1980s & Early 1990s Sleeper Formations

[Moog_1984]

Why was the NightStar over specified?

As in the next post MCR, cheap flights and the EurStar itself killed the whole project.

It was probably aimed at business execs and the whole brussels EU circus so yeah, maybe a little over-specced. I reckon with night trains through to Germany, where Lufthansa have a stranglehold on flight slots, that a form of service could have been economic: running say Manchester-brum- london-Lille-Brussels-Frankfurt.

The NightStar sleeper cars went to Canada though, while the two generator vans ( cummins engines like in the sprinter I heard mentioned) were at OOC. Have they been cut up?

On the topic of Sleeper DEMUs: This was consider when all that was DMU was shiny : Not very economic : since sleepers are marginally economic to run, if at all, without having some kind of subsidy (and why not?: Cheap flight operators get subsidies by the back door; roads are nearly all still public)

Trouble being that sleepers, and not "couchettes", sit around all day so you would be tie-ing up both stock and motive power with DEMUS.

Added to that the annoying noise from the underbody engines and it would be a bucket of fail.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

No, I'm not proposing underbody engines at all. I'm proposing an EDMU not a DEMU Sleeper. The diesel engine would be at the very end, like on the class 210. For the trunk haul ( at least on the WCML! ) it would be running off the OHL.

True, the Sleepers do sit around all day, but on the longer runs like Fort William the utilisation is not much less than you get out of daytime stock.

The main point of switching the EDMU operation is to reduce a lot of the avoidable costs - the coupling and shunting would be considerably reduced and there would be no locomotive hire-ins other than for the Thunderbird purposes. In turn, this - combined with the greater operational flexibility - would improve the margins.

 

[jamesontheroad]

I took the VIA Rail 'Ocean' for a round-trip between Montréal and Halifax in 2005. There are some of my photos here (watch out for the old BR logo, still visible through the buffet counter on the door of the microwave!)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbrownontheroad/sets/72157622117074168/

I travelled in a recliner, which was horrifically uncomfortable. Very very firm, and such an over-design carriage (with all manner of footrests, arm rests, ledges and storage spaces above and below the seat) I remember wishing I was just in a regular mk. 3 coach... it would have been much easier to contort myself or stretch out and get comfy!

Another issue not mentioned above is that many of the sleeper compartments have showers, and the additional weight of the water tanks needed for these made the trains too heavy for many lines in the UK. The Nightstar was basically designed as a premium hotel train, just as the low cost airlines were coming on the scene and making travel to Europe very cheap before people really started questioning the environmental consequences. If they hadn't been sold, I'm certain that by now Eurostar (or a private operator) would have given the project another shot, perhaps with different locomotives or major changes to the rolling stock as built.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Well, I for one would love to have a sleeper service to Paris etc because it would be much more relaxing than getting up early to get a day trip in, but I wouldn't want - or need - it to be anything more than roughly the sort of thing we get on our domestic Sleepers now.

 

[EltonRoad]

I saw that Charles Kennedy is backing a move to improve the booking system for the Sleepers and to try and secure their future - see his press release here.

 

[rail-britain]

I can understand why this prospective MP wants to see cheaper fares on the sleeper and a better system to ensure people can find the cheaper tickets more easily
Personally, the current system works quite well (better than it did under Intercity anyway!)
If you have a ticket, then you only pay the sleeper supplement
FSR then offer inclusive deals
Once the cheap tickets are gone, they are gone
What is so difficult with that?

Equally, the sleeper is inherently expensive to operate as the rolling stock only operates one service per day and then sits in a depot for the rest of that day
Each berth needs to be inspected, cleaned, and replenished
Each coach needs the tank to be drained and then refilled

I agree a "fixed formation" sleeper train does make sense...
Equally, I prefer the booking option on the Riveria rather than Caledonian; single or twin
However, the formation would need to be adjusted for each journey north of Edinburgh :
Driver Motor Brake
Standard Seats
Lounge car
Sleeper Single Berths (with attendant compartment) and disabled toilet
Sleeper Single Berths
Sleeper Twin Berths(with attendant compartment)
Sleeper Twin Berths
Driver Motor Brake

Obviously the Glasgow and Edinburgh services could be made up of one of each of the Single Berths, and then several of the Twin Berths
However, very quickly you realise that alone would have four Driver Motor Brake vehicles, which are currently sleepers!
You then realise the current arrangements are better, so a loco hauled version makes more sense

 

[Helvellyn]

What's the difference between a BT10 and a BT10C bogie?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I have found the outline drawing I did; I'll need to copy it out neater ( I'll try to do that tonight ) before I can scan it in but I can at least say what the capacity was - 30 cabins = up to 60 berths per 5 car unit, plus the seated capacity.

 

[jopsuk]

I do rather like this from Fictitious Liveries- a 153 Nighstar

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Right.... here is the sketch!

It's a very quick, roughly to scale, copy of the outline of what I have been trying to explain. One thing is obvious - my memory of the layout I created was a bit hazy when I posted earlier; I actually had the diesel engine and the OHL pantograph at opposite ends of the train.

Note the way I have taken advantage of the unit being articulated to play around with the door positions in such a way that the door layout is distinctly unconventional yet gives a conventional spacing relative to the cabins.

There are five toilets; three disabled size and two ( in the middle of the unit ) of the same size as the majority of the ones in the present Sleeper trains, and in the same side by side layout.

Vehicle lengths are 20m except for the Diesel / luggage vehicle, which is 16m - this is partly to maximise capacity and partly to ensure the unit length is such that, as explained earlier, four units coupled together will fit in the same space as a 16 car Caledonian rake with a locomotive attached.

At any rate, it should now be much clearer what I have been trying to say.

 

[A60K]

Interesting design - a Blue Pullman Sleeper almost!

I think the problem would be the limited flexibility and that fact that the traction is part of the train, rather than being a removable locomotive which can go off on other duties during the daytime or be replaced for maintenance.

Thinking of all the sleeper services in Europe, I don't believe there are any that operate with fixed formation traction-inclusive sets. Talgo stock is a sort of UMU (unpowered multiple unit) where a locomotive is added for traction. Other than than I think all sleeper trains are hauled coaching stock in the traditional sense.

 

[Moog_1984]

No, I'm not proposing underbody engines at all. I'm proposing an EDMU not a DEMU Sleeper. The diesel engine would be at the very end, like on the class 210. For the trunk haul ( at least on the WCML! ) it would be running off the OHL.

True, the Sleepers do sit around all day, but on the longer runs like Fort William the utilisation is not much less than you get out of daytime stock.

The main point of switching the EDMU operation is to reduce a lot of the avoidable costs - the coupling and shunting would be considerably reduced and there would be no locomotive hire-ins other than for the Thunderbird purposes. In turn, this - combined with the greater operational flexibility - would improve the margins.

I don't know why the 210's weren't judged successful enough to build a class. Reputedly they did have quite short Miles Per Failure and the test on the west higland line showed they were prone to wheelslip on the harsh gradients( could have been a gearing issue)

Virgin have figures hidden away comparing costs and reliability of using T-bird duffs and 37/4s versus DMU ( of course they have had their issues with DMUs) and a Scotrail source is quoted as saying that for load 5 coaches, loco hauled is more economic and would speed up timetables. ( or at least return them to what they were in 1984!)

If a "couchette" ( not recliner, folding beds that become seats)sleeper was produced for the UK then all the Scottish Services, Fishgaurd, Holyhead and Penzance all could see sensible active service during the day, be they DMUs, power car units or loco hauled.

Splitting trains is a pretty labour intensive exercise for three forwarding portions whatever the type of train. Loco hauled has the benefit of delivering the drivers to god forsaken places like Carstairs, and allow foran A exam inspection between day and night services.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I have considered a couchette style arrangement whereby the upper berth folds away ( which it would anyway, like in the Mk3s ) and the lower berth can be used as seated accomodation, but I'm wondering how quickly the berth conversion could be made considering it would be twice a day.

The capacity would be rather low for the size of the carriages, though - at 3 or 4 seats per compartment, side by side arrangement obviously, that would provide only 90 or 120 seats ( plus the seated area in the end car ) per train, which might be problematic?

 

[jopsuk]

I don't know why the 210's weren't judged successful enough to build a class. Reputedly they did have quite short Miles Per Failure and the test on the west higland line showed they were prone to wheelslip on the harsh gradients( could have been a gearing issue)

Isn't part of the issue that the direct alternative (in the configuration built) was the 150 or 151- which were higher cpacity for the same train length?

Back on the MU idea, I'm sure I've seen mention of some Japanese EMUs having the ability to convert to beds for night time use- though I think most of their remaining sleepers are essentially the only remaining loco-hauled passenger trains in service there. Sleepers dying out in Japan thanks to ever expanding HS reducing the demand.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

This is becoming a very good debate isn't it?

I'd still contend that an MU type operation would considerably reduce the shunting needed for the multiple portion workings - with MU auto-couplers it's a lot simpler than adding / removing a loco and splitting / joining carriages.

What I'd like opinions on is whether, with a compartment the same size as the one in a Mk3 Sleeper, you could reasonably get 4 seats across or if 3 would be the practical maximum? And then, of course, how quickly could you switch them from night to day configuration without having to employ an army of extra staff? Then whether the capacity of 90 or 120 + the end car seated area ( a further 30 - 40 seats?? ) would be sufficient for the workings you would be using it on?

 

[rail-britain]

What's the difference between a BT10 and a BT10C bogie?

There are four sub-type of the BT10 bogie
BT10 - 125mph
BT10A - 110mph
BT10B - 125mph
BT10C - 100mph

The BT10C was designed specifically for the sleepers
Close up you will notice that it has additional levelling valves (these are easier to see when standing facing the bodyside, looking at the right hand bogie)
There is also a different Swing Link configuration
Finally, it is also heavier, by about 350kg

 

[Moog_1984]

This is becoming a very good debate isn't it?



What I'd like opinions on is whether, with a compartment the same size as the one in a Mk3 Sleeper, you could reasonably get 4 seats across or if 3 would be the practical maximum? And then, of course, how quickly could you switch them from night to day configuration without having to employ an army of extra staff? Then whether the capacity of 90 or 120 + the end car seated area ( a further 30 - 40 seats?? ) would be sufficient for the workings you would be using it on?

The stock for the old Paris-Berlin over night was actually 6 beds per compartment. The conversion was straigthforward for passengers to do, but HSE fanboys would have a field day now on that! Also the width and height gauging is smaller in the UK so four is all that is most likely allowable.

I think it is a shame that the 210s werent built as a class, with dual mode to 25KV or even triple to third rail they would have been very useful and they were fast under DE power.

Units were supposed to replace an ageing fleet of diverse and often non standard locomotives with mixed class availabilities and reliabilities which were expensive to maintain, refurbish or replace

Does anyone disagree that the UK now has...a diverse set of non standard motive power inseparable from rolling stock which varies in availability and reliability and is potentially expensive to maintian, refurbish or replace....just out of interest?

 

[jopsuk]

as far as I'm aware (from sites such as The man in Seat 61) French Lunea sleeper couchettes are six person in standard, four in 1st- and convertabile to day use.

 

[jamesontheroad]

as far as I'm aware (from sites such as The man in Seat 61) French Lunea sleeper couchettes are six person in standard, four in 1st- and convertabile to day use.

Correct. I took one from Strasbourg down to Marseilles in 2007, I think. Corail Lunéa sleepers are just snazzily renamed Corail day/night carriages. I don't believe they're used in daytime service any more, simply because there are plenty of open and compartment Corail coaches out there for the few Corail operated daytime trains. Without any pressure on the fleet, it saves time and money not having to fold the bunks away for daytime services.

The Corail is a great design - a French equivalent to the mk. 3 I guess. Would they fit the UK loading gauge?

 

[jopsuk]

Whilst a mark 2 is almost as wide as a Corail carriage, they're a bit wider than mark 3s (2.8m versus 2.7m ish) and a full 3m longer. They're also wider lower down compared to UK stock. I think they'd scrape too many structures.