Caledonian Sleeper Class 92's

[leomartin125]

I believe only 92014 had been modified prior to these two, so 92010/38 haven't yet - although interestingly both have been working the sleepers without too many issues in recent weeks (esp 92010 which has done several London/Scotland runs).

92018 is still in Loughborough.

92023 only went in to Loughborough on 5th Jan, so if it has had its modifications done, it's been in and out a lot quicker than the others!

Essentially, don't be surprised if 92023 fails at some point, as it doesn't sound like it's had much work done to it given the time it's been there.

 

[47271]

A reliable source tells me that 92010 brought the southbound Highlander into Euston punctually on Monday morning, although intriguingly also tells me that the train lost ETS for around 15 minutes as it left Crewe.

 

[dave87016]

92023 & 92033 both worked this morning Wednesday 18th January from Crewe - Polmadie Depot

 

[CosherB]

Essentially, don't be surprised if 92023 fails at some point, as it doesn't sound like it's had much work done to it given the time it's been there.

Source?

 

[cj_1985]

Essentially, don't be surprised if 92023 fails at some point, as it doesn't sound like it's had much work done to it given the time it's been there.

Unless I'm mistaken, 023 was into Loughborough during 2016, out to Crewe in December 2016, then back to Loughborough, probably for tweaks/further rectification work

 

[TimboM]

Unless I'm mistaken, 023 was into Loughborough during 2016, out to Crewe in December 2016, then back to Loughborough, probably for tweaks/further rectification work

This sounds plausible as when it was out in December it worked the Dagenham-Garston car train which was how they tested (in part) 92014 post-modifications. Going back in for a couple of weeks for a few further tweaks would stack up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A reliable source tells me that 92010 brought the southbound Highlander into Euston punctually on Monday morning, although intriguingly also tells me that the train lost ETS for around 15 minutes as it left Crewe.

It's done quite a few London-Scotland (and vice versa) runs over the past couple of weeks without any major issues. Don't think it's "modified" yet either.

 

[Mordac]

92014 doing the northbound lowland... With me on it. Let's hope it holds up!

 

[TimboM]

92014 doing the northbound lowland... With me on it. Let's hope it holds up!

It's done loads of runs recently without problems - you'll be fine!

...famous last words...

 

[Mordac]

Happy to report it arrived on Glasgow Central bang on time! Didn't sleep very well though, but maybe that's inevitable your first time on the sleeper.

 

[TimboM]

Happy to report it arrived on Glasgow Central bang on time! Didn't sleep very well though, but maybe that's inevitable your first time on the sleeper.

Probably too excited to sleep due to being behind a 92

 

[CosherB]

Probably too excited to sleep due to being behind a 92

I'd have said it was more like the stress of not knowing if they were going to arrive at their destination as planned.

To be fair, the performance of 92014 recently, from what I've been able to read in various postings on the interweb, has been excellent. Let's hope this is an indicator of the whole CS 92 fleet performance once they've all been through Wabtec. Again.

 

[leomartin125]

I'd have said it was more like the stress of not knowing if they were going to arrive at their destination as planned.

To be fair, the performance of 92014 recently, from what I've been able to read in various postings on the interweb, has been excellent. Let's hope this is an indicator of the whole CS 92 fleet performance once they've all been through Wabtec. Again.

And with 92023 and 92033 also being released from the Wabtec treatment at Loughborough, maybe the 90's won't be on lease for too much longer either!

 

[TimboM]

And with 92023 and 92033 also being released from the Wabtec treatment at Loughborough, maybe the 90's won't be on lease for too much longer either!

92010 has also been doing well recently - I THINK it hasn't had its Wabtec mods yet either, but may be wrong.

Meanwhile I believe a pair of the 90s that had been on sleeper duties broke down yesterday on the WCML causing major disruption. Maybe Freightliner should consider getting hold of some more reliable 92s!

 

[leomartin125]

92010 has also been doing well recently - I THINK it hasn't had its Wabtec mods yet either, but may be wrong.

Meanwhile I believe a pair of the 90s that had been on sleeper duties broke down yesterday on the WCML causing major disruption. Maybe Freightliner should consider getting hold of some more reliable 92s!

I wouldn't personally go that far just yet but maybe in the future! Meanwhile I have been thinking to myself whether a Class 93 would be viable, based on the 92 but with a 50/50 engine with 50% electric power and 50% diesel power, maybe not designed for freight work but something that could haul the sleeper and use electric until the wires end then switch and have enough power to make it to its destination (I wouldn't suggest the Class 88 be the best choice for that category given it's specs). Of course, I'm talking about a replacement to the 57's on the GWR Night Riviera... and apologies if this has gone off topic, feel free to ignore if you want to keep this on topic. Just an idea...

 

[43096]

92010 has also been doing well recently - I THINK it hasn't had its Wabtec mods yet either, but may be wrong.

Correct. 92014/023/033 have been completed so far, with 92018 at Brush being done. 92028 is also at Brush but not clear what's happening with that one as it's been there ages..

 

[keithheller18]

92010 has also been doing well recently - I THINK it hasn't had its Wabtec mods yet either, but may be wrong.

Meanwhile I believe a pair of the 90s that had been on sleeper duties broke down yesterday on the WCML causing major disruption. Maybe Freightliner should consider getting hold of some more reliable 92s!

Believed to be a DSD fault on 90048. So a safety system fault stopped the loco working. Not necessarily reliability.

 

[TimboM]

I wouldn't personally go that far just yet but maybe in the future! Meanwhile I have been thinking to myself whether a Class 93 would be viable, based on the 92 but with a 50/50 engine with 50% electric power and 50% diesel power, maybe not designed for freight work but something that could haul the sleeper and use electric until the wires end then switch and have enough power to make it to its destination (I wouldn't suggest the Class 88 be the best choice for that category given it's specs). Of course, I'm talking about a replacement to the 57's on the GWR Night Riviera... and apologies if this has gone off topic, feel free to ignore if you want to keep this on topic. Just an idea...

A bit off topic, but as you mention it... I think the issue with the Caledonian Sleeper at least is you'd need something capable of hauling a 16-coach rake of ETS-hungry Mk5s under the wires, then with a big enough diesel unit to haul (and heat) 8 of them up steep inclines in the winter in Scotland. Also the Highlander CS as it currently runs splits into 3 at Edinburgh, so you need to bring two more locos into the equation anyway. It'd probably be more cost effective to electrify Edinburgh-Inverness and keep the electric loco on that portion (that's definitely a different thread - and I'm sure electrification of that route has been mooted and on the back-burner as costs don't stack up).

GBRf have the 15-year traction contract for the CS and have put a fair amount of money into the 92s and 73s - I can't see them changing track and looking at dedicated bi-mode locos unless something major happened. And let's not forget the 92s were £3m-a-go locos designed (in part) to haul sleeper trains...!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Correct. 92014/023/033 have been completed so far, with 92018 at Brush being done. 92028 is also at Brush but not clear what's happening with that one as it's been there ages..

Yes, 92028 is an interesting one. Not in the official sleeper pool, but did a bit of sleeper work (in it's old Railfreight/Europorte grey livery) in the very early stages until it had a rather major failure two weeks into the contract. It was then painted into the GBRf Blue/Yellow similar to 92032, but been in Loughborough since I think. Maybe there's just been no need for it hence no rush to get fixed (or it's majorly broken - but then why repaint it?). Perhaps with the new China clay workings GBRf have just won we may see it back out soon...?

92010 is also interesting in that it seems to be doing fine (and being relied on) without the mods. Maybe it's just got lucky, for now...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Believed to be a DSD fault on 90048. So a safety system fault stopped the loco working. Not necessarily reliability.

I understand your point, however a fair few of the CS 92's issues were from over-zealous "safety" systems (e.g. lower tolerances due to it's Channel Tunnel design to power variations from the OHLE resulting in them "tripping out" and shutting down). Ultimately, whether it's mechanical or a safety system or software, if a loco won't move forward when it should and (badly) delays the service it's operating (and many others behind it) I'd say it's a 'reliability' issue in the broadest sense.

 

[MylesHSG]

92's still seem to be doing shunting duties at Wembley, well they were 2 weeks ago. I do find it funny 92's were shunting from Euston to Wembley and 90's were doing the run from Scotland to Euston!

 

[najaB]

It'd probably be more cost effective to electrify Edinburgh-Inverness and keep the electric loco on that portion (that's definitely a different thread - and I'm sure electrification of that route has been mooted and on the back-burner as costs don't stack up).

Last I heard, Aberdeen is ahead of Inverness in the electrification queue. Still looking at 10+ years before it's done though.

 

[TimboM]

92's still seem to be doing shunting duties at Wembley, well they were 2 weeks ago. I do find it funny 92's were shunting from Euston to Wembley and 90's were doing the run from Scotland to Euston!

Bear in mind in the mornings the loco bringing in the Lowlander (regularly a 92 at the moment) often gets detached, sits on the blocks at Euston, then when the Highlander comes in it runs round and attaches to the "back" of the Highlander to take it back to Wembley. So seems like it's "just" shunting, but has in fact find a main run. The reverse can happen in the evenings too.

In the last few weeks 92014 and 92010 have in the main done regular Euston-Scotland runs, and 92038 has been doing ECS and Edinburgh portion work in Scotland. The 86/87s have been doing the bulk of the "shunting".

 

[MylesHSG]

Bear in mind in the mornings the loco bringing in the Lowlander (regularly a 92 at the moment) often gets detached, sits on the blocks at Euston, then when the Highlander comes in it runs round and attaches to the "back" of the Highlander to take it back to Wembley. So seems like it's "just" shunting, but has in fact find a main run. The reverse can happen in the evenings too.

In the last few weeks 92014 and 92010 have in the main done regular Euston-Scotland runs, and 92038 has been doing ECS and Edinburgh portion work in Scotland. The 86/87s have been doing the bulk of the "shunting".

Ah, did not now they kept the Lowland at Euston to Shunt the Highland! They also use the 92's to shunt in the Alstom yard's, I think they should give them a rest after a hard nights work!

 

[TimboM]

Ah, did not now they kept the Lowland at Euston to Shunt the Highland! They also use the 92's to shunt in the Alstom yard's, I think they should give them a rest after a hard nights work!

Probably want to keep them going whilst they're still moving

 

[MylesHSG]

Probably want to keep them going whilst they're still moving

They should just buy some 37's and refurbish. Nice and reliable...and that noise

 

[najaB]

They should just buy some 37's and refurbish. Nice and reliable...and that noise

Indeed, that noise.

 

[43096]

They should just buy some 37's and refurbish. Nice and reliable...and that noise

Reliable?

Try telling that to passengers on the Cumbrian Coast - they've been shocking.

 

[TimboM]

Just been looking at Wabtec / Brush Loughborough on Google maps - 92028 has been there that long you can see it parked out the back...!

 

[robbeech]

Reliable?

Try telling that to passengers on the Cumbrian Coast - they've been shocking.

And that is before you look at their ability to supply enough power.

 

[TimboM]

Marginally off-topic as relates to the 66s, not 92s, but I noticed YouTube footage from Montrose yesterday morning (via 'tractorclag') of Belmond Royal Scotsman-liveried 66743 hauling the EDN-ABD sleeper (+73971). I know it's GBRf's loco and they can allocate them how they want I assume, but interesting that one 'flagship' service is being hauled by a loco branded in another client's livery.

Still waiting for the CS-liveried 66s...

 

[37038]

Reliable?

Try telling that to passengers on the Cumbrian Coast - they've been shocking.

Once again point to the fact that they aren't entirely to blame, as coast PPM is also affected by other dire units and high levels of staff sickness

 

[Far north 37]

Marginally off-topic as relates to the 66s, not 92s, but I noticed YouTube footage from Montrose yesterday morning (via 'tractorclag') of Belmond Royal Scotsman-liveried 66743 hauling the EDN-ABD sleeper (+73971). I know it's GBRf's loco and they can allocate them how they want I assume, but interesting that one 'flagship' service is being hauled by a loco branded in another client's livery.

Still waiting for the CS-liveried 66s...

the royal scotsman does not run at all over the winter so the locos will need to find work elsewhere i have seen them used on various freight trains also