Caledonian Sleeper

[AdamWW]

I think thats wrong mate. A Mk2 was 34 tonnes, a Mk3 was 43 tonnes and I'm pretty certain a Mk5 is also 43 tonnes.

Empty or with the water tanks for the showers on a Mk 5 full?

 

[Scotrail84]

Empty or with the water tanks for the showers on a Mk 5 full?

Add on 5 tonnes per coach when in service so thats a total of 48 tonnes. A 92 plus a load 16 is 894 tonnes.

 

[matchmaker]

The 68's ETS index isn't enough for 16 coaches anyway. It is the same as a 73/9, which can take eight (maybe nine at a pinch).

A 92 is the only class with an ETS high enough for 16 mark 5s, at 180. (they were originally designed to operate the Nightstar international sleeper services)

Thought it was 108? Bearing in mind it's a 1500V supply instead of 800/1000V.

 

[paul1609]

I think thats wrong mate. A Mk2 was 34 tonnes, a Mk3 was 43 tonnes and I'm pretty certain a Mk5 is also 43 tonnes.

Yes it is wrong, rather surprisingly (to me at least)the sleeper version of the Mk3 weighed a whooping 10 tons more than the ordinary trailer version of the same Mk3. That means the 4 coach version MK5 version weighs 20 ton more than the mk2/3 equivalent so about a 13% increase in weight rather than the 30% I believed.

 

[swaldman]

Yes it is wrong, rather surprisingly (to me at least)the sleeper version of the Mk3 weighed a whooping 10 tons more than the ordinary trailer version of the same Mk3. That means the 4 coach version MK5 version weighs 20 ton more than the mk2/3 equivalent so about a 13% increase in weight rather than the 30% I believed.

Do we know why? If I had to guess I might imagine that en-suite showers -> more water carried, but that's only speculation. I'd have thought that a few decades of technology improvement ought to lead to lighter, not heavier, coaches!

 

[norbitonflyer]

Thought it was 108? Bearing in mind it's a 1500V supply instead of 800/1000V.

Interesting - my 2024 Combined Volume says 180 on AC and 108 on DC, but my 2019 edition says 108/70. Have they been uprated?

DC would have be needed for Nightstar

 

[paul1609]

Do we know why? If I had to guess I might imagine that en-suite showers -> more water carried, but that's only speculation. I'd have thought that a few decades of technology improvement ought to lead to lighter, not heavier, coaches!

I think its basically more steel to improve the crash protection. A mk 4 trailer also weights 43 tons that's 10 tons more than a Mk3 hst trailer.

 

[Bill57p9]

GBRf don't have any 68s.

Apologies - I meant 67s but had missed that these had gone again

 

[Scotrail84]

Do we know why? If I had to guess I might imagine that en-suite showers -> more water carried, but that's only speculation. I'd have thought that a few decades of technology improvement ought to lead to lighter, not heavier, coaches!

Mk3 sleepers had a lot of additional internal fittings unlike the day coaches, lots of added weight with berths, sinks, beds, double toilets at the end of each SLEP and the crews 'pantry' at the other as well as water tanks. SLEDs had the dsb berths and dsb toilets and SLE's had 13 berths instead of the standard 12 plus a pantry. These could never be booked either, they were a handy get out of jail card for any issues.

Mk5s are pretty much the same layout barring the double bed rooms of course, en-suites add a lot of extra weight and so do the water tanks on the roof that you can hear the water sloshing about in all night. Their under frame looks quite bulky as well with lots of panels underneath. A fully laden load 16 of MK5s is still no match for a 92, even going up Shap or Beattock they cope ok

Still, the Mk5s are probably up there amongst some of the worst new rolling stock introduced on the network in the last 10 years in regards to both passenger comfort and suitability for train crews.

 

[Krokodil]

Do we know why? If I had to guess I might imagine that en-suite showers -> more water carried, but that's only speculation. I'd have thought that a few decades of technology improvement ought to lead to lighter, not heavier, coaches!

I imagine that the bogies are certainly lighter - it would explain the ride quality.

 

[Scotrail84]

More problems tonight for the Sleeper, Northbound Lowlander cancelled according to twitter.

 

[Bill57p9]

More problems tonight for the Sleeper, Northbound Lowlander cancelled according to twitter.

Indeed: "cancelled due to a problem with the train" according to RTT and looking at Traksy the stock hasn't moved all night.
The southbound services have run (albeit the Highlander late), therefore tonight's southbound lowlander may be at risk.

 

[Scotrail84]

Indeed: "cancelled due to a problem with the train" according to RTT and looking at Traksy the stock hasn't moved all night.
The southbound services have run (albeit the Highlander late), therefore tonight's southbound lowlander may be at risk.

Interesting that it's made it down from Wembley ok though, maybe a loco issue? Yes, tonights Southbound could be at risk as they'll need to get the stock to Polmadie, and if it is a problem with the coaches can they be moved? If they can be moved can they be fixed in time for tonights service?

They've had a bad couple of weeks with at least one service being late most days.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It was an air leak on 92 043.

The stock is running ecs to Polmadie direct from Euston, leaving any moment now, with 92 023 on it.

Realtime Trains | 3Z11 1001 London Euston to Polmadie Car M.D. | 02/10/2024

Real-time train running information for 3Z11 1001 departure from London Euston to Polmadie Car M.D. on 02/10/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Edited as 92 023 now confirmed. Note that RTT is showing it as 92 043 - presumably the data feed hasn't been updated yet.

 

[Scotrail84]

It was an air leak on 92 043.

The stock is running ecs to Polmadie direct from Euston, leaving any moment now, with 92 023 on it.

Realtime Trains | 3Z11 1001 London Euston to Polmadie Car M.D. | 02/10/2024

Real-time train running information for 3Z11 1001 departure from London Euston to Polmadie Car M.D. on 02/10/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Edited as 92 023 now confirmed.

Must have been some air leak, theres 2 main res, and 2 brake pipe hoses to chose from on the front of a 92.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Must have been some air leak, there's 2 main res, and 2 brake pipe hoses to chose from on the front of a 92.

I'm going by what I've been told.

Could have been the master reservoir system, though? That would be an issue no matter how many pipes there are?

 

[Scotrail84]

I'm going by what I've been told.

Could have been the master reservoir system, though? That would be an issue no matter how many pipes there are?

That loco will have brought down 5S95 from Wembley so thats a hell of a fault to develop in a short space of time, of course anything's possible in the railway and it may well have been that the loco just threw a wobbly.

 

[AdamWW]

That loco will have brought down 5S95 from Wembley so thats a hell of a fault to develop in a short space of time, of course anything's possible in the railway and it may well have been that the loco just threw a wobbly.

I was on the Highlander once where the locomotive failed (with quite a loud bang, apparently) just after leaving the platform at Euston.
Fortunately it was able to limp back into the station so we could wait there while a new locomotive was procured. (Pinched from the Lowlander, I think.)

 

[Peter Mugridge]

That loco will have brought down 5S95 from Wembley so that's a hell of a fault to develop in a short space of time, of course anything's possible in the railway and it may well have been that the loco just threw a wobbly.

We now have the situation where someone reported 92 023 as confirmed on the ecs to Polmadie but RTT is still showing 92 043 - which is the one that developed the fault, whatever that was. That of course could simply be the data feeds not being updated.

Has anyone got Mk1 eyeball on the ecs to confirm positively what's hauling it?

 

[tehmarks]

Is tonight's northbound lowlander definitely cancelled? I'm meant to be travelling on it to Edinburgh, but there have been no updates by email or the website (which in fairness says update at 14:00 for today's services). Bit disappointing if they're able to put the information out now on Twitter but nowhere else.

 

[AdamWW]

Is tonight's northbound lowlander definitely cancelled? I'm meant to be travelling on it to Edinburgh, but there have been no updates by email or the website (which in fairness says update at 14:00 for today's services). Bit disappointing if they're able to put the information out now on Twitter but nowhere else.

That's standard in the rail industry, isn't it?

In my experience it's quite common for important information to only appear on Twitter while the more obvious channels have nothing or out of date information.

 

[Scotrail84]

Is tonight's northbound lowlander definitely cancelled? I'm meant to be travelling on it to Edinburgh, but there have been no updates by email or the website (which in fairness says update at 14:00 for today's services). Bit disappointing if they're able to put the information out now on Twitter but nowhere else.

Tonights northbound lowlander should run, sets and crew are in place in London.

 

[alholmes]

Is tonight's northbound lowlander definitely cancelled? I'm meant to be travelling on it to Edinburgh, but there have been no updates by email or the website (which in fairness says update at 14:00 for today's services). Bit disappointing if they're able to put the information out now on Twitter but nowhere else.

No reason to think that it will be cancelled. Both southbound services operated as normal last night, so stock for both northbound trains are in London.

 

[tehmarks]

Ah I see now; I read a message posted "today" (but at 1am), only read the "today" and not the time.

 

[Bill57p9]

Given a rake is currently on it's way to Polmadie, I would assume the southbounds will run as normal tonight too.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The ecs from Euston has just arrived from at Polmadie, so tonight's working should be secure.

Still not been any visual confirmation from anyone as to whether it's 92 023 or 92 043 on the front of it!

 

[CN12]

It was 92 043.

 

[TimboM]

The ecs from Euston has just arrived from at Polmadie, so tonight's working should be secure.

Still not been any visual confirmation from anyone as to whether it's 92 023 or 92 043 on the front of it!

It was 92043 - I saw it personally.

“What you were told” regarding the issues last night was also incorrect - it was a stock / Mk5 fault, nothing to do with 92043 (info from a very reliable source who was very close to the loco last night).

1S26 will run a coach light tonight - the particular problem “child” having been identified and removed at Wembley today. Although last night I believe it was far more than just the one Mk5 playing up, hence the cancellation.

 

[Scotrail84]

It was 92043 - I saw it personally.

“What you were told” regarding the issues last night was also incorrect - it was a stock / Mk5 fault, nothing to do with 92043 (info from a very reliable source who was very close to the loco last night).

1S26 will run a coach light tonight - the particular problem “child” having been identified and removed at Wembley today. Although last night I believe it was far more than just the one Mk5 playing up, hence the cancellation.

That should come as no surprise to anyone. 6 years in and still many, many unresolved issues with these coaches.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It was 92043 - I saw it personally.

“What you were told” regarding the issues last night was also incorrect - it was a stock / Mk5 fault, nothing to do with 92043 (info from a very reliable source who was very close to the loco last night).

1S26 will run a coach light tonight - the particular problem “child” having been identified and removed at Wembley today. Although last night I believe it was far more than just the one Mk5 playing up, hence the cancellation.

Thank you.