Because, for one largely simple reason. If your trailing loco isn’t detached at Reading, how does the sleeper get back to Reading in the morning from Paddington with the loco trapped on the blocks
Just tell the driver to stick his head out the window and look over his shoulder all the way back to Reading?Because, for one largely simple reason. If your trailing loco isn’t detached at Reading, how does the sleeper get back to Reading in the morning from Paddington with the loco trapped on the blocks
Pretty sure it's double track, nearly all stations are two platform affairs.Just tell the driver to stick his head out the window and look over his shoulder all the way back to Reading?
I suppose one could have the sets travel top-and-tailed at all times a la the Class 43 powercars if the reliability is such a concern? (especially seeing as much of the Cornish Mainline is single track iirc, and a failure would be, shall we say, rather detrimental to continued service). Alternatively, perhaps install a DVT at the other end to act as a control cab and double as additional luggage space?
I doubt it - AIUI HST mk3s had different wiring from loco-hauled mk3s, to enable them to carry control signals between the power cars.
The sleepers have through cables that could be used to carry control signals - the RCH jumpers have been used for TDM control in the past.
Whilst the technologiy is there - the GE-Harris (now Wabtec) Locotrol system does just that for DPU (Distributed Power Unit) where locos are spread through the train, all controlled from the leading cab - you can bet it would be a case of "not invented here" if someone wanted to use it here.
I think by using HST power cars or a DVT and maybe Class 67 or 68 on the sleeper would bring a great advantage to the sleeper. The 57s are quite unreliable recently and by using it in Push-Pull or HST mode would enable more storage for luggage (especially surf boards to Newquay etc) and will help with the shunting moves at both Penzance and Paddington. I know Reading aren't kitted out to do any light work on the 43s anymore but a swap to the 67 or 68 and a DVT would work easily as they've already got knowledge of diesel loco traction. Failing that, would Hitatchi be able to produce a 9-car sleeper variant of their 80x units? The Mk5s that Caledonian Sleeper have tough would be the best opportunity for the sleeper but without the extortionate CS charges!
That's a terrible idea. All that traction motor and electronics noise would be unacceptable. Not to mention the rattling and banging from the bogies.
Can count out the Mk Vs then.
Why on earth would you need 125 mph capable stock for a sleeper train? Other MUs are available to try and convert, in particular the fantastic FLIRT units, which have the benefit of the power packs being in separate 'coaches', away from passengers
There is precedent for multiple units as sleepers, China, Norway and Austria (to varying degrees of success and true multiple unit standard) have done it. I would suggest a FLIRT might be a better candidate for sleeper operation.
To be fair you can barely hear the engines in an 80x. The thrash pod on a FLIRT is quite noisy if you are near it, although I suppose the ends of the adjoining coaches could be used for toilets and luggage storage.
OeBB haven't yet made the NJ driving trailers work, even on their one internal service AFAIK.
Though that’s presumably a feature of that particular build. Loco-hauled push-pull is hardly novel - neither here nor elsewhere.
The existing Chiltern cl68s will be returning to DRS when the lease is up for use on DRS’s own services.
