Could the Class 99 be used on the Caledonian Sleeper to replace the Class 92s?

[Bertie the bus]

Unless GBRf think they will be winning a lot of new work in the next few years they don’t need 30 additional locomotives. As they have stated they will be looking at using 99s on the sleepers and someone posted a link to a document showing they are also considering using them on Rylstone stone trains and biomass from Tyne Dock it isn’t a great leap of the imagination to suggest their Class 60 and 92’s days are probably numbered. They are both complex loco’s, presumably expensive to keep in traffic and have limited uses.

 

[Trainbike46]

Unless GBRf think they will be winning a lot of new work in the next few years they don’t need 30 additional locomotives.

I think that winning a lot of new work might well be exactly what GBRf are planning.

The 99s are going to be phenomenally expensive to lease. Tying up six of them on two passenger workings a day each, run overnight, when there's a viable alternative that already works, seems unlikely. Switch to 99s, and either GBRf takes a hit on the profit margin for the contract, stop making a profit altogether, or CS increases their already high prices.

How would you ever need 6 99s for the sleeper?

If only using them north of Edinburgh, you would only need 3 99s
If using them for all sleeper services, you would need 10 99s

 

[Bertie the bus]

I think that winning a lot of new work might well be exactly what GBRf are planning.

Maybe you do but it doesn't mean it is going to happen, especially the type of work 60's and 92's could be used on. A project that would have guaranteed a lot of work for railfreight companies when the 99s were ordered (HS2 north of Brum) has since been cancelled and the amount of new to rail freight that ever materialises is minimal.

 

[waverley47]

I think that winning a lot of new work might well be exactly what GBRf are planning.

How would you ever need 6 99s for the sleeper?

If only using them north of Edinburgh, you would only need 3 99s
If using them for all sleeper services, you would need 10 99s

There are three based at Wembley: one for each northbound run, and an extra to take the stock into and out of Euston.

There are at least three based in Scotland: one for each of the southbound services, one that takes the Carstairs to Edinburgh portion, and I'm 99% sure there is an extra based at Polmadie.

I'm assuming using them for the south of Edinburgh services.

 

[Trainbike46]

There are three based at Wembley: one for each northbound run, and an extra to take the stock into and out of Euston.

There are at least three based in Scotland: one for each of the southbound services, one that takes the Carstairs to Edinburgh portion, and I'm 99% sure there is an extra based at Polmadie.

I'm assuming using them for the south of Edinburgh services.

Why would you replace the 92s but retain the 5/6 diesel locomotives?

 

[waverley47]

Why would you replace the 92s but retain the 5/6 diesel locomotives?

Because it's a waste of a brand new, expensive bimode asset having it shuttle six coaches from Aberdeen to Edinburgh twelve times a week, especially when they invested a lot of money into a fleet of rebuilt locos to do exactly that.

If you want to replace the 92s for maintenance reasons then fair enough but there is no way that a loco that costs upwards of fifteen million a pop spends it's life north of Edinburgh, entirely running on diesel. What's the point of that?

 

[Zomboid]

I think it's likely that they'll be capable of hauling the sleeper, but initially at least it'll be very rare.

 

[MontyP]

Agreed. Can't actually use Mark 5A DTs, but order some extra Mark 5s, including DTs, split the Lowlander into two completely separate services, I believe would be cost neutral against complexity of splitting it at Carstairs and all the pilot locos moving about.


You might well be right, only future will tell what GBRf work out is most efficient

Very much doubt there is the demand to run an entire separate train for Glasgow.

 

[Nym]

The Class 92s have mountains of obsolete electronics with the expertise to maintain them very much dwindling.
The 73/9s aren’t doing much better given they’re from the same era as everyone’s favorate hybrid units (769 FLEX)

Anyone who thinks these locos are bulletproof reliable is very much well… not correct. There’s a lot to go wrong in them and a lot will be in the next 5 - 10 years as the Brush Traction workforce gets further thrown to the winds.

Given the timescales of the 99s, using them on the sleepers makes absolute perfect sense.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

So, in total that is 5/6 diesel locos and 7 electric locos across both services in both direction. I'd appreciate if someone with more knowledge could confirm whether I got that right!

The 08 at Inveness also helps move the sleeper around, although that's not part of the actual service.

 

[D365]

The Class 92s have mountains of obsolete electronics with the expertise to maintain them very much dwindling.

Given that this is the case, I’m very, very surprised that nobody has thought to set up a Class 92 preservation group…

 

[Meerkat]

Agreed. Can't actually use Mark 5A DTs

Why not - does the Lowlander need to be walk through between the two sections?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Why not - does the Lowlander need to be walk through between the two sections?

It does, but they are also electrically different.

 

[Meerkat]

It does, but they are also electrically different.

Presumably a bit of rewiring of redundant DTs would be cheaper than new build. But lack of walk through a somewhat bigger issue!

 

[TheWierdOne]

Presumably a bit of rewiring of redundant DTs would be cheaper than new build. But lack of walk through a somewhat bigger issue!

Could they not use the DTs as end carriages on the carriage consists? Avoids the walk-through issue and could make operations easier in a pinch if the train can be driven from either end.

 

[Nym]

Could they not use the DTs as end carriages on the carriage consists? Avoids the walk-through issue and could make operations easier in a pinch if the train can be driven from either end.

This feels a lot more like a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Zomboid]

The problem is inefficient use of locomotives, and the DTs which already exist might go some way to providing a solution.
Though if they're only to be used for shunt moves that means they would need to be on there Euston end of the train northbound and the Glasgow end southbound, which means that portion would need turning at either end. A trip round Cathcart would do the job in Scotland, but there's no obvious place to wye a train on the Southern WCML.

 

[Richard Scott]

I believe class 73s use standard voltage for train supply, not 1500v. Thus are limited to a half rake.

I'd be surprised, the working supply to the coaches is 1500V, half a rake reduces the current requirement not the voltage. I know some continental coaches are able to take different supplies but though sleepers were 1500V only. Happy to be corrected

This feels a lot more like a solution looking for a problem.

Exactly and I can't see how using a DVT actually helps? Could someone please explain their rationale behind this thinking?

 

[Trainbike46]

I'd be surprised, the working supply to the coaches is 1500V, half a rake reduces the current requirement not the voltage. I know some continental coaches are able to take different supplies but though sleepers were 1500V only. Happy to be corrected

I have seen it reported that the diesel locos use 750V, and that it would not be possible to supply all 16 coaches when connecting at that voltage.

Exactly and I can't see how using a DVT actually helps? Could someone please explain their rationale behind this thinking?

Currently there is a heavy use of pilot locomotives, leading to the sleeper operation using 7 cl92s in total. If you were to use DVTs instead of the pilot loco, you would need less locomotives, though by my count you would likely only be able save about 2 92s.