Mark 3 Sleepers

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

Also note that 43014 (and 43123) had ETH cable boxes both ends and through wiring (the jumper socket is clearly visible on that shot on bottom right hand corner) which would have allowed the Class 91 to go on front of the power car and still send ETH down to the train if so desired- they gained this for the WCML DVT trials.

 

 

[Bomag]

4 hours ago, GordonC said:

 

Is that Leeds?

 

Yes, the old platform 6.  The tests used the sleepers as there were insufficient spare hst sets. Also they had not converted all the TGS. During the tests the HST was idle all the time as it only covered the PCs own auxiliaries. This was not ideal; from a discussion with another student who had a summer placement as a travelling hst fitter, once they connected the DVT to a full hst set it was doing a constant 900rpm for the ETH which was even worse. At some point they connected the traction system to the TDM and got the best part of 9000HP

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

22 minutes ago, Bomag said:

Yes, the old platform 6.  The tests used the sleepers as there were insufficient spare hst sets. Also they had not converted all the TGS. During the tests the HST was idle all the time as it only covered the PCs own auxiliaries. This was not ideal; from a discussion with another student who had a summer placement as a travelling hst fitter, once they connected the DVT to a full hst set it was doing a constant 900rpm for the ETH which was even worse. At some point they connected the traction system to the TDM and got the best part of 9000HP

8,730HP was the quoted figure. Also don't forget, they couldn't release Mk3 rakes for test trains as they were pretty much fully deployed on passenger service, so the surplus/spare sleepers did what they wanted them to do in that they provided a load for the Class 91 to play with and through wiring for the TDM control.

HST power car on fast idle is 1000rpm but it doesn't provide ETH to the train, can only send 415v three phase down HST trailers. Having the ETS running in that formation is still essential to keeps the power cars own batteries and auxiliaries alive- and ETS also powered the headlights in that era.

Edited February 18, 2020 by fiftyfour fiftyfour

[Bomag]

8 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

8,730HP was the quoted figure. Also don't forget, they couldn't release Mk3 rakes for test trains as they were pretty much fully deployed on passenger service, so the surplus/spare sleepers did what they wanted them to do in that they provided a load for the Class 91 to play with and through wiring for the TDM control.

HST power car on fast idle is 1000rpm but it doesn't provide ETH to the train, can only send 415v three phase down HST trailers. Having the ETS running in that formation is still essential to keeps the power cars own batteries and auxiliaries alive- and ETS also powered the headlights in that era.

 

A bit of invisible writing there, I didn't forget that they were short of HST sets as I clearly mentioned it. Also, as mentioned they were still converting the 8 TGS with buffers and drophead buckeye, the NL spare TGS 44100 was regularly seen deputising in sets while they were modified (44100 was still in B/G while the rest of the sets were in ICE or ICS). HSTs DVT did indeed need the engine running to power the TDM system. The information I was given was that if the power car was not supplying the 3 phase ETH to a set it would run at whatever the minimum fuel flow was set to (whether this was to both banks on the Valenta I am not certain). Once they subbed the sleepers with the HST coaches the DVTs never ran below the rpm needed to power the 3 phase ETH. Unlike where there was two PC and they would tend to switch which one was providing the ETH, never going to full idle was not conducive to various bits (explained to me as something related to the exhaust system and confirmed in the link) and going to the full 1500rpm cleaned the system out.

 

One thing which is not clear is what was the speed they tested using the MK 3 sleepers, from the link it is implied they ran at 125mph. In which case it may have been a bit lively! It was bad enough in the TGS southbound when in service.

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

All sorts of problems with leaving a HST power car on idle for long periods, especially so whilst dragging it around. Commutator glazing on the traction motors caused some failures when power was later applied was the initial "find" and then oil being carried over into the exhaust system resulted in a couple of fires was the final straw that resulted in the power cars powering in the Class 91/HST combo. The latter worked quite well as the power car was doing more than its fair share upon restarting the train whilst the Class 91 sat there and pondered the meaning of life for a while before putting down power, then when the Class 91 woke up it would accelerate the train up to full speed far quicker than any HST ever could have done!

 

I hadn't realised the ETS needed to be on to run the TDM system but I guess it must get its power from somewhere (so from that I'd assume a Mk3 DVT dies quickly if starved of ETH?) and running up the ETS would have been the only option even if trailing and the headlights were not required.

 

You'd like to think they stuck to 110mph with a SLE/SLEP in consist but you never know...!!

 

 

[keefer]

I thought the LH mk3s were 125mph max anyway, it's just that in normal running on the WCML they were restricted to 110mph (due to the locos used?)

Test trains are a slightly different matter as they are often authorised to run at speeds in excess of normal limits (for the track or stock).

One of the other factors involved with HSTs and DVTs is that the air brake is propogated from both ends at the same time - if there's a problem with this then the top speed is limited to 110 (I think)

[Bomag]

28 minutes ago, keefer said:

I thought the LH mk3s were 125mph max anyway, it's just that in normal running on the WCML they were restricted to 110mph (due to the locos used?)

Test trains are a slightly different matter as they are often authorised to run at speeds in excess of normal limits (for the track or stock).

One of the other factors involved with HSTs and DVTs is that the air brake is propogated from both ends at the same time - if there's a problem with this then the top speed is limited to 110 (I think)

 

There are two types of BT10, one rated to 125 mph and one to 110 mph. As explained to me this was identified as suspension settings etc, but in a previous post somebody mentioned that the frames are different. It is not clear if it is unsafe to run a 110 mph rated BT10 at 125 mph or just that the ride would not be acceptable for a passenger service. 

[ChrisH-UK]

And according to some Intercity (LMR) paperwork I got back in the 90s, that sleeper trains were not to be run above 80mph without authorisation. I can't find the paperwork in question but the implication was that this was for the comfort of sleeping car passengers. I wonder how late they had to be to get the authorisation.

 

Not really relevant to the test train being discussed, but interesting to know.

[keefer]

It was the same even with the mk 1 sleepers, they were fitted with CW/B5 bogies (100mph) but services were probably only timed for about 80mph max

[caradoc]

AFAIK sleeper trains were (and still are) timed to run at 80mph but authorised for 100mph if late; Not sure if any message (from Control) was required or if it was just left up to the Driver.

 

[nightstar.train]

On 19/02/2020 at 17:24, caradoc said:

AFAIK sleeper trains were (and still are) timed to run at 80mph but authorised for 100mph if late; Not sure if any message (from Control) was required or if it was just left up to the Driver.

 

 

Nowadays though they’re hauled by class 92, top speed is 87mph (140 km/h). 

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

Wasn't 1M16 booked to do 100mph from Crewe to Euston owing to pathing issues vs Class 390's?

 

[RLBH]

On 20/02/2020 at 21:55, nightstar.train said:

 

Nowadays though they’re hauled by class 92, top speed is 87mph (140 km/h). 

They may still be authorised to run at a speed they aren't physically capable of, mind you....

[Gwiwer]

On 19/02/2020 at 12:36, Bomag said:

 

There are two types of BT10, one rated to 125 mph and one to 110 mph. As explained to me this was identified as suspension settings etc, but in a previous post somebody mentioned that the frames are different. It is not clear if it is unsafe to run a 110 mph rated BT10 at 125 mph or just that the ride would not be acceptable for a passenger service. 

 

On 19/02/2020 at 13:41, ChrisH-UK said:

And according to some Intercity (LMR) paperwork I got back in the 90s, that sleeper trains were not to be run above 80mph without authorisation. I can't find the paperwork in question but the implication was that this was for the comfort of sleeping car passengers. I wonder how late they had to be to get the authorisation.

 

Not really relevant to the test train being discussed, but interesting to know.

 

The greater weight of sleeping cars would have an effect on ride quality in a vehicle where that is more important than normal.  The Mk3 is fundamentally a 125mph design.  Many vehicles were never authorised for more than 110mph and the sleepers AFAIK were restricted to 100mph.

 

With the demise of the Mk1 fleet in general and the modernisation of traction and permanent way to 90 - 100mph standards - and on key main lines 125mph - BR found themselves having to place limits on overnight speed which were not necessary before.  There was (and is ) no need to race to the far end of the line at maximum speed when a decent night's sleep is the selling point.  80mph was considered fast enough and the overnight trains operated under this blanket speed restriction quite happily.  Control would have to authorise a higher speed IIRC but quite how that was communicated to the crew before cab radio I don't know.  Was there indeed a measure of driver discretion or were they advised at one of the few intermediate stops?

 

There is also a good deal of slack built into the overnight schedules especially the Down GWR Night Riviera.  That pauses for an hour at Exeter and half an hour at Plymouth to give an overall journey time of eight hours when the daytime trains take just over five.  The Up working is a little faster and often pulls into Paddington well before its advertised time.  There is more than ample time for the shunt loco to be attached (up) and detached (down) at Reading.  

 

Even at 80mph there are places where one can feel uncomfortable and have a sensation of sliding along the bed as the train takes a bend.  I know that from the Cumbrian hills, the Highland main line and the West of England line pretty much anywhere west of Newton Abbot.  

 

 

[45125]

On 26/01/2020 at 18:22, keefer said:

It'll either be a SIG (as fitted to mk4) or a BREL T4 (as fitted to mk3 DVT)

 

EDIT: It's neither, it's a BREL BT7 development bogie. It did get BT41 'SIG' bogies but not the T4

http://www.traintesting.com/M12140_Mk3_coach.htm

The SIG bogies are okay after a few mods. When tested on the mk3 it rode very well, however when fitted under the mk4s the ride initially was poor.Some one forgot how much the gangways on the mk3s stiffens up the vehicle, whereas on a mk4 no stiffness comes from the gangways. 

 

[45125]

27 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

 

 

The greater weight of sleeping cars would have an effect on ride quality in a vehicle where that is more important than normal.  The Mk3 is fundamentally a 125mph design.  Many vehicles were never authorised for more than 110mph and the sleepers AFAIK were restricted to 100mph.

 

With the demise of the Mk1 fleet in general and the modernisation of traction and permanent way to 90 - 100mph standards - and on key main lines 125mph - BR found themselves having to place limits on overnight speed which were not necessary before.  There was (and is ) no need to race to the far end of the line at maximum speed when a decent night's sleep is the selling point.  80mph was considered fast enough and the overnight trains operated under this blanket speed restriction quite happily.  Control would have to authorise a higher speed IIRC but quite how that was communicated to the crew before cab radio I don't know.  Was there indeed a measure of driver discretion or were they advised at one of the few intermediate stops?

 

There is also a good deal of slack built into the overnight schedules especially the Down GWR Night Riviera.  That pauses for an hour at Exeter and half an hour at Plymouth to give an overall journey time of eight hours when the daytime trains take just over five.  The Up working is a little faster and often pulls into Paddington well before its advertised time.  There is more than ample time for the shunt loco to be attached (up) and detached (down) at Reading.  

 

Even at 80mph there are places where one can feel uncomfortable and have a sensation of sliding along the bed as the train takes a bend.  I know that from the Cumbrian hills, the Highland main line and the West of England line pretty much anywhere west of Newton Abbot.  

 

 

BT10A and BT10B, the A variant has the Panhard rod bracket bolted on, whereas the B Panhard rod bracket is a casting welded in to the bogie frame, the bolted version allegedly use to come loose at higher speeds so ended up with the 110mph restriction.

 

[caradoc]

11 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

There is also a good deal of slack built into the overnight schedules especially the Down GWR Night Riviera.  That pauses for an hour at Exeter and half an hour at Plymouth to give an overall journey time of eight hours when the daytime trains take just over five.  The Up working is a little faster and often pulls into Paddington well before its advertised time.  There is more than ample time for the shunt loco to be attached (up) and detached (down) at Reading. 

 

 

Last year I took the Lowlander from Scotland to London twice, once for a final ride on the old stock and then for a first ride on the new. On both occasions the train arrived at Euston 40 minutes early ! There is time in the schedule for such things as Single Line Working, diversion via Northampton, etc.

[50002Superb]

Hi everyone,

I have been trawling the internet to try and better understand the sleeper diagrams and consists into Glasgow Queen Street in the late 80s and wonder if anyone can help shed some light on this?

It appears to me that there were the following scheduled to stop at GQS:

1. The 9pm London Euston to Fort William, via Mossend. It appears to me that this was electric hauled to Mossend at which point the electric was removed to be replaced top and tailed by two 37/4s into GQS. At GQS the sleeper was attached to three Mark 1 "day" coaches and the rear 37/4 was removed with the new portion travelling on to Fort Bill, departing GQS at 5.40am;
2. The ?pm Fort William to London Euston called at GQS at ??pm headed by a 37/4. The now front of the train at GQS would then have a 37/4 attached presumably sent from Eastfield to take it on to Mossend (with three Mk1 day coaches remaining with the rear 37/4 at Queen Street to take them ECS to Cowlairs) at which point it would be replaced by an electric and the sleeper coaches from the Inverness overnight would be added to combine two trains into one;
3. The ??m Glasgow Queen Street to Stirling comprising two sleeper coaches, one Mk2 and a BSO and meet the other half of the Euston sleeper at Stirling (or is it Perthz?) and continue on to Inverness.

Firstly have I got the workings correct? I am focussing on the 88 to 89 period.

Secondly do I have the motive power correct? I understand that the Mossend to GQS had to be top and tailed due to the absent curve and the ease of shunting the Mk1 stock?

Thirdly what would the three rakes of stock ordinarily consist of on their arrival / departure into GQS?

Fourthly why am I researching this at home past midnight?

On question one I attach the following photos in support of my understanding:

Picture of GQS to FW in 1989 headed by 37/4 with two sleeper coaches a Mk2, BSO and one visible Mk1 https://flic.kr/p/dsMj3C

A similar photo confirming 37/4, two sleeper coaches and BSO https://flic.kr/p/QEdMEJ

May 1988 with my understanding (Ernies Railway Archive - unable to attach Flickr link)

On Question 2 here is a 37/4 at FW in 1989 at head of sleeper coach https://flic.kr/p/2bTcD65

Also a 37/4 leaving FW to GQS with two sleeper coaches, two Mk2s, a BSO and 2 Mk1s (David Christie - unable to attach a Flickr link)

And another 37/4 at GQS from FW in 1987 with one sleeper coach evident https://flic.kr/p/2bfUfCQ

On Question 3 the sleeper post Stirling with all rakes attached (John Dedman - unable to attach Flickr link)

However same scenario can be found here in March 1989 https://flic.kr/p/Wwy5od

[Flood]

3 hours ago, 50002Superb said:

Hi everyone,

I have been trawling the internet to try and better understand the sleeper diagrams and consists into Glasgow Queen Street in the late 80s and wonder if anyone can help shed some light on this?

It appears to me that there were the following scheduled to stop at GQS:

1. The 9pm London Euston to Fort William, via Mossend. It appears to me that this was electric hauled to Mossend at which point the electric was removed to be replaced top and tailed by two a 37/4s which ran round at Stirling to go into GQS. At GQS the sleeper was attached to three two Mark 1 "day" coaches and the original 37/4 was removed with the new portion travelling on to Fort Bill with a different 37/4, departing GQS at 05.50;
2. The 18.10 Fort William to London Euston called at GQS at 22.28 headed by a 37/4. The now front of the train at GQS would then have a 37/4 attached presumably sent from Eastfield to take it on to Mossend (with three two Mk1 day coaches remaining with the rear 37/4 at Queen Street to take them ECS to Cowlairs) at which point it would be replaced by an electric and the sleeper coaches from the Inverness overnight would be added to combine two trains into one;
3. The 23.30 Glasgow Queen Street to Stirling comprising two sleeper coaches, one two Mk2a TSO and a BSO and meet the other half of the Euston sleeper train from Edinburgh at Stirling (or is it Perthz?) and continue on to Inverness. Only one sleeper coach went to Inverness from Glasgow the other was detached at Perth to be added to the 01.10 push-pull from Perth to Aberdeen.

Firstly have I got the workings correct? I am focusing on the 88 to 89 period. Reasonably.

Secondly do I have the motive power correct? I understand that the Mossend to GQS had to be top and tailed due to the absent curve and the ease of shunting the Mk1 stock? No need for top and tail, see above.

Thirdly what would the three rakes of stock ordinarily consist of on their arrival / departure into GQS?
Fort William Sleeper dept/arr: (buffer stops end) BSOT, TSO, BSO, SO, SLE, SLEP (BSOT, TSO are Mk1 and attached/detached at GQS. BSO and SO are Mk2 air-con, the SO is a declassified first open)

Inverness Sleeper dept: (buffer stops end) BG, BG, BSO, TSO, TSO, SLEP, SLEP (one less SLEP on the return)

Fourthly why am I researching this at home past midnight? Not past midnight in the UK!

Please note that the above is based on the 1989 Working Timetable and was pretty much the same back to 1985 (possibly earlier).

Note that this photo:

is the 22.15 Euston - Inverness which was the Royal Highlander and a completely separate train to that which went to Fort William. Before May 1988 the other portion of the Fort William Sleeper went to Inverness, from May 1988 it went to Aberdeen. The 22.15 ran to Inverness throughout and didn't split.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Flood

[Bomag]

On all occasions I used the FW sleeper in the 80's the sleepers were at the front (north end going north, south end going south).

Going north I was never awake but I took it that the 37 propelled the sleepers down Cowlairs bank and coupled up to the domestic Scotrail stock (one dual braked BSOT and TSO - Polmadie had a couple of each in 1988).

Going southbound the Queen street loco (often 37011) would shunt realease the train back to Eastfield where the Euston coaches would be uncoupled and on to Mossend.

 

Edit given floods post it may be that it may have varied if the train was late. I cannot ever remember going via Sterling in the mid 80's but I do remember often being very late.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Bomag

[Flood]

1 minute ago, Bomag said:

On all occasions I used the FW sleeper in the 80's the sleepers were at the front (north end going north, south end going south).

Going north I was never awake but I took it that the 37 propelled the sleepers down Cowlairs bank and coupled up to the domestic Scotrail stock (one dual braked BSOT and TSO - Polmadie had a couple of each in 1988).

Going southbound the Queen street loco (often 37011) would shunt realease the train back to Eastfield where the Euston coaches would be uncoupled and on to Mossend.

No need to propel down the bank, the train reversed at Stirling.

[caradoc]

For a period the Fort William portion ran from Mossend to Eastfield Down Passenger Loop where another loco was attached to haul the train down to Queen St; Propelling for such a distance would not have been permitted !

 

[GordonC]

25 minutes ago, caradoc said:

For a period the Fort William portion ran from Mossend to Eastfield Down Passenger Loop where another loco was attached to haul the train down to Queen St; Propelling for such a distance would not have been permitted !

 

 

Would propelling through the tunnel into Queen Street station ever have been permitted? (push-pulls excepted since they have the driver at the front anyway). Would even walkie-talkies now be reliable within the tunnel?

[johnofwessex]

I was travelling from Glassgow to Carlisle over 'The Long Route' in 1979(?)

 

I got talking to some young Germans with Inter Rail tickets

 

They had been camping in Ramsgate but it had rained and their tent was soaked so they went to London the following evening wit a view to sleeping on an overnight train.

 

They went to Paddington - not the best choice IMHO then made the mother of all bad choices - the Milford Haven sleeper!

 

Anyway they spread their stuff out on the station approach at Milford Haven and started cooking breakfast, at which point someone took pity on them and incited them in.

 

 

[caradoc]

6 hours ago, GordonC said:

 

Would propelling through the tunnel into Queen Street station ever have been permitted? (push-pulls excepted since they have the driver at the front anyway). Would even walkie-talkies now be reliable within the tunnel?

 

Not totally sure but I would doubt it, given the distance, the gradient and the tunnel.