Could Class class 88 or 93s replace Class 57s on GWR's Night Riviera?

[StewLane]

As part of the GWR extension replacement of the Class 57s is expected. I wonder whether class 88 or 89 locos would work?

 

[Domh245]

As part of the GWR extension replacement of the Class 57s is expected. I wonder whether class 88 or 89 locos would work?

It is? As for what they could be replaced with, 88s are all in use on DRS freight flows and would leave a lot to be desired west of Newbury (940hp to the 57's 2000+ hp) and the 89s don't exist.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It is? As for what they could be replaced with, 88s are all in use on DRS freight flows and would leave a lot to be desired west of Newbury (940hp to the 57's 2000+ hp) and the 89s don't exist.

Did not know that. Would 67s work if there any spare?

 

[43 302]

I mean there is one 89, definitely not for this though!

 

[skyhigh]

As part of the GWR extension replacement of the Class 57s is expected. I wonder whether class 88 or 89 locos would work?

Expected by whom?

 

[Bevan Price]

As part of the GWR extension replacement of the Class 57s is expected. I wonder whether class 88 or 89 locos would work?

Unless they buy something new, the only options seem to be Classes 67 or 68, or maybe 57/3 as a last resort....

 

[superalbs]

As part of the GWR extension replacement of the Class 57s is expected. I wonder whether class 88 or 89 locos would work?

Expected by who?

 

[43 302]

Wasn't this discussed a lot in another thread recently? I thought the consensus was that the 57s weren't getting replaced anytime soon, I could be wrong though.

 

[Domh245]

Did not know that. Would 67s work if there any spare?

I mean there is one 89, definitely not for this though!

D'oh forgot about 89001, but that'll leave even more to be desired West of Newbury! I must have just assumed the post was referring to the Class 93s that have never materialised with the higher power on diesel.

I think last time it was discussed, consensus was that 67s could work but there's no point in using them so long as the 57s are still going.

 

[Far north 37]

It is? As for what they could be replaced with, 88s are all in use on DRS freight flows and would leave a lot to be desired west of Newbury (940hp to the 57's 2000+ hp) and the 89s don't exist.

Class 89s do exist but there is only one.

 

[43 302]

D'oh forgot about 89001, but that'll leave even more to be desired West of Newbury! I must have just assumed the post was referring to the Class 93s that have never materialised with the higher power on diesel.

I think last time it was discussed, consensus was that 67s could work but there's no point in using them so long as the 57s are still going.

Don't ROG have some 93s on order?

 

[Domh245]

According to a RAIL article a year and a half ago, but other than which nothing has been heard? If you want to believe so..

 

[56091]

Don't ROG have some 93s on order?

More chance of us been out of lockdown by the weekend then Class 93s. They where never ordered.... surprised if they ever will be to be honest.

 

[StewLane]

Sorry meant class 93 not 89. As part of the direct award consideration of replacement of the Mk3 and locos was specified. Mk 5 sleepers would be obvious but with the locos it would either be existing diesels or to minimise diesel usage, new build hybrid locos would be necessary.

 

[43096]

Not this again.

88s to Penzance on a load 9 sleeper with the engine roughly the same power as a Class 20.
Class 93s or whatever. Vapourware.
Someone will suggest batteries/nuclear fusion/bionic duckweed next, no doubt.

All this has been done to death, but I suppose with the 442s being cut there has to be this sort of thread.

Mods - any chance of moving this to the wibble and dribble section?!

 

[StewLane]

See Modern Railways May 2020 as the source for my question

 

[PHILIPE]

Delete thread

 

[43096]

See Modern Railways May 2020 as the source for my question

Yes, and you are misinterpreting. It states about longer term plans for replacement and there is nothing to say it will be in the current Direct Award or after that. There is no mention of Class 88s or 93s, that is all uninformed nonsense.

 

[gazthomas]

Could use 45015?

 

[pieguyrob]

45015 would be a better choice than 89001!

 

[Peter Kelford]

How about HSTs? I thought that the original plan for them was to run 125mph intercity expresses by day and 100mph sleepers by night, although being a victim of its own success meant that there wasn't such a need for sleepers. No shunting would be required seeing as the Night Riviera doesn't split up like the Caldedonian.

 

[CBlue]

How about HSTs? I thought that the original plan for them was to run 125mph intercity expresses by day and 100mph sleepers by night, although being a victim of its own success meant that there wasn't such a need for sleepers. No shunting would be required seeing as the Night Riviera doesn't split up like the Caldedonian.

My understanding is that loco hauled Mk3 carriages have different wiring to the Mk3's used with a HST. Sleeper carriages being the former, so wouldn't work with a set of power cars.


HST's aren't much younger anyway so wouldn't be worth the expense.

 

[Aictos]

How about HSTs? I thought that the original plan for them was to run 125mph intercity expresses by day and 100mph sleepers by night, although being a victim of its own success meant that there wasn't such a need for sleepers. No shunting would be required seeing as the Night Riviera doesn't split up like the Caldedonian.

HSTs use a different power supply to loco hauled carriages hence Grand Central had to convert existing loco hauled Mk3s to HST Mk3s.

The main difference between the HST vehicles and the loco-hauled Mark 3A relates to electrical supply arrangements. HST coaches take an industrial voltage/frequency 3-phase supply directly from an auxiliary alternator in the power car to supply on-board equipment such as air conditioning; loco-hauled vehicles take a standard 1000 V DC or single-phase AC train heat supply from the locomotive and convert it through motor generator units under the floor. These convert the train supply to 3-phase 415/240 V 50 Hz AC to power air conditioning and other ancillaries. The two types are non-interconnectable in service conditions. The other main difference is the lack of buffers on HST coaches.

Therefore unless you propose converting HSTs to be sleepers, your idea is not viable.

A far better idea would be to replace the Class 57 with Class 68s which is the easiest option, it would involve training fitters and drivers but that would happen with any replacement traction and at the same time, the BSO carriage could be converted to a DBSO which would enable the sets to be push pull thus removing the need to shunt at terminus unless of course there's a fault with the DBSO.

OR if more funding was available, the next option would be to replace the entire fleet with CAF Mk5s complete with DVT, not only does this modernise the fleet but also futureproofs it for the next 30 to 40 years.

 

[pdeaves]

The very nature of the sleeper service means it does not need high speeds.

 

[pieguyrob]

But, the extra power would be good over the Devon banks....

 

[StewLane]

The report in Modern Railways talks about a longer term plan to replace Mk 3 s and class 57. The last class 66 is 12 years old and does not meet modern standard. I would guess a new build loco would be required. Sleepers are not about speed so maybe a class 88 or something similar but with an updated diesel would be possible. Freight is going to have to move towards more use of electric and would have a similar need.

 

[Energy]

Class 67s are available as quite a few are in storage, the mk3s got refurbished quite recently so I can't see them going for a while. This is a long term plan, we could see something short term but the most I would expect is 67s swapped in for 57s. DB Cargo also have quite a few 90s stored a crewe, maybe we could see them just swap locos at a station, both 67s and 90s can work with a mk3 DVT, lots of which are in storage.

 

[HSTEd]

Surely easily the best modification that could be made would be to refit the Class 57s with TDM (and possibly the carriages) and use DVTs to turn the sets push-pull.
You don't lose any train length as you wouldn't lead the City end Locomotive at Paddington any more, and you could replace the brake Mk3 with a regular one as luggage could be stored in the DVT.

 

[Energy]

Surely easily the best modification that could be made would be to refit the Class 57s with TDM (and possibly the carriages) and use DVTs to turn the sets push-pull.
You don't lose any train length as you wouldn't lead the City end Locomotive at Paddington any more, and you could replace the brake Mk3 with a regular one as luggage could be stored in the DVT.

67s have already been used with DVTs, IMO it would make sense to use the 67s in storage and fit them with the mods done for DVTs if they don't have it already than to try and install it on the 57s. Some of the 67s (ex Chiltern ones definatly) already have equipment for DVTs, not sure if they are the ones in storage.

 

[HSTEd]

67s have already been used with DVTs, IMO it would make sense to use the 67s in storage and fit them with the mods done for DVTs if they don't have it already than to try and install it on the 57s. Some of the 67s (ex Chiltern ones definatly) already have equipment for DVTs, not sure if they are the ones in storage.

My understanding is that the 67s cannot be easily used with the sleeper stock, as they are only fitted with AAR multiple working equippment that requires a large jumper cable running the length of the train, for which the DVTs have been specially fitted.
The traditional DVT control mechanism is via TDM on the RCH lighting control jumpers that are provided on all BR era hauled stock as a matter of course.
So work would be necessary on the 67s regardless, unless a far more extensive refurbishment of the hauled stock is undertaken at the same time.