TPE fleet - are the Mk5s the right choice?

[Philip Phlopp]

They can't. They aren't the same body shape and they were designed for coaching stock only.

They can certainly be used, subject to some moderate engineering work, as unpowered trailers within a new build EMU (or DMU) unit.

 

[tbtc]

Are Mk5s the right choice? No.

Were they the right choice at the time they were ordered? Maybe, I suppose - I was against the idea at the time ("why did TPE need three new fleets" etc etc), but I can see why First were desperate to get new trains as fast as possible which meant ordering 397s, 802s and loco hauled. Yes, the same First who were ordering a mega-fleet of 701s to replace four types of train on SWR decided to order three types of train on TPE instead of one big fleet.

Given that Caledonian Sleeper were ordering Mk5s, it wasn't unreasonable to use them as the basis for loco haulage - this was only a few years ago, but worth remembering that it was in the days when we expected Network Rail to have wired up the line from Liverpool to Newcastle by now, so ordering stock to be diesel hauled that could then be electric hauled at a later date had some merit.

Personally, I'd have preferred around forty five 802s to have been ordered (instead of the three different "Nova" fleets), but it's a bit late to be worrying about that. Just... STOP ORDERING MICRO FLEETS!

At least one advantage of the Mk5s is that there are some routes they could be cascaded to, e.g. the GWR/ ScotRail services current run by fun-sized HSTs, maybe Chiltern, maybe Liverpool - Nottingham... the bigger problem will be finding a home for a non-standard fleet of 125mph pure EMUs - there was a thread a while ago about the 397s and I struggle to see a route where trains that fast (with the "crumple zone" space etc) but that short will be used if they ever leave TPE.

If the DfT heavily suggested that bidders used the 442s (which are 1980s trains built with parts salvaged from 1960s trains) then I really worry about them having greater influence over the railway - whilst I'm underwhelmed by the Mk5s I can at least see that they are a step in the right direction rather than dumping fifty year old stock on a "premier" service like TPE!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just out of interest, can MK5s be easily converted into 397s?

I'd have thought not. The 397 is a different platform - it looks more like an end doored 331 inside and out.

If you want to make Mk5s into an "EMU" put an electric locomotive on the end

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Surely all you have to do is build an extra pantograph carriage and that's it? And because of its different bodywork maybe classify as it as Class 397/1 or even Class 396?
Excuse my ignorance on this matter.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

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...

Don't they already have some driving cars? Although you'd be right that more would be needed.

 

[py_megapixel]

Surely all you have to do is build an extra pantograph carriage and that's it? And because of its different bodywork maybe classify as it as Class 397/1 or even Class 396?
Excuse my ignorance on this matter.

No, because the Mk5s don't have any traction motors.
@Philip Phlopp suggests that they could be used as unpowered trailers, but then you would need to build some powered vehicles, which would not be the same as 397 vehicles anyway. By the time you've gone to that much expense, why not just stick an electric loco on and call it a day?

It's important to remember that just because they come from the same manufacturer to a similar spec, doesn't mean that they are actually that similar from a technical perspective. Take the 378s and 710s for example. Both built for TfL to similar specifications for the same lines by the same manufacturer within a decade of each other, but obviously completely incompatible with each other.

Sorry if I sound accusatory here: that's not my intention, and indeed some of this may be inaccurate or oversimplified.. but that's my understanding, anyway.

 

[BayPaul]

There was a post up thread that talked about First's solution being something of a surprise to DfT. Looking at SWR as well, I wonder if First put more effort on both competitions at looking at the details of the quality scoring system, then designing a bid to beat the system, while the other bidders read between the lines and created a bid that was actually what the DfT were looking for, but scored lower as DfT mucked up the scoring system.

No knowledge, but I could imagine it happening, and it would explain some oddities like mk5a, 442s and Portsmouth - Weymouth. Of course in both cases, in hindsight First probably shouldn't have been so eager...

 

[37424]

Don't they already have some driving cars? Although you'd be right that more would be needed.

Wow we do get some idea's on these threads which don't just stretch credibility they smash it, So you would need a pantograph car with all the requirements of a locomotive, ie Transformer, Traction Motors etc, so you may as well use an Electric Locomotive far easier in this case.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Overall, I believe Mk5s were a stupid choice for TPE. Firstly, if you want an efficient journey with faster journey times and better acceleration, who in their right mind would want to order a loco hauled train, which would do basically the opposite effect. Locos accelerate really slowly in comparison to a multiple unit. I would have ordered more 802s, since the Nova 3 routes do run under the wires for some quite distance (between Liverpool and manchester for example).

 

[Philip Phlopp]

No, because the Mk5s don't have any traction motors.
@Philip Phlopp suggests that they could be used as unpowered trailers, but then you would need to build some powered vehicles, which would not be the same as 397 vehicles anyway. By the time you've gone to that much expense, why not just stick an electric loco on and call it a day?

It's important to remember that just because they come from the same manufacturer to a similar spec, doesn't mean that they are actually that similar from a technical perspective. Take the 378s and 710s for example. Both built for TfL to similar specifications for the same lines by the same manufacturer within a decade of each other, but obviously completely incompatible with each other.

Sorry if I sound accusatory here: that's not my intention, and indeed some of this may be inaccurate or oversimplified.. but that's my understanding, anyway.

"Why not just stick an electric loco on and call it a day" - four words - variable track access charges. I don't have the exact figures for a Class 68 with 5 Mark 5A vehicles, but by going with an MU solution, you'll be around half the cost of the TPE LHCS solution per mile.

 

[37424]

"Why not just stick an electric loco on and call it a day" - four words - variable track access charges. I don't have the exact figures for a Class 68 with 5 Mark 5A vehicles, but by going with an MU solution, you'll be around half the cost of the TPE LHCS solution per mile.

And by the time you have messed around trying to create this EMU your probably nearly spent as much as just buying another 397.

 

[BayPaul]

So in the old southern slam door days, EMUs were often effectively 3 coaches and one powered loco-type coach (to the extent that they sometimes swapped them with regular carriages). Obviously things are a bit more complex now, and I'd imagine that putting everything under /over a single driving motor carriage would be pushing it, but would a 7 carriage EMU with a new driving motor and one additional carriage be practical. By the time the whole route is electrified, 7 carriages would probably be about right.

 

[37424]

So in the old southern slam door days, EMUs were often effectively 3 coaches and one powered loco-type coach (to the extent that they sometimes swapped them with regular carriages). Obviously things are a bit more complex now, and I'd imagine that putting everything under /over a single driving motor carriage would be pushing it, but would a 7 carriage EMU with a new driving motor and one additional carriage be practical. By the time the whole route is electrified, 7 carriages would probably be about right.

Modern EMU's tend to have distributed motors throughout the train rather than just one carriage, the whole idea looks like more trouble than its worth, I'm sure somebody will be along shortly to suggest sandwiching it between HST power cars or turning them into a DMU.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

And by the time you have messed around trying to create this EMU your probably nearly spent as much as just buying another 397.

Most likely, I'm only pointing out there are other options to keeping the Mark 5A in a LHCS configuration or retiring them prematurely.

So in the old southern slam door days, EMUs were often effectively 3 coaches and one powered loco-type coach (to the extent that they sometimes swapped them with regular carriages). Obviously things are a bit more complex now, and I'd imagine that putting everything under /over a single driving motor carriage would be pushing it, but would a 7 carriage EMU with a new driving motor and one additional carriage be practical. By the time the whole route is electrified, 7 carriages would probably be about right.

Modern EMU's tend to have distributed motors throughout the train rather than just one carriage, the whole idea looks like more trouble than its worth, I'm sure somebody will be along shortly to suggest sandwiching it between HST power cars or turning them into a DMU.

It almost certainly is more trouble than its worth, but there are a number of EMU families with unpowered trailer vehicles, and there's nothing in the "EMU designer's handbook" which says you can't have a 10 car EMU formation formed from two half sets with one half set powered and the other half set unpowered. If you take that approach, the modifications on the Mark 5A stock could potentially amount to little more than fitting a gangway and autocoupler on the first class coach.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Overall, I believe Mk5s were a stupid choice for TPE. Firstly, if you want an efficient journey with faster journey times and better acceleration, who in their right mind would want to order a loco hauled train, which would do basically the opposite effect. Locos accelerate really slowly in comparison to a multiple unit.

Have you seen one go? They take off like nothing else on diesel in the UK - they are, I believe, heavily overpowered.

There are many things wrong with them, but speed off the mark isn't one.

 

[py_megapixel]

Have you seen one go? They take off like nothing else on diesel in the UK - they are, I believe, heavily overpowered.

There are many things wrong with them, but speed off the mark isn't one.

They also make one hell of a noise!

 

[Bletchleyite]

They also make one hell of a noise!

They're as close to a Valenta powered HST as you get now!

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Have you seen one go? They take off like nothing else on diesel in the UK - they are, I believe, heavily overpowered.

There are many things wrong with them, but speed off the mark isn't one.

No, but I've seen (and even been on) many loco hauled trains, both in the UK and in Mainland Europe. And just like a DMU, their accelleration is really slow.

That's one of the reasons why in my opinion TPE should've gone for more Nova 1s.

 

[peteb]

They also make one hell of a noise!

Agreed. The 68 hauled/shoved Chiltern trains dont appear to have silencers on the locos. Powering away from Kidderminster they can be heard all over town. I assume same applies for TPE Mk5 hauled trains?

 

[py_megapixel]

Agreed. The 68 hauled/shoved Chiltern trains dont appear to have silencers on the locos. Powering away from Kidderminster they can be heard all over town. I assume same applies for TPE Mk5 hauled trains?

Yes, you can be standing outside Victoria station in Manchester and you hear the 68 louder than the buses outside... it really is quite something

 

[Philip Phlopp]

...it really is quite something

The word you're looking for is antisocial. The railway should be as free from noise and air pollution as possible.

 

[YorksLad12]

Agreed. The 68 hauled/shoved Chiltern trains dont appear to have silencers on the locos. Powering away from Kidderminster they can be heard all over town. I assume same applies for TPE Mk5 hauled trains?

Don't get me started... I know when they're passing through Leeds on P15 or P16, and I'm north of the river. The diesels on temporary P1 make less relative noise!

 

[py_megapixel]

The word you're looking for is antisocial. The railway should be as free from noise and air pollution as possible.

Oh yes, I wasn't trying to imply that I enjoyed it (I don't); more that I find it impressive just how much noise can come out of a 5 car train. And with TPE being 24 hour I'm sure it's only a matter of time before residents in places like the south manchester suburbs where houses are quite close to the track start to complain.

 

[37424]

The word you're looking for is antisocial. The railway should be as free from noise and air pollution as possible.

From a modern railway perspective they are a bit last century, but from an enthusiast viewpoint they are a bright spot in a land very dull and boring multiple units, and the noise is excellent.

 

[py_megapixel]

From a modern railway perspective they are a bit last century, but from an enthusiast viewpoint they are a bright spot in a land very dull and boring multiple units, and the noise is excellent.

I'm sorry but the railway is not, and should not, be run for the benefit of a community of enthusiasts. And I say that as someone who has held an interest in the railways for many years.

There are many reasons why Mk5s made sense at the time they were ordered. Attractiveness to enthusiasts was not one of them.

(If you want interesting sounds on the modern network, try some of the 90s EMUs )

 

[37424]

I'm sorry but the railway is not, and should not, be run for the benefit of a community of enthusiasts. And I say that as someone who has held an interest in the railways for many years.

There are many reasons why Mk5s made sense at the time they were ordered. Attractiveness to enthusiasts was not one of them.

(If you want interesting sounds on the modern network, try some of the 90s EMUs )

I don't think anybody suggested they were or should be ordered for the benefit of enthusiasts, but as they were ordered they are a welcome change from the dull multiple units.

 

[tbtc]

The word you're looking for is antisocial. The railway should be as free from noise and air pollution as possible.

True - always amusing to see enthusiasts moan about how intrusive and noisy a modern DMU is (with underfloor engines apparently deafening the average passenger) yet getting so excited about just how noisy various types of locomotive are... like the way that heavy rail is promoted as being so "green" by the same people who rave about just how good "clag" is!

 

[py_megapixel]

True - always amusing to see enthusiasts moan about how intrusive and noisy a modern DMU is (with underfloor engines apparently deafening the average passenger) yet getting so excited about just how noisy various types of locomotive are... like the way that heavy rail is promoted as being so "green" by the same people who rave about just how good "clag" is!

Honestly modern DMUs are fine; it's the pre-privatisation stuff which is really bad for interior noise.
(That's not to say the noise was inherently BR's fault of course - it's merely a helpful point in time to distinguish by)

 

[D365]

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.

Why would you want ⅓ and ⅔ doors on a 125mph unit?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would you want ⅓ and ⅔ doors on a 125mph unit?

Because TPE is a hybrid of regional express and InterCity. To be fair, that's only 15mph faster than a Class 350.