Problems with the Night Riviera sleeper - December 2014 onwards

[whole diary]

[chrisr_75]

Why not take the approach formerly used on the Scottish sleepers in using an otherwise redundant loco (engine & gen set ok, ETH fitted, but no longer suitable/required for providing traction, a class 57 perhaps?!) to act as a mobile generator for train supply, and use a modern, reliable freight loco for traction purposes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_25#Train_Heating_Units

The additional drawbar weight would not be an issue for a heavy freight unit such as a class 66?

[IndustryInsider]

Ah, the good old ETHEL's! 

[chrisr_75]

Ah, the good old ETHEL's! 

Yup, and they worked it seems. Quite an effective solution to a shortage of ETH equipped traction. Even an old parcel/goods van (or an old MotorRail van? Plenty of those lying around...) with a suitable gen set installed would do the job, not sure why no-one has considered any of these options, or maybe they have and they're too difficult in some way or 'computer says no' type of thing?

[Rhydgaled]

I really can't see how that would make much of a difference.  You might get a slight improvement in Class 57 reliability, but because you'd be running more trains with them, the reliability and resilience of other parts of the network would suffer.  The Class 57 are essentially 15 year old pieces of equipment bolted on to a 50 year old bodyshell and basic design.  They've pretty much had their day!  Ditto using HST^▸ (High Speed Train) power cars which would be at best a stop-gap measure that might mean they soldier on for a few more years, but they're also well past their sell-by date (personally I don't see them staying on the Cornish services beyond a couple of years before Class 222s arrive).  I don't want to sound too negative, but I worry about the reliability of the re-engined Class 73s to be used on the diesel sections of the Caledonian Sleeper services for the same reasons.

The Class 67 would be a much better bet, though they haven't exactly covered themselves in glory reliability wise either - though much better than the 57s of late and the figures are much better when they're not being used on push-pull services I suspect.  The perfect solution (if enough of them were to become available, via the current order or an addition to the current order) would be the new Class 68s - assuming they prove their reliability.

I'm not a mechinical engineer, but if new is the answer to reliability, then provided the 73s have all internal components replaced, leaving just the bits which are basicaly just lumps metal (body panels, axles etc.) then, assuming the metal isn't all rusted or about to crack under the strain of many years work, I cannot see why they shouldn't be any more of problem than 68s. Same applies to 57s if they actualy had everything serious (again excluding body panels etc.) replaced.

All of this only goes to prove the vulnerability of using a single power source, when there aren't anywhere near the number of rescue options there used to be, which I've been banging on about on here for years!   

Makes sense, VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchises) have their (class 57!) Thunderbirds stationed arround the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line), I'm aware of no such thing for the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) (or on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) or MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about)?). Why no Thunderbirds on the Great Western?

[phile]

There might be if nobody had to pay for them.

[Super Guard]

Why not take the approach formerly used on the Scottish sleepers in using an otherwise redundant loco (engine & gen set ok, ETH fitted, but no longer suitable/required for providing traction, a class 57 perhaps?!) to act as a mobile generator for train supply, and use a modern, reliable freight loco for traction purposes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_25#Train_Heating_Units

The additional drawbar weight would not be an issue for a heavy freight unit such as a class 66?

You could use 2x HST^▸ (High Speed Train) PC's for that, as long the 57 is working well enough to provide train supply.  Although, I think you would also need a driver in the 57 at all times, doubling the driver cost.

[Henry]

  Perhaps FGW^▸ (First Great Western) should take a radical approach with the sleepers, and do away with them altogether.

 If reliability and cost are major issues, I think it is unfair on customers to play 'Russian Roulette' on what
 should be a premium service.
 Years ago I seem to remember you where able to buy Rail/hotel packages  (Golden Rail, I think).
 So maybe unless the problems with 'sleepers' are resolved, this is a option FGW might consider.

[IndustryInsider]

Perhaps FGW^▸ (First Great Western) should take a radical approach with the sleepers, and do away with them altogether.

Yes, I suppose you could panic and try and pull the plug on a much loved and socially important service and risk the reputation of your business even further down in Devon and Cornwall - not that the DfT would probably let you of course.

Let's hope these issues are resolved, both the temporary reliability of the engines, and a more long-term strategy to improve the resilience and quality of the service, before too many of the regulars vote with their feet and stop using it.  On time arrivals (both trains double headed) last night I see.

[ChrisB]

much loved and socially important service and risk the reputation of your business even further down in Devon and Cornwall

before too many of the regulars vote with their feet and stop using it. 

If the first para is true, the second won't happen, however bad it gets. There'll be lotsa of complaints however, of course.
If the latter does happen, then the former isn't true....if its that important, pax will go on using it, however delayed.

[Palfers]

It's suprising how many enfusiests travel on the sleeper think there would be uproar from them if fgw pulled the plug I met a guy once who travelled down from Scotland just to travel up to pad on the sleeper!

[Worcester_Passenger]

A couple of probably-stupid questions:

(1) Whenever I see pictures of American freight trains, there's always 3-4 locomotives at the front. UK^▸ (United Kingdom) (and European) freights always seem to have only one. Is this because (a) American freight trains are big and need all of that power to move them, or (b) American freight locomotives are unreliable and there's several of them just in case?

(2) Why are there all these different voltages on railway rolling stock? There's been mention here of 1000v power supplies, 120v DC^▸ (Direct Current) lighting circuits and 850v heaters. Given that the world (well, except for the American bit) works on 240v AC (or 415v AC in its three-phase version), wouldn't it make sense for the railway to do the same?

[JayMac]

All of this only goes to prove the vulnerability of using a single power source, when there aren't anywhere near the number of rescue options there used to be, which I've been banging on about on here for years!   

Makes sense, VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchises) have their (class 57!) Thunderbirds stationed arround the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line), I'm aware of no such thing for the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) (or on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) or MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about)?). Why no Thunderbirds on the Great Western?

Virgin Trains no longer make routine use of Class 57/3 'Thunderbirds'. All have been de-named and re-liveried. All 16 have found other homes. 12 are with Direct Rail Services in their 'Compass' liveries (with a couple in Riviera Trains' 'Northern Belle' livery and one in Network Rail yellow). The other 4 are with West Coast Railways, 3 in WCRC Maroon and one in plain blue.

[TaplowGreen]

It's suprising how many enfusiests travel on the sleeper think there would be uproar from them if fgw pulled the plug I met a guy once who travelled down from Scotland just to travel up to pad on the sleeper!

I suspect that would be the main source of any uproar that ensues, other than token protests from local politicians - however I think Chris B has hit the nail on the head with his last post.

[ellendune]

(1) Whenever I see pictures of American freight trains, there's always 3-4 locomotives at the front. UK^▸ (United Kingdom) (and European) freights always seem to have only one. Is this because (a) American freight trains are big and need all of that power to move them, or (b) American freight locomotives are unreliable and there's several of them just in case?

I think you will find the answer is (a).

(2) Why are there all these different voltages on railway rolling stock? There's been mention here of 1000v power supplies, 120v DC^▸ (Direct Current) lighting circuits and 850v heaters. Given that the world (well, except for the American bit) works on 240v AC (or 415v AC in its three-phase version), wouldn't it make sense for the railway to do the same?

A very good question.  I suspect some of it might date back to early days and have dragged on because they wanted compatibility with earlier stock. 

[LiskeardRich]

57312 is on a rugby special tonight. Let's hope it performs better for the rugby.