• 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 Mk5 Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drumtochty

Member
Joined
5 Dec 2016
Messages
30
Therefore the Inverness portion would just go through Waverly and the Fort William section would connect to the Aberdeen section and go down double headed.

It would only be until the West Coast Main Line was clear and the 92's can take over again. Possibly the fuel tanks in the 73 would not have enough fuel to last the distance.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

marks87

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2010
Messages
1,609
Location
Dundee
Therefore the Inverness portion would just go through Waverly and the Fort William section would connect to the Aberdeen section and go down double headed.

There would need to be a reversal at Waverley (or, easier, the 73s running round).
 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
In the recent Rail Magazine interview with the Serco Sleeper Managing Director one piece of info he gave was, "In the event of line closures, the Mk 5s will also be gauge cleared for the Settle-Carlisle Line, for the Glasgow & South Western via Dumfries, and for the East Coast Main Line."

Therefore being simplistic if the sleeper is run on the Settle Carlisle line, which is not electrified that suggest that unless it was running empty stock. The train could only have at best 8 carriages as the only Loco that could pull it with passenger facilities working would be a Sleeper modified 73 and they would have to use less electrical power than they would behind a 92 Loco.

Or is there any other Diesel Loco available with the same ETH facilities.

It's a very big IF and I'd say very unlikely to even happen - can anyone recall the last time the Sleeper ran via the S&C? Even before the new stock comes along there's a load of issues:

  • Few if any of the regular Sleeper drivers sign that route
  • None of the guards sign that route
  • By the time you'd added a diesel at Carlisle, gone the long way round and taken the diesel off again (at Crewe?) the journey time has significantly lengthened.
It's why whenever there's significant engineering work on the WCML and they can plan in advance they just divert via the ECML and it's also why when there's been recent OHLE etc. issues between Preston and Carlisle causing major disruption they've either sat it out and waited for the issue to be sorted or cancelled the trains rather than try and divert via the S&C.

With the new stock, you've then go added challenges that make this not very feasible option even more unfeasible. Only locos with the Dellner fittings (and at the right height) can couple to the stock - realistically you're talking about the 6x 73/9s and the 10x 92s being the only locos that can. You cannot just stick a 66 or 2x47s on the front and/or a 67 on the rear as happened during the Lamington diversion. One of the CS locos would need to stay on as a "translator" if nothing else - e.g. 66 hauling 92

Using the 73/9s isn't really an option either - there's six of them and four will be working on any given night (1x Aberdeen, 2x Inverness, 1x Fort William) - the other 2 will be spare/exam/maintenance at EC. The same four (usually) that work the portions to EDB, then work back. If those four then went off south (the combined Aberdeen + Fort William would need a double-header like the Inverness), there wouldn't be enough locos to work the portions back north in the morning (even assuming all six were available for traffic - which there's a good chance they wouldn't be).

Then you have the issue that the drivers who do the WCML runs probably don't sign 73/9s. And the fuel issue mentioned.

You could have some elaborate combination of 66+73/9s that might just work if absolutely everything was available - but why would you do that when you could just use the normal traction and divert via the ECML..??!

The only vaguely feasible option is to strap a 66 on the front of the 92 and haul via the S&C, relying on the coaches batteries to last the few hours to give some sort of heat/light until back under the wires. But even then you have the issues of finding a route conductor as the rostered drivers probably don't sign that route and guards who sign the route etc etc. Again, just go via the ECML (if it can be planned in advance - and if it's a last minute issue, then for all the above reasons that would need to be worked through it isn't really an option either).

It's good of Serco to get them route cleared so it's an option - but it's an unfeasible option. I also think it may be a bit of PR as I believe if they can prove the stock are within certain dimensions / gauge clearances there'll be a whole host of routes they'd be cleared for that they'd never use.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
Some of the Durham Coast diversions had a 66 up front with a 67 on the rear providing ETS as a glorified ETHEL. Could similar not happen here, albeit with both 73s providing power?

I understand that you can’t just use two locomotives and get double the ETS capability, but is it theoretically possible to electrically separate the portions so that the front loco provides power to the front 8, and the rear provides power to the back?

Alternatively, what are the batteries like in the new stock? Could it be the lack of suitable diesel traction for diversions has led to high-capacity batteries being included that store enough power for the longest possible diversion without wires?
I would suggest a 73 front and rear to provide train supply, with ETH jumpers dropped between the two halves, and a 66 added on the front of the leading 73, you can of course use the AAR multi to work the 66 and 73 together.

You'd be maxed out on 73s by that stage, so the Inverness would probably need to be a single 73, also with a 66.
 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
The Lowlander is being forgotten about it seems... if there were planned diversions where all these challenges could be looked at and possibly addressed, then there'd presumably be a need to be two more half-rakes of 8 coaches with a 73/9 each...??!

Just isn't going to happen, ever. They just divert via the ECML, as they usually do...!
 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
I would suggest a 73 front and rear to provide train supply, with ETH jumpers dropped between the two halves, and a 66 added on the front of the leading 73, you can of course use the AAR multi to work the 66 and 73 together.

You'd be maxed out on 73s by that stage, so the Inverness would probably need to be a single 73, also with a 66.
73/9s are not permitted on the rear of a train in service with their engine running unless they're manned - so you'd need an extra driver to add to all the other issues.

You wouldn't have enough 73/9s either - 2x 73/9s on each of the Lowlander and Highlander south of Edinburgh leaves 2 left (assuming all in traffic) to work Northbound portions.... also what happens with the trains in the other direction that presumably need to be diverted likewise...?? You'd need a minimum of 8x 73/9s (2x 4 main trains) even if this arrangement was feasible.

The whole idea is totally unfeasible and probably will never happen. There's also a very simple solution: 1x Class 92 with its Dellners, 1500v ETH supply with an Index of 180 via the ECML with the usual drivers/guards who sign the route...
 

AngusH

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2012
Messages
551
If they really wanted to do this, perhaps the answer is to copy the euro-tunnel sleeper/nightstar idea and use a generator coach + whatever diesel locomotive can pull the train.
Seems improbable though.
 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
If they really wanted to do this, perhaps the answer is to copy the euro-tunnel sleeper/nightstar idea and use a generator coach.
Seems improbable though.
In theory feasible, but as you say improbable - would need four generator coaches (for the four main trains) from somewhere with all the right spec and Dellner coupler etc etc which would all come at a (considerable) cost for the odd diversion. Again, just go via the ECML if a planned diversion is required...!
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
In theory feasible, but as you say improbable - would need four generator coaches (for the four main trains) from somewhere with all the right spec and Dellner coupler etc etc which would all come at a (considerable) cost for the odd diversion. Again, just go via the ECML if a planned diversion is required...!
Agreed. That is the best solution.

It would finally provide a use for the Nightstar generator vans though - fit drop-head Dellners and you could use any loco on the front.
;)
 

theageofthetra

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2012
Messages
3,504
Agreed. That is the best solution.

It would finally provide a use for the Nightstar generator vans though - fit drop-head Dellners and you could use any loco on the front.
;)
Basically how most Irish railways operated for 30 odd years!
 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
Agreed. That is the best solution.

It would finally provide a use for the Nightstar generator vans though - fit drop-head Dellners and you could use any loco on the front.
;)
Bit of a tangent but a few of the generator vans have found some degree of use for stock heating/testing dotted around the country. Wabtec (Brush) have (or had) them at Doncaster and Loughborough and one was moved to Leicester LIP last year presumably for UKRL (or whoever) to use there for stock heating etc.

What might have been... https://flic.kr/p/GLfXMi
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
Basically how most Irish railways operated for 30 odd years!
Very much so, and it still happens today as Dublin-Belfast services now have a Mark 3 generator van. They’ve given up with the HEP on the 201s to the extent that the HEP sockets on the locos have been removed.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,598
Does anyone know if the mk5s (in theory at least) could run through the chunnel with passengers aboard?
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
They will not have been specified to tunnel requirements at any stage of the process. I don't know what points they might fail on, but it is highly unlikely that something not designed for it would meet the strict requirements.
 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
They will not have been specified to tunnel requirements at any stage of the process. I don't know what points they might fail on, but it is highly unlikely that something not designed for it would meet the strict requirements.
I suspect it was enough of a headache trying to get all the (Serco/CS) design requirements into the stock and ensure they were suitable for Sleeper routes (e.g. WHL gauging; Load 16s fitting in Euston etc). I'm no expert on tunnel regs, but I believe there's all manner of stringent fire and safety requirements, including things like the positioning of doors so passengers are never anymore than x metres from the escape doors etc. I think if the Mk5s complied with all the tunnel regs (or could be easily adapted to) it'd be more by chance than design.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
and we'll never know if they comply, because no-one is going to try and get them certified.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,598
Made me sad seeing that photo of the nightstar stock, never even given the chance to run.

Overnight trains to the continent would be a really useful thing to have. You could even argue that a night train from glasgow to paris or brussels might have a stronger business case than one from Glasgow to London.

It's also sad that some folk seem to delight in scoffing at the idea that such a thing could ever be a serious option.
 

USRailFan

Member
Joined
2 May 2011
Messages
341
Location
Norway

With the new stock, you've then go added challenges that make this not very feasible option even more unfeasible. Only locos with the Dellner fittings (and at the right height) can couple to the stock - realistically you're talking about the 6x 73/9s and the 10x 92s being the only locos that can. You cannot just stick a 66 or 2x47s on the front and/or a 67 on the rear as happened during the Lamington diversion. One of the CS locos would need to stay on as a "translator" if nothing else - e.g. 66 hauling 92


Do the ex-Virgin "Thunderbird" 57s still exist? Didn't they have Dellners? How much easier it'd have been to just stick with Buckeyes...
 

Marklund

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2010
Messages
827
It's also sad that some folk seem to delight in scoffing at the idea that such a thing could ever be a serious option.

I wouldn't say it's with delight, it's more a realisation that things changed with the rise in use of Low Cost airlines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Airport#Annual_traffic_data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Prestwick_Airport#Statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Airport#Statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Airport#Passengers_and_movements


While Glasgow isn't meteoric in it's rise, and Prestwick has fallen, Edinburgh, and Bristol, two of the main markets for NightStar are unprecedented in their rises.

When LCCs started up, offering fares from less than £30 to Amsterdam and Paris NightStar was dead.
Even the relatively easy sleeper operations in Mainland Europe are disappearing.

While it would be absolutely fantastic of going to bed in the UK, and waking up in for instance, Amsterdam, the costs would be phenomenal.
 

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,778
More mark 5s on the way by ship, to be delivered at the end of the week apparently.
 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
More mark 5s on the way by ship, to be delivered at the end of the week apparently.
I heard (about a week ago) they were due into Tees Dock today - STP paths are in Tue-Fri from there to Polmadie for the moves (4 coaches at a time) then the barriers back to the docks. Has the docking time been revised back a bit?
 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
Do the ex-Virgin "Thunderbird" 57s still exist? Didn't they have Dellners? How much easier it'd have been to just stick with Buckeyes...
They still exist... as the Virgin Thunderbirds!! (...but now operated by DRS who supply the Thunderbird contract to VTWC). They have Dellners but at the wrong height I believe - the Mk5 Dellners are at a specific/non-standard height which makes them compatible with not a lot other than the specifically modified 92s and 73/9s as far as I'm aware.

The 57s also wouldn't have near enough ETS power for a Load 16 of the new Mk5s - not sure of the exact figure but I have vague recollections of it needing an ETH index in the region of 130-150, which is significantly above any locomotive in the UK other than a 92 (ETH Index 180 on A/C). I'm not sure how suitable they'd be gauging-wise for the West Highland Line etc. They also belong to DRS, not GBRf...

Worth noting the new Mk5 stock also has driver-controlled doors and PA system from the loco - I expect there'll be control on the train too for the guard (e.g. in the brake coach) - but it's another reason (along with the Dellners/Dellner height/ETH) you cannot just stick a random loco on the stock.

I also don't think the old stock had buckeye...? The Class 92s certainly don't have buckeye (just classic draw-hook prior to the Dellner mods); so making the stock with buckeye would've needed modifications too. (Think some/all of the 73/9s had it before they were modified to the Dellners.)
 

marks87

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2010
Messages
1,609
Location
Dundee
They still exist... as the Virgin Thunderbirds!! (...but now operated by DRS who supply the Thunderbird contract to VTWC). They have Dellners but at the wrong height I believe - the Mk5 Dellners are at a specific/non-standard height which makes them compatible with not a lot other than the specifically modified 92s and 73/9s as far as I'm aware.

The 57s also wouldn't have near enough ETS power for a Load 16 of the new Mk5s - not sure of the exact figure but I have vague recollections of it needing an ETH index in the region of 130-150, which is significantly above any locomotive in the UK other than a 92 (ETH Index 180 on A/C). I'm not sure how suitable they'd be gauging-wise for the West Highland Line etc. They also belong to DRS, not GBRf...

Worth noting the new Mk5 stock also has driver-controlled doors and PA system from the loco - I expect there'll be control on the train too for the guard (e.g. in the brake coach) - but it's another reason (along with the Dellners/Dellner height/ETH) you cannot just stick a random loco on the stock.

I also don't think the old stock had buckeye...? The Class 92s certainly don't have buckeye (just classic draw-hook prior to the Dellner mods); so making the stock with buckeye would've needed modifications too. (Think some/all of the 73/9s had it before they were modified to the Dellners.)

The current stock does have buckeyes, but they can drop down out the way to reveal a draw-hook as seen in this image:

652.jpg


(Courtesy: scot-rail.co.uk)
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
They still exist... as the Virgin Thunderbirds!! (...but now operated by DRS who supply the Thunderbird contract to VTWC). They have Dellners but at the wrong height I believe - the Mk5 Dellners are at a specific/non-standard height which makes them compatible with not a lot other than the specifically modified 92s and 73/9s as far as I'm aware.

The 57s also wouldn't have near enough ETS power for a Load 16 of the new Mk5s - not sure of the exact figure but I have vague recollections of it needing an ETH index in the region of 130-150, which is significantly above any locomotive in the UK other than a 92 (ETH Index 180 on A/C). I'm not sure how suitable they'd be gauging-wise for the West Highland Line etc. They also belong to DRS, not GBRf...

Worth noting the new Mk5 stock also has driver-controlled doors and PA system from the loco - I expect there'll be control on the train too for the guard (e.g. in the brake coach) - but it's another reason (along with the Dellners/Dellner height/ETH) you cannot just stick a random loco on the stock.

I also don't think the old stock had buckeye...? The Class 92s certainly don't have buckeye (just classic draw-hook prior to the Dellner mods); so making the stock with buckeye would've needed modifications too. (Think some/all of the 73/9s had it before they were modified to the Dellners.)
The Dellners on the Class 57s are/were at the wrong height also, as the Pendolinos have their couplers at a non-standard height as well. Some 57s (those that were with Network Rail for a period) were modified to the standard height - it is one of those that is on hire to GWR for moving Class 387s around.

It really is time that the RSSB did something useful and mandated a standard coupling height, even if there isn't a standard multiple working protocol/coupler type for multiple units.

The old stock does all have BR standard drop-head buckeyes and retractable buffers.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,598
I wouldn't say it's with delight, it's more a realisation that things changed with the rise in use of Low Cost airlines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Airport#Annual_traffic_data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Prestwick_Airport#Statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Airport#Statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Airport#Passengers_and_movements


While Glasgow isn't meteoric in it's rise, and Prestwick has fallen, Edinburgh, and Bristol, two of the main markets for NightStar are unprecedented in their rises.

When LCCs started up, offering fares from less than £30 to Amsterdam and Paris NightStar was dead.
Even the relatively easy sleeper operations in Mainland Europe are disappearing.

While it would be absolutely fantastic of going to bed in the UK, and waking up in for instance, Amsterdam, the costs would be phenomenal.

It's true that low cost airlines are a part of the picture that wasn't there 25 years ago. And I'm very aware of the drastic cuts to continental services.

But the decline of night services on the continent is due to other and more complicated issues as well. Increase of high speed daytime alternatives on certain routes, and the changes to financing/operating that have come out of EU-led restructuring.

I think the jury is still out on whether night services are dead. The Thello operation to Venice still runs, under an open access arrangement, across multiple borders. I think we'll have to wait a few years to understand the long term consequences of the EU rail shake-up.

The choice between flying/sleeper train isn't a straightforward one based only on price and travel time (this discussion has been done to death on the CS thread).

Many of the arguments made for subsidising sleepers between London and Scotland could also be made for trains between Scotland (or the N of England) and, say, Brussels or Paris.

Of course there's the question of whether running through the tunnel would make it massively more expensive/complex than other cross border services. We know that passenger trains can run through because it happens every day and we know that there's no fundamental issue with loco hauled night stock because that's what the Nightstars were. This is why I wondered about the mk 5s. *If* (and of course only if) they could run through the tunnel without major alterations (or if a tunnel-compliant variant could be built to a very similar design), then in a few years we'd have a regular sleeper operation using locos that we know can go through the tunnel. So, compared to today (with aging rolling stock and until recently haulage that would be no good for the tunnel) the obstacles to contemplating services through the tunnel would seem considerably less.

I don't really expect it to happen. I'm probably too optimistic about the prospects for night travel. But what if it turns out that they've really nailed it with the new stock and the services become really popular? If it turns out there's a substantial market of people willing to pay a bit extra for a bit more comfort? What if something external changes, like fuel prices, that means "low cost" air travel becomes a thing of the past? Who knows.
 

Marklund

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2010
Messages
827
Many of the arguments made for subsidising sleepers between London and Scotland could also be made for trains between Scotland (or the N of England) and, say, Brussels or Paris.

Yes, they could, except for one thing. The politics driving the funding of the new stock.

Of course there's the question of whether running through the tunnel would make it massively more expensive/complex than other cross border services. We know that passenger trains can run through because it happens every day and we know that there's no fundamental issue with loco hauled night stock because that's what the Nightstars were. This is why I wondered about the mk 5s. *If* (and of course only if) they could run through the tunnel without major alterations (or if a tunnel-compliant variant could be built to a very similar design), then in a few years we'd have a regular sleeper operation using locos that we know can go through the tunnel. So, compared to today (with aging rolling stock and until recently haulage that would be no good for the tunnel) the obstacles to contemplating services through the tunnel would seem considerably less.

I don't really expect it to happen. I'm probably too optimistic about the prospects for night travel. But what if it turns out that they've really nailed it with the new stock and the services become really popular? If it turns out there's a substantial market of people willing to pay a bit extra for a bit more comfort? What if something external changes, like fuel prices, that means "low cost" air travel becomes a thing of the past? Who knows.

Passport controls would have to be implemented in places where there's currently no provision, or waking people in the middle of the night for passport checks.
Unless there's a seismic shift in transport use, caused for instance by the hike in fuel prices, that would also likely have an affect on discretionary travel, such as an expensive sleeper ticket.
With the new prices for CS being as high as they are for a domestic only operation, and not even adding in the costs of immigration, security, and tunnel toll, the fares would be eye-watering.

While the question over whether the mark 5 stock can run through the tunnel, the point is moot, it's not going to happen.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,598
Sure, I can see that the passport and security issues would be tricky.
 

Alex_L33

New Member
Joined
1 Oct 2013
Messages
1
Something I have been wondering is will the doors on the new mk5 stock have warning chimes / hustle alarms? They would surely wake up the whole train at intermediate stops such as Carlisle?
 

TimboM

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
3,732
Something I have been wondering is will the doors on the new mk5 stock have warning chimes / hustle alarms? They would surely wake up the whole train at intermediate stops such as Carlisle?
I suspect given rules/regs they will do, but possibly at a suitable discrete noise level.
Can't be much worse than the doors getting slammed shut on a Mk3 though...?
 

dp21

Member
Joined
10 May 2017
Messages
358
I suspect given rules/regs they will do, but possibly at a suitable discrete noise level.
Can't be much worse than the doors getting slammed shut on a Mk3 though...?

They'll have to as my understanding is that standards dictate so; Especially given the issues around trap and drag at the moment.

If they've designed them properly they should be suitably insulated so that through 2 sets of doors (vestibule door and the cabin door) it should be relatively muffled. As TimboM says, surely it wouldn't be half as bad as the entire side of the carriage shuddering as the Mk3 doors are slammed?

D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top