Caledonian Sleeper

[marks87]

Rescues will be possible by other locos but will require an emergency adapter fitted to the loco. The train generally then has to run at a reduced speed, as it’s then no longer ‘through braked’ examples being when ECML 67s have rescued 365s.

Or as the 73s and 92s retain buckeyes you could use the ‘failed’ loco as a translator (you can set them up with dellner one end and buckeye the other)

Presumably the drawhooks would be more useful for another loco to couple rather than the buckeye? (Do any 92s actually have a buckeye in fact? Converted or otherwise).

I was going to ask if the loco can act as a barrier in this way and still provide brake continuity. If so, then I guess that if (emphasis on both 'if') the 73s prove to be a problem but still retain the ability to provide head-end power, then using a 66 up front for traction (as they've done with the old stock in the past) might be the most cost-effective solution instead of converting more 73s.

Obviously it’s preferable to have a 73 or 92 rescue as they are fully compatible but that won’t always be possible. I presume 57/3s with Dellner couplings could rescue too?

I think it's been mentioned before that the Dellners on the Mk5s are at a different height to those on the 57/3s, so no.

It's a bit like the ridiculousness of Apollo 13 where they needed to literally fit a square peg in a round hole because they ran out of Carbon Dioxide filters on the lunar module (round) but had plenty for the command module (square).

 

[haggishunter]

There will be no other coupler fitted other than the current dellner making rescues impossible unless its a 73 or 92 to the rescue.

Then these stupid things should be kept off the WHL & HML. Why was such nonsense ever allowed? The Mk5 title is surely not justified, I thought one of the whole points of the standardised BR coaching stock was full interoperability - thus it should have been possible to have had Mk5-Mk3-Mk2 combos to gradually introduce the new stock and had it been done that way, CS would probably not be in this mess.

 

[marks87]

Then these stupid things should be kept off the WHL & HML. Why was such nonsense ever allowed? The Mk5 title is surely not justified, I thought one of the whole points of the standardised BR coaching stock was full interoperability ...

Is that strictly true?

HST Mk3s don't work with, well, anything other than HST Mk3s because of the power supply.

What about Mk4s?

 

[rick pike]

Is that strictly true?

HST Mk3s don't work with, well, anything other than HST Mk3s because of the power supply.

What about Mk4s?

HST trailers can be hauled by other buckeye fitted stock but the train supply is different it been 3 phase and mk4s need a barrier vehicle due to different type of buckeyes. The end coach in a mk4 rake that couples upto the loco has a standard draw gear with a drop head buckeye but the rest between the other coaches are tightlock is it?

 

[route101]

Get on first & don’t choose the back row as it might not recline as much and the toilet might get whiffy. Front row on the left offers a view out the front & probably full recline, plus you can chat to the driver

Single seats , probably best one is the middle of coach . Single seats can feel exposed to the aisle . Had a double seat to myself and that felt cosier .

 

[route101]

Wonder what happened to unfortunate passengers waiting for last nights southbound at Corrour , Rannoch .

I would love to know .Probably back to hotel or taxi somewhere id guess

 

[Scotrail84]

Rescues will be possible by other locos but will require an emergency adapter fitted to the loco. The train generally then has to run at a reduced speed, as it’s then no longer ‘through braked’ examples being when ECML 67s have rescued 365s.

Or as the 73s and 92s retain buckeyes you could use the ‘failed’ loco as a translator (you can set them up with dellner one end and buckeye the other)

Obviously it’s preferable to have a 73 or 92 rescue as they are fully compatible but that won’t always be possible. I presume 57/3s with Dellner couplings could rescue too?

No, if bing rescued front the front the Dellners sit in the down position when not in use so the draw hook underneath can be used. If another loco rescues a failed 92 or 73 then it can couple up normally and get air through the train to get a brake release and get the main air pipe up but there would be no ETH. Assistance from the front will only be to get the train out the way of the main line to the nearest station where it can be terminated. Assistance from the rear cannot be done by any other loco other than a 92 or 73.

Class 57's are not compatible with MK5 Dellner couplers.

 

[nedchester]

Google Chrome & F12 makes this too easy!

Brilliant!

 

[awsnews]

Website still reporting Fort William to London as starting at Edinburgh tonight but schedule now in place to move stock back to Fort William from Polmadie today.

 

[TimboM]

Plus unless I'm wide of the mark (so open to correction) the only available rescue locomotive was itself not at 100% (not all traction motors working I believe) which was far from ideal.

Yes, correct - and it was at Polmadie to shunt Mk5s around / support testing, not be a Thunderbird for most of the WHL, hence why it being on 3x Traction Motors and not full of fuel wasn't really deemed a pressing issue.

 

[Gonzoiku]

The FT states “Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy.”

I bought the FT, and was not advised on purchase of such restriction. Although the article doesn't add much to what is known here.

GZ

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aren't they! My mistake, I thought that the sets were split in two, had a computer each etc, that being the reason only half the train slammed the brakes on a couple of weeks ago. Because they were basically fixed formations, unpowered sets (8TC's - without the 'C'!)

They do have that computer, but they can technically be in any formation so aren't MUs. The TPE sets are bar-coupled within a "unit" and have screw couplers and buffers on the outer ends so those are unpowered MUs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I bought the FT, and was not advised on purchase of such restriction.

AIUI it is the default in copyright law that you may not copy unless you have specific permission to do so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then these stupid things should be kept off the WHL & HML. Why was such nonsense ever allowed? The Mk5 title is surely not justified, I thought one of the whole points of the standardised BR coaching stock was full interoperability - thus it should have been possible to have had Mk5-Mk3-Mk2 combos to gradually introduce the new stock and had it been done that way, CS would probably not be in this mess.

The idea of the Dellner was to make the shunt easier and smoother. The coaches can be delivered with traditional couplers, the TPE stock has them (on the outer ends).

 

[Clayton]

AIUI it is the default in copyright law that you may not copy unless you have specific permission to do so.

That’s a bit silly though - people share links to online articles all the time, and this is just a clunkier way of doing the same thing

 

[Caleb2010]

Ahh, right, got it now, cheers.

Even as I wrote I was thinking about the seasonal variations in the Aberdeen/Fort William portions and the lounge/brake addition at Edinburgh.

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

 

[marks87]

That’s a bit silly though - people share links to online articles all the time, and this is just a clunkier way of doing the same thing

It’s really not.

 

[Darandio]

That’s a bit silly though - people share links to online articles all the time, and this is just a clunkier way of doing the same thing

Yes, people share links to online articles all the time, just not normally ones behind a paywall.

 

[Gonzoiku]

AIUI it is the default in copyright law that you may not copy unless you have specific permission to do so.

Mine too, aside fair use. In the event the worst comes about, we may need to move this to Disputes and Prosecutions.
Click that link at your peril
GZ

 

[JamesT]

That’s a bit silly though - people share links to online articles all the time, and this is just a clunkier way of doing the same thing

Sharing a link and copying and pasting the content are two very different things.

 

[causton]

You've got your sources and I've got mine. Lets just leave it at that.

Well would you like to say what your version of events were?

As I've read the messages from my end and knowing the dispatchers involved personally...!

 

[Gonzoiku]

That’s a bit silly though - people share links to online articles all the time, and this is just a clunkier way of doing the same thing

Oi, are you calling my smartphone scanner app clunky?

I'll have you know it's genuine Acrobat Pro.

Paid for!

GZ

 

[EE Andy b1]

Back to Caledonian Sleeper.

So when do we think Transport Scotland will take back the Caledonian sleepers and put it back with Scotrail who have a lot more resources and people to be able to run the sleeper service better, cos something aint working very well. Not just the Mk5s which are too over complicated but also staffing issues.

 

[6Z09]

Rescues will be possible by other locos but will require an emergency adapter fitted to the loco. The train generally then has to run at a reduced speed, as it’s then no longer ‘through braked’ examples being when ECML 67s have rescued 365s.

Or as the 73s and 92s retain buckeyes you could use the ‘failed’ loco as a translator (you can set them up with dellner one end and buckeye the other)

Obviously it’s preferable to have a 73 or 92 rescue as they are fully compatible but that won’t always be possible. I presume 57/3s with Dellner couplings could rescue too?

I dont think the 73s have buckeyes anymore,only dellner.

 

[EE Andy b1]

I dont think the 73s have buckeyes anymore,only dellner.

Correct, but they have the drawhook when dellner dropped out of the way.

 

[JamesT]

Back to Caledonian Sleeper.

So when do we think Transport Scotland will take back the Caledonian sleepers and put it back with Scotrail who have a lot more resources and people to be able to run the sleeper service better, cos something aint working very well. Not just the Mk5s which are too over complicated but also staffing issues.

When it was part of Scotrail did they share customer facing staff? Or were they dedicated to those services in which case there’s no advantage to folding it back in. (I don’t get the impression the recent issues are with the back office side, which would be shared in a combined franchise)

 

[Bletchleyite]

When it was part of Scotrail did they share customer facing staff? Or were they dedicated to those services in which case there’s no advantage to folding it back in. (I don’t get the impression the recent issues are with the back office side, which would be shared in a combined franchise)

FW certainly used a "regular" ScotRail guard from Edinburgh. I don't know about anyone else.

 

[mde]

Back to Caledonian Sleeper.

So when do we think Transport Scotland will take back the Caledonian sleepers and put it back with Scotrail who have a lot more resources and people to be able to run the sleeper service better, cos something aint working very well. Not just the Mk5s which are too over complicated but also staffing issues.

Not for some time yet - however, treating one like another, it can't be long until a remedial plan is (rightly) demanded by Transport Scotland - the facts of which would be a matter of public record so should appear on the Public Register, much in the same way the two ScotRail notices did.

 

[Kendalian]

Website still reporting Fort William to London as starting at Edinburgh tonight but schedule now in place to move stock back to Fort William from Polmadie today.

ECS working from Polmadie to Wembley on it's way as well

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O18148/2019/06/30/advanced

Only 140 tonnes trailing load though so may not be the empties to work north tonight?

Fort William working hasn't left yet though according to RTT (as at 1152)

 

[MrEd]

FW certainly used a "regular" ScotRail guard from Edinburgh. I don't know about anyone else.

North of Edinburgh in Scotrail days, the three Highland portions were all worked by regular Scotrail conductors who worked units on day trains as well. The Aberdeen portion was worked by an Edinburgh conductor throughout, the Inverness portion by a Perth conductor to Perth, then another Perth conductor forward, then the Fort William portion was worked by a Glasgow Queen Street conductor Edinburgh-Dalmuir, another QS conductor Dalmuir-Rannoch, and a Fort William conductor Rannoch-Fort William. This practice continued until CS trained their own guards in the spring of 2017.

There is no way they can go back to this practice any time soon (even if the Sleeper did once again become part of scotrail), as knowledge of Mk2/3 hauled stock will have lapsed in those four crew bases, with extensive retraining (and training on Mk5s) needed; in any case, CS have enough guards of their own and I’ve never known of a portion or train cancelled due to a guard shortage since 2017 (someone with more info please correct me if I’m wrong).