• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Caledonian Sleeper

EE Andy b1

EE Andy b1

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2013
Messages
1,212
Location
CLC
What about the driver side of things? It's GBRf that provide the traction and drivers throughout on all trains. So limited amount of drivers. Limited amount of traction. As that failure on 1B11 shows, lack of drivers with route knowledge. Surely if Scotrail then all drivers on route would sign the traction.
That night was just a night of unfortunate circumstances but will probably happen again unless some sort of contingency plan is put into place.
A back up Class 73 and crew at Fort William might have helped. Expensive things to have sat around we know, but what price bad customer service?
The Caledonian Sleeper name is getting slated big time at the moment. Will they fully recover from that?
I love rail travel, best way to travel, on descent trains that is, but I'll not now travel with CS again until some reliability is forthcoming.
I'm a driver I know anything can happen on the day but this is just crazy now.
CS can't even get the empties off depot on time. Something's got to give.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

6

6Z09

Member
Joined
19 Nov 2009
Messages
499
Route and traction knowledge are now very contract specific,resulting in loss of both throughout the industry.
 
J

jagardner1984

Member
Joined
11 May 2008
Messages
671
Exactly what Andy said.

I don’t doubt there are big issues getting stock and staff in the right place. Maybe it’s even impossible.

When a train fails on Saturday morning, I DO find it unacceptable that even if all spare options have been exhausted within CS’ fleet, that GBRF are unable to move stock to the correct locations (are they doing this ? - the service alterations page suggests starting from Edinburgh) that no other train, locomotive or coaching stock can be driven by any other company or agency (albeit route conducted) anywhere in the UK, and you have to resort to sending a bus from Euston to Dumbarton, for a train departing almost 36 hours later.

Some people in this thread seem to want to say any reasonable alternative plan is unachievable, and we just have to accept such things. For a target market that is moving increasingly from being a form of travel into the selling of an experience, at a huge premium against simple day travel, the review sites and the social media, critical to communicating with international visitors, paint an increasingly bleak viewpoint. Serco and government ministers need to act fast to salvage this situation.
 
Highlandspring

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,777
EE Andy b1 said:
What about the driver side of things? It's GBRf that provide the traction and drivers throughout on all trains. So limited amount of drivers. Limited amount of traction. As that failure on 1B01 shows, lack of drivers with route knowledge. Surely if Scotrail then all drivers on route would sign the traction.
Click to expand...
When ScotRail (under NatEx then First) ran the sleepers provision of locomotives and drivers for all trains except the Fort William portion was hired in from EWS and at one point Virgin. The Fort William portion was worked by ScotRail drivers from Queen Street and Fort William depots with hired in traction from EWS. I don't see why Abellio would seek to do anything differently if they ran the sleepers.

From my perspective I know the GBRf controllers work extremely hard to overcome problems and are continually manipulating company resources throughout the whole 24 hour period to ensure services can be delivered. But they're not superheros and they are limited in what they can do because of what's available; the resourcing is very tight for both locos and drivers. I don't often have cause to deal with the CS Service Delivery Managers in Inverness but whenever I have spoken to them they've always been very focussed on the needs of the passengers.

People calling for the Caledonian Sleeper franchise to be returned to the main ScotRail franchise should be careful what they wish for given the very high profile difficulties encountered and the continual public slating Abellio has endured.
 
C

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,128
EE Andy b1 said:
Back to Caledonian Sleeper.

So when do we think Transport Scotland will take back the Caledonian sleepers
Click to expand...
very unlikely I’d say, a franchise has never previously been terminated for poor performance & these large companies employ professionals very capable of deflecting most of the blame, & the multitude of contracts involved in running today’s railway, make this a pretty straightforward task, besides with today’s polarised politics the current regime at Holyrood aren’t likely to relish tackling anything controversial that doesn’t further their cause for independence
 
Last edited:
EE Andy b1

EE Andy b1

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2013
Messages
1,212
Location
CLC
Highlandspring said:
People calling for the Caledonian Sleeper franchise to be returned to the main ScotRail franchise should be careful what they wish for given the very high profile difficulties encountered and the continual public slating Abellio has endured.
Click to expand...

This is true as things are not going to well with them.
Something needs to happen though as CS is not looking too appetizing to passenger travel at the moment and staff trying there best are getting stressed out.
I enjoy my job and normally do enjoy turning up for work, some shifts better than others. If you lose that it can be a very long week.
 
MrEd

MrEd

Member
Joined
13 Jan 2019
Messages
587
Highlandspring said:
When ScotRail (under NatEx then First) ran the sleepers provision of locomotives and drivers for all trains except the Fort William portion was hired in from EWS and at one point Virgin. The Fort William portion was worked by ScotRail drivers from Queen Street and Fort William depots with hired in traction from EWS. I don't see why Abellio would seek to do anything differently if they ran the sleepers.
Click to expand...

I think the first thing we need to establish is why Abellio would want the Sleeper, given the unenviable nature of managing the complex Mk5 introduction and the complex operation generally. As the only traction now available to them is 92s and 73/9s given the constraints of the Mk5s, they would need to keep GBRf as a traction provider (unless they had a really radical plan), and GBRf as part of the contract supply drivers for all portions of the Sleeper. The use of Scotrail drivers on the Fort William run finished when GBRf took over in 2015. I cannot see why Abellio would want to train their own drivers to drive the 73/9s given the cost and time involved, and the fact that GBRf can already supply drivers.

Had Friday night’s failure occurred in Scotrail days, I personally very much doubt that Scotrail could have done anything different. Spare locos and drivers (who sign those locos) at Fort William would hardly have been guaranteed, and there’s also no guarantee that an RETB fitted 67 (or whatever- bearing in mind it would need both RETB fitted and to be cleared to work the WHL) and a driver who signed both it and the WHL would have been instantly available in the Glasgow area. In any case, I don’t think any Scotrail drivers from Glasgow who worked the Sleeper ever signed the WHL beyond Rannoch, so the problem of getting the rescue loco to the stricken train would still have remained, as there would probably have been no-one to route conduct the Glasgow driver.

Spare locos and crews are hardly in abundance on the modern railway full stop.
 
MrEd

MrEd

Member
Joined
13 Jan 2019
Messages
587
EE Andy b1 said:
What about the driver side of things? It's GBRf that provide the traction and drivers throughout on all trains. So limited amount of drivers. Limited amount of traction. As that failure on 1B11 shows, lack of drivers with route knowledge. Surely if Scotrail then all drivers on route would sign the traction. A back up Class 73 and crew at Fort William might have helped. Expensive things to have sat around we know, but what price bad customer service?
Click to expand...

When, in July 2015, a Class 67 failed at Slochd with the southbound Inverness portion and was stranded all night in a high profile incident, CS insisted (till the end of the year) that the Inverness portion was worked by two Class 67s. The arrangement was then seen as wasteful, as failures on the Highland main line were very rare, and forgotten about by the start of 2016. CS could insist that this happens with 73s on the FTW in the short-term, but once the Mk5s are running, there won’t be enough locos for this, as two 73s will always be needed on the Inverness.

There is absolutely no guarantee that all Scotrail drivers at Queen St and Fort William would sign the Sleeper locos: the Sleeper work is often considered top-link work and reserved for the higher links in a given depot, meaning that lower links are unlikely to sign the Sleeper locos (these, whether 67s or 73/9s, are complex machines and very different from driving the usual units). I admittedly know nothing about the link structure of those depots in First Scotrail days, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that was the case (certainly with GBRf at larger depots, the Sleeper work is reserved for the top link, with the result that lower links may not always sign the appropriate traction).
 
Caleb2010

Caleb2010

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2015
Messages
355
Location
Dufftown
Bletchleyite said:
They do have that computer, but they can technically be in any formation so aren't MUs. The TPE sets are bar-coupled within a "unit" and have screw couplers and buffers on the outer ends so those are unpowered MUs.
Click to expand...

Cheers, apologies for the last line of my original post - it should have said I really need - to read the forum properly .... But my mobile keyboard plays tricks on me!!
 
Highlandspring

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,777
MrEd said:
I think the first thing we need to establish is why Abellio would want the Sleeper, given the unenviable nature of managing the complex Mk5 introduction and the complex operation generally. As the only traction now available to them is 92s and 73/9s given the constraints of the Mk5s, they would need to keep GBRf as a traction provider (unless they had a really radical plan), and GBRf as part of the contract supply drivers for all portions of the Sleeper. The use of Scotrail drivers on the Fort William run finished when GBRf took over in 2015. I cannot see why Abellio would want to train their own drivers to drive the 73/9s given the cost and time involved, and the fact that GBRf can already supply drivers.

Had Friday night’s failure occurred in Scotrail days, I personally very much doubt that Scotrail could have done anything different. Spare locos and drivers (who sign those locos) at Fort William would hardly have been guaranteed, and there’s also no guarantee that an RETB fitted 67 (or whatever- bearing in mind it would need both RETB fitted and to be cleared to work the WHL) and a driver who signed both it and the WHL would have been instantly available in the Glasgow area. In any case, I don’t think any Scotrail drivers from Glasgow who worked the Sleeper ever signed the WHL beyond Rannoch, so the problem of getting the rescue loco to the stricken train would still have remained, as there would probably have been no-one to route conduct the Glasgow driver.

Spare locos and crews are hardly in abundance on the modern railway full stop.
Click to expand...
Well, exactly. I'm in agreement with everything you have written there.
 
Highlandspring

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,777
MrEd said:
CS could insist that this happens with 73s on the FTW in the short-term, but once the Mk5s are running, there won’t be enough locos for this, as two 73s will always be needed on the Inverness..
Click to expand...
If I were in charge at GBRf I'd be looking to convert a few more 73/9s as a matter of urgency. Another three should do it...
 
TimboM

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
Kendalian said:
ECS working from Polmadie to Wembley on it's way as well

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O18148/2019/06/30/advanced

Only 140 tonnes trailing load though so may not be the empties to work north tonight?

Fort William working hasn't left yet though according to RTT (as at 1152)
Click to expand...
I wouldn't pay much attention to timing loads, especially on STP paths.

It was 92010 with 8x Mk5s, being the 'missing' Glasgow portion from the cancelled 1M11 on Friday night going to Wembley to ensure the northbound tonight is fully-formed.
 
Kendalian

Kendalian

Member
Joined
30 Mar 2016
Messages
249
TimboM said:
I wouldn't pay much attention to timing loads, especially on STP paths.

It was 92010 with 8x Mk5s, being the 'missing' Glasgow portion from the cancelled 1M11 on Friday night going to Wembley to ensure the northbound tonight is fully-formed.
Click to expand...

Yes, quite a few photos have turned up...

The guests on tonight's marathon coach journey to Dumbarton could be forgiven for asking why the FW coaches couldn't have been tagged on as well!
 
C

chuff chuff

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
459
Bletchleyite said:
I'm not totally sure it will. If it was given back to ScotRail it could of course be wholly rebranded. Who wouldn't love to see "The Deerstalker Express" on the boards at Euston? :)
Click to expand...
And to justify that scotrail would have to allow guns on board again.
 
EE Andy b1

EE Andy b1

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2013
Messages
1,212
Location
CLC
Highlandspring said:
If I were in charge at GBRf I'd be looking to convert a few more 73/9s as a matter of urgency. Another three should do it...
Click to expand...
How different are GBRfs other Class 73/9s, apart from the lack of a dellner coupler, they use down south for freight work?
Perhaps these could be moved north at least as a temporary fix, once dellner fitted, or perhaps not.
 
TimboM

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
Kendalian said:
Yes, quite a few photos have turned up...

The guests on tonight's marathon coach journey to Dumbarton could be forgiven for asking why the FW coaches couldn't have been tagged on as well!
Click to expand...
If they ask, there's a simple answer: Mk3s/Mk2s cannot couple to Mk5s.

EE Andy b1 said:
How different are GBRfs other Class 73/9s, apart from the lack of a dellner coupler, they use down south for freight work?
Perhaps these could be moved north at least as a temporary fix, once dellner fitted, or perhaps not.
Click to expand...
They're a different build with different driving controls. They also are used for other duties and the mods (which are just a new coupler) take months to do, so they're not an option for a "temporary fix".

Highlandspring said:
If I were in charge at GBRf I'd be looking to convert a few more 73/9s as a matter of urgency. Another three should do it...
Click to expand...
Those in charge will have weighed up the costs of cancelling services vs the costs per loco (which are significant) and determined what was necessary to deliver the service in line with the contract. More will only be done if a) it looks like the costs of cancellations would outweigh the cost of another loco or b) someone else (e.g. Serco or TS) pays for it to be done.

Once the froth over Friday-night's failure has been waded through, the facts are 73/9 failures are pretty rare and would not appear to justify the cost of several extra locomotives... one perhaps, but not three.
 
EE Andy b1

EE Andy b1

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2013
Messages
1,212
Location
CLC
Sounds like the saga will go on until the Mk5 sleeper coaches work properly, then the complaints will just go back to seating and how uncomfortable they seem to be, beds, who knows, oh and the noise, oh and the rough riding, rubbish food if your unlucky enough to get some.
Oh dear UK rail gone down the pan.
 
M

Maxfly

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2010
Messages
269
Location
Scotland
I do agree that a ‘thunderbird’ is wasteful but any spare locos should be fuelled up wherever possible. It’s ok on anything that has a long range but one of the very few shortcomings on a 73 is the range. This wouldn’t purely be for WHL standby but any failure off the wires of a GBRF hauled service. There should surely be at least an idea of what needs to happen when a failure occurs in a remote area, asking the driver to get to the nearest road and get to Helensburgh shows a lack of knowledge of the area the train runs through which shouldn’t be the case. An in-depth knowledge is not required but the basics should at least be, believe driver was also told to utilise the gsm-r........
Also as said previously WCRC had 3 locos at Fort William, I would hope they had at least been approached to see if they could offer any assistance. As a loco 30 minutes away is a heck of a lot handier than one in polmadie.
 
T

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,442
Maxfly said:
Also as said previously WCRC had 3 locos at Fort William, I would hope they had at least been approached to see if they could offer any assistance. As a loco 30 minutes away is a heck of a lot handier than one in polmadie.
Click to expand...
How would they be able to help? Single track line so their loco would have had to couple to the rear, which it can't because it doesn't have Dellner couplers...

Edit: oops forgot this is the old stock. No Dellner to worry about.
 
Last edited:
I

Ianigsy

Member
Joined
12 May 2015
Messages
1,110
You can't sell people a hotel on wheels experience and then provide Fawlty Towers on the day- the sleeper is increasingly marketed as a premium leisure product and people will make their decision on that basis. An overnight road coach, lack of catering or lounge car is equivalent to Cunard hiring an Isle of Man ferry to cover for the Queen Mary 2!

Unfortunately Thursday was also a bad day for Glasgow in particular- problems with overhead power at Charing Cross in the morning and Partick in the evening knocked out much of the low level service from the main termini and a points failure at Bridge Street hit the evening peak from Central towards Ayrshire in particular with a fair few services cancelled or turned at Paisley.
 
6

6Z09

Member
Joined
19 Nov 2009
Messages
499
trebor79 said:
How would they be able to help? Single track line so their loco would have had to couple to the rear, which it can't because it doesn't have Dellner couplers...
Click to expand...
Old stock,does not need dellners
Beat me to it Maxfly
 
Last edited:
6

6Z09

Member
Joined
19 Nov 2009
Messages
499
Ianigsy said:
You can't sell people a hotel on wheels experience and then provide Fawlty Towers on the day- the sleeper is increasingly marketed as a premium leisure product and people will make their decision on that basis. An overnight road coach, lack of catering or lounge car is equivalent to Cunard hiring an Isle of Man ferry to cover for the Queen Mary 2!

Unfortunately Thursday was also a bad day for Glasgow in particular- problems with overhead power at Charing Cross in the morning and Partick in the evening knocked out much of the low level service from the main termini and a points failure at Bridge Street hit the evening peak from Central towards Ayrshire in particular with a fair few services cancelled or turned at Paisley.
Click to expand...
The marketing of the hotel on wheels has been a fiasco , and someone should have realised that long ago!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top