Blindtraveler
Established Member
You make a valid point, one which I had overlooked
Serco partnered with GB, someone else partnered with DBS.
New stock needs 92s, simple as that. They will just take some time to shake down. What's wrong with the 73s?
Lot's of people sat in arm chairs devoid of facts and/or experience.
90s and 67s also fail. I really don't see the issue.
Surely the difference with the 73s is that they will be fresh from overhaul when they start to be used whereas 92028 is not one of the engines which GBRf have put through Loughborough. Have 92018 or 92033 had significant failures yet?
Is there going to be enough time for cleaning before it starts its southbound trip?
What's hauling the ECS at the moment?
Yeah it's not a good start for Serco already becoming reliant on 87002 and the prospect of an 86/7 coming out of hiding as well (dunno about ETH).
The signs where not good before they took over the franchise, farce of a website no response to emails (still the case) and traction problems a plenty already. Last nights cancellation of the Lowland sleeper would out any potential new customers off the service all together, for what there paying it's a poor show.
Serco must of been advised of the options available so maybe it came down to money in which case maybe the choice was wrong. If i was in charge i would found out who was accountable and get some answers? what would you do?
To me it's one of the pitfalls of the private sector the fact they cant just steal a 90 from somewhere to cover is the problem.
Looks like there gonna have to struggle till the new stock arrives.
Now then, I will state my case right from the start. I don't sign 92s. However, I have driven them (under the appropriate instruction). They are unreliable. End of.
Between Weaver Jnc and Winsford (ish) they regularly throw their teddy out due to the traction current being higher than 25kv. Other electric trains cope with it. They are also renowned for dropping a converter at the slightest provocation, leading to a drop in available power output. Dropping the pan, taking the BIS (Battery Isolating Switch) out and rebooting the computer is something well known to the guys who sign them. It is a temporary fix to an underlying reliability issue.
Interestingly, DBS have now decided to use their fleet of 90s in place of 92s North of London as, (according to a DI) the price to maintain one 92 for a year is the same to maintain two 90s. Two 90s in multiple are also more powerful than a single 92 and more reliable.
Bad news for the passengers, but the reliability aspect of the 92s has been known about for a long time. No one likes to see anyone f*ck things up, but I can't help but feel that choosing 92s as your prime traction on a prestige service like the sleepers is a mistake.
there are a few folks on here that seem to rejoice at the failure of something 'different' or 'new', and are normally utterly blinkered to the facts and the bigger picture. an almost hysterical reaction to some gremlins with one loco AND the carriages. GBRf will get it sorted. as for those that regularly belittle the complete rebuild of the 73s with a brand new engine ..... how about some facts to back up your assertions? maybe the sunshine doesn't agree with some people ..... :roll:
There are enough resources left on our railways (just) for these situations to be dealt with, drawing temporarily on availability of any motive power to hand. But the resources scattered about up and down the wcml belong to a variety of competing private companies - not good news when flexibility and prompt innovation is required.
Fair enough, you have experience with 92s. However, I still think saying that choosing 92s was a mistake is unfair. It was always said that Hull Trains swapping 222s for 180s was a massive mistake due to their unreliability at the same. But with the exception of some bad days where they've run a reduced timetable, 180s are doing ok on the whole. The same was said when FGW took 180s back, yet they're doing ok. 458s with their shocking history were doing ok before they decided to mess around with them
What I'm saying is that unreliability isn't permanent.
i don't really see the rolling stock is to blame it was never a problem with 90s or 87s, 86s when they worked all the sleepers. Obviously this is the 92s first time at fixed passenger workings so i guess no one could of anticipated the problems ahead.
You make a valid point. I feel immense sympathy for the people on the ground trying to run this service, and the passengers. But the truth of the matter here is that, once again, privatisation is the issue.
There are enough resources left on our railways (just) for these situations to be dealt with, drawing temporarily on availability of any motive power to hand. But the resources scattered about up and down the wcml belong to a variety of competing private companies - not good news when flexibility and prompt innovation is required.
Then you have a company like Serco getting involved. Readers may not be familiar with their modus operandi, but they basically exist to sniff round public service contracts, and bid on the basis of cutting resources to the bone and beyond. Their business model puts profit before service, because good service inevitably costs money. "Cheaper fares" cry the privateers. Ask the customers how they feel about that on a wet and windy Carstairs platform at 3am.
And in the end, I mourn for the lost opportunity to run a coherent public transport system that puts passengers first. How many of Serco's disappointed and inconvenienced passengers will risk a trip on the sleeper next time? And so starts a vicious circle of dwindling receipts and further cost cutting.
i don't really see the rolling stock is to blame it was never a problem with 90s or 87s, 86s when they worked all the sleepers. Obviously this is the 92s first time at fixed passenger workings so i guess no one could of anticipated the problems ahead.
Previous franchise holders are known to cut down maintenance at the end of the franchise. It isn't their problem when things fail.
The loco that failed (92 028) belongs to the company that won the new contract? How does the fit into your argument?
Scotrail always emailed back usually within the hour...no excuse for lack of contact. As for the rolling stock i disagree Mk3s are still used with HSTs effectively so you cant blame the coaches. The problem lies with the traction.Hardly a fair comparison! When the likes of the 86s/87s hauled the sleeper, the stock wasn't 30 to 40 years old and due for replacement!
Also, DBS did occasionally use 92s for the sleeper, so not the first time on this duty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj0gVwejQqYhttp://
Have you tried phoning Caledonian Sleeper and talking to someone directly, rather than using the e-mail approach? Normally works much better .....
As for the rolling stock i disagree Mk3s are still used with HSTs effectively so you cant blame the coaches. The problem lies with the traction.
Scotrail always emailed back usually within the hour...no excuse for lack of contact. As for the rolling stock i disagree Mk3s are still used with HSTs effectively so you cant blame the coaches. The problem lies with the traction.
Have you enquired regarding the availability of 87001 from the NRM?
Have you enquired regarding the availability of 87001 from the NRM?
Dunno someone decided to bring rolling stock into the threadWhat? Firstly, the failure that this thread was originally started because of has been attributed to the coaches as well as the loco. Secondly, what have HST MK3s (which aren't even the same as LH Mk3s!) got to do with anything?
Dunno someone decided to bring rolling stock into the thread