Seamless introduction of 125mph locos

[ikar]

67008 on whl sleeper this morning hit a big bolder between arrochar and tarbet and Ardlui, this cause delay due to the front end of the 67 being damaged, this just isnt going well for fsr

Posted by West highland on WNXX

 

[AlexS]

I can't see how the 67 running into a boulder and having to be assessed on route was it's fault!
[EDIT]
I can't see how the 67 running into a boulder and having to be assessed on route was it's fault!

If it was a 37, the nose would have collapsed or something ridiculous!

 

[Max]

I can't see how the 67 running into a boulder and having to be assessed on route was it's fault!
[EDIT]
I can't see how the 67 running into a boulder and having to be assessed on route was it's fault!

If it was a 37, the nose would have collapsed or something ridiculous!

It isn't but it just makes the statistics look very bad for FSR!

 

[First ScotRail]

An ews engineer was sent to Fort William to fix the 67, thats the latest i heard. the damage was to the EHS cable?

 

[Tom]

Absolutely seamless... this poster was spotted on ScotRail webspace.

* text below as I had to reduce it due to file sizes ...

* We have only managed to make the sleeper later, and more frequently late so far, we are not sorry for any inconvenience caused.

 

[yorkie]

I can't see how the 67 running into a boulder and having to be assessed on route was it's fault!

If it was a 37, the nose would have collapsed or something ridiculous!

OK that's one of the delays that we'll probably have to agree (grudgingly - see below) is not attibutable to the 67s, however to suggest 37s would have fared worse is unlikely. It is a matter for debate but it has been suggested that if anything 37s would have been less damaged due to having deflector blades. But the reality is that we will probably never know for sure.

67s are not fitted with deflector blades, so it will be an issue on this line, however when a problem does occur the pro-67 brigade will ensure 67s are not blamed, ignore the 37s deflector blades, etc. They're getting very, very desperate now to try to discredit the 37s!

I've gone over objects that have been deflected by 37s and 156s on the WHL, there is a definite need for deflectors on this line and it is a mistake not to fit 67s. But as long as the 67 fans can refuse to acknowledge the usefulness of deflectors, such delays will simply be brushed aside by them

 

[16CSVT2700]

Absolutely seamless... this poster was spotted on ScotRail webspace.

* text below as I had to reduce it due to file sizes ...

* We have only managed to make the sleeper later, and more frequently late so far, we are not sorry for any inconvenience caused.

That is just not funny.
Plus the extreme over-usage of the word "seamless" is just getting annoying.
[EDIT]

OK that's one of the delays that we'll probably have to agree (grudgingly - see below) is not attibutable to the 67s, however to suggest 37s would have fared worse is unlikely. It is a matter for debate but it has been suggested that if anything 37s would have been less damaged due to having deflector blades.

What the bloody hell is a deflector blade? You mean snowplough?

 

[Met Driver]

Those things are for clearing snow, so they'd sustain quite a bit of damage if they came into contact with a boulder at speed. The 67s have more protection below the buffer beam. Doesn't mean to say I'm in favour of the 67s though () - the timings clearly show which loco is better suited to the route.

 

[AlexS]

Well, I say the 37 would come off worst based upon:

The locomotives suffer very serious nose sagging naturally over the years. These aren't new locomotives, there's nothing particularly heavy in that nose. As a result, something like a boulder would quite probably smash the snowplough, and jar the nose suitably that the whole bodyshell would crumple.

The precedent? 37408 at Rhymney - shunt with a few carriages, result, the fresh bodywork bends like plasticine. Shove a ruddy big boulder into the bottom of a 37 nose and it'll break easily.

 

[16CSVT2700]

Those things are for clearing snow, so they'd sustain quite a bit of damage if they came into contact with a boulder at speed. The 67s have more protection below the buffer beam. Doesn't mean to say I'm in favour of the 67s though () - the timings clearly show which loco is better suited to the route.

Why don't you just use "snowplough" then people would actually know what the heck you're on about :roll:

And also.. snow is not as dense as a bloomin boulder..

 

[Met Driver]

Why don't you just use "snowplough" then people would actually know what the heck you're on about :roll:

And also.. snow is not as dense as a bloomin boulder..

Exactly, which is why I commented on the fact that the snowplough on a 37 would probably be damaged if it was struck by a boulder, because it is designed for clearing snow. I've got no idea what you're having a go at me for - I posted in support of your corrective statement a few posts above this! :???:

 

[16CSVT2700]

Exactly, which is why I commented on the fact that the snowplough on a 37 would probably be damaged if it was struck by a boulder, because it is designed for clearing snow. I've got no idea what you're having a go at me for - I posted in support of your corrective statement a few posts above this! :???:

Oops my mind was on other things it seems! Sorry bud.

I blame Sproggy!!

 

[AlexS]

This mornings service strangely arrived 6 minutes early at Edinburgh

 

[First ScotRail]

This mornings service strangely arrived 6 minutes early at Edinburgh

Dont you mean Fort William?

 

[metrocammel]

I can't see how the 67 running into a boulder and having to be assessed on route was it's fault!
[EDIT]
I can't see how the 67 running into a boulder and having to be assessed on route was it's fault!

If it was a 37, the nose would have collapsed or something ridiculous!

True, depending on its size a boulder would probably crack / bend the 37's snowplough, however the angle the plough it in would probably help deflect it (while breaking the plough) than going underneath the loco. With a 67 there is no form of angled deflectors, just a straight metal plate, which seems pretty obvious that if anything hard was to hit it, it would bend the metal, thus, go underneath the loco, providing a possible derailment risk.
But to be honest, it is just bad luck if a train hits debris on the line, be it a 67, 37 or 156... you can't blame EWS or FSR for that, but you can say their move to 67's was a bit fool hardy perhaps, considering, if the lengthy delays keep up like this, the amount of compensation FSR will be giving out (that goes for the skodas as well).


*Stop Press: 1B01 20 minutes down near Ardlui, after leaving Rannoch 10 down (FTW unit on time).

 

[Sprog]

The ploughs are only thin, shaped and painted steel, bolted onot mounting brackets on the bogies/bufferbeams (? which one) designed for ploughing white, powdery snow..............not giant boulders...........theyd probaby break off the mounting brackets, then get pulled under/run over by the loco...thuz ALSO increasing chances of a derailment.

the buffer beam on a 67 is solid, inch - thick steel plate.

Im still tired of this First/EWS bash..hence my lack of posting on RUK recently..its just boring tbqh.......id rather be out getting pi$$ed , or be out pulling girls (if thats possible for me.. )

oh, and do not fear TM..i passed my BUPA medical for FGW....

 

[O L Leigh]

Hi Chaps,

It sounds like typical new stock teething troubles to me rather than any failing with the locos and stock. Sure, the RETB faults and driver rostering should have been sorted from the start, but that doesn't mean that the idea is not sound.

If Cl67's are cleared to operate to Fort William (as they clearly are), they should be more suitable than Cl37's. After all, they are far more powerful and have a higher top speed. If they have any handicap (and I'm not saying that they do), it's possible that they don't grip as well because they are driving through four axles instead of six and trying to put down more power than the venerable Tractors did. However, that should mean that the axle weight (total weight of loco divided by the number of axles it has) is higher with a Cl67 which should mean that it grips slightly better.

As for hitting debris, I would echo what others have said about the miniature snowploughs. They are there just to deal with relatively small build-ups of snow and nothing more substantial, as they are of comparatively flimsy construction. If the Skip suffered a damaged ETS connection, it would suggest to me that the boulder was of a size and in a location to have inflicted similar damage to a Tractor, whether it had snowploughs or not. However, if these Skips become a regular fixture, I imagine that miniature snowploughs of some sort will start appearing before very much longer.

one TN

 

[yorkie]

Sorry to keep posting on this, but...

If Cl67's are cleared to operate to Fort William (as they clearly are),

The route is only RA5, but there is an exception that allows 67s on the line with some hefty speed restrictions

they should be more suitable than Cl37's.

Not sure how an RA8 loco can be more suitable for an RA5 line.

After all, they are far more powerful

The train is only Load 4 and a sleeper though, so I am not sure how this helps.

and have a higher top speed.

The sleeper is only permitted to do 80mph, so this benefit is of no use (and the speed restrictions totally negate that).

I am not sure how many people who think 67s are suitable are familiar with the line, but a driver has been quoted as saying 67s are "unsuitable" for the line, and that it's "proving pretty much impossible to run to time with the 67's on the West Highland on Y11 and B01 with all the restrictions imposed on them."

Nevertheless, the 67s are the only locos EWS are prepared to use. EWS won't lose out financially as FSR are forced to pay the increased access charges, and Network Rail will have to pay for the increased track wear & tear (basically taxpayers will fund it, not EWS). But there's probably no point debating it any further as EWS clearly won't change their mind.

 

[Nick W]

Let's say the only people who would rather run class 67s than class 37s probably run cars which guzzle fuel for no reason. EWS are Canadian right, near enough American...

 

[Demps]

[EDIT]

It was on time from Edinburgh.

This week the 67s have been late on every journey (3 northbound and 2 southbound so far), typically 15-20 late due to being unable to keep to the timings (yes even the slower timings!), with the mega 132 min delay due to various farces on the first day.

Not once has any of these failures been down to a problem south of Edinburgh, and the stock to form the Fort William train has been ready at the required time.

However, a major concern is in the event of a delay south of Edinburgh, the 37s had the ability to make up to 45 minutes of lost time, due to slack timings. This ability has now been lost, the timings are 9 minutes longer AND the 67s are around 15 minutes late in addition. This means that if a train was to leave EDB 2 hours down, it may have only been 1 hour 15 late into Fort William before, but now it will remain at 2 hours down and lose an additional 15 minutes.

Slack time exists for a reason, to remove it all completely AND increase timings AND still always be late, is a very backwards step.

When i was out gettin the 50's at carlisle, i jumped on a train back to my town (156 and a 153) and i seen 67029 i think on a north bound railtour, what was this and was this one late ?

 

[AlexS]

It was the Northern Belle and it ran via Shrewsbury from Wolverhampton, dunno anything else bout it though!

 

[I K Brunel]

I would like to say a few words in praise of FSR on the WHL sleeper service.

On June 6th, a group of us travelled from Fort William to Westerton on the Sleeper. It left on time, the seats were extremely comfortable, the buffet car was well stocked and included real ale, the staff were courteous, the mark-3 coaches had a glidingly smooth ride, the views over Rannoch Moor (especially through an open window) were breathtaking, the locomotive was quiet and fume-free, the acceleration and braking were absolutely smooth. It arrived on schedule. All in all, a beautiful run with outstandingly skillful driving and a fine locomotive.

Ah, I hear you say, that was the 6th of June and therefore it was a Class-37. Sorry chaps, it was a Class-67.

 

[devon_metro]

This thread is a year old mind...

 

[I K Brunel]

Oh... You are absolutely correct, thank you for pointing that out. I saw 17th June and assumed that it was current and that it was this June!