Serco sleeper 73's

[plzmindethegap]

Dear users
I was wondering if anyone could help explain why Serco plans on using class 73's on there Caledonian Sleeper service for 2018 onward.
I have spent many hours on Wikipedia finding out about the class 73. My research showed me that these electro-diesel locomotives are normally used on thunderbird dutys with SWT and freight dutys with GBRF. I also found out that these locomotives are fitted with 600hp English Electric 4SRKT Mk II diesel engine giving a top speed of 90mph this is nothing compared to the EMD 12N-710G3B-EC engine used on the current loco power of the sleepers class 67 producing 2500hp which in turn provided the 67 with a top speed of 125mph*.

It just doesn't make sence?

If you can help expanded my understanding it would be much appreciated.

*Maneline certified speed (top speed reached in testing was 143mph)

 

[ainsworth74]

They're using re-engineered versions which contain, I believe, two Cummins QSK19s a new MTU engine which is the same engine found on 180s, 185s and 22xs so there will be plenty of power on tap. I'm not sure if they're having their top speed on diesel re-rated but even if they're not 90mph will be more than sufficient for running around the highlands with Sleeper services.

They are also the only diesels in the GBRf (who will be hauling the trains for Serco) fleet which have ETS.

 

[ac6000cw]

Have a read of this thread - http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=101969&page=2

(Basically, GBRf are having some of their 73's rebuilt with 1600hp MTU engines and new 3rd rail power control systems at Brush in Loughborough, to turn them into true 'dual-mode' Type 3 locomotives)

 

[Suraggu]

the RVEL/Network Rail fleet are having 2x Cummins QSK engines fitted, the GBRf 73's are having a single MTU engine of 1600hp fitted.

 

[swt_passenger]

Possibly worth adding to the above that the modified 73s would not be involved in the London to Scotland section of the route, they'd be hauling the portions following the split.

BTW Wiki is years out of date if it is still referring to SWT thunderbird duties...

 

[Tubeboy]

The new Railway magazine due out Wednesday states that class 92s will work the train under the wires then the 73/9s will take over the diesel legs.

 

[ainsworth74]

the RVEL/Network Rail fleet are having 2x Cummins QSK engines fitted, the GBRf 73's are having a single MTU engine of 1600hp fitted.

Yes I forgot about that

 

[Geezertronic]

I dount there would be any need to run sleepers above 90mph or they would either cause a more bumpy ride the higher the speed or arrive too early - so in that respect I doubt 125mph stock would be required

 

[BestWestern]

Why have we ended up with two completely different rebuild formats here? Presumably there was just the one initial idea of rebuilding some 73s, is there any particular reason the two firms want them done differently?

Will they be used on their own on the sleepers do we know, or running in pairs?

 

[Chris125]

The two different approaches are presumably down to cost; it seems the RVEL/NR examples are being much more comprehensively rebuilt than those for GBRf.

Chris

 

[bangor-toad]

Why have we ended up with two completely different rebuild formats here? Presumably there was just the one initial idea of rebuilding some 73s, is there any particular reason the two firms want them done differently?

There's a special permission granted for I think 23 MTU engines to be used as those engines don't meet some Euro specification. Any further conversions would need to use an alternative.
I think this is why there's a difference between the GBRF and NR versions.

Will they be used on their own on the sleepers do we know, or running in pairs?

The rebuilt 73's are meant to have 1600bhp available.
A really rough rule of thumb is you need 200 - 250 bhp per carriage so there's capacity to haul 8 carriages from a single loco. Since the sleeper routes within Scotland are hardly high speed, there's plenty of power from a single loco.

Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[andyb2706]

Dear users
I was wondering if anyone could help explain why Serco plans on using class 73's on there Caledonian Sleeper service for 2018 onward.

I was under the impression that 92's for London and Scotland and the 73's for the highlands will start next year when Serco take over the service and that it is the new coaching stock that will be delivered in 2018.

 

[bigdelboy]

Further from the 3rd rail down south it seems harder to get.

surely use of a 37 or a conversion of something else would be better .... ?

And aren't they moaning on the 442 thread of the EE546 (slight variant on those I assume) being clapped out. (Though those on the 73's have probably been thrashed less than those on REP's and WES's).

Perhaps someone noticed the bagpipes on the front and thought send them to Scotland!

 

[cj_1985]

Further from the 3rd rail down south it seems harder to get.

surely use of a 37 or a conversion of something else would be better .... ?

And aren't they moaning on the 442 thread of the EE546 (slight variant on those I assume) being clapped out. (Though those on the 73's have probably been thrashed less than those on REP's and WES's).

Perhaps someone noticed the bagpipes on the front and thought send them to Scotland!

Could have something to do with the 73s being a light (weight), go anywhere (size wise) loco.
IIRC the 73s being rebuilt at Loughborough, with the MTU lump, are actually lighter than a pre rebuild 73, and have had to have ballast added.

But it could also be something to do with the fact that GB already own its 73s outright, so no extra expense.

 

[BestWestern]

I agree it does seem an odd mission for 73s, and you would think something else might have been a more obvious choice. Clearly the management are confident of their beasties though!

 

[swt_passenger]

I agree it does seem an odd mission for 73s, and you would think something else might have been a more obvious choice. Clearly the management are confident of their beasties though!

They aren't really comparable with the original 73s now, so why should it be an 'odd mission'?

 

[bigdelboy]

They aren't really comparable with the original 73s now, so why should it be an 'odd mission'?

Because IMHO the primary/optimal mission of a 73 is to perform on DC then switch to diesel as required.

The unrebuilt 73's had perhaps a 'last mile' (okay perhaps a little more) capability in this regard, whereas the rebuilds have a 'last 100 mile ++' in this regards ...

However this 'odd' mission has no 'DC' element.

One would normally expect something else to be more optimal for that.

:::::::::::::::::::

Hmmm .... thinking of an ealier post on this thread Perhaps the 73's being bi-modal get away with a less pollution efficient rebuild diesel in this regards whereas a rebuild of anything else might not ... but then it's not really in the spirit of any such the concession to operate them away from DC all the time.

 

[CallySleeper]

(Basically, GBRf are having some of their 73's rebuilt with 1600hp MTU engines and new 3rd rail power control systems at Brush in Loughborough, to turn them into true 'dual-mode' Type 3 locomotives)

Forgive me for being dim but where's the need for 3rd rail? Surely if they wanted to dual mode then 25kv AC would be more appropriate?

E: I've just seen a picture of one, they look horrific. They're also about three times the age of a class 67.

 

[Wolfie]

Forgive me for being dim but where's the need for 3rd rail? Surely if they wanted to dual mode then 25kv AC would be more appropriate?

E: I've just seen a picture of one, they look horrific. They're also about three times the age of a class 67.

They have been dual mode (DC plus limited diesel) since the day they were built. An AC conversion would involve massive and probably uneconomic work.

 

[sprinterguy]

Forgive me for being dim but where's the need for 3rd rail? Surely if they wanted to dual mode then 25kv AC would be more appropriate?

Presumably because GBRf still retain their infrastructure contracts around the former Southern region that currently utilise 73s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They aren't really comparable with the original 73s now, so why should it be an 'odd mission'?

As bigdelboy says, they’re still going to be primarily third rail DC locomotives, that have a long association with the Southern region. There certainly isn’t a lot of call for third rail shoes in Scotland.

While I feel that one of these “new” class 73s is much more appropriately suited to hauling the lightweight Fort William sleeper over the West Highland line than a class 67, I do wonder what Serco and GBRf’s proposal is for the Inverness sleeper over the steeply graded Highland main line. Granted, the Inverness sleeper has shrunk considerably since privatisation, but in the past 25 years before the current class 67 operation the train was routinely worked by 47s or class 37s in pairs. Even with basic rules of thumb about horse power per carriage considered, I still wonder whether a single class 73 might struggle on the challenging grades.

 

[bigdelboy]

They have been dual mode (DC plus limited diesel) since the day they were built. An AC conversion would involve massive and probably uneconomic work.

The 73's have one half that is an electric end; and one half that is a diesel end. Therefore replacing the diesel end is perhaps logistically simpler and the diesel end already is designed to take a weight.

I suspect any current A/C class 86/87/90 has equipment including coolers throughout the body. And they Some of this would need to be moved/replaced and downsized and downweighted to make space for a diesel. That said newer replacement equipment might be smaller, lighter and require less cooling. It might also be possible to downsize the weight/space by reducing the power. To some extent I wonder if the RVEL conversion into the ultra 73 might have an A/C conversion in mind as a successor project.

 

[Wolfie]

The 73's have one half that is an electric end; and one half that is a diesel end. Therefore replacing the diesel end is perhaps logistically simpler and the diesel end already is designed to take a weight.

I suspect any current A/C class 86/87/90 has equipment including coolers throughout the body. And they Some of this would need to be moved/replaced and downsized and downweighted to make space for a diesel. That said newer replacement equipment might be smaller, lighter and require less cooling. It might also be possible to downsize the weight/space by reducing the power. To some extent I wonder if the RVEL conversion into the ultra 73 might have an A/C conversion in mind as a successor project.

Talk about my dad's old axe if you are correct (it's on it's third handle and second head but it's still his old favourite lol)

 

[bigdelboy]

I suppose a really outlandish idea would be to run the sleeper out of waterloo with the 73 dual heading to cover in case the 92 broke down or the wires were stuffed. at least if would naturally find its way back to it's 3rd rail home.

 

[matchmaker]

While I feel that one of these “new” class 73s is much more appropriately suited to hauling the lightweight Fort William sleeper over the West Highland line than a class 67, I do wonder what Serco and GBRf’s proposal is for the Inverness sleeper over the steeply graded Highland main line. Granted, the Inverness sleeper has shrunk considerably since privatisation, but in the past 25 years before the current class 67 operation the train was routinely worked by 47s or class 37s in pairs. Even with basic rules of thumb about horse power per carriage considered, I still wonder whether a single class 73 might struggle on the challenging grades.

I find this puzzling too - bearing in mind that an HST with a failed power car (and hence only 2250bhp) isn't allowed north of Blair Atholl without assistance.

 

[tsr]

I suppose a really outlandish idea would be to run the sleeper out of waterloo with the 73 dual heading to cover in case the 92 broke down or the wires were stuffed. at least if would naturally find its way back to it's 3rd rail home.

I don't mean to offend, but that does sound like a solution in need of a problem, except of course if Euston cannot be used for any lengthy period of time... and I seem to recall a discussion where it was stated that the sleeper would face difficulties running from Waterloo for a number of reasons (off the top of my head, I would expect these to include access/capacity from any sufficiently long platforms to/from the WLL, facilities to maintain the current sleeper stock, and route knowledge). Also, wouldn't you be looking at using an OHLE-capable loco from Edinburgh/Glasgow until the Wembley area, and then the 73, meaning you'd be dragging the 73 from Scotland (or not using it terribly efficiently!)?

 

[swt_passenger]

As bigdelboy says, they’re still going to be primarily third rail DC locomotives, that have a long association with the Southern region. There certainly isn’t a lot of call for third rail shoes in Scotland.

Perhaps the sleeper variants will have their shoe gear removed, or locked in the raised position and ignored for the duration - in which case they'll effectively just be small diesel locos.

 

[ffm]

They will be diesel locos, with 3rd rail capability, which will be as swt_passenger suggests - removed, or raised out of the way. Probably the former to give greater clearances. They would be basically the same power rating as a Class 37, so what's the point of all this discussion?

 

[87015]

They will be diesel locos, with 3rd rail capability, which will be as swt_passenger suggests - removed, or raised out of the way. Probably the former to give greater clearances. They would be basically the same power rating as a Class 37, so what's the point of all this discussion?

1600hp, minus ETH supply and what you've got is a lightweight Bo-Bo Type 2, not something for slogging load 7 or 8 over the Highland Line. EH 37s never worked the Inverness sleepers on a regular basis...

 

[DarloRich]

it is only load 5 or 6 i think these days on the inverness sleeper 1x brake 1x lounge 1x seats 3xslep

 

[Yabbadabba]

it is only load 5 or 6 i think these days on the inverness sleeper 1x brake 1x lounge 1x seats 3xslep

The highland sleeper loads 16 to and from Edinburgh on the main trunk bit of the journey from London then splits as thus, Inverness is loads 8, Aberdeen loads 6 and Fort William loads 4 (2 day coaches get added/taken off at Edinburgh for the West Highland bit.