-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Does anyone know why the Caledonian sleeper trains are pulled by a 66 now and not a 73?
- Thread starter 350yes
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
SuspectUsual
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 5,042
They aren’t. They are sometimes hauled by one of each, the 66 can’t provide ETS for the beds
A 66 doesn't have the required coupling either.
As an aside, one of the 66s decided it didn't want to play ball last week at Inverness, leaving the 73 to haul the Sleeper to Edinburgh on it's own. It didn't do too badly by all accounts and was only around 15 / 20 late at Waverley.
Whistler40145
Established Member
Is it that their aren’t sufficient 73/9s for the more than one Sleeper service?
DannyMich2018
Member
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 827
I don't think availability/reliability of the CS 73s has ever been great with at least one away at works at any time. Even the Fort William portion which is only 6 coaches is hauled by a 66 with the 73 providing ETS. Tonight's Aberdeen sleeper according to RTT has just 4 coaches but a 66 and 73 at the front!
No - there were always "enough" however they have struggled and Class 66s have been added to some services to assist.
Class 92s on London to Edinburgh for the Highlander, with the 73/9s and occasional 66 on the splits north to Aberdeen/Fort William/Inverness. The 73s are electro-diesel locomotives capable of running on the third rail and diesel, but the 73/9 refurbishment for the Caledonian Sleeper removed the pickup shoes, and gave them more powerful diesel engines.
The Lowlander is hauled throughout by Class 92s.
Whistler40145
Established Member
The 73s were hardly a suitable replacement, feels like sheer desperation instead of hiring in 67s or 68s
GC class B1
Member
I totally agree. A commercial but not engineering supported decision I suspect.
I'm sure it was an engineering supported decision. The 73s have almost as much power as 37s which operated fine on the sleeper for many years and the trains are relatively short.
67023 and 67027 have been acquired - they weren't available when the contract was being let and don't seem to be ready yet. Don't forget that Delamere couplers are required to couple to the stock.
GLC
Member
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 351
I believe the class 67 in particular is subject to more severe speed restrictions due to its high Route Availability rating. I think I’ve read some structures on the WHL can only be crossed at 5mph by a 67. The 73’s have a lower rating which permits faster bridge crossings in places (and I assume lower access charges?)
matchmaker
Established Member
The 67s also had to have different brake pads/shoes as they were wearing down too rapidly due to the frequent braking on the WHL.
Whistler40145
Established Member
As I remember, when 67s previously worked the Fort William Sleepers, they were fitted with different brake blocks
Townsend Hook
Member
It would seem logical that if and when the ex-Colas 67s start working CS services on a regular basis they’d be primarily allocated to the Inverness route which doesn’t have such onerous restrictions for the class.
Razorblades
Member
Dellner
Oops - didn't check what the spelling autocorrect did - of course Dellner
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Effectively, that's what we have ended up with.
Weight... Length... Space... Shunting around at Edinburgh. If a generator vehicle stayed on it to London, then you would have to lose a few vehicles (=a loss of either seat or Berths). If you took off / added said generator vehicle at Edinburgh, you would be complicating an already complicated set of shunts. Then you'd have to add in the weight of said extra generator coach over routes like the Highland Mainline and West Highlands. In summary, not practical.
Wyrleybart
Established Member
Inclined to agree.
Someone somewhere thought it would be adequate to convert six class 73s to the class 73/9 spec then add dellner couplers, such that they could be the only locos to work the diesel portions of the CS service.
Pretty much since Mk5 stock has been introduced, it has been impossible for all three CS services to be powered by class 73/9 alone. This has resulted in frequent use of class 66 pilot locos or cancellations. The acquisition of the ex Colas 67s is proof that six class 73/9s are insufficient for the requirement pretty much because those class 67s need a 73/9 in the formation anyway. But I guess it is going to be cheaper in the long term for GBRf to soldier on until contract change in 2030, rather than rebuild a seventh 73 to /9 spec with dellner couplers etc. if one or more of the six needs anything more than routine maintenance it has to be towed to either Leicestershire or Hampshire for attention.
Razorblades
Member
Re-engineered how? Besides, GBRf already had a significant quantity of 73s, but no 50s when they tendered for the Caley work.
Where would you get them?
To be fair, on paper the Aberdeen and Fort William portions are both within the capability of a single 73/9. Allow 2 for Inverness and a fleet of 6 (1 spare, 1 away for servicing) appears credible.
In practice though the 73/9s haven't taken kindly to being run that hard, hence the addition of a pilot 66 to improve resilience.
Add what locomotives were available to GBRf at the time and I don't believe the plan was fundamentally flawed - The 73/9s simply haven't lived up to the expectation.
The use of Dellner couplers on the sleeper stock decimates the alternative options, hence where we are.
I can't help thinking that 57/3s would have been an obvious alternative - even having Dellners (though no doubt some reconfiguration would be required) but are simply unavailable to GBRf. Though 57s aren't particularly reliable either - see GWRs 57/6s - and are now beyond design life.
In practice though the 73/9s haven't taken kindly to being run that hard, hence the addition of a pilot 66 to improve resilience.
Add what locomotives were available to GBRf at the time and I don't believe the plan was fundamentally flawed - The 73/9s simply haven't lived up to the expectation.
The use of Dellner couplers on the sleeper stock decimates the alternative options, hence where we are.
I can't help thinking that 57/3s would have been an obvious alternative - even having Dellners (though no doubt some reconfiguration would be required) but are simply unavailable to GBRf. Though 57s aren't particularly reliable either - see GWRs 57/6s - and are now beyond design life.
Wyrleybart
Established Member
I agree that the class 73/9 was a credible choice, but I believe they converted either one or two too few of them. I do recognise that they only wanted a single design of diesel loco for all the CS jobs, which were mainline to inverness and Aberdeen, but a wild and inhospitable low RA branch to Fort William. Perhaps a pool of eight 73/9s with all maintenance done in Scotland would have been immensely more robust, but maybe using 66s and 67s is a useful get out clause for the contract.
I do wonder though if, GBRf has considered converting anymore of their 73s (don't forget that, as well as the active fleet at Tonbridge, they also have 3 in store at Eastleigh), but have been hit by the problem of the closure of Loughborough Works by Wabtec? Doncaster could take on the work, but have they got the facilities / capable of doing such a rebuild in there?
They still have the shoes.
- Status