Caledonian Sleeper

[jagardner1984]

LNER have acceptance with CS today, allowing CS customers to travel on any LNER service today to completely their journey.

Yes indeed. But presumably adding a train load of sleeper passengers to all those who were told not to travel yesterday on LNER will make services … busy today.

 

[paul1609]

And it would need to be top & tail with an ETS split in the middle: you can't just add ETS through locos on the front, plus AFAIK the CS 73s generate 800v ETS whereas 1.5kV ETS is required for a load 16 due to the 600A limit of ETS cabling and connectors. The 92s were fitted with this special high voltage ETS from new for Nightstar stock.

Will the train actually operate with top and tail 73s? I doubt it was a option considered at design.

 

[185143]

Yes indeed. But presumably adding a train load of sleeper passengers to all those who were told not to travel yesterday on LNER will make services … busy today.

Won't make a significant difference I wouldn't have thought.

Each half set if full, and by that I mean every seat and every room having two people in, carries 140 passengers.

So that's a maximum of 560 displaced passengers. One half set would be the Glasgow portion, so that leaves 420 people. Plus the Fort William passengers would be going via Glasgow also, just over 100 beds there plus seated passengers.

So a maximum of 300 additional passengers travelling on LNER across the day. Some people will have boarded the first train, plenty won't have.

 

[12LDA28C]

would Avanti and LNER have the drivers available to do such a thing?

Why were the 'Thunderbird' 57s not used with the sleepers running via the ECML and diverted away from the wires? They are manned with WCRC drivers aren't they?

 

[Iskra]

Why were the 'Thunderbird' 57s not used with the sleepers running via the ECML and diverted away from the wires? They are manned with WCRC drivers aren't they?

Not sure they would be able to manage the ETS load?

 

[jagardner1984]

I'm sure the people who really needed to be in London early this morning and got up for the 0540 from their Waverley hotel room must be thrilled ....

(Signal Failure at the south end)

Realtime Trains | 1E01 0540 Edinburgh to London Kings Cross | 22/05/2023

Real-time train running information for 1E01 0540 departure from Edinburgh to London Kings Cross on 22/05/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[zwk500]

Why were the 'Thunderbird' 57s not used with the sleepers running via the ECML and diverted away from the wires? They are manned with WCRC drivers aren't they?

The 92 would need to remain on the north end, so the 57 would be dragging it dead and I'd be astonished if it could pass any ETS, let alone the required amount, through a dead 92 with the required electrics isolated.

 

[43 302]

The 92 would need to remain on the north end, so the 57 would be dragging it dead and I'd be astonished if it could pass any ETS, let alone the required amount, through a dead 92 with the required electrics isolated.

Especially not when they aren't fitted with ETS at all!

 

[12LDA28C]

The 92 would need to remain on the north end, so the 57 would be dragging it dead and I'd be astonished if it could pass any ETS, let alone the required amount, through a dead 92 with the required electrics isolated.

I'm not suggesting the train be hauled throughout by a 57... but the train could have run via the ECML to Doncaster, 57 attached and diverted away from the wires, with the diesel removed when back under the OHLE.

 

[jagardner1984]

I'm not suggesting the train be hauled throughout by a 57... but the train could have run via the ECML to Doncaster, 57 attached and diverted away from the wires, with the diesel removed when back under the OHLE.

Presumably the ETS is much needed for the train to operate safely for any length of time - lighting, door locks, PIS, water pumps etc.

 

[12LDA28C]

Presumably the ETS is much needed for the train to operate safely for any length of time - lighting, door locks, PIS, water pumps etc.

Indeed but I don't believe the diversion would have added so much time to the journey for that to have become an issue. Surely cancelling the train throughout can't have been the best option available?

 

[zwk500]

Indeed but I don't believe the diversion would have added so much time to the journey for that to have become an issue. Surely cancelling the train throughout can't have been the best option available?

It depends if the safety critical systems could run off the coach batteries and for how long. It also depends what the computers/TMS of the Mk5s are doing and how much the communicate with the loco. Either way you'd have needed to dead drag the 92 in the consist (and my initial thought was that the diesel would be attached at Donny), and when 92s are off the wires IIRC they need their battery isolating.

 

[najaB]

Surely cancelling the train throughout can't have been the best option available?

"Best" is subjective. It wasn't the only option, but it was likely the one that resulted in the lowest cost and least disruption overall.

Again, as I noted above, the Sleeper runs at a loss based purely on ticket revenue, so how much additional expense would it have made to have contingency plans in place for what was, in fact, a low probability event?

 

[12LDA28C]

"Best" is subjective. It wasn't the only option, but it was likely the one that resulted in the lowest cost and least disruption overall.

Again, as I noted above, the Sleeper runs at a loss based purely on ticket revenue, so how much additional expense would it have made to have contingency plans in place for what was, in fact, a low probability event?

The 57s are already hired from WCRC and are on standby at Newark for exactly this kind of event, surely? So not sure exactly what additional expense would have been incurred.

 

[zwk500]

"Best" is subjective. It wasn't the only option, but it was likely the one that resulted in the lowest cost and least disruption overall.

Again, as I noted above, the Sleeper runs at a loss based purely on ticket revenue, so how much additional expense would it have made to have contingency plans in place for what was, in fact, a low probability event?

As this was a Network Rail failure and the Sleeper was booked to divert this way, surely the cost of resourcing the thunderbirds would have been covered by NR?

A 57 should have been able to handle the weight of the train from Donny to York, so there are two main questions: 1. Is the train allowed to run without ETS being provided to the coaches? and 2. Was a route via Church Fenton open to allow the train to pass, or did the possession require all 4 lines?

 

[800001]

As this was a Network Rail failure and the Sleeper was booked to divert this way, surely the cost of resourcing the thunderbirds would have been covered by NR?

A 57 should have been able to handle the weight of the train from Donny to York, so there are two main questions: 1. Is the train allowed to run without ETS being provided to the coaches? and 2. Was a route via Church Fenton open to allow the train to pass, or did the possession require all 4 lines?

I imagine the line at Colton would have been blocked due to the work needed to replace the points. Cranes etc.

 

[zwk500]

I imagine the line at Colton would have been blocked due to the work needed to replace the points. Cranes etc.

I suspected as much - do you happen to know which crossing unit it was? I've seen hints it was on the Down Main/Normanton but haven't seen any formal confirmation.

 

[800001]

I suspected as much - do you happen to know which crossing unit it was? I've seen hints it was on the Down Main/Normanton but haven't seen any formal confirmation.

It was on 2295B points, Where the Down Main crosses the Up Normanton.
Attached is a picture taken from a tweet posted by David Horne of LNER

Attached below is the tweet from David Horne

https://twitter.com/davidhorne/status/1660289876518895616?s=46&t=JLp3J2Up_Gl_m9cQz-au6w

 

[najaB]

As this was a Network Rail failure and the Sleeper was booked to divert this way, surely the cost of resourcing the thunderbirds would have been covered by NR?

Still costs to the taxpayer though.

 

[popeter45]

if not for ETS could a single 73 pull a 8 car rake (and 2x73 a 16 car rake)?
if so wonder if a mark 5 1500v generator van would have made sence in the original order?, would have reduced the need for doubleing up 73's as well as maybe allowing more traction options if set up as a translator van?
while not usually used south of edinburgh would allow flexabilty with diesel powered 16 car movements or class 90's pulling if you need the extra speed for a complex diversion such as transpenine?
also only needing one ETS voltage would have made carriage power system easier

 

[zwk500]

if not for ETS could a single 73 pull a 8 car rake (and 2x73 a 16 car rake)?
if so wonder if a mark 5 1500v generator van would have made sence in the original order?, would have reduced the need for doubleing up 73's as well as maybe allowing more traction options if set up as a translator van?
while not usually used south of edinburgh would allow flexabilty with diesel powered 16 car movements or class 90's pulling if you need the extra speed for a complex diversion such as transpenine?
also only needing one ETS voltage would have made carriage power system easier

It's an expensive asset to maintain when you plan to never use it. As mentioned above, in order to force a diesel divert you need 2 simultaneous blockages on specific bottlenecks that still leave a diesel route available. Especially once TRU has Manchester-York electrified throughout.

 

[xotGD]

Electric hauled to Leeds. Diesel drag round via Harrogate to York. Electric forward.

Simple.

 

[zwk500]

Electric hauled to Leeds. Diesel drag round via Harrogate to York. Electric forward.

Simple.

Are Mk5s clear round that way?

 

[800001]

Electric hauled to Leeds. Diesel drag round via Harrogate to York. Electric forward.

Simple.

Easy, except the signal boxes all close after the last service train on the Harrogate line.

 

[Peter Sarf]

if not for ETS could a single 73 pull a 8 car rake (and 2x73 a 16 car rake)?
if so wonder if a mark 5 1500v generator van would have made sence in the original order?, would have reduced the need for doubleing up 73's as well as maybe allowing more traction options if set up as a translator van?
while not usually used south of edinburgh would allow flexabilty with diesel powered 16 car movements or class 90's pulling if you need the extra speed for a complex diversion such as transpenine?
also only needing one ETS voltage would have made carriage power system easier

The generator van(s) you refer to are the class 73s. A pair of 73s could handle 16 Mk5s as I seem to recall a single 73 handles 8 coach Inverness portions. Granted a diesel loco (66) is added for more pulling power. You will never get a generator coach added for the whole journey to Euston as 17 coaches wont fit at Euston. Removing a generator coach at Edinburgh would require an extra shunter. The 73s shunt themselves !.

 

[popeter45]

It's an expensive asset to maintain when you plan to never use it. As mentioned above, in order to force a diesel divert you need 2 simultaneous blockages on specific bottlenecks that still leave a diesel route available. Especially once TRU has Manchester-York electrified throughout.

no, idea is daily use just on highlander portions in place of the second 73 on the inverness and aberdeen portions
just makes its more flexable to use in odd situations like last night
could even do it with making 2 of the 73's non-powered and purely a high voltage gen van but still drivable so can be driven with the other 73 attached

 

[Cheshire Scot]

no, idea is daily use just on highlander portions in place of the second 73 on the inverness and aberdeen portions

Inverness requires 2 x 73 for traction and although one could handle the train for weight it would not be able to keep time. For some time now a class 66 has been provided in place of the second class 73 as diagramming 4 class 73s from a pool of 6 on a daily basis proved to be unreliable.
Aberdeen only requires one class 73 and that is the normal traction.

 

[BRX]

Whether it's a 73 or a generator van, it's not really usable south of edinburgh for diversions unless you have several of them spare lying around. The 73s that come down to Edinburgh each evening then return north within a few hours on the morning trains. They wouldn't be available for doing diversions around yorkshire.

 

[Peter Sarf]

no, idea is daily use just on highlander portions in place of the second 73 on the inverness and aberdeen portions
just makes its more flexable to use in odd situations like last night
could even do it with making 2 of the 73's non-powered and purely a high voltage gen van but still drivable so can be driven with the other 73 attached

If the 73s were non-powered then they would have no power to do the ETS or drive. There are just not enough 73s to cover sorties half way down Britain unless, once they got to Doncaster on the Southbound, they came straight back on the Northbound (which would end up delayed).

 

[norbitonflyer]

Inverness requires 2 x 73 for traction and although one could handle the train for weight it would not be able to keep time. For some time now a class 66 has been provided in place of the second class 73 as diagramming 4 class 73s from a pool of 6 on a daily basis proved to be unreliable.
Aberdeen only requires one class 73 and that is the normal traction.

I think the point being made was that a single 73 can handle the ETS on the 8-car Inverness portion, as the second one can be replaced by a 66, so if there were spare 73s lying around you could perhaps use two on a 16-car train, with a diesel to provide the traction. But there are only six ETS-fitted 73s - three are needed for north of Edinburgh, and to cover the Anglo-Scottish legs you would need at least four (if the traction changes were north of the crossover points - Preston for the Lowlander, Beattock for the Highlander) and probably eight.