-
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!
ASLEF Fear "Terrible" Class 73
- Thread starter route:oxford
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Slipping. The 90 is very light on its wheels and had a tendency to slip, a lot. Plus if you added the general lack of care and build quality at the time (they were nicknamed skodas for a good reason) they could be a miserable experience. Things such as leaks, filthy cabs, snatching when taking power, that sort of thing. It was a shame as the 90 wasn't a bad loco ito be in if it was looked after. (would still take an 87 every time if I could!)
zn1
Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 435
can I point out something here...this is technically a new 73 being introduced...personally I wouldn't rate anything at small as them at the head of 12-13 MK3 sleepers, getting up Camden will be an experience, but they could grab the juice until over the summit...
Personally until the 73's have been type tested with aoverloaded sandbagged load of sleepers on the job we wil have to see what happens..along with a restart test on shap and beattock ....which they will have to do...
The 87's used to sit on a sleeper and not be bothered by them, as can a good 86 I suspect, there are couple of 87s still left here...87s are a missed commodity I think at the moment...90's maybe the refined version of 87101, but they don't have that thing that their mothers have...tap changing grunt...
the 90s as front seaters have said can do the job when the locos are looked after...which from one gathers ...they are not...
as for the 92's...they were built to drag the eurosleepers which are much heavier than a mk3 rake...so id go for a 92 on the sleepers...id get the software updated for 100mph running and see how the 92s cope...I suspect they will find running the Caledonians easy
Personally until the 73's have been type tested with aoverloaded sandbagged load of sleepers on the job we wil have to see what happens..along with a restart test on shap and beattock ....which they will have to do...
The 87's used to sit on a sleeper and not be bothered by them, as can a good 86 I suspect, there are couple of 87s still left here...87s are a missed commodity I think at the moment...90's maybe the refined version of 87101, but they don't have that thing that their mothers have...tap changing grunt...
the 90s as front seaters have said can do the job when the locos are looked after...which from one gathers ...they are not...
as for the 92's...they were built to drag the eurosleepers which are much heavier than a mk3 rake...so id go for a 92 on the sleepers...id get the software updated for 100mph running and see how the 92s cope...I suspect they will find running the Caledonians easy
NSEFAN
Established Member
Why are people talking about 73s working out of Euston? Surely they only need to be hauling the sleeper portions to Fort William, Inverness and Aberdeen, which are much more manageable loads than the full train?
LexyBoy
Established Member
As has been mentioned several times, the 73s will replace the 67s on the highland portions - so only ~4 coaches - and the sleepers will be worked by 92s between Edinburgh/Glasgow and London.
92s will I'm sure do a fine job on that, they would struggle on the highland routes though.
The 73s are for hauling the seperate parts of the train when it splits at Edinburgh to go to Fort William, Inverness and Aberdeen so there is no need to test them on Camden, Shap or Beattock as they won't be going there. None of those portions are 12 coaches either so that's not a problem either.
sprinterguy
Established Member
Eight coaches on the Inverness portion, and 5/6 on the Aberdeen. Still not an issue though, if the Inverness portion is planned to use 73s in pairs.
ExRes
Established Member
Some of the stuff about 73s on here is hair raising, should I stand up for them and say they operated Gatwick Express far more reliably than a 90 ever would .....
:roll:
:roll:
zn1
Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 435
the 73's may have been a great loco totally reliable etc etc..that was on a 4srkt power unit and 546 traction motor package...this is a totally new traction package in the body shell that will need to be proven...in the same way the 57's were...
pairs of 73's on the scot runs - not really economical when one 92 or a 67 could handle the job on half power..
that's the point im making
pairs of 73's on the scot runs - not really economical when one 92 or a 67 could handle the job on half power..
that's the point im making
ExRes
Established Member
What do you mean by economical though ?, economical to run day in day out or economical to lease ?
I understand that the 67 is an extremely expensive loco to operate covering all-in costs, but I have no evidence, do you ?, while I would have thought nobody yet knows the cost of running the rebuilt 73s
Altnabreac
Established Member
Worth remembering the Highland portions are going to have to change under the new Franchise agreement.
Fort William seated customers (and Bikes/Luggage) will have to be conveyed directly without a change at Edinburgh.
It's slightly unclear if this will start immediately or when the new carriages arrive in 2017.
This will mean at least a 4 car train to Fort William every night.
If the main maintenance base were to change from Inverness to Polmadie (as is rumoured) then the necessity to send 8 cars every night to Inverness would also be removed.
You could then have 2 x 5 car trains and 1 x 6 car on the 3 Highland portions.
I would have thought a single 73 could then cope?
crewmeal
Member
I remember 73's pulling the Channel Island Boat Trains of the 70's and 80's with 8 heavy MK1's. But of course it was using DC voltage from Bournemouth to Waterloo. Guess they will be stripped completely and re engined along with ETH so as to cope with Highland work with up to 8 MK 3's.
Shame they didn't save any 33's.
Shame they didn't save any 33's.
That's what I was thinking - and with the 'voluntary speed limits' (i.e. below train and track limits) for passenger comfort, it is quite likely that they won't be heavily taxed...
Someone was at the brush works open day and has a few photos of the gutting in progress ...... go left and right from the link ....
https://www.flickr.com/photos/37260/14838891323/in/photostream/
... In fact a remarkable proportion of 33's have in fact survived.
It looks more like they have completely revuilt and refurbished them!. If you showed someone not in the know those pics, they would think it was a new train coming off a production line (apart from the fact they arent hideously ugly)
crewmeal
Member
Good detailed photos. Makes you wonder what's left of the original loco. When will they start 'training' north of the border?
GatwickDepress
Established Member
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
route:oxford
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 4,949
They can do more than 10mph on the sections of the WHL that a class 67 can't and there are no other suitable locos with hotel power?
ExRes
Established Member
Possibly because they are a damn sight cheaper than having a new loco designed and built and probably because they meet the new emission standards where a new design wouldn't, although I stand to be corrected by those that may know better
The 3rd rail ability means nothing in particular, if it's used it's used if it isn't it isn't, but it's there for the future if they are needed back on the Southern
SpacePhoenix
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 5,492
Could the AC overhead traction package of an EMU fit inside a 73 (along with pan well and pan on the roof) to replace the 3rd rail DC traction package?
there are plenty of (much more powerful) AC overhead locos in store which could be reactivated if needed so why convert the 73 to a relatively low powered AC overhead loco which would need to run in pairs anyway?
I dont think it would be difficult to do but I think it would be a solution looking for a problem.
I agree with the answers between that post and this, but to summarise by thoughts ....
The class 67 appears to be optimized for 125 mph and not for speeds of the Scotland sleeper services. There appears to be some concerns about the fuel efficiency; and the statement of driver on this thread they appear to be operated on full throttle a lot of time would seem to bear this out. The fact they need cast steel brakes for the west highland lines means a lot of braking for gradients/speed restrictions and acceleration away thereafter. And unless the gearing was altered they might not be optimal at that. This all points to high fuel consumption. ( Ref: http://www.scot-rail.co.uk/page/Class+67
If the new 73/9(6s) ( I think it is stupid to have 73/9 covering two completely different rebuilds ... IMHO these should be 73/6 or something) have a more efficient diesel unit, and especially if it could use dynamic/regenerative braking (unsure itf it does) .. and good traction control, these could be a significant economy win and less issues with the axle loading ...
( I assume the DC motors are being retained .... and that may be a downside).
Obviously the've taking the 73's completely apart ... and how many changes on the rebuild who knows .... the more changes the more potential reliability risks there may be. The rebuilds may turn out as reliable as the originals ... or the west highland line may expose weakness .... but I suspect teething problems at least are probably likely until screws are rusted in.
As GBRF seems to be buying up all 73's it can find; even out preservation; it would have a good source of spares for those that are not rebuilt.
Apart from a class 33 or 57 that would seem to fit the requirement out of the box, (but age is honourable), I am not sure any other class (apart from a 67!) could rebuilt to fit the requirement.
.....
Off Topic: Interestingly south of the border a driver claims the class 90's could be slippy with the weight of these trains ... and a class 92 co-co should be better, though those also seem to be capable of poor adhesion I seem to have heard.
Probably any A/C rebuilds might be ED dual mode ( A class 90 rebuild with less power, better traction control and a last mile diesel/battery option might well be a useful beast). But the 73's were designed from this from the start and the design has the required weight distribution ( I believe the rebuilds need concrete ballast ... a big battery might suit better, but it might be a fire risk!)
Ramblings over.
THe class 73 was good in snow one night ... got me from Southampton to Bournemouth (?1979/80/81/82) one sunday evening when nothing else running and a 33 lost between dorchester and Weymouth for days .... so they do seem to cope with the snow AFAIK.
Thanks for the explanations. I'm reading that as basically that the 73/9s are not really necessarily the best or optimal for the job, but more the only thing around of roughly the right power and a cost effective new diesel power unit option. What's really needed is a 37/47/57, or similar, but those are not on-hand with a cost effective new power unit option.
It just seems bizarre to take a loco that's designed to run primarily on 3rd rail DC, with the diesel as a last mile/backup facility, and then use them purely as diesels. No objection to a few interesting old EE locos getting a new life, it's just a bit bizarre.
Would the new 68s be reasonably well suited to the job? (From a technical/engineering point of view, leaving the political/business stuff out of it)
It just seems bizarre to take a loco that's designed to run primarily on 3rd rail DC, with the diesel as a last mile/backup facility, and then use them purely as diesels. No objection to a few interesting old EE locos getting a new life, it's just a bit bizarre.
Would the new 68s be reasonably well suited to the job? (From a technical/engineering point of view, leaving the political/business stuff out of it)
gazthomas
Established Member
Avoid head-end power and use 66's?
- Status