Caledonian Sleeper Class 92's

[TimboM]

Isn't this ecs work what GBRf just bought three 47s for? With 47 727 already being put into Sleeper livery...?

No - the ex-Colas 47s have been primarily bought to work a new unit move contract over the next few years. One of the three (currently 47749, soon to be replaced by 727 in the CS livery) will continue to support the Sleeper operations in Scotland - but as I understand it only whilst the Mk2s/Mk3s are still in use, then 727 will also go and do the unit moves. More info on the relevant thread about the ex-Colas 47s: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gbrf-to-buy-colas-47s.157861/

47727 will probably crop up on the Glasgow/Polmadie ECS drag-backs now and again, and maybe even the odd Class 1 service when a diesel is needed or they're short of other suitable locos, however primarily it will be doing things like the Thursdays-only stock move of coach(es) to/from Kilmarnock for repair. I don't believe there's any plans to fit 727 with Dellners or any of the other Mk5 mods as yet - but then again, it's not a complete impossibility that somewhere down the line it's modified if its needed/makes sense - however even then its role would not be as one of the "main" ECS locos in the same way 86101/401 and 87002 have been used.

 

[cj_1985]

Firstly, may I suggest the thread title to be changed to something that would cover all class 92 developments, rather than just the CS 92s.

Secondly, I'm sure someone told me (or I read on a forum) that GBRf plan to reactivate 2x more 92s after 006 and 029, with 045 and 046 m3ntioned.

Are they in a better condition than the pair stored with Eurotunnel?, as I was under the impression that 45 and 46 were the worst of the worst (of non DB 92s)

 

[TimboM]

Firstly, may I suggest the thread title to be changed to something that would cover all class 92 developments, rather than just the CS 92s.

Secondly, I'm sure someone told me (or I read on a forum) that GBRf plan to reactivate 2x more 92s after 006 and 029, with 045 and 046 m3ntioned.

Are they in a better condition than the pair stored with Eurotunnel?, as I was under the impression that 45 and 46 were the worst of the worst (of non DB 92s)

Re thread title - has been mentioned before, but as all GBRf 92s (which this thread focuses on) can and do work the Sleeper it’s just been left as is.

John Smith was quoted by a RAIL journalist re the additional two a few months back, but no news since - suspect they’ll see how 006/020 go and will only move ahead if the business case definitely stacks up. The further down the list of stored 92s you go, logically the more it’s going to cost to resurrect them, so you need to be sure they’ll have work to make sure they’re worth the investment.

As for which ones are better - they’ve all been stored since April 2001 and all likely to have been heavily liberated of parts/spares over the years. I suspect only a few people in GB/Brush know their exact condition and which ones are (marginally?!) better than others.

 

[Far north 37]

Firstly, may I suggest the thread title to be changed to something that would cover all class 92 developments, rather than just the CS 92s.

Secondly, I'm sure someone told me (or I read on a forum) that GBRf plan to reactivate 2x more 92s after 006 and 029, with 045 and 046 m3ntioned.

Are they in a better condition than the pair stored with Eurotunnel?, as I was under the impression that 45 and 46 were the worst of the worst (of non DB 92s)

Was 92046 not a dbs loco.

 

[TimboM]

Was 92046 not a dbs loco.

No, it was a (very little used) EPS/Nightstar loco.

All the GBRf 92s were either originally SNCF (006, 010, 014, 018, 023, 028, 033, 038, 043) or European Passenger Services/Nightstar (020, 021, 032, 040, 044, 045, 046).

The other 30 were originally BR/Railfreight Distribution and were then bought by EWS at privatisation. EWS of course were then bought by DB. DB still have the majority of those 30 either at the Tunnel (x5), Stored at Crewe IEMD or abroad in Eastern Europe, although reports are they’ve sold one or more of the ones abroad to Croatian and/or Russian freight companies...

What was potentially confusing with the SNCF/EPS locos were they were still maintained and based at Crewe IEMD (“home” to all 92s originally) and many were stored there initially when SNCF/EPS couldn’t find use for them. In addition, prior to storage SNCF and EPS (at different times) put their locos into a “shared pool” in an attempt to see them get some use, and EWS did use some of them along with their own locos. However, this wasn’t enough for many of the SNCF/EPS 92s to stave off being eventually stored.

046 was stored in April 2001 along with all the other EPS locos - it was bought along with 045 in November 2007 and moved to Loughborough (still stored) where its remained since. Until now, only 032/044 of these ex-EPS 92s have been reinstated (in 2009, after Europorte bought the EPS locos in 2007) - with 020 to follow in a few months.

So whilst 046 was based at Crewe, was stored there initially and very briefly saw some action with EWS I believe, it was never owned by EWS - just EPS, then bought by Europorte in 2007, who transferred its ownership to GBRf in Feb 2014.

 

[cj_1985]

Was there not also some issue with (IIRC) SNCF claiming EWS had 'over used' the SNCF locos compared to EWS own locos, when in the shared pool

 

[TimboM]

Was there not also some issue with (IIRC) SNCF claiming EWS had 'over used' the SNCF locos compared to EWS own locos, when in the shared pool

Might have been - although not heard of it before. Not sure over-use is something that's ever been levelled at Class 92s?! ...although maybe comparatively speaking.

Of the "SNCF Nine" 006 and 043 were stored in Feb 2006 and then the other seven (010/014/018/023/028/033/038) in April 2006 (at Crewe IEMD). A quick Flickr search would suggest several of them were being used on UK metals (presumably by EWS) in the few years running up to that. I'm not all that sure SNCF could have had much grounds for complaint, though - they didn't have much/any use for them (hence why in the shared pool) so why complain if they got used...!?

After storing all of them in 2006, I believe SNCF then put them back into use on an "open access" basis later in 2007 - which would suggest they did want them used after all? However, as far as I can tell, only 010/028/038/043 were reinstated and used with the other five remaining stored - so the SNCF fleet as a whole wasn't heavily used on a shared access basis in this latter period at least.

Europorte (Eurotunnel) bought the four SNCF locos that were active in Autumn 2009 and then the remaining five in July 2011 - these other five (006/014/018/023/033) were still in store at that point and moved that month by rail from Crewe to Calais, where they stayed until Spring 2014 when 014/018/023/033 were brought back to Loughborough to be overhauled for Sleeper duties. 006 returned to Brush a bit later (Sept 2014) and is now being overhauled ahead of planned reinstatement later this year (also as a 'Sleeper' 92).

As a little aside, the locos which moved 006/014/018/023/033 from Crewe to Calais in July 2011 (in two batches) were the Colas 47s (727 and 749) now owned by GBRf, with 47727 now in Midnight Teal livery and soon to be supporting the Sleeper operations in Scotland, taking over from 47749... not sure many people would've predicted that 6.5 years ago...?!

 

[cj_1985]

Slightly off topic... but found information about 92005 and it's use in Croatia over on Railcolornews.com
http://railcolornews.com/2018/01/26/db-cargo-472005-92005-trials-croatia/ of interest is the suggestion that it's new owner are seeking additional 92s

 

[TimboM]

I've put this on the main Sleeper thread too, but for completeness:

Photo has been put on Twitter the first Class 92 with Dellner couplings and other mods including retractable buffers. Also of note is that 92038 no longer has tunnel rings/CE depot shields and has a new coat of paint by looks of it). Blue/orange 92020 in the processes of being reinstated is just visible in the background too.

https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/957976569716396032

92038 photo from the Tweet copied here for ease of reference:

 

[cj_1985]

the coupling kit on the 92 looks better than I expected it to...

Can't be far off release, surely

 

[TimboM]

Can't be far off release, surely

Looks like it - although from the photo not easy to tell if everything's 'plugged in', been tested, working as expected, etc.

The couplings will almost certainly drop down like on the 73/9s when not in use too (to allow access to the "classic" draw-hook).

 

[BRX]

I noticed that on the new stock the orange sockets that I'm guessing (perhaps wrongly) are the ETH / other train electrics connections are at high level, and wondered if that is to allow these connections to be made, albeit manually, from the platform (ie. avoiding the need for staff to get down on the tracks).

Based on that photo of the 92 it looks like someone will have to be down on the tracks to couple/uncouple the locos. Unlike the coupling/uncoupling of most modern MUs.

 

[Domh245]

I noticed that on the new stock the orange sockets that I'm guessing (perhaps wrongly) are the ETH / other train electrics connections are at high level, and wondered if that is to allow these connections to be made, albeit manually, from the platform (ie. avoiding the need for staff to get down on the tracks).

Based on that photo of the 92 it looks like someone will have to be down on the tracks to couple/uncouple the locos. Unlike the coupling/uncoupling of most modern MUs.

I wouldn't describe the sockets on the stock as being particularly high level. The point where the cable starts is underneath the solebar, and the receptacle on the carriage is maybe a foot of the platform at most. I think the reason that the electrics aren't being done through an electric block is because there aren't any that are suitably rated for the massive ETH load that these carriages will have and so they're having to use old fashioned jumpers instead. For illustration purposes, here's a photo that @Tam took of the stock at Velim

 

[TimboM]

I noticed that on the new stock the orange sockets that I'm guessing (perhaps wrongly) are the ETH / other train electrics connections are at high level, and wondered if that is to allow these connections to be made, albeit manually, from the platform (ie. avoiding the need for staff to get down on the tracks).

Based on that photo of the 92 it looks like someone will have to be down on the tracks to couple/uncouple the locos. Unlike the coupling/uncoupling of most modern MUs.

Definitely looks that way - and is backed up by the positioning of the connectors on the stock (as per this pic @Tam shared on the Mk5 Sleeper Stock thread):

https://www.railforums.co.uk/attachments/15302-semirake1-car-sleeper-slc2-3-jpg.34537/

I believe part of the reason/issue is with multiple units there isn't much ETS load to pass through the Dellner (each unit will be self-powered and providing its own ETS) - however with the 92 having to provide a high ETS supply to the 16-coach rakes at 1,500v that wouldn't be feasible to put through the Dellner coupling itself so needs the extra connectors.

The ETS on the 92s was also already designed for the higher loads for the Nightstar sleepers and it is a relatively quick "switch" within the loco to change the power supply back to the higher 1,500v needed for the new Mk5s compared to the 850v they're currently switched to for "classic" stock. So the existing connectors/cables didn't need moving from where they were, so with everything else that needed modifying, probably something that was best left "as is".

 

[TimboM]

...the 73/9s also have their ETS equipment low(er) down:

https://flic.kr/p/22mR4UC (photo courtesy of @ScottDarg )

So no let up for any of the drivers/shunters in terms of jumping down on to the tracks it would appear.

 

[BRX]

I wouldn't describe the sockets on the stock as being particularly high level. The point where the cable starts is underneath the solebar, and the receptacle on the carriage is maybe a foot of the platform at most. I think the reason that the electrics aren't being done through an electric block is because there aren't any that are suitably rated for the massive ETH load that these carriages will have and so they're having to use old fashioned jumpers instead. For illustration purposes, here's a photo that @Tam took of the stock at Velim

Hm, looking at the photos yes I see the orange cables sockets would be below platform. The three grey/black cables however look like they could be attached between carriages from the platform.

Meanwhile the air pipe looks like it goes off into the vestibule!

 

[TimboM]

Meanwhile the air pipe looks like it goes off into the vestibule!

I'm hoping that's some form of temporary arrangement for testing?!

 

[TimboM]

Full-house of Class 92s on the electric Sleeper diagrams tonight (with all three liveries involved too):

1S25 - 92018
1S26 - 92043
1M11 - 92044
1M16 - 92010
1C11/1B26 (Carstairs) - 92033

 

[Domh245]

I think you're right about those grey/black cables - they should be able to be done from the platform. I think that they must handle the data parts whilst the orange just provides power (as well as a few critical things like door traction or brake interlock, unless that isn't going to be a thing?) as there doesn't seem to be matching receptacles on the 92 or the 73 for them. I think the air pipe in that photo was related to the move they'd just finished making, as I think they were unbraked and it was a way of getting the air to the rear barrier wagon and beyond.

 

[TimboM]

Path in on Wednesday morning for a Class 92 move from Loughborough Brush to Crewe: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R00510/2018/02/07/advanced

(And assisting Class 66 path from Toton: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R00509/2018/02/07/advanced)

These moves are always "subject to..." so nothing is confirmed until the Shed starts rolling from Toton!

My bet would be 038 + 023 (+ their Dellners!) but may be either one of them. I don't think 032 is due out yet, but might be wrong...

UPDATE: 92038 only and now planned for similar time on Thursday (via very reliable source elsewhere)

 

[43096]

I don't think 032 is due out yet, but might be wrong...

Is 32 in for the full overhaul or just a bit of battering? If the former it will be another few months I suspect!

 

[TimboM]

Is 32 in for the full overhaul or just a bit of battering? If the former it will be another few months I suspect!

Bit of battering would be my guess. I expect Brush's Class 92 hands to be pretty full currently with 020/006 reinstatement and Dellner/CAF mods to do to 8 more 92s (including 006/020).

 

[TimboM]

Path in on Wednesday morning for a Class 92 move from Loughborough Brush to Crewe: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R00510/2018/02/07/advanced

(And assisting Class 66 path from Toton: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R00509/2018/02/07/advanced)

These moves are always "subject to..." so nothing is confirmed until the Shed starts rolling from Toton!

My bet would be 038 + 023 (+ their Dellners!) but may be either one of them. I don't think 032 is due out yet, but might be wrong...

UPDATE: 92038 only and now planned for similar time on Thursday (via very reliable source elsewhere)

 

[TimboM]

Paths for 92 038's planned release on Thursday:

0Z50(?): Toton-Loughborough Brush http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R ... 8/advanced (assisting Class 66)

0Z51(?): Loughborough Brush-Crewe Holding Sidings http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R ... 8/advanced

Plus paths for test run on Friday:

Crewe H.S. to Carlisle http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R ... 9/advanced
Carlisle to Crewe H.S. http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R ... 9/advanced

All subject to the usual caveats.

 

[Grannyjoans]

Have the 92's been reliable on the sleeper ?



I've always wondered why they don't just use a 66 and a generator van, surely must be a lot cheaper

 

[TimboM]

Have the 92's been reliable on the sleeper ?

Since the reliability mods undertaken during 2016, yes. No worse/better than any other loco these days.

I've always wondered why they don't just use a 66 and a generator van, surely must be a lot cheaper

Is that a serious suggestion...??

The WCML runs require electric traction designed to haul heavy sleeper trains with big ETS demands at a service speed of 80mph. That is exactly what Class 92s were built to do and definitely not what Class 66s are designed for (gas-guzzling diesels, 75 mph max, no ETS, out-and-out freight locos).

GBRf also own sixteen Class 92s outright and at the time they won the traction contract most of them were in store with little to do. They don't have spare 66s (not that they'd ever have considered them as a haulage option for WCML sleeper services).

If the idea of using a 66 is humoured momentarily, if a generator van was used the train length only just fits in Euston, so you'd lose a whole coach load of fare-paying "guests"...
...but then the Lowlander splits into two (electric-hauled) trains at Carstairs, so you'd need another generator van and lose another coach worth of passengers...?!​

 

[TimboM]

92028 leading 66722 (DIT) somewhat unusually on the Down Fast south of Winsford this morning:

 

[PaxVobiscum]

92043 on 1M11 Lowland Glasgow - Euston (90049 on the ECS) tonight.

 

[Mag_seven]

Paths for 92 038's planned release on Thursday:

0Z50(?): Toton-Loughborough Brush http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R ... 8/advanced (assisting Class 66)

0Z51(?): Loughborough Brush-Crewe Holding Sidings http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R ... 8/advanced

Plus paths for test run on Friday:

Crewe H.S. to Carlisle http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R ... 9/advanced
Carlisle to Crewe H.S. http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R ... 9/advanced

All subject to the usual caveats.

0Z51 cancelled on RTT - reason unknown at this stage.

 

[Mag_seven]

0Z51 cancelled on RTT - reason unknown at this stage.

Reinstated as at 12.15