Could the Class 99 be used on the Caledonian Sleeper to replace the Class 92s?

[nineteenninety]

Moderator note - split from

GBRf Class 99 - 30 locomotives now ordered

GBRf likely ordering 30 x 99s (not 20, it’s the wrong way round, eg 30 99s and 20 options) which are going to be sufficiently powerful to do intermodal trains on the Felixstowe as well as probably being for TPE Mk5s and Night Riviera...

www.railforums.co.uk

Rail Magazine are now reporting that negotiations are underway for ten of the 30 class 99s on order to be fitted with ETS and geared for 100mph running

I take it this would make them a suitable replacement for the 92 portions on the Caledonian sleepers?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I take it this would make them a suitable replacement for the 92 portions on the Caledonian sleepers?

Why would you put them on the 92 portions? Put them on the Highlander 73 /+ 66 sets and make use of being bi-mode to Dumbarton/Sterling.

 

[nineteenninety]

Why would you put them on the 92 portions? Put them on the Highlander 73 +/ 66 sets and make use of being bi-mode.

Not sure if the 99s would be cleared for them sections, they seem quite big locos.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Not sure if the 99s would be cleared for them sections, they seem quite big locos.

68s go up to Georgemas Junction with nuclear payloads, aren't they about the same as a 99? Don't know about Fort William or Aberdeen.

Do caledonian sleeper have power over the locos used or do they just tell GBRf where they want the train to go from and to and what it has to be able to do?

 

[Richard Scott]

Not sure if the 99s would be cleared for them sections, they seem quite big locos.

37s used to go and don't think a 99 is a lot heavier? Seem to recall 99s are about 113tons and a 37 was 105tons?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

37s used to go and don't think a 99 is a lot heavier? Seem to recall 99s are about 113tons and a 37 was 105tons?

66s appear to be 130 tons, and they go on both Fort William and Inverness portions!

British Rail Class 66 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Loco weight	Original specification: 127 t (125 LT; 140 ST)[2] UIC II and EU Stage IIIA spec.: 129.6 t (128 LT; 143 ST)[1]

 

[Trainman40083]

66s appear to be 130 tons, and they go on both Fort William and Inverness portions!

Even 40s used to get north of Inverness. I guess it will depend upon how track friendly the Class 99s are

 

[31160]

IMO it would make sense to replace the 92s, they are impressive locos but they are getting on now, parts will start to be hard to find eventually look how long they've been playing with 92006 and it's still not right

 

[zwk500]

I take it this would make them a suitable replacement for the 92 portions on the Caledonian sleepers?

Simply having ETS is not enough, the loco needs sufficient ETS Power to supply the train. Can't imagine Load 16 Mk5s is particularly easy on the power draw. I have no idea what the 99's rating would be.

 

[Richard Scott]

Simply having ETS is not enough, the loco needs sufficient ETS Power to supply the train. Can't imagine Load 16 Mk5s is particularly easy on the power draw. I have no idea what the 99's rating would be.

Think we're heading into speculative territory now but ETS on 25kV isn't really going to matter and on diesel they're not load 16 but believe they need a 1500V supply?

 

[zwk500]

Think we're heading into speculative territory now but ETS on 25kV isn't really going to matter and on diesel they're not load 16 but believe they need a 1500V supply?

According to this post:

A 92 is the only class with an ETS high enough for 16 mark 5s, at 180. (they were originally designed to operate the Nightstar international sleeper services)

The 16x Mk5 ETS load is high enough that not all electrics can provide it. Happy to be corrected and of course the 99s could well be being specified for such a load. Agree we're out of the 'firm' territory now though.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Think we're heading into speculative territory now but ETS on 25kV isn't really going to matter and on diesel they're not load 16 but believe they need a 1500V supply?

It isn't really speculation when GBRf put out a press release when the latest Caledonian Sleeper contract was awarded (following nationalisation) explicitly stating they will be investigating the possible use of Class 99s on those services. It might or might not happen but it is definitely something that is being considered.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Think we're heading into speculative territory now but ETS on 25kV isn't really going to matter and on diesel they're not load 16 but believe they need a 1500V supply?

Yes the ETS voltage for the CS stock is not the standard voltage but 1500 Volts. That is why the 73/9s used for CS (966-071 iirc) cannot be substituted by another diesel class/sub-class with ETH. It is explained somewhere up thread - EDIT - in the Caledonian Sleeper thread iirc..

 

[99009]

Since this is in the speculative discussion section, I'll put a prediction here.

Should GBRF get confirmation that they'll operate the sleepers for a long period of time, we'll see part of the optional 20 99's ordered (probably about 10-15 modified 99/1) to operate the entire way from London to Aberdeen and Inverness, with the 73's retained purely for the Fort William and for if either of the 99 operated runs to Aberdeen or Inverness prove to be unsuccessful.

 

[HighlandStorm]

Yes the ETS voltage for the CS stock is not the standard voltage but 1500 Volts. That is why the 73/9s used for CS (966-071 iirc) cannot be substituted by another diesel class/sub-class with ETH. It is explained somewhere up thread - EDIT - in the Caledonian Sleeper thread iirc..

I believe class 73s use standard voltage for train supply, not 1500v. Thus are limited to a half rake.

 

[Class15]

What’s the obsession with replacing the 92s? They have settled down to become very good locos on the sleeper (yes I know about 92006 but that’s kind of it’s own case).

 

[Zomboid]

What’s the obsession with replacing the 92s? They have settled down to become very good locos on the sleeper (yes I know about 92006 but that’s kind of it’s own case).

They're 30-35 years old and use electronics for control. Spares and things will become difficult to source - these are not GP9s or GE steeplecabs that can be kept going pretty much indefinitely.

It'd be worth knowing whether the 99s would be able to do the job in future, and ensuring that they will be able to if possible, just because the 92s won't last forever.

 

[Iskra]

What’s the obsession with replacing the 92s? They have settled down to become very good locos on the sleeper (yes I know about 92006 but that’s kind of it’s own case).

If you could use one loco type all the way to Inverness/Aberdeen it would create some simplification and cost savings.

 

[Bertie the bus]

What’s the obsession with replacing the 92s? They have settled down to become very good locos on the sleeper (yes I know about 92006 but that’s kind of it’s own case).

If GBRf are looking into the possibility of using 99s on the CS, which is fact rather than speculation, then it wouldn’t be logical to continue using the 92s. The whole point of a bi-mode is it is bi-mode so using them for the diesel bits and retaining the 92s for the electrified bits would be both expensive and rather strange.

 

[NIT100]

If GBRf are looking into the possibility of using 99s on the CS, which is fact rather than speculation, then it wouldn’t be logical to continue using the 92s. The whole point of a bi-mode is it is bi-mode so using them for the diesel bits and retaining the 92s for the electrified bits would be both expensive and rather strange.

92s would be fine for lowlander, just the highlander that bi-mode would be the advantage. The number of locos currently required to operate the CS is ridiculous and in no way economic. But even if GBRF use class 99s on sleeper and thus save money, does the contract agreement pass the saving back to CS, or do GBRF get to take that as extra profit through operational savings?

 

[Trainbike46]

If you could use one loco type all the way to Inverness/Aberdeen it would create some simplification and cost savings.

But, the loco change happens at Edinburgh, where there is both a reversal and the train splits into three segments, so it wouldn't save any of the costs of a loco change at all

92s would be fine for lowlander, just the highlander that bi-mode would be the advantage. The number of locos currently required to operate the CS is ridiculous and in no way economic. But even if GBRF use class 99s on sleeper and thus save money, does the contract agreement pass the saving back to CS, or do GBRF get to take that as extra profit through operational savings?

would it be a saving? As you effectively can't avoid the loco change at Edinburgh, where is the saving coming from?

It also depends on how many 99s GBRf would be available for the sleeper, as you need fewer 99s if you only use them north of Edinburgh

 

[NIT100]

would it be a saving? As you effectively can't avoid the loco change at Edinburgh, where is the saving coming from?

It also depends on how many 99s GBRf would be available for the sleeper, as you need fewer 99s if you only use them north of Edinburgh

Using 1 Class 99 over 66 and 73/9 pair would be a saving. You can also ditch a 66 and 73/9 pair, as the 99 can continue the full length to say Inverness. Slightly less locos overall dedicated to CS would reduce costs.

 

[Trainbike46]

Using 1 Class 99 over 66 and 73/9 pair would be a saving. You can also ditch a 66 and 73/9 pair, as the 99 can continue the full length to say Inverness. Slightly less locos overall dedicated to CS would reduce costs.

Fair enough, but for that saving you only need to use 99s north of Edinburgh

 

[Bertie the bus]

would it be a saving? As you effectively can't avoid the loco change at Edinburgh, where is the saving coming from?

It also depends on how many 99s GBRf would be available for the sleeper, as you need fewer 99s if you only use them north of Edinburgh

The saving comes from fewer loco's required. Even if they reverted to just 1 loco on each portion north of Edinburgh the sleeper still requires 4 loco's with the 92 sat around doing nothing for most of the day. Using 99s would require 3 loco's.

 

[Trainbike46]

The saving comes from fewer loco's required. Even if they reverted to just 1 loco on each portion north of Edinburgh the sleeper still requires 4 loco's with the 92 sat around doing nothing for most of the day. Using 99s would require 3 loco's.

My understanding of current loco use:

Lowlander, all 92s:
1 pilot into Euston
1 loco departing Euston, heading to glasgow
1 loco Edinburgh-Carstairs-Edinburgh
1 pilot into/out of Glasgow
1 pilot into/out of Edinburgh
1 loco departing Glasgow into Euston

Total 6 locos across both directions

Highlander:
2 locos Fort william-Edinburgh-Fort william (73/66)
1/2 locos Aberdeen-Edinburgh-Aberdeen (73)
2 locos Inverness-Edinburgh-Inverness (73/66)
1 pilot into Euston
1 loco Euston-Edinburgh
1 loco Edinburgh-Euston

Total 5/6 diesel locos, and 3 electric locos across both directions

But, the pilot locos overlap with the service locos:
- the highlander pilot works or forms the pilot for the lowlander at Euston (-1 loco)
- the lowlander pilot into Edinburgh forms the Edinburgh-Euston highlander loco, and the arriving highlander loco forms the pilot for the lowlander in Edinburgh (-1 loco)

So, in total that is 5/6 diesel locos and 7 electric locos across both services in both direction. I'd appreciate if someone with more knowledge could confirm whether I got that right!

Replacing the diesel pairs with 99s reduces the number of locos to 3 bimodes and 7 electric locos, but I don't see how you can get it down any further, no matter whether you use 99s or 92s south of Edinburgh?

 

[Zomboid]

You'd probably save more locos using the mk5a DTs instead of Euston pilot locos than by swapping to 99s.

Though obviously it's not that simple.

 

[waverley47]

I think realistically it's much more simple.

The sleeper doesn't make any money, therefore there is an incentive to contact out haulage to a company offering lower haulage rates.

Both the 92s and the 73/9s are owned outright, not leased. They are BR era, without bells and whistles, and can basically be kept running indefinitely with duct tape and WD40. They've settled down to be reliable and dependable, and they have enough of them to cycle the fleet around as needed, which gives a lot of flexibility.

Yes, there are downsides to tying up an expensive 66 for certain workings, however overall, I'm going to guess it's cheaper for GBRf, and therefore cheaper for CS, to use these locos.

The 99s are going to be phenomenally expensive to lease. Tying up six of them on two passenger workings a day each, run overnight, when there's a viable alternative that already works, seems unlikely. Switch to 99s, and either GBRf takes a hit on the profit margin for the contract, stop making a profit altogether, or CS increases their already high prices.

I'm certain GBRf would rather they stretch their legs on the ECML and WCML, where their bi-mode capability and their six axles able to put down an enormous amount of power would be better utilised. They're built as freight locos, they will spend at least the first halves of their lives as freight locos.

 

[Class15]

Both the 92s and the 73/9s are owned outright, not leased. They are BR era, without bells and whistles, and can basically be kept running indefinitely with duct tape and WD40.

I would hardly say that a class 92 is basic. Look at all the Channel Tunnel precautions they had to adhere to, leading to expensive measures/features such as having two pantographs, very complicated electricals and being a nightmare to maintain.

 

[Iskra]

But, the loco change happens at Edinburgh, where there is both a reversal and the train splits into three segments, so it wouldn't save any of the costs of a loco change at all


would it be a saving? As you effectively can't avoid the loco change at Edinburgh, where is the saving coming from?

It also depends on how many 99s GBRf would be available for the sleeper, as you need fewer 99s if you only use them north of Edinburgh

It would save drivers being trained on a second loco type, which would save 2 weeks of training (I believe). So that’s 2 weeks of driver and trainers salary on every future driver. Plus the efficiencies of maintenance engineers only learning one type and supply chain savings of only one parts stream

 

[NIT100]

You'd probably save more locos using the mk5a DTs instead of Euston pilot locos than by swapping to 99s.

Though obviously it's not that simple.

Agreed. Can't actually use Mark 5A DTs, but order some extra Mark 5s, including DTs, split the Lowlander into two completely separate services, I believe would be cost neutral against complexity of splitting it at Carstairs and all the pilot locos moving about.

Yes, there are downsides to tying up an expensive 66 for certain workings, however overall, I'm going to guess it's cheaper for GBRf, and therefore cheaper for CS, to use these locos.

You might well be right, only future will tell what GBRf work out is most efficient