221129
Established Member
You've been misinformed.re #11333,im led to believe that GBRF who supply 92s for sleepers in and out of Euston are withdrawing all class 92s .Could use 66s as they do for portions to/from Edinburgh , we shall see !
You've been misinformed.re #11333,im led to believe that GBRF who supply 92s for sleepers in and out of Euston are withdrawing all class 92s .Could use 66s as they do for portions to/from Edinburgh , we shall see !
If Platform 5's publications are correct, the ETS index of a Mark 5 sleeper is 6, and that of the 73/9s adapted for the Caledonian Sleeper is 96, which means that a 73/9 could, in theory, supply 96/6=sixteen sleepers. (A class 92 has an ETS index of 108).I think it needs to be stressed quite firmly that there are precisely two types of locomotive available in Britain at the moment that can both haul and supply ETS to the Mk 5 sleeper stock: the 73/9s, and the 92s.
And of those two types, only one type can supply ETS to a full 16-car rake of Mk 5 sleepers. Hint: it's not the 73/9s.
That's without considering how a 66 would manage to keep time on the trunk WCML paths in & out of Euston.I think it needs to be stressed quite firmly that there are precisely two types of locomotive available in Britain at the moment that can both haul and supply ETS to the Mk 5 sleeper stock: the 73/9s, and the 92s.
And of those two types, only one type can supply ETS to a full 16-car rake of Mk 5 sleepers. Hint: it's not the 73/9s.
I suspect that a current news story about FOCs mothballing electric traction and substituting with diesel due to high electricity prices has grown arms and legs.re #11333,im led to believe that GBRF who supply 92s for sleepers in and out of Euston are withdrawing all class 92s .Could use 66s as they do for portions to/from Edinburgh , we shall see !
I looked on a data plate on a CS 73/9 last month (I didn't note which) and it claimed an ETS index of 75. It was providing hotel power for a load 12, which I thought was impressive but still 6x12=72 < 75, so all good.If Platform 5's publications are correct, the ETS index of a Mark 5 sleeper is 6, and that of the 73/9s adapted for the Caledonian Sleeper is 96, which means that a 73/9 could, in theory, supply 96/6=sixteen sleepers. (A class 92 has an ETS index of 108).
Would it have to be a 66 ? I appreciate anything else, such as a 67, 68 or 88, would have to be hired in, as very few of GBRf's own fleet are capable of exceeding 80mph (although the 47s and 50s would be fun!)That's without considering how a 66 would manage to keep time on the trunk WCML paths in & out of Euston.
Could be a 67 or 68, although not sure if the Bo-Bo would cause issues with load 16. However the 88's diesel engine is so small I expect you'd either lose time or burn so much fuel it'd be cheaper to put the pan up.Would it have to be a 66 ? I appreciate anything else, such as a 67, 68 or 88, would have to be hired in, as very few of GBRf's own fleet are capable of exceeding 80mph (although the 47s and 50s would be fun!)
Absolute nonsense. 92s are the only locos for the job and will be going nowhere other than on the front of the Mk5s.re #11333,im led to believe that GBRF who supply 92s for sleepers in and out of Euston are withdrawing all class 92s .Could use 66s as they do for portions to/from Edinburgh , we shall see !
re #11333,im led to believe that GBRF who supply 92s for sleepers in and out of Euston are withdrawing all class 92s .Could use 66s as they do for portions to/from Edinburgh , we shall see !
John Smith would also love to know where all these spare 66s are too, as there certainly aren't any in the GBRf fleet.Thats a cracker and its not even April 1st. Someone is pulling your pi**er mate
More people going to Edinburgh than Glasgow, maybe?And now for some bizarre reason we are all going to Edinburgh now.
Most likely. I totally forgot we could access the Edinburgh line from where we were sat without running round etc.More people going to Edinburgh than Glasgow, maybe?
Full set + 2 locos would be v tight in Glasgow Central if it fits at all, and there's been an incident Glasgow way so there's already disruption.And now for some bizarre reason we are all going to Edinburgh now.
If the Edinburgh portion loco (92038) has failed, then realistically the split cannot happen so the train has to go as a Load 16 to either Glasgow or Edinburgh.Currently sat just outside Carstairs where we have been for the past hour because the 92 due to go to Edinburgh has gone pop in the platform.
And now for some bizarre reason we are all going to Edinburgh now.
I'll be honest. I had it set in my mind that there would need to be an additional run round at Carstairs, but obviously because we were sat at the junction that is not the case.Not sure why it's that bizarre?
As I understand it a Load 16 can fit in Glasgow, but only in one Platform (11?) and causes issues when the ECS loco goes on (beyond the starter signal I think). Edinburgh on the other hand as two pairs of platforms that can comfortably take a Load 16 and facilitate the run-around for the ECS.
No - two different turns (which also include the respective Polmadie/Edinburgh ECS moves).Is the Edinburgh portion usually driven by the same person who's worked the southbound portion to Carstairs earlier?
Well until the leaf fall season is over i would have thought it was at least wise to continue as is, but after that ends what happens then is anyone's guessApologies if this has been covered before, but does anybody know why the use of Class 66 + 73 combinations is persisting on the Fort William portion? I'd always thought this arrangement was temporary.
Indeed, Aberdeen bound " Guests " were treated to a "Touch of the extraordinary " making there way through Waverley and on to the delights of boarding a coach in Market Street in the early hours, a "Magical Journey" I'm sure!The Aberdeen portion was cancelled from Edinburgh again, the ECS from that came to bother as well. Not a great morning for Caledonian Sleeper this morning.
Indeed, Aberdeen bound " Guests " were treated to a "Touch of the extraordinary " making there way through Waverley and on to the delights of boarding a coach in Market Street in the early hours, a "Magical Journey" I'm sure!
Apologies if this has been covered before, but does anybody know why the use of Class 66 + 73 combinations is persisting on the Fort William portion? I'd always thought this arrangement was temporary.
Well, 16 minus 5 isn't 16 so it sounds like something's wrong with the data feed.I notice on RTT this morning that the Inverness portion of the Highlander this morning shows as 16 coaches, arriving at 0800 with 66737 + 73967.
The Aberdeen portion shows as Cancelled "Due to waiting connections (TM)", and the Fort William running with 6 and at the time of writing having passed Rannoch.
8 coaches to INVWell, 16 minus 5 isn't 16 so it sounds like something's wrong with the data feed.
Apologies if this has been covered before, but does anybody know why the use of Class 66 + 73 combinations is persisting on the Fort William portion? I'd always thought this arrangement was temporary.
The 73's on their own seemingly toil on the steep gradients, especially during leaf fall season. The 66 will be there as back up to provide more traction and pulling power.
Thanks for the write-up.Travelled on Sunday from Euston to Aberdeen, and pleased to say the journey went perfectly. Staff were all friendly and helpful. The only issues were 1) received a text two hours before saying there would be no hot food or breakfast( which annoyed and bemused the on board staff who knew nothing about it) - it also meant reduced takings as people went to M&S to get their own sandwiches etc. Also we were in Club cabin C2 right over the bogies and yes it is both noisy and uncomfortable. Some of the line north of Crewe felt quite poor. We had been moved from C3 so somebody obviously had travelled before and asked for a swap. But great to arrive in comfort and on time and not sweating through airport queues. Recommend to all prospective travellers.