• 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!

Caledonian Sleeper Class 92's

Status
Not open for further replies.

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
Taking a stab at it, and guessing, we're probably looking at a minimum of 6-8 weeks to do the dellner fitment and CAF mods...
Only way I can see us having all the CS 92s and some of the 'freight' 92s modified by September/October for the new stock debuting

I agree 6-8 weeks absolute minimum, but suspect they'll be more like 2-3 months each. 038 was in 7 months (albeit having an overhaul too) and 023 was in 6 months. No doubt there's been lots of lessons learned from those two that will significantly speed up the mods on the remainder. The 73/9 mods were about 6-8 weeks once they got underway, however they're a little more straightforward I believe (e.g. the 73/9s already had retractable buffers).

It's only the lowlander that's due to go over to the new stock in october... so they don't necessarily need the full complement of modified 92s ready by then.

Aye - I reckon they'd still need 6 or 7 modified though for the launch of the Lowlander new stock at end of October (assuming that date is achieved!) - 1M11, 1S26, Carstairs portion (1C11/1B26), 2x ECS locos and at least one spare. (I still think longer term there'll be a different, non-92 solution for the ECS, but in the short-term they may need to use them when the Mk5s are introduced on the Lowlander - particularly as the ACLG locos (which may be one of the longer-term options being considered) are all out of action currently.)

Given 8 of the currently in-service ones are having the mods, you're getting not far off the position that realistically they'd want most/all of them done by October anyway.

Assuming 028 goes in as expected on Sunday, 014/033/028 will all have gone into Brush over the space of one month (18th Feb - 18th Mar), so you'd think that's plenty to be working on. Assuming they start to reappear May/June time, there's realistically one more "slot" to get most if not all of the rest done, out and tested (including with the Mk5s) ahead of the Lowlander Mk5 launch date

Don't forget 92006/020 are being added to the pool and they will also have Dellners fitted during their current overhauls.

I'd think at the moment they're in the category of potentially being available for the Mk5 launch date, but probably not with enough certainty of them being ready in time at this stage to rely on them - noting they will also need rigorous testing and possibly some wrinkles ironing out having been stored 12 and 17 years respectively.

Suspect the plan will be along the lines of get the three in now done, a couple more at least before end of October and if 006 and/or 020 are also ready by then, great, but if not it's not a big issue.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

cj_1985

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
710
I really hope that they manage to get 006 and 020 back in service soon. It'd be good if they could manage to use (AC) electric traction on more than just the sleeper, tunnel work and the cars (every now and again) flows.

Given the troubles that GB have had with the 92s, not fair to say just the Reactivated CS batch, over the last couple of years.
Does make you wonder how DB would have coped had they won the contract to provide traction and drivers etc, given that their 92s have not been much better than GBs examples.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,164
I really hope that they manage to get 006 and 020 back in service soon. It'd be good if they could manage to use (AC) electric traction on more than just the sleeper, tunnel work and the cars (every now and again) flows.

Given the troubles that GB have had with the 92s, not fair to say just the Reactivated CS batch, over the last couple of years.
Does make you wonder how DB would have coped had they won the contract to provide traction and drivers etc, given that their 92s have not been much better than GBs examples.
DB would be in a worse position than GBRf. The issues with the GBRf 92s are sorted now - it takes enthusiast perceptions some time to catch up with reality - having had some serious money invested in them (apart from anything else, new IGBT traction converters from ABB are not cheap). In short, the work GBRf have done has made the 92s into the loco they should always have been.
 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
I really hope that they manage to get 006 and 020 back in service soon. It'd be good if they could manage to use (AC) electric traction on more than just the sleeper, tunnel work and the cars (every now and again) flows.
About this time next year (roughly!) when all mods are sorted, 006/020 are back etc. there'll be 12 active GBRf 92s. Seven nominally on the Sleepers, so five remaining for freight work. So feasibly could see a couple at the tunnel and doing flows from there (e.g. the china clays); another on the cars and possibly them cropping up on other workings. The cars are really a 92 diagram if there's one available - but is the first one to "give" when the 92s are short (as they are now) as can easily be done by a 66. The Sleeper (in due course) and tunnel work can only be 92s so will still be the mainstay of what they do.

Given the troubles that GB have had with the 92s, not fair to say just the Reactivated CS batch, over the last couple of years.
Does make you wonder how DB would have coped had they won the contract to provide traction and drivers etc, given that their 92s have not been much better than GBs examples.
The Sleeper franchise bids were done as a combined TOC/Traction Provider package - it wasn't a scenario where Serco won the bid and then had to find a traction provider brave/mad enough to reinsate the troublesome 92s to deal with the ETS-guzzling stock ideas they'd come up with. Instead, Serco partnered with GBRf in the bid process itself and the proposal to use the 92s would have been part of the overall construction of their bid - and indeed may have enabled Serco to offer more in the way of amenities in the stock.

I'm not sure if DBC partnered someone else in the bid process - they may well have done, but if so I very much doubt their proposal would've involved using their 92s.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,164
I'm not sure if DBC partnered someone else in the bid process - they may well have done, but if so I very much doubt their proposal would've involved using their 92s.
Each of the three bidders had different traction providers. Depending who had won, it was one of GBRf, DRS and DB Cargo.
 

cj_1985

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
710
And I think we already know that DRS would be proposing using 88s 68s and possibly 37s for their offer for stock for the sleeper

DB would probably be 67s and either the 90s or 92s.

But my point had been if left to DBs 92s... They couldn't/wouldnt have been any more reliable than the GB 92s.
 

cj_1985

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
710
The Sleeper franchise bids were done as a combined TOC/Traction Provider package - it wasn't a scenario where Serco won the bid and then had to find a traction provider brave/mad enough to reinsate the troublesome 92s to deal with the ETS-guzzling stock ideas they'd come up with. Instead, Serco partnered with GBRf in the bid process itself and the proposal to use the 92s would have been part of the overall construction of their bid - and indeed may have enabled Serco to offer more in the way of amenities in the stock.

I'm not sure if DBC partnered someone else in the bid process - they may well have done, but if so I very much doubt their proposal would've involved using their 92s.

I just remember EWS?DB trying to mod Class 92s so they could be used on the sleeper months/years before the CS franchise started, while the operation was still part of FSR. I know they had tried mods to increased the top speed to (IIRC 80mph ?) as it was mentioned in the railway press... and had done something to be able to power conventional ETH stock with the 92's jumpers... or something to that effect. I took it for granted that DB would propose the use of 92s, rather than 90s... as for a time the 92 was favoured over the 90
 

ScottDarg

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2017
Messages
707
Location
South Lanarkshire
I know they had tried mods to increased the top speed to (IIRC 80mph ?)

As I understand it, 92s have always had a top-speed of 140 km/h (87 mph).

DB did use 92s on the Sleeper empties into Glasgow every so often, including 92017 in Stobart Rail livery. Not sure if they ever used them up the front though.
 

cj_1985

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
710
As I understand it, 92s have always had a top-speed of 140 km/h (87 mph).

DB did use 92s on the Sleeper empties into Glasgow every so often, including 92017 in Stobart Rail livery. Not sure if they ever used them up the front though.

Maybe it was 90mph they tried the 92 at. ISTR it was tested on one leg of a WCML charter train. Can't remember when... but probably between 2008-2012. But AIUI the prevailing opinion, was that the mods were to make the 92s more suitable for sleeper use.

Although this was at a time when DB saw the 92 as a better candidate for use on the sleepers come the next Scotrail franchise, before the sleeper was seperated
 
Last edited:

CosherB

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2007
Messages
3,041
Location
Northwich
IIRC, Serco were the only bidder to propose new LHCS for the CS. The others offered to refurbish the existing Mk2 and Mk3 stock, so 88s or 90s would have been fine on the Anglo-Scottish runs.
 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
92028 being collected from Crewe earlier by 66788 to head into Brush. 023 also features lending a hand to bring 028 out of the siding into the station.

 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
As I understand it, 92s have always had a top-speed of 140 km/h (87 mph).

DB did use 92s on the Sleeper empties into Glasgow every so often, including 92017 in Stobart Rail livery. Not sure if they ever used them up the front though.
A DB 92 did work the (loaded) beds at least once - 92024 here on 1B26 in July 2014: https://flic.kr/p/okXGTz (not mine). Suspect it was due to a shortage of 90s, although may have been a "trial"...? The mod needed to change from 1.5kv Nightstar ETS to 850v "classic" (and back again) isn't a huge job as far as I understand. Can be done in a depot too (i.e. doesn't require a Brush visit). Not sure if 024 was providing hotel power in this shot, or for the relatively short Carstairs portion in mid-summer they just relied on the stock's batteries and the sunshine!?

And correct, 92s have always been max 140km/h (87 mph). During the design phase they did consider a 160km/h option (100mph) but the added cost/complications were not deemed worth the benefit of the extra 13 mph for what was designed to be a freight/Sleeper loco. With the 140km/h top speed they were able to utilise/adapt the design of the Class 60 bogies, which provided some cost efficiencies. Still cost £3m a loco though! (in 1995 - about £5.5-6.0m at today's prices)
 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
IIRC, Serco were the only bidder to propose new LHCS for the CS. The others offered to refurbish the existing Mk2 and Mk3 stock, so 88s or 90s would have been fine on the Anglo-Scottish runs.
Suspect you're right with the 90s (for DB). By the time the bids would've been pulled together, the DB 92 fleet was already down to 10 (of 30 originally) and had been replaced by 90s/66s on most workings having been deemed too costly/troublesome to persevere with. Would make most sense to build a bid around continuing to use the existing 90s which would do the job fine at a no significant extra refurb/rebuild cost if, as you say, the other bids were to refurb the existing stock.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,602
Here's 92044 and 032 going down to the tunnel this afternoon. For those not into class 70s - fast forward through the engineering train at the beginning of the video; the 92s appear immediately after.

This video gives quite a good illustration of the racket 92s can make. Even unloaded, 92044 with its fans going was probably making more noise than the 70 going at full pelt up the hill with a loaded train. And 70s aren't exactly quiet.

 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
Great video as usual, BRX. Quite a pair those two (despite the obvious livery differences) for several reasons - and likely to remain that way.

Quick update on the GBRf 92s' current status:

Caledonian Sleeper:
92010 (1M16 tonight)
92018 (1S25)
92023 (Polmadie/Glasgow ECS)
92043 (1S26)

Mk5 Testing:
92038 - just completed attention/exam at Craigentinny and likely to move to Polmadie shortly in preparation for WCML testing of the Mk5s

Dollands Moor/Tunnel:
92032 (see video!)
92044 (ditto)

At Loughborough Brush for CAF Mk5 Mods:
92014
92028
92033

Being reinstated to traffic at Loughborough Brush:
92006​
92020

Stored:

92021 (Frethun)
92040 (Frethun)
92045 (Brush)
92046 (Brush)
 

palmersears

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2011
Messages
1,482
Do we have any updated estimates for when 006 and 020 might actually break cover back on to the network?
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,602
032 again, this time in charge of a real train! The 'beer train' is a relatively new working between Dagenham and the tunnel - great to see a 92 proving its worth on the 3rd rail and hopefully this will be repeated. Filmed just this evening.

 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
032 again, this time in charge of a real train! The 'beer train' is a relatively new working between Dagenham and the tunnel - great to see a 92 proving its worth on the 3rd rail and hopefully this will be repeated. Filmed just this evening.
Great to see - freight on the South London Line as nature/Brush intended it to be!
 

cj_1985

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
710
i'd guess priority would be given to the 92s that are already in operational condition
 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
Not forgetting that Wabtec are also trying to refurbish ex-GWR 43s for ScotRail - which has much higher operational priority.
I doubt given how much business GBRf have put Wabtec/Brush's way with the 73/9 rebuilds, Class 92 overhauls/reinstatements etc that Brush would tell them the reinstatements of 006/020 (which have already taken a considerable time) are being de-prioritised in favour of another customer. As @cj_1985 says, more likely that Brush/GB would discuss/agree the priorities of the various GBRf work in progress, e.g. 92 CAF mods vs 92 reinstatements vs 73/9 work etc.
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
Have CS/GBRF now got a surplus of 73s? it's just that they've been able to spare two to bring the Royal Scotsman tour into Oban today.
 

ScottDarg

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2017
Messages
707
Location
South Lanarkshire
Have CS/GBRF now got a surplus of 73s? it's just that they've been able to spare two to bring the Royal Scotsman tour into Oban today.

They were able to free one up by using 47727 on the Aberdeen portion. The second one was lying spare at Craigentinny before being put on the Royal Scotsman.

Having 73970 back out should allow them to end the hire of the Inverness 67 and still have one spare at Craigentinny. They'll have 2 spares at Craigentinny when Mk.5 testing's complete and the 73/9 assigned to that becomes available.

On the topic of 73/9s; there's a Crewe - Craigentinny path in Tomorrow (Monday 21/05) which I assume will be 73970: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O99092/2018/05/21/advanced

73970 is the last 73/9 to receive Dellners.
 
Last edited:

ScottDarg

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2017
Messages
707
Location
South Lanarkshire
As the above message states, 73970 was the last of the 73/9s to receive Mk.5 mods.

The 92s are still going through that modification program. Here's the status of those due to receive the mods:
92014/023/038: Mods complete and released from Brush.
92028/033: Currently at Brush receiving mods
92010/018/043: In traffic and awaiting mods
92006/020: Currently being reinstated and receiving mods
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top