Shunting the Caledonian Sleeper at Inverness

[@doubledaclutchmcphee]

Thanks doing this trip soon very interesting. Great video

[@exworthy]

Most informative - thanks for all your efforts!

[@ThermoMan]

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to put this together

[@moshihus]

Really interesting stuff so a big thank you for this. Just amazed you got all this footage in dry weather!!

[@CambriaJunction]

There was a period of unusually good weather back then in spring!

[@JJthrashing]

Great footage 👍 Why was the 73 chosen for the Caledonian express there was no third rail to use on its route ? And was underpowered running its diesel engines always had double header formation to cope on steep inclines, surely single 67 would have done the job better…

[@davidmortier637]

Hello, and thanks for this amazing video showing the whole process (sorry for my English as I'm French). I know the 66 doesn't have a Dellner coupler. Is it the only reason why they move the 73/9 at the other end ? Maybe it also needs to be refuelled ? Is it simply a kind of ETHEL, or does it work with the 66 thru the AAR connection ? Was it also the case when Mk2 and Mk3 carriages where still in use ? @+

[@CambriaJunction]

The 73 provides the ETH yes, so I think (but am not 100% sure) that this is another reason it can't be at the front. I believe that the 66 & 73 work in multiple and therefore it does contribute to actually pulling the train although again I'm not 100% sure. I *think* the 73&66 combination has only been in use since the mk5s came in. In the final years of the mk2/3s they were either pulled by 73s or a 67. A 67 can provide ETH so could work the Inverness portion of the mk2/3s alone. For a short while I think they tried using a 67&73 combination on the mk5s. In that case, the 67 would always have to be on the front, because of the couplers. Some of the above might not be quite right, in which case I am willing to be corrected!

[@davidmortier637]

@@CambriaJunction Hello pal, thanks for answering. Concerning the 73/9 also providing traction, it would be surprising, as it's really not powerful, the 66 alone could easily be sufficient. But the AAR may permit this... As I'm interested in compositions with Class 66 hauling passenger trains, I found some videos showing this arrangement (66+73/9) even before the introduction of the Mk5s. In this case however, the 73/9 was fitted with a bar intended to prevent the overlap of the buffers in tight curves (due to the retractable buffers of the Mk3 carriages). Interesting about the 67+73 combination, probably because of the Dellner. I've heard of a 66+47 one time, again due to the unreliability of the only 6 73/9 available. In fact, my concern about the 73/9 not staying at the back of the train has to do with the limitations of Train Simulator : I can't move both engines, for example at Fort William, when you have to run round the leading 66... By the way, I'll soon publish on Alan Thomson Simulation the files for the 73/9 trailing version - no driver, if someone is interested ;-) @+ les amis 😉