• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

failed 92 on 1S25! (14/04/15)

Status
Not open for further replies.

captainbigun

Member
Joined
3 May 2009
Messages
977
So, given the ease with which the 87 appears to have handled the unexpected duty, is there any scope to hire some back from the Bulgarians?

Together with the "new" Class 73s, that would be quite a thing!

Absolutely none. Before you'd even looked at the cost of getting one back, they've been well modified now and would not be suitable for use here.

The new stock has a much higher train supply requirement that will mean 92s or bust.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

matt

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
30 Jun 2005
Messages
7,812
Location
Rugby
[youtube]y97Rqn3paQM[/youtube]

87002 at Rugby and Nuneaton the last few days on the sleeper.
 

87031

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2009
Messages
340
[youtube]y97Rqn3paQM[/youtube]

87002 at Rugby and Nuneaton the last few days on the sleeper.

Excellent footage!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not TUPE as such, as that is a TOC-TOC process, but I understand
that several Millerhill DB drivers have transfered to GB to service
the sleeper contract.

This is why 90s are still being used on most sleepers to/from Edinburgh;
the ex-DB drivers are having to be trained up on 92s, which will take
until approximately mid June to complete.

MARK
Could this mean 87002 has a bit more sleeper turns before June or are they likely to have enough 90s to leave 87002 on ECS duties?
 

thealexweb

Member
Joined
5 Jan 2014
Messages
956
Can't the Class 87 can actually achieve the required 100mph that can be utilised if the sleeper is running late. What can the Class 92 achieve? 75mph?
 

matt

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
30 Jun 2005
Messages
7,812
Location
Rugby
Can't the Class 87 can actually achieve the required 100mph that can be utilised if the sleeper is running late. What can the Class 92 achieve? 75mph?

The 92 can do 87mph. The 87 can do 100 mph (can do 110 but limited to 100 as that is the top speed of a mark 2 coach)
 

racyrich

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2014
Messages
206
At least 2 sleeper carriages with wheelflats there. That must be dreadful to sleep in.
 

CosherB

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2007
Messages
3,041
Location
Northwich
So, given the ease with which the 87 appears to have handled the unexpected duty, is there any scope to hire some back from the Bulgarians?

Together with the "new" Class 73s, that would be quite a thing!

What's wrong with DBS 90s?
 

kermit

Member
Joined
2 May 2011
Messages
592
What's wrong with DBS 90s?

Nothing like as much dewy-eyed nostalgia for rail enthusiasts with no investment at all in the commercial realities or practicalities of the situation?

So......tomorrow night, a pair of double headed D400s please!
 

87031

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2009
Messages
340
87002 on 1s25 Sunday tonight 1m16 tomorrow....supposed to be booked all week...not sure how accurate the gen is
 

Freightmaster

Established Member
Joined
7 Jul 2009
Messages
3,470
Get with the program son. DBS drivers WERE TUPEd to Gbrf for the sleepers.

TUPE is exactly what it is.
That's as may be, but I was speaking to a GBRf driver directly affected
by the contract changeover and he said that DB had been dragging their
heals and delaying the process earlier in the year because they (DB) insisted
that TUPE didn't apply to them because they were an FOC and the TUPE
arrangement only applied to the ScotRail (TOC) staff involved in the sleeper
operation and not their drivers, who they wanted to retain for other work!

To be honest, I can see their point - if a major freight contract changes
from one FOC to another, it's simply bad luck for the drivers who work
for the losing FOC - they certainly wouldn't be TUPEd across to the FOC
who had won the contract who would have to find their own traincrew.

So why is it any different in this case?


MARK
 

hello

Member
Joined
10 Jun 2008
Messages
222
tupe doesnt just apply to tocs, it applies to everything, its the law. if a company take over another company, then the staff transfer with the work
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
5,632
Location
Croydon
tupe doesnt just apply to tocs, it applies to everything, its the law. if a company take over another company, then the staff transfer with the work

Correct me if I am wrong but Serco did no take over DBS. Serco took over the running of the sleepers so effectively took over the company that used to run the sleeper service. Serco then contracted GBRF to supply and drive the locomotives instead of DBS. But GBRF did not take over DBS. So TUPE does not apply as there was no takeover.

As I understand it a company can take over another company but does not have to take on the staff. The staff could get made redundant or perhaps taken into other parts of the original company. In the case of DBS I doubt if the DBS drivers worked exclusively on the sleeper services so still had gainful employment possibilities within DBS. GBRF would have had to poach the DBS drivers as they did not even take over DBS.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What? No love for the flying Badger?

Get it put back together, just so it can run the sleeper :D

Yes I too was thinking of 89001. I think it is more or less ready for work - more so than some/all 92s it would appear :D. Wonder if there are any drivers for it that sign the WCML though - it was 89001s original territory iirc :idea:.
 
Last edited:

hello

Member
Joined
10 Jun 2008
Messages
222
Correct me if I am wrong but Serco did no take over DBS. Serco took over the running of the sleepers so effectively took over the company that used to run the sleeper service. Serco then contracted GBRF to supply and drive the locomotives instead of DBS. But GBRF did not take over DBS. So TUPE does not apply as there was no takeover.

As I understand it a company can take over another company but does not have to take on the staff. The staff could get made redundant or perhaps taken into other parts of the original company. In the case of DBS I doubt if the DBS drivers worked exclusively on the sleeper services so still had gainful employment possibilities within DBS. GBRF would have had to poach the DBS drivers as they did not even take over DBS.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


:.

and i believe, this is where within the railway it gets complicated, you are correct that serco didnt take over dbs, they took over the sleeper service from first scotrail, and as i understand it, the only drivers that worked the sleeper service that were actually employed by first scotrail were glasgow queen street and fort william men, the rest of the work was contracted out to dbs, but now serco have contracted out the work to gbrf and because some of the dbs depots that had the work from first scotrail, was the only work that they had, they got tuped over to gbrf. without sounding to confusing, that is as i understand it
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,119
Location
Cambridge, UK
There is a brief guide to TUPE here - http://www.out-law.com/page-448 - written from the point of view of the business owner/manager.

It's actually an interesting situation - the sleeper TOC is changing, but as a side-effect the haulage sub-contractor is also changing from DBS to GBRf (which as Freightmaster said, is basically an FOC loosing a freight flow to a competitor FOC).
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Yes I too was thinking of 89001. I think it is more or less ready for work - more so than some/all 92s it would appear :D.
Not so, based on the size of the workload the AC Loco Group have set out in order to restore the class 89 to main line condition:
Restoration of 89001
http://www.aclocogroup.co.uk/news.php

Following Electric Traction Limited (ETL) securing a locomotive hire contract, the profits from which will be used to fund the restoration of other AC locomotives, the AC Locomotive Group (ACLG) is pleased to announce that further works on the Class 89 will now go ahead.

Initially work will concentrate on the overhaul of traction motors 4-6 and the field convertors for motors 1,3, 4 and 6. These works will require the locomotive to be lifted from its bogies and the locomotive roof to be removed. Traction motors 1-3 and field convertors 2 & 5 have already been overhauled and will be reinstalled following the work on the other traction motors and field convertors.

Work to follow will include the removal and overhaul of the rheostatic braking units, the vacuum circuit breaker and re-commissioning of other systems on the locomotive. Removal of the ‘late in service’ fitted rain deflector strips should rectify several small corrosion problems on both cabs of the locomotive. At a convenient point in the works the locomotive will also receive a full repaint and rectification of bodywork cosmetic problems.

As the majority of the restoration work is of a heavy and specialist nature it will be undertaken by contractors with project management, etc. being undertaken by volunteers from the ACLG. Volunteers have undertaken regular work on the locomotive since its arrival at Barrow Hill as well as project managing the contractors used for motor and field convertor repairs to date. Volunteers are currently in the process of re-commissioning the field and control batteries.

A timescale for the work on the locomotive has not been set, ultimately it will be dependent on the condition of various components in the locomotive and the availability of suitable contractors. It is intended that the locomotive will be brought up to full 125mph operational standard such that it could be used on mainline operations.
 

CosherB

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2007
Messages
3,041
Location
Northwich
Not so, based on the size of the workload the AC Loco Group have set out in order to restore the class 89 to main line condition:

In other words, miles away from being even close to a mainline return.

You'd need to be pretty desperate to need the 89 for the sleeper. Not going to happen.
 

captainbigun

Member
Joined
3 May 2009
Messages
977
In other words, miles away from being even close to a mainline return.

You'd need to be pretty desperate to need the 89 for the sleeper. Not going to happen.

About 30 miles away. It's not going to go through Brush for the sake of it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
87002 on 1s25 Sunday tonight 1m16 tomorrow....supposed to be booked all week...not sure how accurate the gen is

Correct as things stand.
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
5,632
Location
Croydon
Ah well with the amount of work referred to up thread for 89001 does that mean 89001 would eventually be more ready for sleeper work than the 92s are :oops:.

Seriously though would 89001 become a useful backup once it is ready ?.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top