Night Riviera future traction

[Puppetfinger]

Apologies if this has been covered previously, but taking a point from the GWML electrification thread, has any serious thought been given to future traction for the Sleeper?

The 57/6's do well, but are aged. Almost half the route (if going via Bristol regularly) is now electrified.

Could therefore the 57's be replaced with either a bi mode loco, or look at a more permanent change to routing, with locos being swopped like CS somewhere in Bristol, diesel working to and from Penzance, electric to and from London?

 

[greatvoyager]

Perhaps class 68s could be used? They are becoming more common on loco hauled trains.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Loco swaps en-route are unlikely, considering that the Night Riviera doesn't even drop coaches off at Plymouth any more (meaning an early rise for anyone heading there). The Bristol route isn't used every night (which is why Temple Meads is no longer a passenger stop) so having to taxi shunters to Westbury (or wherever) whenever the service runs that way would be a problem.

 

[Iskra]

The 57’s seem to do a reasonable job these days and internally aren’t old in railway terms- compared to 20’s, 37’s, 47’s and 56’s. They are also younger than class 90’s, 92’s, 60’s and a similar age to 67’s.

It’s probably not worth worrying about for another 10 years.

 

[Energy]

Class 93 bimode locomotives are being built for Rail Operations Group, maybe a tag on order for these or subleasing some could be a good solution?

 

[greatvoyager]

Class 93 bimode locomotives are being built for Rail Operations Group, maybe a tag on order for these or subleasing some could be a good solution?

It maybe the best option.

 

[Energy]

It maybe the best option.

Seems to be the only option, Stadler seem to be the only company making new locomotives for the UK right now and considering the order for new Night Riviera locomotives is going to be very small I don't think any other manufacturer will be willing to make a UK bimode locomotive, Stadler are the only company which offer it right now.

Of course GWR could decide against locomotive hauled and fit some beds in 802s.

 

[gingertom]

Class 93 bimode locomotives are being built for Rail Operations Group, maybe a tag on order for these or subleasing some could be a good solution?

I don't think the diesel engine in the 93 has enough power, even with the battery boost, to reliably haul a rake of sleepers over the Devon banks. Now if a 68 and an 88 could operate together in multiple you'd be onto a winner.

 

[greatvoyager]

I don't think the diesel engine in the 93 has enough power, even with the battery boost, to reliably haul a rake of sleepers over the Devon banks. Now if a 68 and an 88 could operate together in multiple you'd be onto a winner.

Is there any way they can uprate the engines?

 

[Energy]

68s and 88s can work together, I've suggested it before but here is suggested the 93 as it would be asked from an operation's point of view

 

[Clansman]

Perhaps class 68s could be used? They are becoming more common on loco hauled trains.

What's the benefit over something GWR have experience in maintaining and managing with for decades?

Logic dictates that unless they are no longer in a state where they can perform to the expected standards, they will go when the Mk3s go.

 

[greatvoyager]

What's the benefit over something GWR have experience in maintaining and managing with for decades?

Logic dictates that unless they are no longer in a state where they can perform to the expected standards, they will go when the Mk3s go.

Considering the expansion of electrification, there is growing demand for electric capability. And I know the 57s work well, but their bodyshells were built in the 1960s when they were class 47s, so many are at least a decade older than the mk3 coaches.

 

[gingertom]

Perhaps class 68s could be used? They are becoming more common on loco hauled trains.

would the leasing cost of 68s not be on the high side compared to the older 57s? The EMD lump is still current so spares ought to be readily available for the forseeable future. Otherwise the re-engined 56/69 with ETH would be suitable, and hopefully cheaper to operate than a 68. Assuming of course that the MK3 rolling stock survives or is replaced.

 

[Clansman]

Considering the expansion of electrification, there is growing demand for electric capability. And I know the 57s work well, but their bodyshells were built in the 1960s when they were class 47s, so many are at least a decade older than the mk3 coaches.

The expansion of electrification you talk about only covers 15% of the journey in terms of milege, so not much benefit in having electric traction or bi-modes, seeing as examples of the latter as far as I'm aware can't sustain the same performance on diesel mode. Age is just a number so long as they can do the job to the high standards GWR expect in a manner that is feasable and unproblematic. The 57s do just that as much as any locomotive running similar routes. Look at the 73s on CS for starters, or 37s still hauling about across the UK and up until recently, passenger services in Anglia.

If it ain't broke, don't fix. So long as this is the case with the Mk3s, then this will almost certainly be the case with the 57s I imagine for at least another decade.

 

[greatvoyager]

The expansion of electrification you talk about only covers 15% of the journey in terms of milege, so not much benefit in having electric traction or bi-modes, seeing as examples of the latter as far as I'm aware can't sustain the same performance on diesel mode. Age is just a number so long as they can do the job to the high standards GWR expect in a manner that is feasable and unproblematic. The 57s do just that as much as any locomotive running similar routes. Look at the 73s on CS for starters, or 37s still hauling about across the UK and up until recently, passenger services in Anglia.

If it ain't broke, don't fix. So long as this is the case with the Mk3s, then this will almost certainly be the case with the 57s I imagine for at least another decade.

It also shows a lack of investment, particularly now that the Scottish sleeper trains have new traction. I know 57s do a good job and I'm very fond of them, but I can't help but feel that some areas lag behind others. I don't want them to get to a point where they are completely worn out and then dumped.

 

[Clansman]

It also shows a lack of investment, particularly now that the Scottish sleeper trains have new traction. I know 57s do a good job and I'm very fond of them, but I can't help but feel that some areas lag behind others. I don't want them to get to a point where they are completely worn out and then dumped.

A lack of investment to who? Let's not forget that the average passenger probably thinks that a refurbished train is brand new regardless of age. If they're journey is on time and comfortable to their expectations, they are not going to care what traction they are on or being hauled by.

If anything it shows investment to keep things running at the highest standard that GWR believe they can reach. The bigger picture is that a programme for replacing the 57s would take investment away from projects that actually matter. At this moment in time, the 57s are not in need of replacing so long as they can do the job and GWR are happy with their performance. For example, a 57 replacement project could have shored up money from the Mk3 refurbishment project for both Night Riviera and GWR's remaining HSTs. Investment happens when it's needed - and right this minute, it's not needed to the extent where GWR need to replace their 57s.

Lastly, it shouldn't matter what the Scottish Sleepers are doing traction wise when looking at GWR. It's not a competition, it's just two TOCs trying to do what they think is best for them and their passengers. New traction doesn't equal better traction. Some believe that GWR's refurbished sleepers are better for passengers than Mk5 sleepers. But if age alone is the key argument, let's not forget that the 73s are older than the 57s, and both been rebuilt substantially to keep them going.

 

[greatvoyager]

A lack of investment to who? Let's not forget that the average passenger probably thinks that a refurbished train is brand new regardless of age. If they're journey is on time and comfortable to their expectations, they are not going to care what traction they are on or being hauled by.

If anything it shows investment to keep things running at the highest standard that GWR believe they can reach. The bigger picture is that a programme for replacing the 57s would take investment away from projects that actually matter. At this moment in time, the 57s are not in need of replacing so long as they can do the job and GWR are happy with their performance. For example, a 57 replacement project could have shored up money from the Mk3 refurbishment project for both Night Riviera and GWR's remaining HSTs. Investment happens when it's needed - and right this minute, it's not needed to the extent where GWR need to replace their 57s.

Lastly, it shouldn't matter what the Scottish Sleepers are doing traction wise when looking at GWR. It's not a competition, it's just two TOCs trying to do what they think is best for them and their passengers. New traction doesn't equal better traction. Some believe that GWR's refurbished sleepers are better for passengers than Mk5 sleepers. But if age alone is the key argument, let's not forget that the 73s are older than the 57s, and both been rebuilt substantially to keep them going.

Although 73s main jobs don't involve hauling passenger trains regularly. I think that some of the other replacement programmes are unnecessary, such as SWRs upcoming replacement of 707s which are just 2 years old.
Also, I'm not saying that 57s should be replaced immediately. Just suggesting options for when they are, as this is all speculative.