hexagon789
Veteran Member
Indeed, they remain capable of 750V dc operation and can still multi with unaltered 73s.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Does anyone know why the Caledonian sleeper trains are pulled by a 66 now and not a 73?
- Thread starter 350yes
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 7,908
So could they pair up a 'normal' 73/9 with a CS 73/9 on the sleeper?
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 18,892
Yes, they could. Although the five “Southern” 73/9s are dedicated to NR work.
hexagon789
Veteran Member
What's a normal 73/9?
All 73/9s are the re-engined examples, the only thing that differs is the engine(s) used.
Do you mean a 73/1, as in those which remain primarily electric with only the small 600bhp EE engine?
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 18,892
I assume it means 73961-965, ie the Southern based GBRf rebuilds.
Probably one of the GBRf painted ones (Yes they can) rather than the Network Rail “Minion” twins. And yes, I believe they can still work with their original 73 classmates.
hexagon789
Veteran Member
All 73s can still multi, yes. I just didn't understand "normal" in the context of a 73/9.
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 7,908
Thanks. So in theory they could do this to increase the loco pool and avoid the use of 66s.
No, the 'standard' 73s don't have enough power, 73961-965 have other committed work, are not set up the same, and so aren't really any better than using a 66. The relevant drivers may not the other types of 73.
hexagon789
Veteran Member
Unlikely, the unmodified 73s add only 420hp at the rail for 77.5 tonnes of loco.
A 66 meanwhile produces 2,480hp at rail continuously for 126 tonnes of loco...
hexagon789
Veteran Member
Class15
Established Member
Egypt?Except Egypt...
(And Ireland, if you accept cab design differences)
hexagon789
Veteran Member
Yes, ENR has forty EMD Series 66, known locally as Class 2124 under the Egyptian numbering system.
They are used on passenger trains there, they were ordered for that purpose.
Class15
Established Member
Ha ha ha!
Thank you! Never new that!
might still have their shoes, in store someplace, but they are not fitted on the bogies.
https://flic.kr/p/2no354Q
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And GabonExcept Egypt...
(And Ireland, if you accept cab design differences)
Gabon railway concession extended as investors fund expansion
GABON: Sociéte d’Exploitation du Transgabonais’ concession to operate the 650 km railway linking Franceville with the capital Libreville and the port of Owendo has been extended, and a new investor has committed to providing finance and expertise to support a modernisation to increase capacity...
Last edited:
JohnMcL7
Member
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2018
- Messages
- 1,056
The Royal Scotsman is another 66 hauled passenger service but you'll need very deep pockets for that.
might still have their shoes, in store someplace, but they are not fitted on the bogies.
https://flic.kr/p/2no354Q
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And Gabon
Gabon railway concession extended as investors fund expansion
GABON: Sociéte d’Exploitation du Transgabonais’ concession to operate the 650 km railway linking Franceville with the capital Libreville and the port of Owendo has been extended, and a new investor has committed to providing finance and expertise to support a modernisation to increase capacity...www.railwaygazette.com
They use to but must have been removed at some point. Been a while since I last saw one up close
ac6000cw
Established Member
The bogies are different on the 201s as well.
By "timetabled" I mean non-charter.
gg1
Established Member
Was there any reason why a small number off 66s couldn't have been ETH fitted for hauling sleeper services? It would surely have been much cheaper than the 73/9 conversions.
Spaceship323
Member
But then they would have had to order new class 66's to replace those planned to be used on the sleeper services, at the time class 73\9 really were the cheapest option.
I believe it is likely down to how packed the 66 is inside - they already needed to get rid of the dynamic braking from the SD40-2, so ETS would have been unlikely to make the cut. Plus, wouldn't that just be a 67 anyway?
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 6,051
Well, an ETH class 66 would have two more axles than a 67, which should improve the route availability.
I think the problem with dynamics is not just the space the equipment itself takes up, but the heat it generates. Watching American locos running downgrade at night, you can routinely see the resistor grids glowing red hot.
In his book on "The Yeoman 59s", G Freeman Allen says "... the 59s were originally specified with regenerative braking: but the big roof-mounted fans and other apparatus demanded by dynamic braking were squeezed out by the bulk of the silencer, much larger than the US norm, which was required to observe the BR figures" [for external and internal noise levels]. Which implies that roof space rather than interior space might have been the main issue.
Of course only EMD will know (if anyone does) whether an ETH 66 would have been feasible
.
ac6000cw
Established Member
Given that a 67 is about 1.7m shorter than a 66, has the same diesel engine and probably a similar sized alternator, I suspect that if you really wanted to add ETS to a 66 (using a static invertor plus maybe different alternator) you probably could.
But I assume from a GBRf point-of-view, the 66s are a very valuable asset for hauling freight (which they can't buy more of, hence the recent - and probably quite expensive - total rebuilds of cl. 56's into cl. 69's). I suspect anyway they might not have wanted to create a dedicated, ETS-equipped, small fleet of 66s for a relatively low-utilisation operation like the sleepers.
Off-the-wall-thought, but if you wanted to replace the 73/9s with something else, equipping some 69s with ETS during their rebuilding might almost make more sense...(a 56 is 125t and 80mph, so slightly lighter and faster than a 66)
But I assume from a GBRf point-of-view, the 66s are a very valuable asset for hauling freight (which they can't buy more of, hence the recent - and probably quite expensive - total rebuilds of cl. 56's into cl. 69's). I suspect anyway they might not have wanted to create a dedicated, ETS-equipped, small fleet of 66s for a relatively low-utilisation operation like the sleepers.
Off-the-wall-thought, but if you wanted to replace the 73/9s with something else, equipping some 69s with ETS during their rebuilding might almost make more sense...(a 56 is 125t and 80mph, so slightly lighter and faster than a 66)
...or use the 67s they have just acquired.
ac6000cw
Established Member
But I thought there are only two of those (ex-Colas)?
Is the problem with the 73/9s the train-hauling performance (wheelslip problems etc.), reliability or both?
There are only two 67s but a single 73/9 generally copes fine with the Aberdeen trip.
However, it still isn't clear / in the public domain what the plan is.
Speed43125
Member
The FW portion was sped up as the Speed restrictions on various weak bridges were lifted when using the lighter 73s. I'd be surprised if the 67s went up that away again unless in a pinch.
- Status