Class 99s on Caledonian Sleeper

[TrainViation]

Allegedly, GBRf have the contract again for the sleeper, and are looking to order special 99s for the service. This is bad news for all Class 73 lovers…

 

[Class15]

I’d be very sorry to see the end of the 92s.

Having been refurbished specifically for this purpose, I think it would be a crying shame to see them replaced by 99s.

Fingers crossed this doesn’t happen.

 

[andyjhatton]

I imagine they would require ETS fitment and a speed increase.
The speed increase would probably be a drawn-out process, in terms of certification.

 

[TrainViation]

I imagine they would require ETS fitment and a speed increase.
The speed increase would probably be a drawn-out process, in terms of certification.

Here’s a post I seen about the announcement.

I’ve also realised that these 99s will have to be fitted with RETB to be able to run on the West Highland Line for the Fort William portion of the sleeper, and also special clearances may be needed too.

 

[andyjhatton]

I’ve also realised that these 99s will have to be fitted with RETB to be able to run on the West Highland Line for the Fort William portion of the sleeper

I think there are portable RETB units aren't there? So not a fitment per se.

 

[godfreycomplex]

Here’s a post I seen about the announcement. View attachment 212724

I’ve also realised that these 99s will have to be fitted with RETB to be able to run on the West Highland Line for the Fort William portion of the sleeper, and also special clearances may be needed too.

RETB fitment is easy enough. It's the braking capability that will need some work for that line, bringing a sleeper smoothly down from County March into Fort William is no mean feat, even at 40mph max.

 

[hwl]

I imagine they would require ETS fitment and a speed increase.
The speed increase would probably be a drawn-out process, in terms of certification.

They will be new batch with ETS from the factory. The transformer is already sized to be able to provide ETS.
Speed increase as previously discussed is just swapping dampers and software tweak, they were designed to be 100mph from the start.
The paperwork will be the biggest item.

 

[wickham]

I’d be very sorry to see the end of the 92s.

Having been refurbished specifically for this purpose, I think it would be a crying shame to see them replaced by 99s.

Fingers crossed this doesn’t happen.

The 92s may well be quite iconic and interesting to see, but to be honest they are not particularly reliable and that is a key to service such as this.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

2030 so 4 years to do it.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I imagine they would require ETS fitment and a speed increase.
The speed increase would probably be a drawn-out process, in terms of certification.

I believe that some of the 99s will be fitted with ETS.
That is for the Royal Scotsman and the Pullman (from Victoria). I am not sure about the Belmond Britanic Explorer as that has generator coaches.
Use to cover the sleeper contract would just increase the cost effectiveness of ordering a ETS fitted version of the 99.

How much of a speed increase is required ?.
The sleeper does not go that fast. After all we do not want the passengers falling out of their beds AND we don't want them arriving too early for a decent nights sleep !.

The maximum speed of a 92 is 87 mph (140km/h).
The maximum speed of a 99 is 75 mph (120km/h) but can be raised to 100 mph.
Above according to AI and Wikipedia.

 

[meld3]

Cue the 99/4 series......

 

[Peter Sarf]

Cue the 99/4 series......

I have been assuming that subclass as well.

But, then again, what are the downsides of (retro) fitting all 99s with ETS ?.

 

[andyjhatton]

Aye the parts for 99 running at 160kph may be on the shelf, but NetworkRail and ORR will have their say in procedures.
That's what takes the time.

 

[brad465]

I’d be very sorry to see the end of the 92s.

Having been refurbished specifically for this purpose, I think it would be a crying shame to see them replaced by 99s.

Fingers crossed this doesn’t happen.

But being bi-modes presumably the good thing about 99s is they can stay on the front part of the train for the whole journey, with additional locos coming in for the other portions as now. As more of Scotland is electrified they can also use wires for more of the journey going forward.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I believe that some of the 99s will be fitted with ETS.

The maximum speed of a 99 is 75 mph (120km/h) but can be raised to 100 mph.

More than enough surely?

 

[Tilting007]

Mk5s are cleared for 110mph so would make sense to have the locos able to the same.
The 92s being limited to 87mph causes issues when they are out of path.
100mph would be good, 110mph better - even if timings remain the same.

 

[D6130]

Mk5s are cleared for 110mph so would make sense to have the locos able to the same.
The 92s being limited to 87mph causes issues when they are out of path.
100mph would be good, 110mph better - even if timings remain the same.

Mark 5s may be cleared for 110 mph....but, having ridden over the bogie in one of them from Euston to Edinburgh at 87 mph maximum, I don't think I would want to do it at any higher speed than that!

 

[xotGD]

We might have had 31/4, 37/4 and 47/4, but we also had 45/1 and 27/2 as ETH sub-classes.

99101 onwards would make more sense.

 

[Russel]

I’d be very sorry to see the end of the 92s.

Having been refurbished specifically for this purpose, I think it would be a crying shame to see them replaced by 99s.

Fingers crossed this doesn’t happen.

If they are investing and future-proofing the service, then I don't see a reason not to support this.

 

[Rail Quest]

RETB fitment is easy enough. It's the braking capability that will need some work for that line, bringing a sleeper smoothly down from County March into Fort William is no mean feat, even at 40mph max.

I can't imagine the flakes having worse brakes than a 66, especially given the former has rheostatic braking, something the sheds do not.

 

[Bill57p9]

As long as I can remember the sleepers have always been timed/pathed for a maximum of 80mph on the WCML. In the MK3 days the sleeper could run at up to 100mph if delayed. Obviously today the limiting factor would be the class 92 at 87mph.

North of Edinburgh the current class 66s limit the maximum speed to 75mph.

I take it the proposal is to replace the locos both north and south of the central belt? I.e. 92s, 66s and 73/9s?

 

[D1537]

We might have had 31/4, 37/4 and 47/4, but we also had 45/1 and 27/2 as ETH sub-classes.

99101 onwards would make more sense.

Yes, the only reason the 31/37/47 ETH versions were /4 was a coincidence in that it was the next sub-class available for each of those classes (standard 31s numbered up to 31327, 37s numbered up to 37308, 47s numbered up to 47381).