Positive future for the London -> Cornwall Sleeper

[Gwiwer]

St. Ives MP Andrew George is reported to be concerned that it may be necessary to re-fight old battles to retain the Night Riviera sleeper.

 

FGW has cannily declined to take up the three-year franchise extension option preferring instead to become a potential bidder for a new 15-year (or thereabouts) franchise on better terms. This is said to offer a very substantial saving to First Group. It does however beg questions over the future of the Night Riviera once again.

 

With the stock already being some 35 years old and the guts of the class 57 locos older still they will not last forever and would potentially be 50 years old at the end of a future franchise. A small build of new dedicated stock would potentially be prohibitively expensive even if it included Caledonian Sleeper cars. We would be talking perhaps 70 sleeping cars (split roughly 55 Caledonian and 15 Night Riviera) and no more than 50 sitters of which the fit-out would range from all seated to brake to lounge with buffet counter making at least three different types within that small batch. Those figures assume continued operation of the maximum-load 16 vehicles on the WCML and a slight increase on the Night Riviera to four sitters and up to six sleepers thanks to the recent upturn in business, plus minimal spares. Sleeping car operation does not lend itself well to modern fixed-formation trains.

 

Recent experience of the Night Riviera has been good. It is at last possible to book sleepers online and collect tickets prior to boarding. The stock has had a very good refurbishment and is comfortable, quiet and appears well-maintained. While the Mk3 sleeper cabins are still largely original they are equally still perfectly fit for purpose; the only thing which I have always felt they lacked was a shower though that facility is available at Paddington if required at a nominal cost. The morning breakfast tray have improved from tea / coffee and a pack of biscuits to also include orange juice, cereal and a bacon roll or croissant and jam. This is at no additional cost to the passenger. The trains are in reality one-class only with the seats being effectively first class and sleeper berths still in shared twin cabins when two people travel together but now in singles (or exclusive use of a twin) when you travel alone except at the busiest times when they still reserve the right to ask you to share. Single cabins have TV sets fitted.

 

Formations vary but typically include 3 sitters and 4 or 5 sleepers. This is up from the 2 or 3 of some recent years and more are needed but are not available. The "wakers" portion should be BFO-TSO-RFM but with only two TSO's available two BFO's in one rake have been recorded on occasions. A few more seated cars would probably also be helpful in coping with peak loadings and the provision of a spare. It is also fairly common for all ten sleeping cars to be in use on busy nights with 5 each on the up and down services.

 

The route varies according to overnight track occupations. Most nights the service is booked to call at Reading (u), Westbury and Taunton to Exeter but the down Sunday night service is Reading (u), Bristol TM and Exeter. There are of course numerous routes which permit these stopping patterns and it is not unusual to find the "Beds" running through Bradford-on-Avon, Melksham or even Honiton. Line bashers beware - unless you are quite sure which way you came don't claim it! With works in Whiteball Tunnel and the absence of a Taunton stop I suspect the Sunday train comes back from Bristol to Westbury, Castle Cary then via Yeovil on at least some occasions.

 

There is also the famous occasion on which the stock was used for a last-minute replacement on a Paddington - Oxford - Paddington roster allegedly because nothing else was available. It was also alleged that First management suggested very strongly that someone "Stop playing trains".

[The Stationmaster]

I would have thought that provided the vehicle structures remain sound there should be no problem other than cost when it comes to refurbishment/refit to keep the sleeper vehicles going. But ultimately a major refit including rewiring is going to be unavoidable and that is going to be expensive - possibly more so than new build although I doubt the latter could be achieved for anything under a million at present day prices? What it is ultimately going to come down to is going to be a political decision - will a Govt be prepared to subsidise construction costs or settle for a long term lease deal (probably the only way to sensibly cover private venture build costs) in order to keep the Celtic/Gaelic fringes 'on side'?

 

So it is undoubtedly a valid point to raise, and no doubt one which as those with the responsibility will keep on trying to kick into touch.

 

PS Before anyone suggests it any thought of 'bringing back' any surviving ENS/'Night Star' vehicles also needs to be permanently kicked into touch - access to some of the small bore plumbing and wiring on them is a gas-axe job and if all the original photos have been lost it will be pure guesswork deciding where to cut These vehicles are vastly over complicated, won't work with British standard diesel loco eth feeds, and were not gauge cleared for Cornwall let alone Fort William although they were at least gauge cleared for most of the 'normal' diversionary routes between Paddington and the West of England (except Castle Cary - Yeovil Jcn).

[Glorious NSE]

There is also the famous occasion on which the stock was used for a last-minute replacement on a Paddington - Oxford - Paddington roster allegedly because nothing else was available. It was also alleged that First management suggested very strongly that someone "Stop playing trains".

 

The Penzance end one has similarly been used for an occasional local run to Plymouth...

[Xerces Fobe2]

If HST MK3 coaches are good for another 25 years it would follow that the sleepers will last a similar time too. The Class 57/6 will not last that long however given that the sleeper is a fairly slow train a Class 66 and generator car (as used on railtours) might suffice.

 

Xerces Fobe

[Gwiwer]

With rolling stock suited for (and probably capable of being passed for) 125mph it might make sense to revisit old practices in an effort to get a little more revenue out of the stock. Not the sleeping cars which are only good for overnight work but the sitters which can be used on almost any route.

 

It was the case for some years that when the formation included six seated coaches these were split from the sleepers upon arrival at Paddington just after 5am and were used for the 06.00 to Manchester. They returned later the same day and were reunited with the sleeping cars for the next trip west.

 

As demand has increased for the service and there are possibly some Mk3 coaches spare (some are dumped at Willesden for example and possibly some from the Wrexham & Shropshire operation) if the seated portion were increased to 5 coaches - the Mk3 equivalent of the old 6 Mk 2's - then they might be handy for a couple of trips to Oxford or Newbury and back. I'm sure that would go down well with the gentrified commuters who would prefer anything which is better than a 166 and at the same time might release a full HST set for better use elsewhere.

 

Loco working might present an issue. Currently one 57 is used to shunt-release the stock at Paddington. This could be used to haul the daytime passenger workings but something then has to haul the sleepers out to Old Oak.

 

Likewise at the western end there might be scope to utilise the sitters on a Plymouth-and-back trip and release a 150 to strengthen something else though there must be adequate downtime for Long Rock to service the stock every day.

[ozzyo]

The next issue is the train length at Euston, just replacing the four Mark 2 coaches per set with four Mark 3 coaches takes it over the maximum train length

ScotRail did propose replacing them, but someone pointed this out and decided to shelf the proposal rather than take one sleeper off all the sets

 

 

I dint think that Euston was that short on platform length . Depending on the train length why not drop a day coach.

 

In my spotting days, I would get a day return to London on a Friday night and use the Barrow to London sleeper (dep. Barrow 20;45 arrive London about 05;00), a full day down south and get the sleeper from Euston at about 23;45 arrive in Barrow about 06;00 Sunday morning. I don't think that I ever used the sleeper portion for this.

 

Good times in the 80s.

 

OzzyO.

[Natalie]

Built specifically for use on "The Clansman" were they not?

 

Not quite! The Mk3b BFO were ordered as part of the HST-E project (of which the new build locos were to be numbered 90001-5) to provide brake and guard's accommodation. The HST-E was considered as conventional locos and hauled coaches (essentially the same as the 91s and Mk4 stock) and were to be run at 125mph. With the cancellation of the HST-E project it was decided that construction of the BFO was to continue as these vehicles were the only ones suitable to enable the class 89 loco- which was being developed alongside- to be tested at its full 125mph designed speed. The use of a Mk1 NHA would limit the testing to 110mph.

 

The BFO was involved in some of the test workings with the 89 and often formed the brake accommodation for test trains such as the commissioning of the Mk3a RFM vehicles. Revenue earning service commenced in May 1986 when one vehicle was used in the Glasgow Central portion of the Clansman working both down and up services in the same day. On a Saturday the combined sets worked a return trip between Euston and Manchester Piccadilly before working an after Euston- Glasgow service. It returned south the next day on a Glasgow Central- Euston service. The other two vehicles were available for maintenance and test train use.

[Natalie]

They were built for the Manchester Pullman all 1st Mk 3 sets (the ones which originally included the Mk 1 RKB). In the end they weren't required as NHA BGs were uprated to 110mph and the service went mixed class anyway.

 

 

There is no evidence to support this statement in the files of the BRB development group involved in the ordering and specification of the Mk3b fleet that are held at the National Archives at Kew. It is true the FO were intended as replacements for the 1965 MK2 Pullman vehicles but no mention is made of any brake vehicles. The first mention of a brake vehicle was in connection with the HST-E programme.

[mjkerr]

They were built for the Manchester Pullman all 1st Mk 3 sets

One was used with the southern section of the 1987 Clansman (which did not do Motherwell to Inverness) as a second BG was not needed and would have resulted in one less TSO for the Glasgow portion.

A little OT now, but thought I had better correct this

 

The BFO was originally an order as part of the electric HST program, where each set would have one BFO

This order was cancelled but it was decided to retain 3 of the BFO as they were going to be required on The Clansman which was planned to swap from Mark 2 to Mark 3 coaches

 

Three BFO were normally used

WB320 3xTSO, RFM, FO, BFO (used between Euston and Glasgow)

WB321 and WB324 later removed the NHA and FO, replaced by one BFO

However if one BFO was not available then the Glasgow portion would be amended with one FO and one NHA

 

Also, I can't find any (mainly) Mark 3 sets which are all 1st class

[Natalie]

A little OT now, but thought I had better correct this

 

The BFO was originally an order as part of the electric HST program, where each set would have one BFO

This order was cancelled but it was decided to retain 3 of the BFO as they were going to be required on The Clansman which was planned to swap from Mark 2 to Mark 3 coaches

 

Three BFO were normally used

WB320 3xTSO, RFM, FO, BFO (used between Euston and Glasgow)

WB321 and WB324 later removed the NHA and FO, replaced by one BFO

However if one BFO was not available then the Glasgow portion would be amended with one FO and one NHA

 

Also, I can't find any (mainly) Mark 3 sets which are all 1st class

 

The reason the BFO vehicles were not cancelled is that they were the only vehicles available to enable the class 89 to be tested at speeds up to 125mph.

 

To elaborate on my post no 58:

 

The use of a BFO only on working WB320 (the Glasgow Central portion) is from the Summer 1986 London Midland Carriage Marshalling Programme- WB321 and WB324 workings (which were those that worked to Inverness) were booked as you say to be covered by an NHA and FO- was it from Summer 1987 that a BFO was booked on these diagrams too?

 

The following is taken from Memorandum to Investment Committee dated January 1984 on 'New Build of 60 Mk III Day Coaches Progress Report No 1' given the position as at the end of December 1983:

 

"At the same time consideration was being given to the most appropriate way of providing guards/parcels van accommodation in trains formed of the new Mk IIIb FO stock and hauled by the prototype HST-E power cars at maximum speeds above 110mph. It was ultimately decided that the last three vehicles of the new MkIIIb FO build should be constructed as BFOs and that they should be technically/operationally compatible for use with the class 89 electric loco, as well as the HST-E power cars."

 

A further Memorandum to Investment Committee in the form of a Sponsor's Overview is signed by 'Director, Inter City' and dated 14th September 1987 and adds:

 

"Owing to the late delivery of the prototype class 89 locomotive, it has not yet been possible to utilise the 3 BFO vehicles for their intended purpose. However they have been added to the fleet of revenue-earning vehicles on WCML and have been used in conjunction with the Euston- Glasgow/Inverness ervice from May 1986"

 

There are further references to the intended use of the BFO as far back as December 1983 but I won't bore you all by sharing them here!

[Bomag]

There is no evidence to support this statement in the files of the BRB development group involved in the ordering and specification of the Mk3b fleet that are held at the National Archives at Kew. It is true the FO were intended as replacements for the 1965 MK2 Pullman vehicles but no mention is made of any brake vehicles. The first mention of a brake vehicle was in connection with the HST-E programme.

 

 

A little OT now, but thought I had better correct this

 

The BFO was originally an order as part of the electric HST program, where each set would have one BFO

This order was cancelled but it was decided to retain 3 of the BFO as they were going to be required on The Clansman which was planned to swap from Mark 2 to Mark 3 coaches

 

Three BFO were normally used

WB320 3xTSO, RFM, FO, BFO (used between Euston and Glasgow)

WB321 and WB324 later removed the NHA and FO, replaced by one BFO

However if one BFO was not available then the Glasgow portion would be amended with one FO and one NHA

 

Also, I can't find any (mainly) Mark 3 sets which are all 1st class

 

There was publicity at the time (presumably by a rent a quote sector manager) saying that the the idea was to speed up the all first Manchester Pullman. Given my experience of sector production managers from a couple of years later, what BRB thought was happening was not the same as what the sector management were intending to do!

 

Given the lot number of the BFOs is eight later than the FOs (separated by prototype sprinters) and followed by the 455/9s, IC sector management musts have thought that there was a specific use for three of the BFOs after ordering the FO's. It could be that as the design costs would have presumably been incurred on the HST-E development it could have been a speculative order; however, even IC sector from the mid 1980's would probably not have ordered three BFOs purely to test the Cl89 ( they could have borrowed a Mk3 TGS as they did for the Mk4 testing with 12201 in early 1989). AFAIK there were two MP Mk3 1st sets which would have given one spare BFO for two diagrams. Some WC I/C manager could have put the idea of three BFOs and a premium service together to get a publicity opportunity. Unfortunately another manager was taking another route by using the Pullmans as a general marketing tool across a number of services i.e. try and get extra first class passengers on all trains to maximise profit from premium fares while carrying as many in steerage to cover cost (and also to give better set utilisations).

 

My experience of the Mk3 Clansman in 1986/87 was always on a Saturday - morning NB departure to Inverness and back on the sleeper (when we had Saturday night sleepers!). Doe anybody know when was this changed from the Euston -MP fill-in mentioned above?

[Natalie]

There was publicity at the time (presumably by a rent a quote sector manager) saying that the the idea was to speed up the all first Manchester Pullman. Given my experience of sector production managers from a couple of years later, what BRB thought was happening was not the same as what the sector management were intending to do!

 

Given the lot number of the BFOs is eight later than the FOs (separated by prototype sprinters) and followed by the 455/9s, IC sector management musts have thought that there was a specific use for three of the BFOs after ordering the FO's. It could be that as the design costs would have presumably been incurred on the HST-E development it could have been a speculative order; however, even IC sector from the mid 1980's would probably not have ordered three BFOs purely to test the Cl89 ( they could have borrowed a Mk3 TGS as they did for the Mk4 testing with 12201 in early 1989). AFAIK there were two MP Mk3 1st sets which would have given one spare BFO for two diagrams. Some WC I/C manager could have put the idea of three BFOs and a premium service together to get a publicity opportunity. Unfortunately another manager was taking another route by using the Pullmans as a general marketing tool across a number of services i.e. try and get extra first class passengers on all trains to maximise profit from premium fares while carrying as many in steerage to cover cost (and also to give better set utilisations).

 

My experience of the Mk3 Clansman in 1986/87 was always on a Saturday - morning NB departure to Inverness and back on the sleeper (when we had Saturday night sleepers!). Doe anybody know when was this changed from the Euston -MP fill-in mentioned above?

 

There have never been any first class only Mk3a/b sets. The use of BFO vehicles on Manchester Pullmans came well into sectorisation and were not the reason the BFO vehicles were built.

 

Please read post 61 and particularly the two quotes I have included. These are from the official BRB Investment Committee Minutes- it was they who authorised the payment and construction of the vehicles. The original intention was for 180 vehicles but the DfT would only authorise an interim order of 60 vehicles. The order for the Mk3 stock was originally approved by the Secretary of State for Transport on May 4th 1983 at a cost of £11.163m. This was split between HST and Mk3b stock with the precise quaintities changing a few times- originally it was for 32 HST TS and 28 Mk3b FO. The HST vehicles were to enable all the ECML and MML sets to be increaed to 2+8 formations but a reduction in the nummber of complete HST sets avaiable (a decision had been made in July 1983 to reduce the number of operational powercars) enabled some existing TS vehicles to be cascaded from sets that were split and reduced the need for so many new TS vehicles. Wishing to maximise the build the order was changed to 19 HST TS and 41 Mk3b FO.

 

The Mk3b FO order was subsequently changed in approx Autumn 1983 to include the 3b BFO vehicles (for the reasons as explained twice by myself and also by Mike) in place of three Mk3b FO vehicles hence why the lot numbers are different. The documents I have copies of have all this detail on- such as costs, lot numbers etc etc.

 

There is no mention of BFO vehicles being used on Manchester Pullman services as when the coaches were ordered they were no such thing as a BFO! There were originally 28 FOs ordered of which 14 were for the Manchester Pullman and the other 14 to enable some trains to be upgraded to Executive status. No mention is made of brake vehicles. The change to the order was that hurried that the no detailed design work existed- only a specification and Derby's tender price was based on that of an HST TGS vehicle. The seating number was changed a few times also from originally to have 31 seats (and 14 tables) to 38 seats.

 

There is also an interview in Modern Railways with Cyril Bleasdale on the new Mk3b stock and the refurbishment of the existing Mk3a stock and he too confirms the reason for the BFO vehicles was for use in the electric HST and to test the class 89. As Director of InterCity I can only assume that he knew what he was talking about!

 

Anyways apologies for hijacking this subject but I feel that it is important that myths do not get perpetuated. The documents are there for all to see in the National Archives at Kew.

[Bomag]

Please read post 61

 

 

Post 61 was added while I was typing my response.

 

 

 

The quote from Jan 1984 makes reference that the BFOs were specifically intended to work with the Mk3b FOs. There is no clarification as to whether this was due to the Mk3bs only being First Class (and therefore the brake needed to be first class for use in service) or they were the only LH Mk3s rated to 125mph for the expected tests. Since current Mk3a stock in HST sets are rated to 125mph I would infer that they were specifically built to run in first class only sets. Going back to the quote, the need was for van and guard space rather than a vehicle with an independent/second brake actuator (which is normally required for LH stock to run over 110mph and is a part of a DVT) – a hydraulic brake could have been added to these vehicles as FOs, as per Class 488, so the need for a specific design of Mk3 vehicle with van space is, I would suggest, more likely liked to its use in service. The only potential all first service at the time (December 1983) was the MP.

 

 

 

Given the obvious last minute changes it is highly possible that the committee were less than certain about their use, only that there was a need for 125mph rated brake vehicle and that the vehicles were originally intended to be First Opens. Put the two together literally results in a BFO. I would love to know why they did not build three TGS with buffers, normal ETH, etc, as these would have avoided the design costs of a new Mk3 variant.

 

 

 

Whether a local I/C sub-sector manager, or even just a publicity officer, mentioned in my post above had inferred a similar reading of the justification to mine and mentioned the BFOs in reference to the Manchester Pullman as part of the enhancement of the service in 1984/1985 we are unlikely to find out.

[Natalie]

Post 61 was added while I was typing my response.

 

 

The quote from Jan 1984 makes reference that the BFOs were specifically intended to work with the Mk3b FOs. There is no clarification as to whether this was due to the Mk3bs only being First Class (and therefore the brake needed to be first class for use in service) or they were the only LH Mk3s rated to 125mph for the expected tests. Since current Mk3a stock in HST sets are rated to 125mph I would infer that they were specifically built to run in first class only sets. Going back to the quote, the need was for van and guard space rather than a vehicle with an independent/second brake actuator (which is normally required for LH stock to run over 110mph and is a part of a DVT) – a hydraulic brake could have been added to these vehicles as FOs, as per Class 488, so the need for a specific design of Mk3 vehicle with van space is, I would suggest, more likely liked to its use in service. The only potential all first service at the time (December 1983) was the MP.

 

 

 

Given the obvious last minute changes it is highly possible that the committee were less than certain about their use, only that there was a need for 125mph rated brake vehicle and that the vehicles were originally intended to be First Opens. Put the two together literally results in a BFO. I would love to know why they did not build three TGS with buffers, normal ETH, etc, as these would have avoided the design costs of a new Mk3 variant.

 

 

 

Whether a local I/C sub-sector manager, or even just a publicity officer, mentioned in my post above had inferred a similar reading of the justification to mine and mentioned the BFOs in reference to the Manchester Pullman as part of the enhancement of the service in 1984/1985 we are unlikely to find out.

 

Thanks for your reply. To be fair you do make some reasonable considered points. There is specifically no mention of brake vehicles for the Manchester Pullman (nor catering vehicles for that matter though the original plan for 180 vehicles was to include 24 Mk3 RUB for WCML) merely that 14 FO were to replace the Mk2 Pullman vehicles. It is possible that a Mk1 NEA/NHA was to be used but no mention is made either way. The insinuation is that the FO vehicles were to upgrade the Manchester Pullman and replace existing vehicles in some other trains to enable an enhanced full-fare executive service to be offered. The documents do not suggest either way that the Manchester Pullman was to remain first class only. I have looked at the relevant files on the Manchester Pullman stock but they are more concerned with the refurbishing, naming and repainting of the Mk2 vehicles and don't go into a lot of detail about the Mk3b replacements. I think there are about 4 older files related to LMR Pullmans that I have not yet looked at.

 

There is also another file related to Mk3 day coaches that I photographed but lost the files following a hard drive crash but from memory I can't recall any mention of BFOs being used as Pullman brake vehicles. Unfortunately my photos of the HST-E project files have gone the same so I can't elaborate much more than I have already. The HST-E files do contain a bit more detail on the BFO vehicles and amongst other documents is a draft set of diagrams/rosters for potential use of the 2 sets that were proposed. When I can afford it I shall visit Kew again and photograph these files again.

 

You are correct in saying that the BFOs were originally planned to be FOs- the order was changed in approx November 1983. I shall have another look at the files I have to see if there is any mention of a second brake actuator. Thinking logically it does seem strange to tool up/design a new coach of which only three vehicles were built when as you say a TGS bodyshell could have been used and first class seating fitted. It wasn't a case of needing a larger van size for the BFO as the tender was based on the TGS design using the same van dimensions. Maybe the fact that both corridor connections were available for public use on the BFO and not on the TGS had some implications?

 

One final thought- at the time the Manchester Pullman had two sets of stock- if 14 FO vehicles were allocated to it- a possible formation could have been a full brake, 2 Mk3a catering vehicles (TRUKs were at the time being made redundant and a trial conversion to loco hauled and modular use was authorised) and 5 or 6 Mk3b FO making a train of 8 or 9 vehicles. Sounds highly logical and it is often difficult to argue against the BFOs were constructed for the MP theory as it is quite a reasonable suggestion. I would ask though if this was the case why were the BFO not allocated to the Manchester Pullman sets from the start? Conversely to order three new and expensive coaches purely for comparative testing in HST-E sets and class 89 sets seems very difficult to justify financially at the time considering the original requirement was for 180 coaches which was cut back to 60 as a result of DfT cost-cutting. It is possible that stating the BFO vehicles were needed for testing of new projects that funds from other sources were obtainable. Maybe we shall never know!

 

The big problem with researching from original documents, as many will no doubt agree, is that often they can leave you with more questions than when you started out. There is also the issue that you can only form your conclusions from the documents that are available to see so you potentially only get half or one side of a story.

 

Once again my apologies to everyone else for hijacking this subject and I hope Bomag takes my replies in the manner that they are intended (ie informed debate between two interested parties).

[Xerces Fobe2]

Loco working might present an issue. Currently one 57 is used to shunt-release the stock at Paddington. This could be used to haul the daytime passenger workings but something then has to haul the sleepers out to Old Oak.

 

 

A few weeks ago I saw the empty stock leaving Paddington @07:00 with Class 08 on the front and the usual Class 57 on the back,

 

Seeing that the train is composed of MK3's why not make them compatible with HST power cars as has already been done with some of the former loco hauled MK3's?

 

Xerces Fobe

[The Stationmaster]

 

The big problem with researching from original documents, as many will no doubt agree, is that often they can leave you with more questions than when you started out. There is also the issue that you can only form your conclusions from the documents that are available to see so you potentially only get half or one side of a story.

 

 

I would advise everyone to take great care when researching from original BR correspondence, especially on subjects like this. All you are getting is a snapshot of the involvement of one office (unless you look at the files from more than one place of course) showing, in effect, only things relevant to them and not showing any other ideas or proposals which might have been around at the same time which didn't involve them or which someone didn't want that office to see (and that was not at all unusual). The other problem which can sometimes happen is that files might have been gutted (perhaps not to difficult to suss) or they have been destroyed - I know of one rolling stock scheme where a verbal instruction was issued to destroy all of the paperwork connected with it in any way shape or form.

[Bomag]

<BR>I hope Bomag takes my replies in the manner that they are intended (ie informed debate between two interested parties).<BR>

<BR><BR>I would not take it any other way<BR><BR>

<BR>Seeing that the train is composed of MK3's why not make them compatible with HST power cars as has already been done with some of the former loco hauled MK3's?<BR><BR>Xerces Fobe<BR>

<BR><BR>The main prblem with this is that the ETH has to be changed from the standard system used on LH stock to the three phase version of the HST. This is not to much of a prioblem with the day coaches but is likely to be a bit of an issue withe the RFM and SLEPs which have much more complicated electrical systems.<BR><BR>Given that the sets do only about 300 miles per day at a maximum of 80mph there is not likely to be any need to relace the stock in the immediate future (assuming good maintainece and the odd facelift) and there is not likely be a drive to replace them just to make operations at Paddington easlier .

[roger440]

St. Ives MP Andrew George is reported to be concerned that it may be necessary to re-fight old battles to retain the Night Riviera sleeper.

 

FGW has cannily declined to take up the three-year franchise extension option preferring instead to become a potential bidder for a new 15-year (or thereabouts) franchise on better terms. This is said to offer a very substantial saving to First Group. It does however beg questions over the future of the Night Riviera once again.

 

With the stock already being some 35 years old and the guts of the class 57 locos older still they will not last forever and would potentially be 50 years old at the end of a future franchise. A small build of new dedicated stock would potentially be prohibitively expensive even if it included Caledonian Sleeper cars. We would be talking perhaps 70 sleeping cars (split roughly 55 Caledonian and 15 Night Riviera) and no more than 50 sitters of which the fit-out would range from all seated to brake to lounge with buffet counter making at least three different types within that small batch. Those figures assume continued operation of the maximum-load 16 vehicles on the WCML and a slight increase on the Night Riviera to four sitters and up to six sleepers thanks to the recent upturn in business, plus minimal spares. Sleeping car operation does not lend itself well to modern fixed-formation trains.

 

 

 

I really dont understand the modern mentality that because something is old it must be replaced! Logically why cant the stock continue to run for another 20 years. (in fact such a study has already been done and though there are some issues that may need attention, they are pretty minor). You simply continue to maintain and repair/refurbish/modify as required.

 

In fact id lay money that 20 years from now MK3 coaches will still be in operation somewhere in the UK, and the sleeper will probably be one of the uses. Lets face it, is there actually anything better than a MK3?

 

Someone (several people in fact) said we could never re-introduce class 121 bubbles back into operation! Far too old you see. But the hurdles were overcome and it was done. followed by another 2, the last of which has only just entered service at 50 years old. It performs the function required of it.

 

As you can probably guess, i get slightly irritated by current thinking that something is old and must be replaced. It constantly gets reported in the news that HST's are now really old and what on earth will the goverment do about it. Bet no one will be impressed when the replacements pitch up!

[Kris]

I really dont understand the modern mentality that because something is old it must be replaced! Logically why cant the stock continue to run for another 20 years. (in fact such a study has already been done and though there are some issues that may need attention, they are pretty minor). You simply continue to maintain and repair/refurbish/modify as required.

 

You're quite right. The only thing that might stop them would be a change in regulations possibly for crash worthiness that became applicable for old stock.

 

 

 

[WestCountry]

Would it be possible to use DVTs with the sleeper and either fit the 57s with the required equipment or use 67s? Would remove the need for fiddling around at Paddington and/or make use of the day stock easier.

[Etched Pixels]

Would it be possible to use DVTs with the sleeper and either fit the 57s with the required equipment or use 67s? Would remove the need for fiddling around at Paddington and/or make use of the day stock easier.

 

The loco that sits in the platform for ages also provides power for the sleepers., anyway its a couple of movements a day, at quiet times and the current setup works. The bigger problem seems to be FGW keeping 3 class 57s in working order (hence the fact the OOC 08 is doing the job)

[Gwiwer]

The shunt loco at Paddington provides "hotel power" for the train as far as I am aware until the train engine takes over shortly before departure. At Penzance the train engine has been coupled to the stock all day and provides the power.

 

The need to power the stock in this way probably means DVT operation cannot be used and may also be a reason why 67's are not used to haul the train. But it doesn't get any cheaper keeping a dedicated fleet of four locos in good order and the failure rate is well documented.

 

HST power cars can however be used (and have been on at least two occasions) though whether any are diagrammed spare and thus able to be diagrammed is a moot point.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

This needs some lateral thinking. The UK only needs a single sleeper train route, with a pair of MU vehicle sets running in opposite directions. London, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Carlisle, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Penzance. It doesn't matter how far you travel while you are zedding it, or if your vehicle is standing having been detached at an intermediate destination; you can sleep just as well.

[ozzyo]

This needs some lateral thinking. The UK only needs a single sleeper train route, with a pair of MU vehicle sets running in opposite directions. London, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Carlisle, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Penzance. It doesn't matter how far you travel while you are zedding it, or if your vehicle is standing having been detached at an intermediate destination; you can sleep just as well.

 

A long journey if your going from London to Penzance, or Carlisle to London. Just think about the route?

 

Or have I taken it a bit to literally?

 

Have you been on a sleeper service when it has been shunted in the middle of the night ? I have, you wake up.and it's not good!!!!

 

OzzyO.

[Gwiwer]

The UK only needs a single sleeper train route

 

I was a bit puzzled by that comment as well.

 

Although this topic refers to the GW sleeper, taking around 8 hours at 80mph timings on a route where daytime 125mph services can achieve under 5 hour timings - there is no need to rush overnight - the Caledonian routes are rather longer in distance and time. I'm not sure a "single" route encompassing Penzance and Aberdeen or Inverness via London could be achieved in a single night.

 

Overnight travel declined sharply through the 60s and 70s to the point where all such trains were in real danger of being withdrawn. We are perhaps fortunate to have kept those we have. At least the GW and "Deertalker" (the Fort William portion) have been hard fought for in recent years against threats of withdrawal. Less fortunate have been any overnight passengers between London and Stranraer (though Irish traffic through there now has the awkward short hop to Cairnryan to consider rather than out of the sleeper and onto the boat / vice versa). And the same goes for cross-country travel since the demise of the Plymouth / Bristol - Edinburgh / Glasgow operation.