CAF to build new LHCS for Caledonian Sleeper

[The Stationmaster]

Would they be able to discharge the 'grey' water from the showers/basins on to the track? I can't think why they wouldn't be able too. I would suggest that the 'grey' water be used for toilet-flushing, but am all too aware of the problems this can cause- mainly the toillets locking out because of supply problems.

I think all forms of discharge onto the track are not liked nowadays for 'H&S' reasons.  What we don't know is how the plumbing will work - the toilets might well have a  recirculating system for the flush water like Eurostar which would make a  lot of sense in saving 'download' time on daily turnrounds or equally the grey water might be used to top up the toilet flushing water tankage/  Whichever, or whatever, it turns out to be there's no doubt in my mind that the plumbing will be complex with the need in some vehicles to supply a lot of hotwater for showers and cope with a lot of wastewater as well.

 

An achilles heel of the ENS stock was the water heating/hotel electrical load (about which there is some total rubbish on the 'net) and the plumbing system which was mainly fine bore and which was found in the Vienna climate testing to be the only thing which was susceptible to problems arising from very low temperatures.  The main problem with hotel load is that it all tends to come at once as passengers take a shower etc in the morning prior to arrival; that shouldn't present any difficulties for a Class 92 running on 25kv ohle but I still have my reservations about c.1,700hp of a single Class 73/9 trying to do that and tackle gradients on the West Highland line although that is obviously very much dependent on the size of the train and its make-up.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Yes - we don't know yet that the new vehicles will have 5 different *bodyshells* - just that they are 5 different vehicles.

 

 

But with four different types of sleeping accommodation, it will be a neat trick if they can use only one bodyshell. Not that windows are such a priority on a night train.

[Ron Ron Ron]

.....there's no doubt in my mind that the plumbing will be complex with the need in some vehicles to supply a lot of hotwater for showers and cope with a lot of wastewater as well.

 

An achilles heel of the ENS stock was the water heating/hotel electrical load (about which there is some total rubbish on the 'net) and the plumbing system.....

 

I agree that the electrical load and plumbing requirements will probably be rather taxing, it would also be fair to say that the technology that will probably be used in this area has come a long way from when the ENS stock was designed, 30 years ago.

I'm only guessing, but I would have thought that less complex and more cost effective solutions can be found today.

 

Crikey, they've even put luxury showers in the A380, where weight and fuel saving is paramount to the operating economics.

This was only possible because of modern technology.

 

At the moment it's all pure speculation and there's no point poo pooing something until we can see what they produce.

Equally there's no point placing too much credence on what was done 30 years ago.

 

 

.

 

.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Ron Ron Ron

[Glorious NSE]

But with four different types of sleeping accommodation, it will be a neat trick if they can use only one bodyshell. Not that windows are such a priority on a night train.

Given we have 3 types with one standard shell already, and at least one could seemingly use a day coach shell if needed, it wouldn't be that ground breaking surely. 

 

(Just as a for-instance - do you know they haven't just been designed as a day coach, with blanks panels inserted where full windows aren't needed for example?)

 

Anyhow - I still think you're coming at this from the wrong direction. The expensive bits of this project aren't likely to be connected to a metal tube that may or may not have holes for windows in certain places.

 

...there's no point poo pooing something until we can see what they produce....

 

As plumbing related comments go...

[mjkerr]

Update from Serco :

 

There are going to be four different coach designs

The first is very similar to a Mark 3B BFO / Mark 3 TGS
This will include the Train Manager area and Lie Flat beds
There will be one such coach per consist

The second is similar to a Mark 3 seating coach
The will include the cradle seats
There will be one such coach per consist

 

The third is similar to the Mark 3 TCC
This will include the staff area, Club Car, and storage area
There will be one such coach per consist

The fourth is similar to the Mark 3A SLEP
This will allow the three remaining different accomodation types

There will be five such coaches per consist

This leaves the Fort William portion which will normally contain two coaches of the fourth type
Three coaches will then be used between Edinburgh and Fort William
Caledonian Sleeper will not be carring passengers within Scotland, passengers change at Edinburgh and Glasgow QS only

Passengers in cradle seats and Lie Flat Beds will be served from the counter
Passengers in berths and First Class ticket holders (reserved in Lie Flat bed) will have access to the Club Car
 

Proposed ticket arrangements from 2018 (subject to change) :
Passengers with Standard tickets may make reservations for the cradle seats
Passengers may pay supplements for Lie Flat Bed, shared or single berth

Passengers with First Class tickets may make reservations for the Lie Flat Bed
Passengers may pay supplements for single berth
Breakfast is included

Edited February 16, 2015 by mjkerr

[Glorious NSE]

Presumably though all slightly shorter than Mk3s?

['CHARD]

Presumably though all slightly shorter than Mk3s?

 

I know the answer to this (or should I say the correct answer and why you're asking).  So I shall let others pick over the question, and the answer's possible repercussions.

Edited February 16, 2015 by 'CHARD

[mjkerr]

Presumably though all slightly shorter than Mk3s?

I did ask for the coach specifications and configurations, but so far that is all they have provided

I have therefore sent some follow up questions

 

However, given all the coaches appear to be based on the current Mark 3 coaches, it looks like they are all going to be the same length

This does present a small issue at Euston, but as I understand all departures will be from one specific platform

 

As an aside, GBRF now have the sector codes for their Class 92 locos

GBSL Caledonian Sleepers

GBST Caledonian Sleepers / Channel Tunnel

This confirms that one Class 92 loco will remain spare at Mossend and Wembley

[The Stationmaster]

I agree that the electrical load and plumbing requirements will probably be rather taxing, it would also be fair to say that the technology that will probably be used in this area has come a long way from when the ENS stock was designed, 30 years ago.

I'm only guessing, but I would have thought that less complex and more cost effective solutions can be found today.

 

Crikey, they've even put luxury showers in the A380, where weight and fuel saving is paramount to the operating economics.

This was only possible because of modern technology.

 

At the moment it's all pure speculation and there's no point poo pooing something until we can see what they produce.

Equally there's no point placing too much credence on what was done 30 years ago.

 

 

.

 

.

Alas Ron I doubt if Newton's laws of Physics can be changed.  Advances in electrical equipment will no doubt allow reductions in loads for some purposes but even efficient water heaters will still consume electricity.  As a matter of fact the ENS coaches - or certainly a large part of their electrical fit - wasn't designed 30 years ago but just over 20 years ago in the early half of the 1990s while at least one item was designed in 1994/5 (albeit a safety related item).

 

And I'm not poo-pooing anything - merely drawing attention to the fact that vehicles with significant hotel loads ca consume a lot of power and, notwithstanding advances in design, sometimes things can turn out to be not exactly what vehicle specifiers expected (as happened with ENS stock in certain respects where the electrical load would have turned out to be quite a problem on most dc electrified sections of railway but particularly so on 3rd rail - which of course doesn't apply here). And as I said - it all depends on the formation over the West Highland Line.

 

As for vehicle lengths are they all going to be the same length or will there be some shorter vehicles to allow what looks like being an 18 coach formation? (still) to fit certain stations or is somebody already chatting to the S&T engineers?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Interesting that they are starting from a base of Mk3 coaches. So they have cut one design corner in that they have all the structural info. That should save costs.

 

I think that two vestibules are really unnecessary on a sleeping car. They could gain a bit of space there.

 

Only being able to use one platform at Euston is a bit daring. What will happen during the HS2 rebuild?

[pete_mcfarlane]

However, given all the coaches appear to be based on the current Mark 3 coaches, it looks like they are all going to be the same length

I'm wondering how similar these are going to be to the stock that CAF have produced for IE.

[Reorte]

The fourth is similar to the Mark 3A SLEP

This will allow the three remaining different accomodation types

There will be five such coaches per consist

 

This leaves the Fort William portion which will normally contain two coaches of the fourth type

Three coaches will then be used between Edinburgh and Fort William

If the Fort William portion is losing a coach what's going? Seated obviously, but does that mean only the berths and the lounge car, and no recliners or pods? The en-suite facilities will have to take up more space than a current first class berth so this looks like quite a drop in the amount (and choice) of accommodation for Fort William. Perhaps it's not full often enough anyway so that's not a problem (although I've failed to book tickets for it in the past presumably because it was full).

 

AFAIK the seated coach on the Fort William portion has come and gone seemingly at random for years anyway.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Reorte

[Talltim]

I'm wondering how similar these are going to be to the stock that CAF have produced for IE.

4116 at Heuston, 5/2/15 by hurricanemk1c, on Flickr

[mjkerr]

As for vehicle lengths are they all going to be the same length or will there be some shorter vehicles to allow what looks like being an 18 coach formation? (still) to fit certain stations or is somebody already chatting to the S&T engineers?

er, see post #130, the number of coaches per consist is remaining the same at 8, total train length departing Euston and Scotland (Carstairs and Edinburgh) remains at 16

[mjkerr]

If the Fort William portion is losing a coach what's going? Seated obviously, but does that mean only the berths and the lounge car, and no recliners or pods? The en-suite facilities will have to take up more space than a current first class berth so this looks like quite a drop in the amount (and choice) of accommodation for Fort William. Perhaps it's not full often enough anyway so that's not a problem (although I've failed to book tickets for it in the past presumably because it was full).

 

AFAIK the seated coach on the Fort William portion has come and gone seemingly at random for years anyway.

The Fort William is not losing one coach, it is effectively gaining one coach

 

At present (April to September) :

two sleepers northbound Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Sunday

three sleepers northbound Friday (removed from Aberdeen portion)

two sleepers southbound Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday

three sleepers southbound Sunday (removed from Aberdeen portion)

RLB / RFB and BUO between Edinburgh and Fort Wiliam

 

Proposed change :

Increase the portion between Edinburgh and Fort William from two to three coaches

 

The compromise is the Aberdeen portion is shortened on Friday / Sunday

Edited February 16, 2015 by mjkerr

[Reorte]

Ah right, got the wrong end of the stick then, thought it meant that the entire bit going to Fort William was three, rather than three added to the through coaches. Nice for something to turn out to be better than I thought for once

[mjkerr]

Ah right, got the wrong end of the stick then, thought it meant that the entire bit going to Fort William was three, rather than three added to the through coaches. Nice for something to turn out to be better than I thought for once

Not sure this is an improvement, but it will be for the sleeper passengers (no longer being disturbed between Edinburgh and Fort William, other than to transfer between trains at Edinburgh)

 

ScotRail will be operating an additional local service, ironically suggests it may operate to/from Edinburgh, and by 2018 they will have additional Class 156 / 158 units to cover this

[Purley Oaks]

Not sure this is an improvement, but it will be for the sleeper passengers (no longer being disturbed between Edinburgh and Fort William, other than to transfer between trains at Edinburgh)

 

ScotRail will be operating an additional local service, ironically suggests it may operate to/from Edinburgh, and by 2018 they will have additional Class 156 / 158 units to cover this

Back in March 2011 able to board the Fort William sleeper at Edinburgh at around 4.30am (arr. 9.30-ish), climb Ben Nevis, and take the southbound sleeper back to Edinburgh, arriving approx 1am. A long day but well worth it.

We were in the seated portion but another passenger got into a sleeper compartment at Edinburgh for the trip to Fort William.

Mal

Edited February 16, 2015 by Purley Oaks

['CHARD]

Interesting that they are starting from a base of Mk3 coaches. So they have cut one design corner in that they have all the structural info. That should save costs.

 

I think that two vestibules are really unnecessary on a sleeping car. They could gain a bit of space there.

 

Only being able to use one platform at Euston is a bit daring. What will happen during the HS2 rebuild?

 

Where was it mentioned that they are building more Mk3 coaches?

[mjkerr]

Where was it mentioned that they are building more Mk3 coaches?

I sent a request to Serco for the rolling stock specification

I have also been advised technical diagrams  will follow in a few weeks time, some minor details are still being finalised

I've had to send up a follow up request, which confirms I would be interested in these technical diagrams

These technical diagrams will then confirm the coach lengths and passenger capacity

 

I suspect they mean Mark 3, as the new rolling stock will be closer to that than the existing Mark 2 coaches, rather than Mark 4 which also confirms each coach will have buffers allowing them to be marshalled in any order if required

['CHARD]

I think we could expect 23 metre coaches with conventional drawgear and faceplate gangways for splitting and reforming, that will operate withing the C3 loading gauge.  But I think that's where the commonality with Mk3s will end.  I will eat Phil Bullock's hat, filled with Marmite, if CAF build Mk3 bodyshells.

[Glorious NSE]

Interesting that they are starting from a base of Mk3 coaches. So they have cut one design corner in that they have all the structural info. That should save costs.

I read that as 'like' meaning 'in the style of' rather than 'we found a blueprint from the 1970s...'

[Reorte]

Not sure this is an improvement, but it will be for the sleeper passengers (no longer being disturbed between Edinburgh and Fort William, other than to transfer between trains at Edinburgh)

 

ScotRail will be operating an additional local service, ironically suggests it may operate to/from Edinburgh, and by 2018 they will have additional Class 156 / 158 units to cover this

I'm getting totally confused now (perhaps I should re-read the thread). It'll be a change at Edinburgh now? That's much worse.

[roger440]

Alas Ron I doubt if Newton's laws of Physics can be changed.  Advances in electrical equipment will no doubt allow reductions in loads for some purposes but even efficient water heaters will still consume electricity.  As a matter of fact the ENS coaches - or certainly a large part of their electrical fit - wasn't designed 30 years ago but just over 20 years ago in the early half of the 1990s while at least one item was designed in 1994/5 (albeit a safety related item).

 

And I'm not poo-pooing anything - merely drawing attention to the fact that vehicles with significant hotel loads ca consume a lot of power and, notwithstanding advances in design, sometimes things can turn out to be not exactly what vehicle specifiers expected (as happened with ENS stock in certain respects where the electrical load would have turned out to be quite a problem on most dc electrified sections of railway but particularly so on 3rd rail - which of course doesn't apply here). And as I said - it all depends on the formation over the West Highland Line.

 

As for vehicle lengths are they all going to be the same length or will there be some shorter vehicles to allow what looks like being an 18 coach formation? (still) to fit certain stations or is somebody already chatting to the S&T engineers?

Is it actually confirmed that the hotel power will be provided by the loco?.Id be surprised.

 

I would have thought that some form of on board power would be built in somewhere. Means you are not dependant on having a loco attached all the time. Chiltern have done that with the DVT's.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Where was it mentioned that they are building more Mk3 coaches?

 

Post #133