Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[Far north 37]

Indeed. But that was 'only' an 8+2 HST. This was 16+1, plus whatever it was already hauling.

i think the train in that video that the 59 was hauling would of been a far heavier than the intermodal was pulling so maybe with even the extra sleeper coaches im not sure if it would of been a heavier train

 

[Far north 37]

In fact, what *was* the Class 70 hauling? Is it possible there was a new record set for longest train?

i think the longest and heaviest train in the uk and i think it was in europe was a single 59 on a mega jumbo from merehead a few years back thibk it was well over 4000 tonnes

 

[Bald Rick]

I do want to know how many people had to sign off on that manoeuvre before it happened!

.

The same number as for any train failure where the assistance is from a different operator to the failure. The driver of each train, the signaller, the Network Rail incident controller, and the duty controller of each operator concerned. That would be it.

 

[47271]

My correspondent on board suggests that the diesel grunt was coming from the front of the sleeper rather than the back, but admits that he could easily be mistaken half asleep in the freezing cold at 545am. The forwards lurch was sharp and very short, 10m would be top end.

We need someone who really knows how it was dealt with. Jiggling around in the dark half way down a 16 coach train is better than complete ignorance and speculation, but not by much...

 

[Crossover]

What I'm trying to work out and I'm sure someone will be able to explain, but per RTT 4M49 went through Penrith (last recorded point before the broken rail/delay) 43 mins ahead of the sleeper and was timed to stay ahead of it.

However, it seems it ended up behind the sleeper to give it a push.

Given it was diesel hauled, I'd have thought it would have just passed over the broken rail at the allowed 5mph (as per previous posts), had no issue with the neutral section and carried on its merry way.

Unless it reversed back up the Down Line (v unlikely) presumably it went into a passing loop at some point to let the sleeper past - although that doesn't make sense either if it was running well ahead and on time? Or did someone foresee the sleeper would get stranded and might need a handy Class 70 behind it to give it a shove?!

I was also trying to fathom this one out!

 

[TimboM]

My correspondent on board suggests that the diesel grunt was coming from the front of the sleeper rather than the back, but admits that he could easily be mistaken half asleep in the freezing cold at 545am. The forwards lurch was sharp and very short, 10m would be top end.

We need someone who really knows how it was dealt with. Jiggling around in the dark half way down a 16 coach train is better than complete ignorance and speculation, but not by much...

Makes a bit more sense - and then once sorted the Class 70 "pulled over" and let the faster sleeper through. Also the possibility (especially if it was some way down the line) that the Class 70 unhitched its load and did the rescue light engine, rather than reversing a rake of intermodals back up the main line).

Like you say, someone will know exactly what/how and will no doubt explain in due course.

 

[LeylandLen]

Obviously Caledonian Sleepers operated the sleeper train. Who was the operator for 4M49 ?
How should it work out when one train ' rescues' another , being run by a different TOC ?
Someone somewhere must have the final say ,esp regarding rules and regulations and Health and Safety ?

 

[TimboM]

Obviously Caledonian Sleepers operated the sleeper train. Who was the operator for 4M49 ?
How should it work out when one train ' rescues' another , being run by a different TOC ?
Someone somewhere must have the final say ,esp regarding rules and regulations and Health and Safety ?

There's a post above (#2564) which gives an indication of process/sign-offs required in an instance like this.

4M49 was operated by Freightliner.

Serco operate the Caledonian Sleeper, but the traction is sub-contracted to GBRf, who on this particular service were using a Class 90 hired in from... Freightliner (albeit operated by GBRf with GBRf driver etc).

 

[signallerscot]

Network Rail Operations Control for each Route have the power to 'commandeer' trains to assist clearing the line and agreeing to this is a requirement of holding a license to operate on the network. The Rule Book covers the technicalities of getting assistance to a failed train. The policies of the various train companies don't come into it.

 

[TimboM]

Network Rail Operations Control for each Route have the power to 'commandeer' trains to assist clearing the line and agreeing to this is a requirement of holding a license to operate on the network. The Rule Book covers the technicalities of getting assistance to a failed train. The policies of the various train companies don't come into it.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm assuming in practice the TOCs/FOCs are generally pretty willing to help each other out as although they're competitors in some instances, the next time they could be the ones needing the assistance from another TOC/FOC.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Caught up with the sleeper at Fort William on Saturday. Got there for about 1030 to see some shunt movements. By 1pm the locos had disappeared, just leaving the coaches, so not sure where they ended up, but just a note for anyone going to photograph it.


Caledonian Sleeper 73968 at Fort William by Timothy Young, on Flickr


66733 at Fort William by Timothy Young, on Flickr


73968 at Fort William by Timothy Young, on Flickr

 

[signallerscot]

The 73 gets fuelled at the oil terminal.

 

[adrock1976]

Of note, 92014 was on the 23:40 Glasgow Central - London Euston on Friday 17 February much to my surprise.

Apologies if this has been previously mentioned and as I cannot be bothered to wade my way through a lengthy thread, is 92014 now behaving itself, and will this see regular passenger service?

 

[TimboM]

Of note, 92014 was on the 23:40 Glasgow Central - London Euston on Friday 17 February much to my surprise.

Apologies if this has been previously mentioned and as I cannot be bothered to wade my way through a lengthy thread, is 92014 now behaving itself, and will this see regular passenger service?

There's a separate thread on the CS 92s here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=131385

As you ask... 92014 has been back on the sleepers since about August (post modifications at Brush Loughborough) on the whole behaving very well as far as I'm aware.

92023 has been modified and recently back on the sleepers - doing the "opposite" Lowlander to 014 this week. So far, so good I believe.

92038 has been working full runs and the Edinburgh portion last couple of months but hasn't had its "mods" yet (will be last one to go in, soonish I expect). Despite not being modified has been pretty reliable AFAIK.

92018 has recently come out of Loughborough and done some testing (including the Ford car train last week) and now at Willesden, so likely to be on the sleepers again soon.

92010 went into Brush at the start of Feb and currently getting its mods done - was working the sleepers before that without too many issues.

92033 has had its mods done, has done various testing but only seems to have done ECS moves and now back on the Ford car train this week, so maybe needs a few more tweaks?

92044 (3-tone grey liveried, not modified) chipped in on a couple of runs the other week too.

The Highlanders are Freightliner Class 90 hauled this week (90042/44), but for several weeks now between 2 and 4 of the 5 main runs under the wires (incl. Edinburgh portion) have been GBRf 92 hauled.

The "modifications" (touchwood) appear to be successful, with 4 of the 6 having received them, 1 undergoing them now and 1 to go. Shouldn't be TOO long until sleepers are all regularly 92-hauled.

 

[6Z09]

Are the 73s not trusted to run solo?
Was this always the plan or have issues arisen to end up in this situation?

 

[cf111]

Are the 73s not trusted to run solo?
Was this always the plan or have issues arisen to end up in this situation?

I believe the initial plan, north of Edinburgh, was to run:

1x73 to Aberdeen
1x73 to Fort William
2x73 to Inverness

 

[TimboM]

I believe the initial plan, north of Edinburgh, was to run:

1x73 to Aberdeen
1x73 to Fort William
2x73 to Inverness

In response to the first part of 6Z09's Q, I think it's safe the 73s aren't currently trusted to run solo. I'm not sure they're even back running as pairs yet? I believe they're mostly still being used to provide ETH and the 66s they're paired with are doing the bulk of the leg work. The Inverness portion has also been hauled by hired-in DB 67s recently.

The 73s are currently getting their issues fixed (as is happening with the 92s albeit different issues), so GBRf do seem committed to getting them right and (eventually) getting back to the original plans.

 

[CosherB]

What will we all talk about when the CS is run with reliable 73/9s and 92s only?

 

[cf111]

What will we all talk about when the CS is run with reliable 73/9s and 92s only?

The new stock not being as good as the MK2/3s

 

[TimboM]

The new stock not being as good as the MK2/3s

Yes, this

...and the new Mk5s will probably have some expected early teething issues and maybe won't work quite right with the 73/9s and 92s, which will then need more mods...

 

[Darandio]

Yes, this

...and the new Mk5s will probably have some expected early teething issues and maybe won't work quite right with the 73/9s and 92s, which will then need more mods...

I'd like to think that issue wouldn't arise with the 73, given one is being sent abroad to iron out these teething issues.

 

[TimboM]

I'd like to think that issue wouldn't arise with the 73, given one is being sent abroad to iron out these teething issues.

I agree. Same for the 92s - they're putting significant work into getting them sorted and you'd expect then to have ensured as best as possible they are ready for the new stock (new couplings etc aside).

I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek about all the misfortune that seems to befall the sleeper. I doubt we'll run out of things to post about anytime soon

 

[6Z09]

Colas 47 on Aberdeen this morning!

 

[TimboM]

Colas 47 on Aberdeen this morning!

Was it solo, or paired with a 66 (or 73/9 even)?

 

[6Z09]

Solo.47739.

 

[TimboM]

Solo.47739.

Thanks. ...if all else fails, use some classic 1960s traction!

 

[6Z09]

Thanks. ...if all else fails, use some classic 1960s traction!

A nice simply solution, ETH included,gets rid of the logistics of swapping round 73s and 66s as well!

 

[Clansman]

Beat me to it, spied as I left Aberdeen and was quite surprised. Looks like the 73s need looked at again if they are being temporarily replaced on the sleeper.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Anyone any idea whats taking the Lowland North out of London tonight? Im on it but quite frankly to tired to check or ask!

 

[TimboM]

Anyone any idea whats taking the Lowland North out of London tonight? Im on it but quite frankly to tired to check or ask!

Most likely 92038. Could possibly be 92014, but my money's on 038.

92018 is on the Southbound Lowlander tonight and 92023 on the Edinburgh-Carstairs-Edinburgh portion. Freightliner 90s are doing the Highlanders (90042 S/bound, 90044 N/bound). 92038 did the southbound lowlander last night (with 018 going in the opposite direction) and it was at Wembley depot earlier (where the beds go during the day). 92014 has been having a 'breather' in Willesden last couple of days. Hence most likely you've got 92038 taking you up tonight.

(92033 is at Dagenham (Ford) at the moment as doing the car train currently, 92010 is in Loughborough.)