• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

TPE fleet - are the Mk5s the right choice?

Status
Not open for further replies.

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
2,719
Location
Leeds
I don’t know. I’ll say the DfT. But on demand, we can’t be under any illusion here that the current drop-off will be a long-term trend. If there is also suitable rolling stock now, why were the Mk5a units procured in the first instance?

There is now, but there wasn't then; and Hitachi couldn't produce the 802s in time with all the other orders they were fulfilling. Like or loath them, the Mk5s have done the job of providing many, many more seats. When they run...
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
There is now, but there wasn't then; and Hitachi couldn't produce the 802s in time with all the other orders they were fulfilling. Like or loath them, the Mk5s have done the job of providing many, many more seats. When they run...

Hmm. But they haven't really - what's the maximum number of sets which have been in traffic at once?
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,878
In retrospect, three fleets was a bad decision and in the case of the Mk5a sets was on the basis that they would be delivered quickly - which didn't happen.

They'd have been better going for a single fleet, in reality - and 802 would have made most sense.
The quick delivery has become the “accepted” reason. But without LHCS in their offer, First’s bid would have been rejected as non-compliant.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
The quick delivery has become the “accepted” reason. But without LHCS in their offer, First’s bid would have been rejected as non-compliant.

Why? Couldn't they just have specified a larger unit order?
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,389
That's a new one on me - was LHCS specifically required?
It has previously been noted that the franchise specification was written in such a way to imply haulage of 442s by locomotives but which could equally be met by new build coaching stock.

Note that the ITT was issued five and half years ago now. https://assets.publishing.service.g...transpennine-express-invitation-to-tender.pdf. I'm not quite sure how it is read as saying hauled stock is explictly required though.

5.4.2.24 Only the following rolling stock may be proposed by Bidders for inclusion within the TPE Train Fleet:

i. The class 185 and class 350 multiple units that are currently comprised within the TPE Train Fleet (subject to the requirement to sub-lease Class 185 units to the Northern Franchise for an initial period until December 2017);
ii. Diesel multiple units that are not Class 14x, Class 15x or Class 17x and that are currently leased by a relevant operator other than the current TPE and Northern franchisees, but that will be demonstrably surplus to the requirements of that operator, either because new rolling stock is being procured to replace it, or because it is diesel stock that will be displaced by committed electrification schemes, or because other rolling stock is due to be cascaded in to replace it;
iii. Up to four 2-car diesel multiple units of similar characteristics to TPE’s Class 170 units must be assumed for bid purposes to be leased until December 2017, as a proxy for the arrangements that the Department envisages will be put in place with the incumbent operator to mitigate the transfer of these units to the Chiltern Franchise with effect from February 2016;
iv. Vehicles of Class 442 following their release from the TSGN franchise; and
v. Any new-build rolling stock that the Bidder commits to procure.

In addition, Bidders may include existing locomotives and/or coaching stock within their Bids (apart from those that are to be leased to the Northern franchisee during the term of the current Northern franchise and for the initial part of the next Northern franchise), but only if either Condition 1 or Condition 2 or Condition 3 below is met.

Condition 1 is that the Bidder sets out a fall-back strategy to lease alternative rolling stock which will deliver the same or better quality and capacity as their preferred rolling stock, to the same timescales, and which they will implement at no additional cost to the Department.

Condition 2 is that the Department has indicated in a response to a BCQ that the Bidder may include such rolling stock, and that the Bidder complies with any conditions outlined in that response. Such a BCQ must be raised by the Bidder no later than 5.00pm on Friday 13 March 2015, and must set out the following information:
i. The painted numbers of the locomotives and/or carriages in question, or identification of the pool of locomotives and/or carriages from which they would be drawn;
ii. The identity of their owner or owners, and any current lessee (and if currently on lease, the Bidder’s reasons for considering that they will be surplus to the requirements of the current lessee);
iii. The period for which the Bidder would wish to lease them;
iv. Details of any modifications that they would require;
v. The route or routes on which the Bidder is proposing to operate them;
vi. The passenger benefits that the Bidder considers it would be able to deliver by leasing and operating that rolling stock;
vii. What alternative options the Bidder considers would be available if the rolling stock in question were not available to them; and
viii. Any other information that the Bidder considers may be relevant to the Department’s consideration.

If no Northern bidder has proposed to lease the same rolling stock during the same period as the Bidder, then the Department will inform the Bidder that they may assume that no Northern bidder will be permitted to do so. Such a determination would serve only to confirm that the Bidder may assume that the rolling stock will not be required by any Northern bidder, and is not to be taken as any endorsement by the Department that it considers the rolling stock to meet the requirements set out in the ITT.

If one or more Northern bidders has proposed to lease the same rolling stock during the same period as the Bidder, then the Department will:
i. Either inform the Bidder who raised the BCQ that they may assume that no Northern bidder will be permitted to include the rolling stock within their bid, and accordingly the Bidder who raised the BCQ may include that rolling stock within their Bid without the requirement to outline a fall-back strategy of the kind envisaged under Condition 1. Such a determination would serve only to confirm that the Bidder may assume that the rolling stock will not be required by any Northern bidder, and is not to be taken as any endorsement by the Department that it considers the rolling stock to meet the requirements set out in the ITT; or
ii. Inform the Bidder who raised the BCQ that they may not rely on the availability of the rolling stock in question. In this eventuality the Bidder may still propose to include the rolling stock within their Bid, but only if Condition 1 above or Condition 3 below is met.

In reaching a determination, the Department may at its sole discretion consult such persons as it considers appropriate and/or request the Bidder to provide further information in order to inform its determination. The Department’s determination will take into account the following factors:
i. The Department’s view of which franchise the rolling stock might be more suitable for, taking account the needs of passengers on the services in question;
ii. The number of bidders on each competition who have expressed interest in the rolling stock;
iii. The likely availability of alternative options for bidders on each competition to secure rolling stock to deliver the intended passenger benefits; and iv. The views of any persons whom the Department has consulted.

Condition 3 is that the Bidder demonstrates to the Department’s satisfaction that it has received an unconditional offer for the rolling stock in question (i.e. the owner of the rolling stock has given a clear and unequivocal written undertaking that it will not offer the rolling stock to any Northern bidder or that, if it does, the offer to the Bidder will take priority over any offer made to any Northern bidder).
 
Last edited:

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
7,513
Location
Northern England
IMHO the entire Nova fleet is a daft decision by the DfT, to allow them and the TOC to appear needlessly flashy while delivering precisely zero benefit to passengers. To add insult to injury, units which are twice as old or more are still on the network in the same part of the country.

The same effect could have been achieved by ordering some Desiro trailer cars to insert into the 185s. I assume the massively overpowered engines on the 185s could cope with pulling a bit more weight than they do currently, and if not, some new motor cars could be ordered instead.

It's ridiculous that very reliable Desiros which aren't even halfway through their life and recently had an excellent refurbishment, are being phased out for cheap, unreliable rolling stock which constantly breaks down enough that the old stuff has to take over whole diagrams...

Then the funds for the Novas could have been put into expanding the fleet of 195s to allow the phasing out of the oldest of the god-awful 150s. As a slight aside, I'd have done the same with the 331s, and had Northern's electric fleet soley comprised of 323s and 319s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

to imply haulage of 442s by locomotives
Bloody hell, that sounds like something out of a RUK Forums "Fantasy" speculative thread!
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
IMHO the entire Nova fleet is a daft decision by the DfT, to allow them and the TOC to appear needlessly flashy while delivering precisely zero benefit to passengers. To add insult to injury, units which are twice as old or more are still on the network in the same part of the country.

The same effect could have been achieved by ordering some Desiro trailer cars to insert into the 185s. I assume the massively overpowered engines on the 185s could cope with pulling a bit more weight than they do currently, and if not, some new motor cars could be ordered instead.

It's ridiculous that very reliable Desiros which aren't even halfway through their life and recently had an excellent refurbishment, are being phased out for cheap, unreliable rolling stock which constantly breaks down enough that the old stuff has to take over whole diagrams...

Then the funds for the Novas could have been put into expanding the fleet of 195s to allow the phasing out of the oldest of the god-awful 150s. As a slight aside, I'd have done the same with the 331s, and had Northern's electric fleet soley comprised of 323s and 319s.

More units were needed, and the age of the 185s and the challenging route means that trailer cars would not have been ideal. Would have been better to keep them all and run in pairs, plus a single build of new stock (802 or equivalent; those for the West side could have been pure electric)
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
But the current stock doesn't have specially large engines for the Pennines - in fact, various members more knowledgable than myself have noted on this forum that 80x perform rather poorly on Diesel.

Yes, but the 185s are massively heavy!
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Isn't that just because they have huge engines and carry huge fuel tanks?
I can't see how they could be any heavier than another Desiro plus the weight of the diesel traction equipment.

No, not specifically - they have the same engines as Voyagers / 180s.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,003
It has previously been noted that the franchise specification was written in such a way to imply haulage of 442s by locomotives but which could equally be met by new build coaching stock.

It was a bit of a (typical) DfT knee-jerk reaction to the cancellation and then uncertainty about reinstatement of the TransPennine electrification program - when the ITT was drawn up, all that would have been available was the Class 442 fleet, and using Class 442s short term (say 5-10 years) would have made sense until a more permanent decision was made on what to do.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,878
That's a new one on me - was LHCS specifically required?
Why? Couldn't they just have specified a larger unit order?
DfT was wanting to re-use the 442s and heavily hinted at that. The loco-hauled requirement was an attempt to force that and clearly hadn’t reckoned on new-build LHCS as a possible answer.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
DfT was wanting to re-use the 442s and heavily hinted at that. The loco-hauled requirement was an attempt to force that and clearly hadn’t reckoned on new-build LHCS as a possible answer.

Thanks - so a typical DfT cock-up then!
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,459
Location
The North
There is now, but there wasn't then; and Hitachi couldn't produce the 802s in time with all the other orders they were fulfilling. Like or loath them, the Mk5s have done the job of providing many, many more seats. When they run...

In which case it would be better to solve the issues with the Mk5s than bin them off for the 185s.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,747
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Except for the fact that... y'know... the 185s are still very good trains, they're reliable and they have shorter dwell times and more comfortable seating...

And someone bothered to look at seats and windows and line them up!

There's a lot of door position prejudice. But if you ignore that (and them being two coaches too short) they have one of the nicest interiors of any UK rolling stock in both classes, particularly after the refurb.

TBH, if they had gangways and ran in pairs all the time, and they maybe shuffled the end coach around to avoid the hidden "ballroom", they'd basically be the perfect rolling stock for all of TPE other than the WCML.
 

talltim

Established Member
Joined
17 Jan 2010
Messages
2,454
Condition 1 is that the Bidder sets out a fall-back strategy to lease alternative rolling stock which will deliver the same or better quality and capacity as their preferred rolling stock, to the same timescales, and which they will implement at no additional cost to the Department.

So what is the fall-back strategy?
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Gosh, I hate to think how much (or rather, how little) a 4 car 331 weighs then!

Build quality possibly not the best word - over engineered perhaps. As for the 331s, based on calculated axle weights from what appears to be a preproduction briefing for them (pdf download warning) - a 4 car comes in at 157.12t - reasonably good given the longer length of the vehicle, although the inside frame bogies will have saved a reasonable amount compared to the weights I quoted above. AIUI Siemens also managed to slim down the Desiro Cities to a slightly less ludicrous weight
 

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,064
Location
Leeds
The quick delivery has become the “accepted” reason. But without LHCS in their offer, First’s bid would have been rejected as non-compliant.

It has previously been noted that the franchise specification was written in such a way to imply haulage of 442s by locomotives but which could equally be met by new build coaching stock.

Note that the ITT was issued five and half years ago now. https://assets.publishing.service.g...transpennine-express-invitation-to-tender.pdf. I'm not quite sure how it is read as saying hauled stock is explictly required though.

Well maybe i'm missing something but I don't really see how that's the case it talks about 'any new rolling stock stock the bidder commits to precure' I don't see any specific Loco Hauled provision in that and would take it to mean that it could be, DMU, Bi-mode, Loco Hauled or a Bionic Duckweed train.

Seem more likely to me that the fact that the Dft put the 442 option in there meant that Loco Hauled was an option that Dft would accept and could be taken by bidders if they wished, the 'First' bid with 802's must have been a very strong bid and possibly a level above what the Dft were expecting as there was no requirement for a 125mph train or to run beyond Newcastle.

'Firsts' initial reasons for choosing the Loco Hauled trains were no doubt reasonably sound, but with the benefit of hindsight an 802/185 fleet would be the better option going forward.
 
Last edited:

tetudo boy

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2018
Messages
382
Location
Near Liverpool
I think the Mk5's just don't look even or in other terms, unbalanced. Probably because they are too heavy.

Actually, maybe all of the Nova fleet are unsuitable for the service's they run, mainly because of their end doors. What could be useful is a variant of the Class 195, but with 5 carriages, bi-mode, and capable of 125 mph.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
7,513
Location
Northern England
Just out of interest, can MK5s be easily converted into 397s?
I highly doubt it, though I'm not the most knowledgable on such matters.
I don't think Mk5s have anywhere to put a pantograph or traction equipment, and I'm not even sure they use the same bodyshell. Plus you'd have to build some driving cars...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top