• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
According to the Scotsman, the ASLEF union fear that class 73 locos will threaten the Caledonian Sleeper...
FEARS have been raised by train drivers that plans to transform the Caledonian Sleeper into a “world class experience” will be threatened by using re-built 50-year-old locomotives which have a “terrible” past record, The Scotsman has learned.

Rail firms are also understood to have concerns about whether the locomotives can cope with hilly Scottish routes.

They are also worried about the potential impact on other trains of another type of engine that will be used for the service, because these have a lower top speed than the locomotives which currently haul the sleepers.

Serco will take over the London-Scotland overnight franchise in April with a pledge to create a service “emblematic of the best of Scotland”.

However, it has emerged that the plans include using rebuilt locomotives within Scotland that have never run before north of the Border, which train drivers’ union Aslef said had a poor reliability record.

A report commissioned by Scottish Government agency Transport Scotland, which is in charge of the £800m sleeper contract, has also warned of the risk of using such untested locomotives, known as class 73s.

The study, by consultants Atkins, raised further concern about other, class 92, engines which will haul the sleepers between Scotland and England because their low top speed could be insufficient to make up lost time after delays.

Aslef Scottish secretary Kevin Lindsay said he had “real concerns” about using the 1960s-vintage class 73s to run the trains between Edinburgh and Aberdeen, Inverness and Fort William.

He said: “We feel it’s not going to work. They were terrible when they came in and terrible over their whole career.”

The Atkins report stated: “The leading bidder has proposed the use of class 73 and class 92 locomotives, to replace the class 67 locomotives currently used to haul sleeper rolling stock.

“There is a risk associated with the introduction of refurbished traction not previously used for sleeper haulage.

“There are risks in terms of the suitability of this type of traction, which is, as yet, untested in the conditions that the Sleeper operates in. Rebuilt Class 73 locomotives are not already cleared for operation on all Sleeper routes.”

It is understood there are also concerns within the rail industry about how the engines will cope on hilly Highland routes.

The Atkins report also referred to the class 92 locomotives which Serco plans to use for the sleeper between London and Edinburgh and Glasgow.

It said: “There are further risks aligned to this, most obviously related to the ability of the Class 92 (87 mph) locos to recover from delay. It will remain an area that Transport Scotland and [track owner] Network Rail should monitor closely.”

The class 92s would replace locomotives with a top speed of 110mph.

Other train operators which use the busy west coast main line on which the sleepers run are understood to be concerned about potential delays to their trains because of the density of rail traffic into London in the morning rush hour.

Serco, which Scotland on Sunday revealed as the franchise winner in May, said the rebuilt locomotives would be more reliable than the ones they replace and use 40 per cent less fuel.

It said the locomotives would haul both the existing sleeper coaches and brand new carriages being phased in by 2018.

Serco has hired Michelin-starred chef Albert Roux and luxury hotel Inverlochy Castle to help run the service, with the new coaches featuring ensuite cabins.

Managing director of transport David Stretch said: “We are completely rebuilding the entire fleet of class 73/9 locomotives to ensure they are safe and reliable.

“The rebuilt locos will have completely new diesel engines.”

He said both the class 73 and 92 locomotives were being modified to ensure they are “completely compatible” with the new sleeper coaches.

Stretch said the class 92s’ top speed was above the sleepers’ “normal 80mph maximum operating speed”.

He said: “On several occasions, class 92 locomotives have operated the Caledonian Sleeper and have shown no problems in maintaining the schedules and on occasion regaining time.”

A Transport Scotland spokeswoman said: “We are entirely confident these extensively-renewed locomotives, along with the brand new trains already announced, are appropriate to deliver the significantly enhanced Caledonian Sleeper service.”

“The vehicle structures and mechanical components have been totally stripped to remove any corrosion or other wear and tear and rebuilt to as-new condition.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/train-driver-doubts-over-caledonian-sleeper-plans-1-3536204
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
I can understand the logic with the 73/9s and their age and all that but I'm not quite understanding their problem with the 92s. I've always thought that the Sleeper was timed for 80mph and only passed it if it desperately needed to make up time.

Also, I thought 67s were 125mph machines, not 110mph. Or is that just quality journalism?
 

Big Mac

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
22
I can understand the logic with the 73/9s and their age and all that but I'm not quite understanding their problem with the 92s. I've always thought that the Sleeper was timed for 80mph and only passed it if it desperately needed to make up time.

Also, I thought 67s were 125mph machines, not 110mph. Or is that just quality journalism?
They are indeed good for 125 mph. When first introduced they were restricted to 110 mph due to their axle loading, but the bogies were subsequently modified to permit them to go up to 125 mph.
 

Jordy

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2005
Messages
8,465
Location
WCML South
The 110mph is referring to the 90s that haul the sleeper down the WCML, not the 67s that work north of the border.
 

Jamesb1974

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2006
Messages
596
Stretch said the class 92s’ top speed was above the sleepers’ “normal 80mph maximum operating speed”.

He's right. They can do 87mph. :|

Be nice to see how they handle the section between Hartford and Weaver junction with a heavy passenger train.

The juice at this location is actually higher than 25kv (27.5kv if i recall) and plays havoc with the 92's electronic brain.
 
Last edited:

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
Of the current units on UK tracks.

Which is the best unit to haul the sleeper away from the overhead juice?
 

matt

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
30 Jun 2005
Messages
7,834
Location
Rugby
The 110mph is referring to the 90s that haul the sleeper down the WCML, not the 67s that work north of the border.

Although it can only go 100 mob due the mark 2 coaches.

A 92 has hauled the sleeper a few times with no problems.
 

Boodiggy

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2012
Messages
540
Location
MK
I can understand the logic with the 73/9s and their age and all that but I'm not quite understanding their problem with the 92s. I've always thought that the Sleeper was timed for 80mph and only passed it if it desperately needed to make up time.

Also, I thought 67s were 125mph machines, not 110mph. Or is that just quality journalism?

If memory serves me right the second southbound sleeper is timed for 100mph south of Crewe. Although I may just be having a mad moment. If I remember I will look at work this week.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,071
Location
Macclesfield
I can understand the logic in questioning the use of an untested, refurbished loco class well outside of their tradtional operating area, but I absolutely cannot understand the comment that "They were terrible when they came in and terrible over their whole career.”

That doesn't make any sense. The class 73s have been highly reliable throughout their lives, which is surely borne out by their being the only DC electro-diesel design to survive in regular, revenue earning service into the privatisation era?
 

Tim R-T-C

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2011
Messages
2,143
I can understand the logic in questioning the use of an untested, refurbished loco class well outside of their tradtional operating area, but I absolutely cannot understand the comment that "They were terrible when they came in and terrible over their whole career.”

And even more meaningless when the new locos are essentially a shell with entirely new systems inside.

Once again makes the unions seem outmoded and unnecessarily resistant to change. If it was a safety concern, fair enough, but surely the trains running on time is the concern of management and if the GBRf supplied engines are not capable, then they will have to find another option.
 

thelem

Member
Joined
17 Mar 2008
Messages
550
A report commissioned by Scottish Government agency Transport Scotland, which is in charge of the £800m sleeper contract, has also warned of the risk of using such untested locomotives, known as class 73s.

By that logic you'd never introduce any new trains! And these are hardly untested if they're 50 years old.
 

Jamesb1974

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2006
Messages
596
That doesn't make any sense. The class 73s have been highly reliable throughout their lives, which is surely borne out by their being the only DC electro-diesel design to survive in regular, revenue earning service into the privatisation era?

Bit of a non statement if you don't mind me saying, Sprinterguy. Given that there were only ever two types of ED anyway (73 & 74) and the 74's had all gone by the mid to late 70's, it follows that they are the only DC Ed to survive into regular, revenue earning service because they are the ONLY DC ED!
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
16,045
Agree that the Class 92 statement seems odd, the amount of grunt they have is substantial and could drag a sleeper without breaking into a sweat. Also agree that a 68 would probably do a good job if GBRf/Serco were prepared to sub lease off DRS/Beacon. The OLE issues are that the northern end can spike to 27.5 briefly not constantly and it isnt just 92s that get upset by it.
 

Ash Bridge

Established Member
Joined
17 Mar 2014
Messages
4,075
Location
Stockport
Agree that the Class 92 statement seems odd, the amount of grunt they have is substantial and could drag a sleeper without breaking into a sweat. Also agree that a 68 would probably do a good job if GBRf/Serco were prepared to sub lease off DRS/Beacon. The OLE issues are that the northern end can spike to 27.5 briefly not constantly and it isnt just 92s that get upset by it.

Yes, they don't seem to have realised the Class 92s are not just a freight locomotive but were also designed to haul the heavy Nightstar sleeper services, which of course failed to take off (But that's another story...)
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,071
Location
Macclesfield
Bit of a non statement if you don't mind me saying, Sprinterguy. Given that there were only ever two types of ED anyway (73 & 74) and the 74's had all gone by the mid to late 70's, it follows that they are the only DC Ed to survive into regular, revenue earning service because they are the ONLY DC ED!
You do have a point - It did register that I was considering a very small field of reference to begin with!
 

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
5,882
Location
Back in Sussex
Pretty much a boringly standard 'report' on railway activity

The newspapers don't know what they're talking about, they would quote a parrot if it had a collar on saying it's name was Polly Transport, even if it was dead, while ASLEF are doing their usual dinosaur job and spouting total uninformed rubbish

No wonder everything takes forever and a day to get done in the UK
 

driver_m

Established Member
Joined
8 Nov 2011
Messages
2,248
Having driven a 90 on a sleeper, I don't see how a 92 could be any worse. There were particular 90s that were appalling at trying to get going. What do southern based drivers think of the 73? I would have thought they'd be the best judge of how good they are.
 

scotraildriver

Established Member
Joined
15 Jun 2009
Messages
1,629
Also, I thought 67s were 125mph machines, not 110mph. Or is that just quality journalism?

"Our" class 67's (004/007/009/011) are 80mph locos due to having cast iron brake blocks fitted. As a sleeper driver I have serious concerns about using a loco with half the horsepower. 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. The 67 is a great loco to drive IMO but of course the downside is a high axle loading which results in some severe speed restrictions - 10mph over a number of West Highland line bridges. The Highland Main line has some of the harshest gradients on the network which occasionally still see an HST or 66 grind to a halt, especially in poor adhesion season. Recipe for disaster methinks but others must know better :-;
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,071
Location
Macclesfield
I thought the plan was to use pairs of them?
I' not sure that anything has been said officially, but on the Aberdeen and Inverness runs you would certainly hope so.

I don't think anything with less than 2,000hp has ever been rostered singly on those particular legs historically. Granted that in BR days the Inverness and Aberdeen portions used to be notably longer and heavier, with Motorail vans, genny vans and additional seated portions at various times, but when they ran with no-heat 37s for a couple of years in the early to mid nineties they were in pairs.
 
Last edited:

Western Lord

Member
Joined
17 Mar 2014
Messages
783
Having driven a 90 on a sleeper, I don't see how a 92 could be any worse. There were particular 90s that were appalling at trying to get going. What do southern based drivers think of the 73? I would have thought they'd be the best judge of how good they are.

As the 73/9s are total rebuilds, no drivers, southern or anywhere else, has any experience of driving them in service.
 

driver_m

Established Member
Joined
8 Nov 2011
Messages
2,248
As the 73/9s are total rebuilds, no drivers, southern or anywhere else, has any experience of driving them in service.

I meant the old version. I've honestly never heard them get criticised until now. 31s, early ac's, yes, but not them. As others have said it's a peculiar comment especially if they're going to be a totally different engine ie 57 to 47.
 

bangor-toad

Member
Joined
20 Feb 2009
Messages
599
The 73's had a bit of a tendency for a while to catch fire.

The reason was due to the configuration of the traction shoes and it was possible to get large voltage differences between tracks powered by different substations. The result was a flashover a bit of a fire.

This was especially prevalent on departure from Victoria as they climbed out with laden Gatwick Expresses. Some work was done to address this and the problem was reduced, although not entirely removed. I seem to remember a conversation with someone who drove the Gatwick Express 73's and they needed to use the diesel engine for a short stretch to avoid this particular problem.
Other than that, they seem to have be solid reliable engines.

However, as has been mentioned, whatever version is used in Scotland will be completely rebuilt and won't be running on 3rd rail. Again, I can't see how any comparison with the older, original, configurations has any relevance whatsoever.
Cheers,
Mr Toad
 

doningtonphil

Member
Joined
18 Aug 2014
Messages
101
Are the Class 73s being used the ones that RVEL are refurbing (which are entirely 'new') or the Brush ones that are getting a new engine but keeping much of everything else?
 

TDK

Established Member
Joined
19 Apr 2008
Messages
4,155
Location
Crewe
I thought the plan was to use pairs of them?

Even a pair would only give 1600BHP as the class 73 was produced predominantly for use with 750v DC conductor rail working and only fitted with an 800BHP diesel engine. Unless the engines are to replaced someone is having a laugh as there is no way a class 73 would be able to pull 15 coaches.
 

bigdelboy

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2012
Messages
198
Even a pair would only give 1600BHP as the class 73 was produced predominantly for use with 750v DC conductor rail working and only fitted with an 800BHP diesel engine. Unless the engines are to replaced someone is having a laugh as there is no way a class 73 would be able to pull 15 coaches.

That would be true for 73/1 or 73/2 ... but rebuilt 73/9 have circa 1500hp diesels fitted ..

BTW I see little about progress of these: Of the 5 7396x that are destined for Scotland they at least seemed to have painted the body of 73962 ... see link to this picture on Brush works open day 3/aug/2014:http://paulbiggs.zenfolio.com/p900568081/h2BCDB4C0#h2bcdb4c0

The alternate rebuild, obviously not for export to Scotland as not blue and without bagpipes, is pictured from 13/jun/2014 here: http://paulbigland.zenfolio.com/p119809187/h25315736#h25315736

These are obviously different classes, abeit with similar diesel performance, and I would expect 7396x to really ought to become there own subclass ...

In terms of reliability of the 7396x that is a big question ... 73/0, 73/1 and 73/2 seem in general to have a good reputation .... and the 4SRKT MkII comes from a well known and respected family. That said when 73/2 were but to the stress of Gatwick express duties some issues did surface and need to be fixed; and when class 73's were tried on long diesel trips under heavy stress I recall there was some issues there also .. e.g. Weymouth pre-electrification. IMHO history tells us there is some significant chance of reliability issues on introduction ... perhaps a couple of 33/1's will be brought out of retirement to supplement ;)

The choice of class 73 still remains strange to me; perhaps it will come in as the most efficient and least TCO (total cost of ownership). And perhaps the rebuild get round some emissions standards that a new build might not. Class 57; 33 and 37 would all have seemed more obvious choices at first glance ... though reliability due to age might be against them. Even re-engining class 67 with a lighter engine and down gearing to a sensible speed might have also been an option ....
 

Roland

New Member
Joined
12 Sep 2014
Messages
1
Yeah, the article certainly contains a fair bit of hyperbole but it's certainly a change of pace for the 73s, refurbishment besides.

Having driven a 90 on a sleeper, I don't see how a 92 could be any worse. There were particular 90s that were appalling at trying to get going.

That's interesting, what kind of problems in particular if you don't mind me asking?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top