Sleeper trains future

[Rhydgaled]

The list of locomotives required for the Cal Sleeper is obscene, either we adopt push pull working or we go for multiple units, there is no other real option.

I think push-pull would be more useful for the Great Western sleeper, esspecially when the wires are up to Bristol. That would cut out the loco required for the ECS move from the depot into Paddington (and vice versa) and if the sleeper went via Bristol every night (doesn't it currently take any of the routes between Reading and Plymouth as engineering work permits?) I could be electricly hauled to Bristol. That would also base the diesel locos at Bristol, where they could be used to drag electric trains on the daytime Paddington Weston-Super-Mare services. Push-pull on the Caledonian would also be useful at the London end for the depot - Euston ECS but not so helpful in Scotland (lots of shunting still needed to split the trains, and only one portion from each train would have the DBSO after the split).

The problem with this is electric locos and all the available control vehicles (mark 3 DVTs and mark 2 DBSOs) use the TDM push-pull system, which no diesel locomotive has anymore (unless the buffer-fitted class 43 power cars never lost it, the only diesel ever to have it I think, since I've been told 47/7s had a different sort of TDM that won't work with the DBSOs now they have been modified to work with electric locos).

 

[HSTEd]

I think the future of the sleeper is probably a more traditional Southern style multiple unit layout where it essential consists of push pull wired locomotive hauled carriages sandwiched between driving vehicles with the traction equipment put in the smallest possible number of vehicles.

I wonder if you could fit 25kV traction equipment with the power of the 4REP into two vehicles (the 4REP does but it doesn't need transformers), remember the normal unit maximum axle weight restrictions don't really apply as the train does not need to use any differentials, so the limit is that of a locomotive.

 

[Furrball]

Having now read the article I agree with some other posters that it is pie in the sky in many respects.

In no particular order:

A reduction of 24 berths (or 48 beds, not clear in the article) is a reduction in revenue of lets say £2400 per train based £100 first class ticket.

The lack of lounge car is a massive backwards step - how would you plan to serve evening meals/breakfast?

The location of the bar is unworkable, you expect sleeper passengers to walk through the seated area?

The lack of toilets in two of the carriages is also unworkable. Passengers in the sleeper carriage nearest the seated carriage would not want to use that toilet, walking down there in their pj's. Their alternative is to walk up to 2 carriage lengths to the toilet? No thanks.

 

[tbtc]

Having now read the article I agree with some other posters that it is pie in the sky in many respects.

In no particular order:

A reduction of 24 berths (or 48 beds, not clear in the article) is a reduction in revenue of lets say £2400 per train based £100 first class ticket

Assuming of course 100% occupancy (and all passengers paying full price for their tickets)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The list of locomotives required for the Cal Sleeper is obscene, either we adopt push pull working or we go for multiple units, there is no other real option.

Agreed.

I'm fairly sure I saw a figure of fourteen locos required in a night (?) - this may well be wrong but with all the shunting/ splitting etc I wonder...

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'm fairly sure I saw a figure of fourteen locos required in a night (?) - this may well be wrong but with all the shunting/ splitting etc I wonder...

Just guessing from the little I know about the sleeper, but I would say it needs at least:

• Four at Euston (one on each end of the two trains)
• One for whichever portion of the lowland sleeper doesn't use the loco that came from London
• Three diesels (one for each Highland portion)

 

[sprinterguy]

Just guessing from the little I know about the sleeper, but I would say it needs at least:

• Four at Euston (one on each end of the two trains)
• One for whichever portion of the lowland sleeper doesn't use the loco that came from London
• Three diesels (one for each Highland portion)

That sounds about right, but additionally AFAIK the loco which bring the ECS for the earlier (Highland) sleeper departure into Euston then becomes the train engine for the second (Lowland) sleeper departure. So as a minimum there's one loco to bring the Lowland sleeper into Euston, one class 90 on each of the Lowland and Highland sleepers leaving Euston, one class 90 Edinburgh-Carstairs (and return) and then the three 67s for each leg of the Highland sleeper. And then you can add to that the two class 90s used on the southbound Lowland and Highland sleepers from Glasgow/Carstairs to Euston.

So that's a minimum of nine locos: Six class 90s and three class 67s. There also needs to be an additional loco to work the Glasgow Central - Polmadie ECS. But I'm also with tbtc in saying that I've seen a list that showed 13/14 locos being used on the various sleeper portions in one night.

 

[ryan125hst]

I've got a few ideas about a loco hauled sleeper service. The post will be long (I have started to type it out on a word document) so I will start a new thread. I have finished it yet (I'm doing my AS levels so am short of time), but I will post it when I can.

I have to admit though, I'm slightly worried that I have made it a bit too complicated (very long trains, lots of catering vehicles, en-suite rooms ect). However, if Europe can have long trains with en-suites, so can we! I'll post a link on this thread when I get around to posting it.

 

[tbtc]

I'm also with tbtc in saying that I've seen a list that showed 13/14 locos being used on the various sleeper portions in one night.

Phew, not just me who remembered that

It sounded like a huge figure, but then there's a lot of shunting around to be done (which would be saved with multiple units I guess)

 

[Mike C]

The intermediate carriages of the APT-P are/were 21 metres long and they were articulated. Plus they seemed to have less problems with gauging on the UK network than either Pendolinos or Eurostars.

The APT vehicles were considerably narrower than E* trailers too. I wonder if you would need a lot of width in order to have sufficient berthing space. It may be very very tight when you remove the tapered profile on a 20m bogie pivot distance, to keep within Mk3 equivalent centre-throw kinematics.

 

[DownSouth]

Phew, not just me who remembered that

It sounded like a huge figure, but then there's a lot of shunting around to be done (which would be saved with multiple units I guess)

Electric multiple units could be the way to go, with them being hauled by a diesel locomotive for sections extending beyond the end of electrification. The locos could ideally be equipped with a Scharfenberg coupling to streamline shunting (so it's just like joining two modern multiple units together) and it would have all the necessary interfaces to be driven push-pull from the multiple unit's other end.

Such a loco could also do regular duty hauling IEP electric trains on services that extend beyond the limit of electrification and as a standard Thunderbird loco.

I'm thinking a Eurolight or TRAXX design for this, but a major mid-life upgrade of the Class 67 could do it too.

 

[junglejames]

Did read the article and it is the biggest pie in the sky. But as I have been told I am wrong whatever I say so..

What you propose is a backward step.. And a maintenance nightmare. 10 berths per coach.. Keep the Mk3's.

You are just Bringing back 3rd class to BR!

I have 100's of RAIL, Modern Railways, Railway etc from 1950-2000 and your article reminds me of some other "great ideas".

In 5 years, we will be laughing that someone suggested MU's as sleepers!!

Remember these MUs arent far off HST type trains.
However you do have some good points now. They are a backwards step. ie less berths per trains, and no lounge car. It is also very inflexible. At least as it is, there is some degree of flexibility. It does give some ideas to think about though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Phew, not just me who remembered that

It sounded like a huge figure, but then there's a lot of shunting around to be done (which would be saved with multiple units I guess)

Well if its 9 locos for the Cally sleepers, and then another 4 for the Cornish Rivieras. Thats your 13. It is split between a lot of trains though.

Still, I think this is one good reason to pool all sleepers together and give them to an FOC.

 

[sprinterguy]

Well if its 9 locos for the Cally sleepers, and then another 4 for the Cornish Rivieras. Thats your 13. It is split between a lot of trains though.

I'm sure that the list that tbtc and myself saw listed only those locos involved with the Caledonian Sleepers. I suppose that there's nothing to say that the same loco has to work both legs of a rostered duty, such as the same 67 that brings a southbound leg of the Highland into Edinburgh going back with a northbound leg later in the night, or only three class 90s being used at the Euston end.

 

[tbtc]

Well if its 9 locos for the Cally sleepers, and then another 4 for the Cornish Rivieras. Thats your 13. It is split between a lot of trains though.

Still, I think this is one good reason to pool all sleepers together and give them to an FOC.

I'm sure that the list that tbtc and myself saw listed only those locos involved with the Caledonian Sleepers. I suppose that there's nothing to say that the same loco has to work both legs of a rostered duty, such as the same 67 that brings a southbound leg of the Highland into Edinburgh going back with a northbound leg later in the night, or only three class 90s being used at the Euston end.

Frustratingly I can't find it (it may have even been on another forum or in a magazine).

I guess that the minimum in an evening would be:

• One 90 on the Northbound Lowland from London to Glasgow
• One 90 on the Northbound Lowland from Carstairs to Edinburgh
• One 90 on the Northbound Highland from London to Edinburgh
• One 67 on the Fort William portion of the Highland service (running both the southbound to Edinburgh and the northbound to Fort William)
• One 67 on the Inverness portion of the Highland service (running both the southbound to Edinburgh and the northbound to Inverness)
• One 67 on the Aberdeen portion of the Highland service (running both the southbound to Edinburgh and the northbound to Aberdeen)
• One 90 on the Southbound Lowland from Glasgow to London
• One 90 on the Southbound Lowland from Edinburgh to Carstairs
• One 90 on the Southbound Highland from Edinburgh to London
• One 90 to shunt the northbound Highland stock between Wembley and Euston in the evening and the southbound Highland stock from Wembley to Euston in the morning
• One 90 to shunt the northbound Lowland stock between Wembley and Euston in the evening and the southbound Lowland stock from Wembley to Euston in the morning

...that makes eleven engines needed, not including any shunting at Fort William/ Inverness/ Aberdeen. Plus locos on standby etc. I can see thirteen or fourteen being realistic.

Quite a complicated operation. Even sharing resources with the Cornish sleepers wouldn't save that many locos.

 

[ainsworth74]

• One 90 on the Northbound Lowland from London to Glasgow
• One 90 on the Northbound Lowland from Carstairs to Edinburgh
• One 90 on the Northbound Highland from London to Edinburgh
• One 67 on the Fort William portion of the Highland service (running both the southbound to Edinburgh and the northbound to Fort William)
• One 67 on the Inverness portion of the Highland service (running both the southbound to Edinburgh and the northbound to Inverness)
• One 67 on the Aberdeen portion of the Highland service (running both the southbound to Edinburgh and the northbound to Aberdeen)
• One 90 on the Southbound Lowland from Glasgow to London
• One 90 on the Southbound Lowland from Edinburgh to Carstairs
• One 90 on the Southbound Highland from Edinburgh to London
• One 90 to shunt the northbound Highland stock between Wembley and Euston in the evening and the southbound Highland stock from Wembley to Euston in the morning
• One 90 to shunt the northbound Lowland stock between Wembley and Euston in the evening and the southbound Lowland stock from Wembley to Euston in the morning

...that makes eleven engines needed, not including any shunting at Fort William/ Inverness/ Aberdeen. Plus locos on standby etc. I can see thirteen or fourteen being realistic.

Surely those that I've put in bold can be run by the same 90?

 

[tbtc]

Surely those that I've put in bold can be run by the same 90?

That's a fair point

I used to think that the Carstairs portions were run by one of the 67s that came from further north, but apparently that isn't the case.

 

[142094]

Passed by the stock for what I presume to be the Highland Sleeper at Glasgow yesterday - 67 at the front with the 90 attached on the rear. I'd assumed that the 67 went solo to Fort William, so was a bit confused why the 90 was attached at the back.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

That could have been an ecs to / from Polmadie?

This debate is going very nicely - please keep it up and keep thinking alternate ideas; remember - the whole point was to start people thinking.

One point:

Yes, if it's a like for like diagram replacement there is a capacity drop between London and scotland, but do remember please that the article suggests a third nightly rake of units and a different route split from the present pattern. ( The like for like was mentioned as a minimum case ).

With a third nightly rake the total capacity is 360 cabins / max 720 berths each way each night compared to 288 cabins / max 576 berths. This is a 25% increase.

 

[sprinterguy]

That could have been an ecs to / from Polmadie?

Given that the Highland Sleeper doesn't run into Glasgow Central, but into Edinburgh, then I think that that is the only possibility.

 

[junglejames]

Frustratingly I can't find it (it may have even been on another forum or in a magazine).

I guess that the minimum in an evening would be:

• One 90 on the Northbound Lowland from London to Glasgow
• One 90 on the Northbound Lowland from Carstairs to Edinburgh
• One 90 on the Northbound Highland from London to Edinburgh
• One 67 on the Fort William portion of the Highland service (running both the southbound to Edinburgh and the northbound to Fort William)
• One 67 on the Inverness portion of the Highland service (running both the southbound to Edinburgh and the northbound to Inverness)
• One 67 on the Aberdeen portion of the Highland service (running both the southbound to Edinburgh and the northbound to Aberdeen)
• One 90 on the Southbound Lowland from Glasgow to London
• One 90 on the Southbound Lowland from Edinburgh to Carstairs
• One 90 on the Southbound Highland from Edinburgh to London
• One 90 to shunt the northbound Highland stock between Wembley and Euston in the evening and the southbound Highland stock from Wembley to Euston in the morning
• One 90 to shunt the northbound Lowland stock between Wembley and Euston in the evening and the southbound Lowland stock from Wembley to Euston in the morning

...that makes eleven engines needed, not including any shunting at Fort William/ Inverness/ Aberdeen. Plus locos on standby etc. I can see thirteen or fourteen being realistic.

Quite a complicated operation. Even sharing resources with the Cornish sleepers wouldn't save that many locos.

You only have 1 extra 90 shunting around in London, not 2. You also only have 1 going Edin- Carstairs- Edinburgh. So thats back to the 9 locos mentioned already.
Anyway, just checked. Can only see 6 class 90 diagrams and 3 class 67 diagrams. Doesnt mention about the ECS moves between Polmadie and Glasgow though. So at least 1 extra loco there i think, as cant see you could cover both with the existing diagrams. So 10 locos max. That 14 figure definitely looks like it included the Cornish Riviera as well. Couldnt say for sure though, as i have never seen this figure branded about before.

 

[sprinterguy]

You only have 1 extra 90 shunting around in London, not 2. You also only have 1 going Edin- Carstairs- Edinburgh. So thats back to the 9 locos mentioned already.
Anyway, just checked. Can only see 6 class 90 diagrams and 3 class 67 diagrams. Doesnt mention about the ECS moves between Polmadie and Glasgow though. So at least 1 extra loco there i think, as cant see you could cover both with the existing diagrams. So 10 locos max. That 14 figure definitely looks like it included the Cornish Riviera as well. Couldnt say for sure though, as i have never seen this figure branded about before.

I've possibly/probably found the post that me and tbtc saw with regards to the number of locos needed for the Caledonian Sleeper, and there are indeed ten listed:

Ten locos last night:
67004
67009
67024
90018
90019
90020
90028
90029
90036
92042

Ewan

Strange, I could have sworn I noted a post that listed more than that *shrugs*

It's interesting to note that on that particular night only one of the specially Scotrail liveried 90s was used on the sleepers!

 

[HSTEd]

If we are not to adopt multiple unit working, we would need some sort of through gangwayed driving Mark 3 (or Mark 3 successor) coach, like a Cl153-style cab grafted onto a SLEP or onto the lounge vehicles.

That way you could fit them at both ends of every single component and slash the shunting requirements, at the cost of maybe two berths on each component.

That would cut your requirements for locomotives to three Cl67s and three Cl92s (assuming both the diesels and electrics can haul the up and down portions of there route in one night)

One Cl67 on each of the three Highland sections (3 Cl67s)
One Cl92 for the Highland Sleeper mainline portion
One Cl92 for the Lowland Sleeper mainline portion
One Cl92 for Carstairs-Edinburgh Lowland section up and down

This basically eliminates the special ECS trains.

Multiple units are still the way to go though, especially with the impending Bristol electrification.

 

[tbtc]

I've possibly/probably found the post that me and tbtc saw with regards to the number of locos needed for the Caledonian Sleeper, and there are indeed ten listed:

Strange, I could have sworn I noted a post that listed more than that *shrugs*

It's interesting to note that on that particular night only one of the specially Scotrail liveried 90s was used on the sleepers!

Good Detective Work

I'm a bit confused about the figures, I could have sworn it was over a dozen (maybe the thing I saw listed a couple of "spare" 67s and "spare" 90s, e.g. a fleet of fourteen is needed to provide the locos that work the services each night).

Regardless, the number of engines required does make me think that the OP's suggestion of multiple units is worth further investigation - we currently have a very complicated operation going on overnight for the sake of a couple of hundred sleeping passengers.

It'd be interesting to see whether a manufacturer can design modular multiple units that would allow the Sleeper coaches to be built onto a design of "normal" units.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It'd be interesting to see whether a manufacturer can design modular multiple units that would allow the Sleeper coaches to be built onto a design of "normal" units.

You'd need to do it the other way round... design the Sleeper version first and then a daytime version of it, otherwise you'll risk ending up with what I want to avoid.... traction equipment under the Sleeping cars.

 

[RobShipway]

You'd need to do it the other way round... design the Sleeper version first and then a daytime version of it, otherwise you'll risk ending up with what I want to avoid.... traction equipment under the Sleeping cars.

For me that is where the problem lies as most manufacturers would take the frames of an existing product that build the sleeping compartments on to that frame, which could mean traction equipment under the cabins.

 

[Yew]

Could you have eac portion as a multiple unit, with no engines in it? Ie they have driving cabs at each end, then a loco hooks up at Edinburgh and the if there is a direction change it wont need to run around. Also reducing the need for a loco to act as a pilot at euston?

 

[Aictos]

If anything the MUs should be designed like the Class 325s be able to be dragged by a loco or run under their own power although there would be no need for it to run on the 3rd rail.

No need for emergency couplings etc....

 

[junglejames]

If we are not to adopt multiple unit working, we would need some sort of through gangwayed driving Mark 3 (or Mark 3 successor) coach, like a Cl153-style cab grafted onto a SLEP or onto the lounge vehicles.

That way you could fit them at both ends of every single component and slash the shunting requirements, at the cost of maybe two berths on each component.

That would cut your requirements for locomotives to three Cl67s and three Cl92s (assuming both the diesels and electrics can haul the up and down portions of there route in one night)

One Cl67 on each of the three Highland sections (3 Cl67s)
One Cl92 for the Highland Sleeper mainline portion
One Cl92 for the Lowland Sleeper mainline portion
One Cl92 for Carstairs-Edinburgh Lowland section up and down

This basically eliminates the special ECS trains.

I was thinking that. Driving cabs either end of a group of coaches. Then it doesnt matter where the loco is, as you could always drive it from the other end. This would be easier though if you could run the FW portion as one all the way from London.

Multiple units are still the way to go though, especially with the impending Bristol electrification.

But are they? You cant have underfloor engines, so you basically have what is as good as a loco at one end anyway. So you dont gain any space (in fact at present you probably lose it), but you lose flexibility.
All i can see is a cheaper operation, but at a price. You pay for what you get.

So the choice is, do you want a good operation, or a cheap operation? A cheap operation often means the service slowly dies away, and eventually it ends up even cheaper, because you dont have it. If cutbacks mean the service declines, it can be very difficult to reverse that decline.
You are best off trying to find savings in a way that doesnt hurt the service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could you have eac portion as a multiple unit, with no engines in it? Ie they have driving cabs at each end, then a loco hooks up at Edinburgh and the if there is a direction change it wont need to run around. Also reducing the need for a loco to act as a pilot at euston?

I could possibly imagine an EMU as a sleeper, but with the powered bogies at the ends of each portion, and a diesel loco for non electrified sections. Also need the loco and unit through wired so the loco could also propel the unit.
Still wouldnt be as flexible as at present, but saves on electric locos and associated costs.

 

[HSTEd]

I was thinking that. Driving cabs either end of a group of coaches. Then it doesnt matter where the loco is, as you could always drive it from the other end. This would be easier though if you could run the FW portion as one all the way from London.

Indeed, on the lowland you could even marshal the locomotive in the middle of the formation and then just have the forward portions' locomotive waiting at Carstairs when it arrives.

But are they? You cant have underfloor engines, so you basically have what is as good as a loco at one end anyway. So you dont gain any space (in fact at present you probably lose it), but you lose flexibility.
All i can see is a cheaper operation, but at a price. You pay for what you get.

This way the current stock that is used for the Sleeper could be replaced with a pair of units from the common sleeper pool and the fleet Laira could be reduced to three Cl57s with the possibility of shrinking it to two if the wires ever do reach Plymouth.
(Note that this still applies for loco hauled trains as the Bristol section could be hauled by a Cl92 from a common sleeper pool)

So the choice is, do you want a good operation, or a cheap operation? A cheap operation often means the service slowly dies away, and eventually it ends up even cheaper, because you dont have it. If cutbacks mean the service declines, it can be very difficult to reverse that decline.
You are best off trying to find savings in a way that doesnt hurt the service.

EMUs do not really make that much noise, if I anything I think modern traction gear like that on a Pendo is quieter than the wheelsets on Mark 3s at speed. But then speed is not a major issue on the sleeper.

I could possibly imagine an EMU as a sleeper, but with the powered bogies at the ends of each portion, and a diesel loco for non electrified sections. Also need the loco and unit through wired so the loco could also propel the unit.
Still wouldnt be as flexible as at present, but saves on electric locos and associated costs.

Well if we could fit a ~3000hp 25kV EMU into two 23m vehicles we could just stick it on the end of push pull fitted conventional stock and use it like a 4REP. (The "Blue Train" managed 830hp with all the equipment on one vehicle so it might not be impossible today, especially as we have no differentials to get to)
The train would contain the lounge and a seated carriage and you could fit more seated coaches in places of sleepers and vice versa if you wanted.
The challenge is on methinks.

 

[IanXC]

EMUs do not really make that much noise, if I anything I think modern traction gear like that on a Pendo is quieter than the wheelsets on Mark 3s at speed. But then speed is not a major issue on the sleeper.

a ghost train at a fair, with shrieks and lurches and terrible scraping across the track.

Whilst there might be marginally more noise, would distributed modern EMU traction equipment actually remove much of the "lurching"?

Thinking of a 225 set, particularly operating in push mode, there is still a distinct feeling of being shoved along at times.

 

[RobShipway]

Whilst there might be marginally more noise, would distributed modern EMU traction equipment actually remove much of the "lurching"?

Thinking of a 225 set, particularly operating in push mode, there is still a distinct feeling of being shoved along at times.

Do you not get that now anyway, only in reverse with being pulled along by the Cl57 on the current sleeper trains?

Not that I was around when they were running the more I think of the sleeper service being within an DEMU set, the more I think that it maybe best to be similar to being like the old Blue Pullman Trains or even the current HST trains where the power whether it is electric or diesel are as separate locomotives which would I believe actually in the long term make it easier and cheaper to maintain.