Caledonian Sleepers

[nightstar.train]

Returned to Wabtec at Loughborough, surely?

You know I typed Wabtec, then sat thinking, erased it and wrote RVEL. Did RVEL do the other variety of 73/9? Otherwise I don't know why I got confused. Memory not what it was.

[Davexoc]

The problem in doing that is you then rule the 92s out of being available for GBRF if freight traffic through the Channel tunnel picks up - which is the whole reason much of the equipment is duplicated in the first place! Rebuilding would also be a very expensive process - its far cheaper and effective to order new traction outright (with all the benefits of enhanced manufacturer support you tend to get these days) if you want such a radical change - and flog the 92s off to Bulgaria if it comes to it.

 

The 73 rebuild - as with the 57 conversion a decade or so earlier is a far simpler exercise and doesn't fundamentally alter the abilities of the locomotives - the rebuilt machines can be used in exactly the same way as their predecessors.

Isn't the main reason for re-engineering down to meeting the latest emmissions regs. GBRF bought all those 66s earlier than they needed to beat the deadline. IIRC there was talk of the need for a substantial order to recoup the costs of fitting the emmissions control equipment within our loading gauge, far more than the handful of locos for the sleeper services. So new build was not the answer.

Now has anyone thought of shoe horning some ETS equipment into a 66?

 

Dave

[Redkiterail]

GBRF class 73/9 Brush Loughborough

NWR class 73/9 RVEL Derby 

both have different engines all 73/9s have there 3rd equipment still as they may times where a CS 73 will have to come down south to cover for a normal GBRF 73. The plan is for all trains north of endingburgh to be double headed these locomotives are around 1600bHP 600bHP of the 73/0

rebuilt due to the above and the fact parts and spares are getting scare to replace on a 60s machine.

[russ p]

Don't the Egyptian ones have ETH?

[surfsup]

Glasgow and Edinburgh both get an eight coach portion. Usually it is then two sleepers to Fort William, with the brake coach and lounge coach added at Edinburgh, eight coach portion to Inverness and remaining six coach portion to Aberdeen. This does fluctuate though depending on season and economy. Aberdeen was big business when oil prices were high, but as that economy is in the cellar that portion isn't as busy. Inverness and Fort William both get busier during the summer with tourists. During the last winter when Serco were having a lot of stock reliability problems the Highland portion dropped down to 13 or 14 coaches, losing sleepers. Fort William portion can get up to four sleepers in busy periods.

 

The day coaches for the Fort William portion are removed at Edinburgh as with them left in the train would be too long to fit in Euston. They are added as you have to have a brake coach and a lounge coach is expected on the sleeper, especially travelling for four hours on one of our most scenic lines. These two coaches (but not the sleepers) do however operate as a normal internal Scotland train, so you can get a normal ticket on them.

The operation at Edinburgh Waverley is quite an impressive one. The normal plan is that the Southbound will arrive with the Aberdeen portion first, followed by the Fort William portion - These two will then combine and have the 2 day coaches removed. The set is then joined by the Inverness portion before they all head off to Euston. Equally in the other direction, the Inverness portion comes off first - This will always be on the blocks at Euston (Bar any diversions and reversals en route!) so almost as soon as the arrival into Waverley, the 73s are ready to reverse onto it and head up top to the Highlands. Next off is the Aberdeen portion, with the Fort William portion leaving last.

 

I think a lot of the impressive shunt moves across Waverley has been made possible by a number of the new crossovers across the station.

 

Current operations wise, the 73s are currently receiving a few additional modifications back at Brush Loughborough including modifications to the DSD Pedal for example, and therefore has created a slight reduction within the available fleet hence as to why the Inverness and Aberdeen portions are operating with 66/73 in multi at the moment - The 73 acting as an ETHEL and the 66 as lead train loco. While I still think it's absolutely bonkers seeing 73s up at Inverness - I used to work with the one that hauled me up there last week! I really do have to applaud GB for such a plan, after all - what future had many of these 73s had left? Some of them have been stored out of use since the last days of BR & early days of EWS - they could frankly have been described as wrecks fit for scrap! And in doing so, have created a modern type 2 - enough power for the sleepers, small axle loading allowing them to take advantage of full linespeeds with very little restrictions. Something the larger 66s and larger still 67s suffered with.

[Chameleon]

The stewards tend to jealously guard against incursions from the seated coach. Anyone in a sleeper berth can use it though. Never really seen it busy and can't fault the staff for service.

The 73s haven't really been what you call a success. Dunno if they were under designed or just a bad idea. Should just used preserved 37s.

[surfsup]

The stewards tend to jealously guard against incursions from the seated coach. Anyone in a sleeper berth can use it though. Never really seen it busy and can't fault the staff for service.

The 73s haven't really been what you call a success. Dunno if they were under designed or just a bad idea. Should just used preserved 37s.

I don't know if the same applies to the Caley Sleeper now as well as it's out of Holyroods hands, but I don't think it's as simple as that. One of the reasons for the use of DRS Class 68s on the Fife Circle is down to the Scottish government requiring locos to be under a certain age - it all comes down to the emission rules and regs basically. Besides, just because 37/4 used to ply their trade on the Sleeper doesn't necessarily mean they would still be suited to them now. There isn't as many of them left in serviceable service, and the ones that are are owned by DRS (bar 403), So why incur costs of GB Having to hire out from DRS? And, one of the biggest plus points going for the 73s is their weight distribution - as I said earlier, the 73/9 is effectively a modern Type 2. The 37s, while not as heavy as their modern replacements, were / are still subject to some restrictions along the routes. Not that it will give you that much of a time advantage, but I'd be happier running a loco on a service with next to no restrictions than a loco having to suffer several restrictions. IIRC, The only restrictions on the 73 is at one point on the WHL - I think it's on the approach to Garelochhead platform.

 

While I would like to do a 37 up in the higlands one day, putting them back onto the Caledonian Sleeper is just not practicable in this day and age. The same reason why GB didn't use 47s on the Inverness and Abderdeen portions, and Double Headed them during the WCML Diverts this year.

 

Stewards I found to be excellent - you do have to sometimes look for them when boarding at Euston though but that's not a neg point. Onboard the staff were excellent, even running up hot water to each coach to service us tea / coffee's when caught in the NR Engineering work caused disruption.

[Pagey]

I think they've found a more suitable type of motive power... shown here in front of the Class 73.....

 

[cal.n]

I remember at Fort William the West Coast 'Jacobite' support crew telling the Sleeper crew that their loco and stock were much more reliable than theirs and if they ever needed any help......

[Bon Accord]

I was in Inverness today and noticed a Colas 47/7 (inside the 66) on the sleeper rake in the role of ETHEL as the rostered 73 is unavailable. I'm told this has happened a couple of times this week.

How long has this debacle been going on for now, a year or so?

2 x 37 and a genny BG seemed to work alright in the past...

[scottishlocos]

Jim

 

CS 73/9's were meant to be introduced last October so over a year late some are at Loughborough for modifications to be carried out! As well as this there have been a few failures this past week therefore a Colas class 47 has been used to provide ETH.

If the current mods are not successful then I can see them being binned GBRF don't have alternative suitable ETH locos

[Chameleon]

I assume the GBrf drivers aren't passed out on 47s? Seems a waste of a loco to just use it as an Ethel. Oh n I spoke to a driver who said they really ARE thinking of putting g ETS into some 66s.

[DY444]

I assume the GBrf drivers aren't passed out on 47s? Seems a waste of a loco to just use it as an Ethel. Oh n I spoke to a driver who said they really ARE thinking of putting g ETS into some 66s.

 

I was under the impression that there wasn't room in the 66 body to fit an ETS alternator

[DY444]

Jim

 

CS 73/9's were meant to be introduced last October so over a year late some are at Loughborough for modifications to be carried out! As well as this there have been a few failures this past week therefore a Colas class 47 has been used to provide ETH.

If the current mods are not successful then I can see them being binned GBRF don't have alternative suitable ETH locos

 

The problem with the 73s is to do with the alternator.  Until this is sorted out then they are unable to develop full traction power reliably.