrictions. Reliability of class 58s may also be an issue.

As for 37s, the consensus is probably that with their original engines, they are life-expired, expensive to maintain, and could not form part of a long-term traction plan to last the length of the franchise (though I suppose some could be hired in from DRS temporarily if the 73s cause trouble to begin with?). That would be my guess anyway.

 

[sprinterguy]

Deleted