FGW 57/6 (and DRS 57/3)s Unreliability

[37038]

312 would seem an odd choice, being "Solway Princess". Would Belmond have to give the nod for it to be used on the sleeper? Particularly as the service has become something of a magnet for poor publicity of late.

At least 57312 was repainted last September (I think), therefore it must be a byword for perfect reliability for DRS.

Ah but didn't 57310 go straight from repaint at Eastleigh to hire with FGW

Belmond don't have a say, DRS don't have to provide NB coloured locos but they've got another two brown and umber ones

 

[tjlrailblue]

Would it be worth re-engining a 57 or waste of money?

 

[37038]

Would it be worth re-engining a 57 or waste of money?

Not necessarily the engine that's been the problem in these incidents. For a small fleet it would be prohibitively expensive

Thanks

 

[455driver]

Not necessarily the engine that's been the problem in these incidents. For a small fleet it would be prohibitively expensive

Thanks

With 310 it's been the cooling system, or as it is more appropriately known, the sludge collecting system.

 

[CosherB]

Would it be worth re-engining a 57 or waste of money?

wasn't that the whole point of creating the Class 57?!

 

[Topgun333]

With 310 it's been the cooling system, or as it is more appropriately known, the sludge collecting system.

Are any of the DRS 57/3s suitable for sleeper duty?

 

[CosherB]

Are any of the DRS 57/3s suitable for sleeper duty?

a DRS 57/3 is almost identical to a FGW 57/6, so yes.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Are any of the DRS 57/3s suitable for sleeper duty?

Considering they've been used as such, yes. FGW would only hire locos that were suitable to work the stock. Were they in good shape, then they wouldn't be breaking down.

 

[fgwrich]

With 310 it's been the cooling system, or as it is more appropriately known, the sludge collecting system.

Unfortunately, with 310 I gather it's got more than just the coolant issues. Another engine should be waiting for it from EMD soon, hopefully 312 will now kick it off to Eastleigh. That said, 312 hasn't exactly had the best of loco History's as a 57/3 either, having spent most of it's time with Network Rail as a spare's donor after suffering from... Engine issues. So it'll be a case of watching and hoping this one is better than the last, but given 47790s rather sterling performances on the Northern Belle with the rather reliable 57305 on the other end, then i'll be watching this latest arrival with as much hope as the other two DRS hire ins.

 

[83G/84D]

57305 when it worked the sleepers last year seemed to work okay, that was a Network Rail yellow one.

 

[221129]

Believe 57312 is Allocated to 1C99 tonight.

 

[fgwrich]

Believe 57312 is Allocated to 1C99 tonight.

Thanks Ollie, that confirms it's here to stay now then.

57305 when it worked the sleepers last year seemed to work okay, that was a Network Rail yellow one.

I know, I'm led to believe that FGW are a little bit disappointed that 305 had to leave, as of all the hire in 57s it performed faultlessly throughout it's summer stay, even if it wasn't intended to end up on the summer LHCS drag. Meanwhile, 305 is now earning it's keep for DRS either on the Northern Belle with 790 usually on the other end or shifting Bombardier Electrostars around because of it's Dellnor Coupling - Surprisingly it seems to be the most reliable of the /3 fleet!

 

[Ash Bridge]

Does the Night Riviera have to be 57 worked these days, or if for example DRS offered a 47 such as 790 could it be used, or would driver knowledge be an issue now?

 

[221129]

Does the Night Riviera have to be 57 worked these days, or if for example DRS offered a 47 such as 790 could it be used, or would driver knowledge be an issue now?

I think driver knowledge has lapsed.

 

[PHILIPE]

I think driver knowledge has lapsed.

And the matter of compatability of electrical systems through the train.

 

[Ash Bridge]

I think driver knowledge has lapsed.

Ah I see, thanks.

 

[alexl92]

Also, I heard that FGW specifically wanted 57s rather than 47s.

 

[fgwrich]

And I'm led to believe that a Class 47 cannot be used on the Night Riviera as they have lapsed and since been removed from FGW's safety case.

 

[CosherB]

Also, I heard that FGW specifically wanted 57s rather than 47s.

i don't blame them! with DRS now retiring their 47 fleet, they're now not the first selection for front line duties. mind you, a 57 isn't exactly in the first flush of youth either!

 

[83G/84D]

And I'm led to believe that a Class 47 cannot be used on the Night Riviera as they have lapsed and since been removed from FGW's safety case.

FGW driver's do not sign 47's any more.

 

[455driver]

And the matter of compatability of electrical systems through the train.

What compatibility issues?
class 57s 1000v DC train supply
Class 47 1000V DC train supply!

class 47s have fallen off FGWs safety case, I can think of at least 5 drivers that could jump on a 47 and carry out all necessary duties to 'sign' the class 47s with immediate effect if they were allowed!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

i don't blame them! with DRS now retiring their 47 fleet, they're now not the first selection for front line duties. mind you, a 57 isn't exactly in the first flush of youth either!

They couldnt use them if they wanted to because they are not on FGWs safety case anymore! :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Believe 57312 is Allocated to 1C99 tonight.

To save all the veg losing any sleep tonight, 57312 is showing for 5C99/0C99, 57603 is allocated to 1C99!

All the veg can sleep in tomorrow!

For the sake of completeness 57303 is on 1A40!

 

[Topgun333]

Why don't FGW just hire in 67s that might be more reliable?

 

[221129]

Why don't FGW just hire in 67s that might be more reliable?

Drivers don't sign them.

 

[crewmeal]

Dare I say it perhaps the new 68's should be trialed or is that too much to expect given the 57's poor reliability.

 

[gazthomas]

Drivers don't sign them

 

[CosherB]

surely top-and-tailed by 57's should be ok going forward until FGW decide what to do in the long term with propulsion for the sleeper services. getting 67's would mean new negotiations with DBS and, as others have pointed out, training drivers etc. DRS might be able to offer 68's in the future but i think that would be a long way off. i have wondered if FGW have considered off-loading their 57/6's to DRS and lease all traction in from them ..... more blue-sky thinking!

 

[Rich McLean]

There is one driver based in Penzance that use to teach drivers 67s, so it could be done, but there are issues with ETH and load management on the sleepers (spikes), plus no one is sure on their ability over the banks with Load 8 (Fridays Only) + DIT Loco (when one breaks down or needs moving).

They have low tractive effort. Ok when up to speed, but try getting it going during leaf fall after being held at a signal on a bank.

It can be done, but would take a long time

 

[83G/84D]

There is also at least one FGW driver who recently moved to Penzance who signed 67's when based with DBS at St Blazey.

 

[richw]

Rather than people pointlessly adding nothing to the discussion continually repeating the drivers don't sign them etc, how about a solution....

How much time money and effort would it take to train sufficient drivers to sign a different class?

I don't imagine it's going to be worse impact to the company than the damage the appalling unreliability is doing to their reputation.

 

[CC 72100]

I don't disagree Rich, but you have to question whether there is a real desire to change and if so whether those that make the decisions want to put the money up to do so.

Maybe the long-term future of sleeper traction could be something that is included in the next franchise though...