ASLEF Fear "Terrible" Class 73

[jopsuk]

if you were "avoiding" head end power you'd have to, during the splitting operation at Edinburgh, add a generator coach to each formation. The new stock could potentially, like IEP, be fitted with under floor generator equipment to fit this role instead, but that seems a bad idea to me.

And 66s are big heavy freight locos. The idea here is to use smaller lighter locos!

 

[bigdelboy]

... 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)

Possilbly a good match particularly for the west highland portion .... they appear to have dynamic braking, good wheelslip control and ETH. Downside may be they have turned in a little heavy ..... (RA7) which is not ideal for some of the west highland bridges ..

......

A further advantage to the 73/9's on the west highland is the double head ... when one breaks down there is the possibilty of
limping along (gradients/wheelslip permitting) or at the very least heating the train until and even after assistance arrives.

In general this arrangement proposed arrangement leads to a consistent power to train weight ratio and powered axles to train weight ratio.

 

[sprinterguy]

A further advantage to the 73/9's on the west highland is the double head ... when one breaks down there is the possibilty of
limping along (gradients/wheelslip permitting) or at the very least heating the train until and even after assistance arrives.

I didn’t think that the 73s would be used in pairs on the West Highland? Sounds like overkill for a 4 or 5 carriage train. Sounds like double-heading might only be under consideration for the Inverness sleeper portion.

 

[bigdelboy]

I didn’t think that the 73s would be used in pairs on the West Highland? Sounds like overkill for a 4 or 5 carriage train. Sounds like double-heading might only be under consideration for the Inverness sleeper portion.

You are probably right .. i get confused as north of watford is alien to me.

 

[cf111]

Possilbly a good match particularly for the west highland portion .... they appear to have dynamic braking, good wheelslip control and ETH. Downside may be they have turned in a little heavy ..... (RA7) which is not ideal for some of the west highland bridges ..

......

A further advantage to the 73/9's on the west highland is the double head ... when one breaks down there is the possibilty of
limping along (gradients/wheelslip permitting) or at the very least heating the train until and even after assistance arrives.

In general this arrangement proposed arrangement leads to a consistent power to train weight ratio and powered axles to train weight ratio.

The 67s are RA8, so I can't see that being a problem, however the RETB fitted 67s have cast-steel brakes installed so that they can run on the WHL.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Considering the amount of time spent at full throttle on the 67's and the severe gradients and weather that we get I simply cannot see this working.

That was the quote from the driver who currently works the sleepers. I think these 73/9's are also going to get a thrashing.

The below are ROUGH figures.

The quoted HP figure for a class 67 is 3200hp. However, the quoted Power at rail figure is around 2500hp. So straight off the bat, the 67 loses 700hp by virtue of mechanical losses and electrical losses to power ETH etc etc. This equates to just under a 5th of the 67's engine power (4.57 actually).

If the 73/9's are fitted with diesel engines of around 1500-1600hp and are also providing ETH power etc, AND we assume that they too will lose around a 5th of their engine power before the power at rail figure is achieved, then even a pair of super duper, re-engineered 73/9's will only produce the same power at rail as a 67.

Assuming the new engines are 1600hp, a loss of a fifth (4.57) brings them down to 1250hp x 2 = 2500 hp.

Assuming the new engines are 1500hp, a loss of a fifth (4.57) brings them down to 1172 x 2 = 2344hp.

I struggle to comprehend how two locomotives working hard on the West Highland will produce a financial saving over one loco.

Two fuel tanks to fill, double the amount of brake blocks to check/replace, in fact, double everything.

Throwing one out there, but could it be that GBrf own their 73's outright, where as the 67's are leased, which is providing the real 'cost saving' on this one?

 

[sprinterguy]

That was the quote from the driver who currently works the sleepers. I think these 73/9's are also going to get a thrashing.

I'm disinclined to dispute the view of someone who drives them, but given that the West Highland portion of the sleeper was reliably worked by single class 37s producing 1,750hp for many, many years, and at times with heavier loadings than at present due to having ETHELs or Motorail vans in tow, I fail to see why pairs of 73s would be needed on the West Highland sleeper.

Was that quote definitely in relation to the West Highland portion of the sleeper? I can understand such a comment with regard to the Inverness, or even the Aberdeen, portions, but if a 67 makes a job that was child's play for a single 37 look difficult then they would be fairly hopeless lumps of metal.

 

[jopsuk]

Not to forget that just by itself a Class 37 is a much heavier beast by about 30 tonnes- almost a full extra carriage

 

[Darandio]

Not to forget that just by itself a Class 37 is a much heavier beast by about 30 tonnes- almost a full extra carriage

Well, it was. How much extra weight has been added to these 73's? I'm not claiming it will be 30 tonnes, but I can't imagine it's only a couple either.

 

[talltim]

I'm disinclined to dispute the view of someone who drives them, but given that the West Highland portion of the sleeper was reliably worked by single class 37s producing 1,750hp for many, many years, and at times with heavier loadings than at present due to having ETHELs or Motorail vans in tow, I fail to see why pairs of 73s would be needed on the West Highland sleeper.

There's your answer, the 'hotel power' load takes a fair proportion of the loco's power. The 37s managed by not have to provide it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Was that quote definitely in relation to the West Highland portion of the sleeper? I can understand such a comment with regard to the Inverness, or even the Aberdeen, portions, but if a 67 makes a job that was child's play for a single 37 look difficult then they would be fairly hopeless lumps of metal.

I get the impression that the comment about needing to have 67s on full power a lot was due to accelerating from the many speed restrictions that are due to them having too high an axle loading. The 37s presumably didn't have this issue so didn't need to accelerate the train so frequently

 

[sprinterguy]

There's your answer, the 'hotel power' load takes a fair proportion of the loco's power. The 37s managed by not have to provide it.

37s provided train supply to the sleepers for 20 years from 1986, when the 37/4s were introduced. ETHELS were only an interim measure for a couple of years in the early to mid eighties.

I get the impression that the comment about needing to have 67s on full power a lot was due to accelerating from the many speed restrictions that are due to them having too high an axle loading. The 37s presumably didn't have this issue so didn't need to accelerate the train so frequently

That would make sense, as the 37s never were affected by the same speed restrictions as presently limit the 67s. The same would presumably apply for fairly lightweight class 73s as for the 37s.

 

[talltim]

The 37/4s had an ETH index of 30, the 67s 66. It will be interesting to see what the 73/9s have, and whether they the ETH can be 'multi-ed', i.e the ETH from the front loco can pass through the rear loco. Currently no locos have this capability, presumably due to insufficient wiring thickness.
A Mk3 SLE has an ETH index of 6, a SLEP 7. This would mean that a 37/4 would have been at its limit at 5 SLEs
In the longer term the new sleeper stock may have a far higher ETH requirement than the current stock.

 

[HSTEd]

Well there are efficiencies that can be made in terms f power consumption - LED lighting and trading in the motor-generators for static converters on new stock.

So I am not sure the ETH index is going to go up that much.

 

[BantamMenace]

If operating in pairs wont it be possible that the front loco pulls the train and the second powers the coaches?

Therefore the wear on things such as the traction motors is not doubled and in the case of a failure the roles of use loco change.

 

[edwin_m]

That would make sense, as the 37s never were affected by the same speed restrictions as presently limit the 67s. The same would presumably apply for fairly lightweight class 73s as for the 37s.

Always assuming that the "lightweight" class 73s can maintain enough adhesion. A 37 is actually quite a bit heavier than a 73, but route availability depends mainly on weight per axle and the 37 has more axles.

 

[chorleyjeff]

That was the quote from the driver who currently works the sleepers. I think these 73/9's are also going to get a thrashing.

The below are ROUGH figures.

The quoted HP figure for a class 67 is 3200hp. However, the quoted Power at rail figure is around 2500hp. So straight off the bat, the 67 loses 700hp by virtue of mechanical losses and electrical losses to power ETH etc etc. This equates to just under a 5th of the 67's engine power (4.57 actually).

If the 73/9's are fitted with diesel engines of around 1500-1600hp and are also providing ETH power etc, AND we assume that they too will lose around a 5th of their engine power before the power at rail figure is achieved, then even a pair of super duper, re-engineered 73/9's will only produce the same power at rail as a 67.

Assuming the new engines are 1600hp, a loss of a fifth (4.57) brings them down to 1250hp x 2 = 2500 hp.

Assuming the new engines are 1500hp, a loss of a fifth (4.57) brings them down to 1172 x 2 = 2344hp.

I struggle to comprehend how two locomotives working hard on the West Highland will produce a financial saving over one loco.

Two fuel tanks to fill, double the amount of brake blocks to check/replace, in fact, double everything.

Throwing one out there, but could it be that GBrf own their 73's outright, where as the 67's are leased, which is providing the real 'cost saving' on this one?

Bur 67s are 125mph geared. Maybe not so good on low speed line with steep gradients.

 

[crewmeal]

It's a shame they couldn't convert 47's to something like a 57/4 which would see adequate traction for the Highland Lines.

 

[90019]

I struggle to comprehend how two locomotives working hard on the West Highland will produce a financial saving over one loco.

Two fuel tanks to fill, double the amount of brake blocks to check/replace, in fact, double everything.

But the plan is for the Fort William train to use a single 73, not two of them.

 

[route:oxford]

It's a shame they couldn't convert 47's to something like a 57/4 which would see adequate traction for the Highland Lines.

Although a 47 can't (or shouldn't) go to Oban - an occasional diversion.

You never know what Serco plan on doing with the 73s during the day too

 

[sprinterguy]

If operating in pairs wont it be possible that the front loco pulls the train and the second powers the coaches?

Therefore the wear on things such as the traction motors is not doubled and in the case of a failure the roles of use loco change.

That's not going to work on the Inverness portion, with the current loadings. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't think the Inverness sleeper has ever been rostered for a single diesel loco of less than 2,000hp.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Always assuming that the "lightweight" class 73s can maintain enough adhesion. A 37 is actually quite a bit heavier than a 73, but route availability depends mainly on weight per axle and the 37 has more axles.

Very true - A class 37 is RA 5 (17.83t per axle for a 37/4) and a class 73, in their existing guise (I don't have any details of the rebuilt version) is RA 6 (19.25t per axle).

It is worth noting as well that, prior to the 37s rocking up, traffic on the West Highland line was ably handled by four axle class 27 locos of 1,250hp and a weight similar to that of a class 73 (72 - 77 tonnes).

 

[Chris125]

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.

That's true for the original design, but the rebuilding project effectively turns them into a modern, medium-powered diesel loco as well as a 3rd rail electric - this isn't about taking locos away from the 3rd rail but making the 73 fleet much larger and more flexible so they can be used elsewhere too, which justifies the investment.

Chris

 

[Smudger105e]

It will be interesting to see what the 73/9s have, and whether they the ETH can be 'multi-ed', i.e the ETH from the front loco can pass through the rear loco. Currently no locos have this capability, presumably due to insufficient wiring thickness.

Nothing to do with cable thicknesses, it is not something that is ever done, not a good idea to connect any two generators in parallel with each other, that would be asking for flashovers and other problems.

Nice photos but I can't help thinking of the old saying that you can polish a turd...........!

I think you'll find the expression is that you can't polish a turd...

 

[90019]

I think you'll find the expression is that you can't polish a turd...

It's not true, regardless - you can polish it, you just end up with a very shiny turd.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The 37/4s had an ETH index of 30, the 67s 66. It will be interesting to see what the 73/9s have, and whether they the ETH can be 'multi-ed', i.e the ETH from the front loco can pass through the rear loco. Currently no locos have this capability, presumably due to insufficient wiring thickness.
A Mk3 SLE has an ETH index of 6, a SLEP 7. This would mean that a 37/4 would have been at its limit at 5 SLEs
In the longer term the new sleeper stock may have a far higher ETH requirement than the current stock.

Didn't the Fragonset 31/6s have through-wiring for ETH? Though as they didn't provide any themselves I suppose that's not quite the same...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

According to the Scotsman, the ASLEF union fear that class 73 locos will threaten the Caledonian Sleeper...

I wish that the word "fear" could have a different alternative to it, when used in media usage, such as this particular example.

 

[Jamesb1974]

I think you'll find the expression is that you can't polish a turd...

I don't know. What if you froze it, wrapped it in clingfilm and sprayed it with varnish? You could give it a decent sheen then.

Just saying. The mind does wander...

 

[bigdelboy]

I wish that the word "fear" could have a different alternative to it, when used in media usage, such as this particular example.

I can only think the caledonian sleeper coaches may be afraid of:

1. the "bagpipes" (SR 27-wire) ... What do they do and just where might some piper try to stick those connectors !!!!!!!
2. Large round Oleo buffershttps://www.flickr.com/photos/37260/14818702872/http://paulbiggs.zenfolio.com/p900568081/h2BCDB4C0
3. Shoes that might drop down and drop off
4. Rumours of massive arcing fireworks and fires from down south ... (this of course shouldn't happen if there is no third rail!)
5. (Unfounded) rumours they are big yellow beasts with two enginers and bare fronts!
   http://paulbigland.zenfolio.com/p119809187/h25315736

Some comment has been made on how the RVEL class 73/9s have had CAB ergonomcally redesigned in consultation .... if the Brush 73/9's have had no such redesign!




Ah .. just noticed :: 73961 is spotted on runaway testing ....

https://thedrunkbirder.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/140917_gbrf_73961_rothley_1.jpg

Looks frontally different to 73962 above

 

[Voyager 2093]

Please do forgive if this sounds ignorant but wouldn't a HST be perfect for the Caledonian Sleeper?

 

[SprinterMan]

Please do forgive if this sounds ignorant but wouldn't a HST be perfect for the Caledonian Sleeper?

Splitting it into 3 portions would be Hellish :P If it wasn't for the vibrations from the underfloor engines, running it with a Voyager or Adelante converted for sleeper use and properly refurbished would be interesting (in my opinion) but they are far too shaky and loud because it getting a good nights sleep is difficult when sleeping a few feet away from a 19 litre diesel engine working hard

Adam

 

[cj_1985]

Ah .. just noticed :: 73961 is spotted on runaway testing ....

https://thedrunkbirder.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/140917_gbrf_73961_rothley_1.jpg

Looks frontally different to 73962 above

i think the only frontal differences are that 961 has a split orange/yellow front end, lacks the high level brake lines, and lacks the chunky airline handle that 962 displayed when shown in that all over blue paint job with full yellow ends
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One thing that I don't think anyone has touched on...
How likely is it that part of this whole... "fear" is not down to just locomotive age/performance etc... and in thencase of the 73s, be down to the more... spartan drivers cab on the 73 compared to the more modern 67s cab?. I mean drivers conditions is part of what ASLEF are meant to fight for, isn't it