Future Uses Of TPE's Fleets When They're Done With Them

[Doomotron]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...a-2-instead-of-more-80x-series-trains.194316/

I think the 3 fleets might have been done for later on. After TPE, all three fleets will have different uses. The 802s can join an existing fleet, the 397s can go to an electrified line, the Mark 5s could be used for spot-hires or open-access work and the 68s can go to freight.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As Doomotron says I'd be surprised if TPE have 4 different trains in its fleet in 10 years time. I suspect we'll see it rationalised, probably with more 802s, as part of the next franchise and the 68s/Mk.5s and/or 397 palmed onto an open access operator.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mk5s elsewhere (though if TPE take on Liv-Notts they might be perfect for that on a self contained basis) and the 185s with Northern replaced by further 80x to allow scrapping of 150s, 153s and 156s, but I don't agree about the 397s - the WCML services are totally self-contained from the rest of TPE and so that they use separate stock is no great issue at all other than the lack of ability to say divert over the S&C like 80x could.

FWIW, post HS2 one proposed plan is for a London-Manchester-Scotland service to replace the classic-line "via Brum" and the Manchester Airport-Scotland - in that case they would probably go to the West Coast Partnership TOC anyway.

 

[Energy]

In my opinion it would make more sense to get an upgraded desiro, maybe a bimode version of the desiro verve? Siemens have built a diesel desiro so they can probably build a bimode desiro and the desiro verve has end doors and is more intercity. Plus it will be easier on maintenance as they already have desiros.

Looking at TPE's financial performance, picking 3 smaller fleets may have been a mistake...

Also do the 802s have the range to do the 68/Mk5 routes? 802s have upgraded fuel tanks but are they big enough?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mk5s elsewhere (though if TPE take on Liv-Notts they might be perfect for that on a self contained basis) and the 185s with Northern replaced by further 80x to allow scrapping of 150s, 153s and 156s, but I don't agree about the 397s - the WCML services are totally self-contained from the rest of TPE and so that they use separate stock is no great issue at all other than the lack of ability to say divert over the S&C like 80x could.

FWIW, post HS2 one proposed plan is for a London-Manchester-Scotland service to replace the classic-line "via Brum" and the Manchester Airport-Scotland - in that case they would probably go to the West Coast Partnership TOC anyway.

Platform lengths at Sheffield would be an issue for the Mk5a sets, I think? They'd have to use the through platforms rather than the bays which the current Liverpool to Norwich uses.

As for 185s to Northern, I can't see that happening for anything other than a short-term stopgap: Northern is a financial basket-case as it is without giving them a load of overweight, thirsty and heavy 185s which also can't use SP or MU differentials.

As

 

[The_Train]

They've got to get them out onto the TPE network before we can consider what will happen to them afterwards

 

[yorkie]

They've got to get them out onto the TPE network before we can consider what will happen to them afterwards

Trust me when I say there are no limits of the extent to which people want to speculate... Hence the creation of this part of the forum.

(Just as.long as people remember to post in the right section, it's all fine as far as I am concerned!)

 

[The_Train]

Trust me when I say there are no limits of the extent to which people want to speculate... Hence the creation of this part of the forum.

(Just as.long as people remember to post in the right section, it's all fine as far as I am concerned!)

Haha clearly! Don't get me wrong I really enjoy reading some of the debate people have regarding speculation of different things on the railway - I think we are at the extreme end of it though when we are speculating about the future use of units that are not yet in use

All good fun though!

 

[hexagon789]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...a-2-instead-of-more-80x-series-trains.194316/

I think the 3 fleets might have been done for later on. After TPE, all three fleets will have different uses. The 802s can join an existing fleet, the 397s can go to an electrified line, the Mark 5s could be used for spot-hires or open-access work and the 68s can go to freight.

Little premature considering most aren't even in traffic yet - but...

The 802s could either join other TOCs 80x or even go to say ScotRail or TfW to replace HSTs/Mk4s (depends on how long TPE have them for of course)

The Mk5s could even replace the Mk4s on TfW, retaining 68s.

The 397s are more difficult to place, I'm not sure what they'd be ideal for outside of their intended use.

 

[The_Train]

The 397s are more difficult to place, I'm not sure what they'd be ideal for outside of their intended use.

I know the West Coast franchise needs some Voyagers for the North Wales runs, but couldn't 397s replace those Voyagers that currently work Scotland to Euston turns?

 

[hexagon789]

I know the West Coast franchise needs some Voyagers for the North Wales runs, but couldn't 397s replace those Voyagers that currently work Scotland to Euston turns?

Aren't most of those either Pendolinos or double Super Voyagers? Though if there's enough you could double-up the 397s.

 

[The_Train]

Aren't most of those either Pendolinos or double Super Voyagers? Though if there's enough you could double-up the 397s.

Not sure what the split is between Pendos and Voyagers but there is certainly a few that operate as Voyagers and not always doubled up either. There is also some of the Blackpool turns which are Voyager operated which could be swapped over to solely electric.

Maybe the West Coast could do away with the Voyager fleet entirely by taking up 397s and some of the Mk5As to cover the North Wales turns - be nice to see locos hauling up and down the North Wales coast again

 

[hexagon789]

Not sure what the split is between Pendos and Voyagers but there is certainly a few that operate as Voyagers and not always doubled up either. There is also some of the Blackpool turns which are Voyager operated which could be swapped over to solely electric.

Definitely be good for Blackpools, just the right sort of unit.

Maybe the West Coast could do away with the Voyager fleet entirely by taking up 397s and some of the Mk5As to cover the North Wales turns - be nice to see locos hauling up and down the North Wales coast again

Isn't that what's happening under the next franchise? Replacement of all the Super Voyagers.

 

[The_Train]

Isn't that what's happening under the next franchise? Replacement of all the Super Voyagers.

Not sure to be honest as all I've heard about so far is that they intend to refurbish the Pendolino's.

What is the 397 capacity like compared to a Super Voyager?

Other than that, I'm with you in that I can't see where else they could be utilised. Maybe XC could make some use of them between Manchester and Birmingham but that's unlikely as it removes the direct service to the south west/Bournemouth from Manchester

 

[hexagon789]

Not sure to be honest as all I've heard about so far is that they intend to refurbish the Pendolino's

I'm sure they're supposed to be replacing all the 221s.

What is the 397 capacity like compared to a Super Voyager?

221: 26 First; 236 standard
397: 24 First; 264 standard

 

[The_Train]

I'm sure they're supposed to be replacing all the 221s.

Yeah just found this here

All 20 Super Voyagers will be replaced by 13 Bi-Mode Multiple Unit and 10 Electric Multiple Units with the former used for services to Shrewsbury, Chester, Gobowen and North Wales and the latter used for services to Birmingham New Street, Blackpool North and Liverpool Lime Street.

Unlikely that they will be wanting TPE cast offs then. So we revert back to your original point - no idea what will happen to the 397s

 

[hexagon789]

So we revert back to your original point - no idea what will happen to the 397s

I would suggest ScotRail could take them, but there isn't enough OLE for them at present outside of the Central Belt.

 

[RichJF]

Mk5s for Chiltern with class 68s? The revamped Mk3s aren't going to last forever!

Alternatively these new class 93 locos with Mk5s might be a longshot but attractive mid-term option for a number of franchises.

397s onto the MML when the 360s retire?

 

[NoMorePacers]

Mk5s for Chiltern with class 68s? The revamped Mk3s aren't going to last forever!

Alternatively these new class 93 locos with Mk5s might be a longshot but attractive mid-term option for a number of franchises.

397s onto the MML when the 360s retire?

I don't think there'll be that long a gap between the 360 and 397's life expiration, certainly not enough to use 397s on the MML.

I'd be slightly tempted to wager that 360s will last longer than 397s if I'm honest.

 

[Kite159]

Little premature considering most aren't even in traffic yet - but...

The 802s could either join other TOCs 80x or even go to say ScotRail or TfW to replace HSTs/Mk4s (depends on how long TPE have them for of course)

The Mk5s could even replace the Mk4s on TfW, retaining 68s.

The 397s are more difficult to place, I'm not sure what they'd be ideal for outside of their intended use.

802s would be good for ScotRail for HST replacements for Glasgow - Perth & beyond services, gets rid of diesels within Glasgow. Probably not so good for Edinburgh - Perth/Dundee & beyond as they will be on diesel for the majority of the journey.

Unless more track gets wired up

 

[hexagon789]

802s would be good for ScotRail for HST replacements for Glasgow - Perth & beyond services, gets rid of diesels within Glasgow. Probably not so good for Edinburgh - Perth/Dundee & beyond as they will be on diesel for the majority of the journey.

Unless more track gets wired up

Which is why I was a bit hesitant, though the greater overall power on diesel of an 802 would help a bit.

 

[Kingham West]

I can’t help thinking, the 68’s and the mk5’s would be very much at home on Chiltern, in a few years, with a few new 802’s replacing them.

 

[jimm]

I think it was a poor decision that will cause us some problems in the longer term (e.g. the 397s could be the 180s of the 2030s - a small fleet that are too short for long distance high speed services but the 125mph specification means that they aren't suitable for cascading to slower services where their length would otherwise be more appropriate).

How does a 125mph top speed render a train unsuitable for cascading to slower services? Existing 125mph rolling stock has always done plenty of miles in places where the speed limits are well below that. The same goes for all the 350s and 387s that can run at 110mph.

And the 180s haven't exactly been short of work throughout their lives, have they? Just a pity that reliability has been their Achilles heel.

Would Grand Central and Hull Trains ever have got off the ground and stayed in business if they hadn't been able to get hold of 125mph trains of this sort of size?

Were the 397s ever to be released by TPE, I expect someone could find a use for them. They might go down very well on London North Western's Euston to Crewe services, for example.

 

[Doomotron]

How does a 125mph top speed render a train unsuitable for cascading to slower services? Existing 125mph rolling stock has always done plenty of miles in places where the speed limits are well below that. The same goes for all the 350s and 387s that can run at 110mph.

Much slower acceleration. It makes them pointless to use on slower services because much slower trains (top speed) will complete a service faster. Some trains overcome the acceleration but I can only think of the Javelins and IEPs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Much slower acceleration. It makes them pointless to use on slower services because much slower trains (top speed) will complete a service faster. Some trains overcome the acceleration but I can only think of the Javelins and IEPs.

Regearing is not that complex. FWIW, even so, they would be ideal for the Trent Valley local service.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Isn't there a learning point from this thread? That the folly of such a huge number of different modestly sized fleets of trains makes reuse of units deeply imponderable? We urgently need to look at procurement so that we settle on fewer types overall even if they are less than ideal for some initial uses. Of course this has been the result of the franchise system but rumour has it we are going to try and fix that.

 

[Doomotron]

Regearing is not that complex. FWIW, even so, they would be ideal for the Trent Valley local service.

Regearing does involve a lot of testing, however, and for some it might not be worth the hassle.

 

[tbtc]

How does a 125mph top speed render a train unsuitable for cascading to slower services? Existing 125mph rolling stock has always done plenty of miles in places where the speed limits are well below that. The same goes for all the 350s and 387s that can run at 110mph

And the 180s haven't exactly been short of work throughout their lives, have they? Just a pity that reliability has been their Achilles heel.

Would Grand Central and Hull Trains ever have got off the ground and stayed in business if they hadn't been able to get hold of 125mph trains of this sort of size?

Were the 397s ever to be released by TPE, I expect someone could find a use for them. They might go down very well on London North Western's Euston to Crewe services, for example.

It's partly about the platform space - e.g. running 397s on routes like the ScotRail ones suggested would mean wasting a lot of space at places like Glasgow Queen Street (given the nose profile, crumple zone etc) - as well as the question of whether the door alignment would be suited to slower services with more stops. And the note profile also means they are less suited at working in multiple (which may be an issue on routes like the Trent Valley one).

HT obviously started off with 100mph Turbostars before moving onto Meridians - but the two ECML OAOs are fairly minor operations - whilst any diesel trains have been in pretty high demand over the past generation (hardly any off lease for any time - ignoring a few rounding errors like the Pacers that Northern temporarily took out of service when the Oldham Loop was closed) - but the EMUs are in large supply - which is why I'm uneasy about building small fleets that aren't necessarily suited to cascading elsewhere - there aren't going to be a lot of fully electrified services that are fast enough to require 125mph EMUs but quiet enough to only require five coaches - especially when HS2 frees up many 390s (which might replace 397s on Manchester - WCML - Scotland).

Whereas more 802s would be able to work in multiple with similar units at GWR/ LNER/ HT/ TPE or run part-electrified services at TOCs like XC - but there'll be lots of other modern 100/110mph EMUs (many with corridor connections, more suited to working in multiple, with doors more suited to slower stopping services).

Too late now, of course, First have done what they've done before and ordered a non-standard fleet (just like ordering 175s when everyone else was ordering 170s, or ordering 180s instead of 220/221/222s).

 

[jimm]

Much slower acceleration. It makes them pointless to use on slower services because much slower trains (top speed) will complete a service faster. Some trains overcome the acceleration but I can only think of the Javelins and IEPs.

Regearing does involve a lot of testing, however, and for some it might not be worth the hassle.

GWR and ScotRail seem perfectly relaxed about operation of HSTs with their existing gear settings and resulting acceleration for some years to come in places where there isn't an inch of 125mph track. And as emus, the 397s are hardly going to be slouches off the mark anyway.

It's partly about the platform space - e.g. running 397s on routes like the ScotRail ones suggested would mean wasting a lot of space at places like Glasgow Queen Street (given the nose profile, crumple zone etc) - as well as the question of whether the door alignment would be suited to slower services with more stops. And the note profile also means they are less suited at working in multiple (which may be an issue on routes like the Trent Valley one).

HT obviously started off with 100mph Turbostars before moving onto Meridians - but the two ECML OAOs are fairly minor operations - whilst any diesel trains have been in pretty high demand over the past generation (hardly any off lease for any time - ignoring a few rounding errors like the Pacers that Northern temporarily took out of service when the Oldham Loop was closed) - but the EMUs are in large supply - which is why I'm uneasy about building small fleets that aren't necessarily suited to cascading elsewhere - there aren't going to be a lot of fully electrified services that are fast enough to require 125mph EMUs but quiet enough to only require five coaches - especially when HS2 frees up many 390s (which might replace 397s on Manchester - WCML - Scotland).

Whereas more 802s would be able to work in multiple with similar units at GWR/ LNER/ HT/ TPE or run part-electrified services at TOCs like XC - but there'll be lots of other modern 100/110mph EMUs (many with corridor connections, more suited to working in multiple, with doors more suited to slower stopping services).

Too late now, of course, First have done what they've done before and ordered a non-standard fleet (just like ordering 175s when everyone else was ordering 170s, or ordering 180s instead of 220/221/222s).

If there was ever expected to be enough demand between the North West and Scotland to justify the use of something the size of a Pendolino, then TPE would have ordered them at this point.

I expect that should the opportunity ever arise, someone, somewhere could find something to do with a dozen Class 397s - but they are unlikely to be looking for a new home for a long time anyway and would probably be a lot easier to place with a new operator than the likes of a secondhand Pendolino.

And if a new government, of whatever variety, sees sense about electrifying the full core TransPennine route (and more of its offshoots) now that failing Grayling has been consigned to history, then CAF presumably hopes that it will be well placed to pick up a further order for more 397s for TPE, with the 802s or Class 68 and Mk5 combos being the trains made available for a move elsewhere.

 

[JonathanH]

I can’t help thinking, the 68’s and the mk5’s would be very much at home on Chiltern, in a few years, with a few new 802’s replacing them.

The coaching stock formations are too short for use with Chiltern. The *only* point of running the 68+Mk3 on Chiltern is to provide capacity on some key peak trains. Units are absolutely fine for everything else and will remain so. Indeed if there were more 170s available the 68+Mk3 sets would be discarded pretty quickly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The coaching stock formations are too short for use with Chiltern

How long are Chiltern's LH sets? I thought they were 5 car (4 Std 1 First)?

That said, while it's not an easy depot job you could reform the Mk5 sets, some would end up with a DT on both ends but that isn't going to kill anybody, just look a bit odd.