Page 1 of 1
| paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 00:16 #30069 | |
ipswich
247 posts |
tonights paddington - penzance sleeper is a.... HST set LOL i dread to think what might be on it tomorrow (maybe 5 142s we can hope LOL) Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 03:18 #30070 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
That is interesting as there are no sleeping coaches on an HST set!
Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 09:49 #30074 | |
|
Underwood
748 posts |
Not the first time it has happened either! Haven't been unlucky to fall onto a HST vice yet, but I haven't used the beds part before, however the ex-First Class seating in the seated part is much more comfortable to sleep on than on a refurbished HST! Sounds like yet another 57/6 fault? I believe 57603 recently collapsed in a heap... Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 10:01 #30076 | |
58050
2659 posts 
|
They could always replace the Mk.3 seating coaches for Mk.3 sleepers instead. Then you would have a HST sleeper set.
Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 10:59 #30078 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts
|
" said:They could always replace the Mk.3 seating coaches for Mk.3 sleepers instead. Then you would have a HST sleeper set. I understand the hauled- and HST- MkIIIs are electrically incompatible, they'd need a complete strip out & rewire. Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 13:43 #30084 | |
|
BoxBoyKit
166 posts |
From what I've read on the internet...it makes me wonder why FGW even bother with a sleeper service, something always seems to go wrong with it.
Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 15:58 #30086 | |
|
Stanyon
141 posts |
57604 was rescued on old oak and went on and worked the service, as booked and its not possible to be 142's as FGW dont have any now they all back with northern, normally due to the incompatibility the sleeper stock is worked by back to back HST power cars.
Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 16:41 #30089 | |
|
Javelin395
272 posts |
Assuming it is a problem with the 57s couldn't FGW use 67s instead? You don't seem to hear about them disgracing themselves on the Anglo-Scottish sleepers. Since the loss of mail traffic (for which I understand they were built) and the demise of Wrexham & Shropshire there might be some available for hire. Maybe the 67s don't have the necessary clearance or route availability. Anyone care to comment on these ideas? Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 17:04 #30092 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
" said:Assuming it is a problem with the 57s couldn't FGW use 67s instead? You don't seem to hear about them disgracing themselves on the Anglo-Scottish sleepers. Since the loss of mail traffic (for which I understand they were built) and the demise of Wrexham & Shropshire there might be some available for hire.The 67s previously used by WSMR (RIP) are now in use with Chiltern. The trouble with FGW taking on 67s is the cost of training crews on them, well so I'm told. "Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Javelin395 |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 17:29 #30098 | |
|
58050
2659 posts
|
Personally I'd rather see Cl.47s or even Cl.50s back on the Night Riviera' as opposed to Cl.67s. Cl.67s never liked them & as a loco totally useless. During the last 3 years of being a loco controller with EWS can't say I ever heard of any drivers liking them. I think it would take an eternity for a Cl.67 to reach 90mph plus on a train with the numbers of coaches the sleeper hauls. Cl.47s are better than Cl.57s on acceleration & have more field diverts as well so better suited to that kind of work.
Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 17:29 #30099 | |
|
delticfan
476 posts |
IIRC, some time ago they used a sleeper set on a Padd-Oxford commuter service presumably because nothing else was available.Amazing! Mal. Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 18:17 #30105 | |
|
Copping
95 posts |
I sold a sleeper ticket at work today for Pad to Truro tomorrow. Be interesting what would turn up tomorrow.
Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 19:08 #30109 | |
|
Stanyon
141 posts |
daily there is a requirement of 4/5 class 67's for chiltern 5 for scotrail, 5 for ECML thunderbirds, 3 for ATW crew training ahedad of the arrival loco hauled becoming 67's, thats 18 out of 30 already...about 8 stored and like today 2 required for the royal train. doesnt leave much slack really for maintainance.
Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 19:57 #30112 | |
|
ipswich
247 posts |
just for the record the royal train locos i saw today
Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 19:57 #30113 | |
lazzer
634 posts |
" said:IIRC, some time ago they used a sleeper set on a Padd-Oxford commuter service presumably because nothing else was available.Amazing! We did indeed. The senior link 1 driver took it there and back. I bet the commuters found that interesting ... Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 20:08 #30115 | |
|
headshot119
4869 posts |
" said:daily there is a requirement of 4/5 class 67's for chiltern 5 for scotrail, 5 for ECML thunderbirds, 3 for ATW crew training ahedad of the arrival loco hauled becoming 67's, thats 18 out of 30 already...about 8 stored and like today 2 required for the royal train. doesnt leave much slack really for maintainance.It's not 4/5 for Chiltern surely? "Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 22:25 #30123 | |
|
Javelin395
272 posts |
" said:daily there is a requirement of 4/5 class 67's for chiltern 5 for scotrail, 5 for ECML thunderbirds, 3 for ATW crew training ahedad of the arrival loco hauled becoming 67's, thats 18 out of 30 already...about 8 stored and like today 2 required for the royal train. doesnt leave much slack really for maintainance.That still leaves 30% of the fleet not doing anything. How many would be needed and what proportion would you normally expect to be on maintenance ? Just curious as I don't work on the railways so I'm ignorant of how it works. Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 22:34 #30125 | |
jc92
3685 posts |
i doubt 8 would be in store if there was a critical shortage due to the quoted figures
"We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 27/02/2012 at 23:56 #30131 | |
postal
5264 posts |
" said:Maybe the 67s don't have the necessary clearance or route availability.They have a high axle-load (23t. or thereabouts). When EWS originally sourced them to operate the Postals and Mails from 1996, Railtrack imposed various locomotive specific speed restrictions because of this high axle-load. I can't give chapter and verse, but I think they had a 5mph or 10mph restriction over the King Edward Bridge on the ECML at Newcastle for example, as compared with the normal 30mph. “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 28/02/2012 at 01:28 #30137 | |
37223
36 posts |
Quote:It's not 4/5 for Chiltern surely?i think its 5, theres 2 diagrams which are top and tail and one diagram thats for a single "skip" Diagram 1 0619 BMO-MYB 0837 MYB-BMO 1055 BMO-MYB 1646 MYB - BMO Diagram 2 0655 BMO-MYB 1337 MYB-BMO 1555 BMO-MYB 1807 MYB-KID Diagram 3 0653 BAN-MYB 1813 MYB-BAN Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 28/02/2012 at 08:34 #30144 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
No Chiltern loco-hauled set is top-and-tailed. They all have a 67 at the Marylebone end and a DVT at the country end. Aside from the three diagrams, a spare is kept at Wembley LMD I believe, and there are also rumoured to be plans to introduce at least one more set into service as the coaches are refurbished. Diagram 3 is a mix and match set of old junk at the moment! The slight irony here is that with the end of the postal services EWS as was were worried that they would not be able to find work for the 67 fleet, but it seems to be very much in demand at the moment. Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 28/02/2012 at 10:38 #30147 | |
|
37223
36 posts |
I should stick to the scottish based 67s at least i know for definate what they are meant to do :-0
Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 28/02/2012 at 12:42 #30152 | |
|
Underwood
748 posts |
" said:" said:Am I right in thinking that when the 67s replaced the 37s on the WHL beds, there was a load of TSR's in force because of that, or was it the 66s?Maybe the 67s don't have the necessary clearance or route availability.They have a high axle-load (23t. or thereabouts). When EWS originally sourced them to operate the Postals and Mails from 1996, Railtrack imposed various locomotive specific speed restrictions because of this high axle-load. I can't give chapter and verse, but I think they had a 5mph or 10mph restriction over the King Edward Bridge on the ECML at Newcastle for example, as compared with the normal 30mph. 67s could be used otherwise if they perform better that 57/6s, better that nowt. Modding HSTs with equipment could be done at some cost but then which ones do you fit them to? Doing all of them involves a long process and even then, they'd be running around with the kit not in use on regular HST services and could be an age before it drops onto the beds. Fitting a small batch could be done, but then I suspect the whole HST diagram list would have to be re-jigged to ensure they didn't end up at Swansea every night or something. I can't see it being done either case, I think GW prefer not to run the beds anyway. Didn't they try to scrap it altogether once but was only saved by a petition of some form? Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 28/02/2012 at 13:35 #30154 | |
|
bill_gensheet
1413 posts |
On the WHL, 37's can run at the linespeed for loco's, as they are RA5. The 66's have one set of restrictions over the bridges, the 67's an even more draconian set which I think have been combined for simplicity. So you get much longer 25mph or 30mph running. I think the obvious example is Crianlarich - Bridge of Orchy Bill Log in to reply |
| Re: paddington - penzance sleeper 28/02/2012 at 15:16 #30174 | |
|
Javelin395
272 posts |
Wasn't there also a problem with brake wear on the 67s working the Highland sleeper ? Does long periods of slow running cause problems for the 67s (rather like being stuck in a traffic jam leading to engine overheating in a car) ? Log in to reply |