TPE fleet - are the Mk5s the right choice?

[tetudo boy]

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

Because it should work like that, even though no one has tried it.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Because it should work like that, even though no one has tried it.

Often discussed, never implemented, is mixing end doors and ⅓ and ⅔ doors on the same unit. If we're looking at TransPennine, perhaps taking the two end vehicles from a Class 397 and mixing it with three central vehicles, like the central car(s) from a Class 331, so you have 2 driving vehicles with end doors and 3 central vehicles with ⅓ and ⅔ doors.

You could put long distance reservations in the two end vehicles, short distance reservations and unreserved commuter traffic in the centre vehicles.

 

[JonathanH]

You could put long distance reservations in the two end vehicles, short distance reservations and unreserved commuter traffic in the centre vehicles

Maybe, but I expect that the long distance travellers are probably the ones which cause longest dwell time delays.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Maybe, but I expect that the long distance travellers are probably the ones which cause longest dwell time delays.

I've always wondered if separating out long distance travellers, even if it's just by a coach length, from the shorter distance commuter traffic, would help dwell times.

 

[BayPaul]

Because it should work like that, even though no one has tried it.

Class 395 Javelin? OK, so it's a 140mph EMU, but it proves it works. And there are plenty of long distance 100mph trains like 185s that show you can make a long distance train with doors at thirds.

 

[py_megapixel]

Class 395 Javelin? OK, so it's a 140mph EMU, but it proves it works. And there are plenty of long distance 100mph trains like 185s that show you can make a long distance train with doors at thirds.

Indeed. And with much more demand for commuter stock these days than long-distance (the flagship long-distance routes usually already having something shiny and new) it's a lot easier to cascade a unit with doors at thirds to other routes than one with end doors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because it should work like that, even though no one has tried it.

Er, they have - the Javelin units - 140mph with doors (albeit single-leaf) at thirds. Indeed, in some ways, the SE Hispeed services have similarities to TPE long journeys *and* commuters.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Oct 2020 ==

I've always wondered if separating out long distance travellers, even if it's just by a coach length, from the shorter distance commuter traffic, would help dwell times.

Wide doors, standbacks and luggage racks by the doors control it quite well (none of these things are provided on TPE's new stock). But with regard to commuters, having known reserved and unreserved coaches also helps.

 

[YorksLad12]

Often discussed, never implemented, is mixing end doors and ⅓ and ⅔ doors on the same unit.

I was going to suggest that idea in a different thread, but didn't want to be laughed off the forum... you'd still be no more than one-third away from a door but there would be more flexibility in how you divvied up the space, especially with internal doors (as the First Class section on the 185s have now). With end doors on the 26m stock you're walking almost the length of a Pacer carriage if you're in the centre of one.

Wide doors, standbacks and luggage racks by the doors control it quite well (none of these things are provided on TPE's new stock). But with regard to commuters, having known reserved and unreserved coaches also helps.

I made the occasional post-6.30pm trip to Huddersfield from Leeds when TPE were introducing the new stock (both types). Despite the increased capacity people would still stand in the (now much smaller) vestibule ends for 20 minutes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With regard to mixing door positions the Class 444 sort of does.

 

[43096]

I've never understood the obsession with end versus mid coach doors on the likes of TPE. A Class 185 does not feel like a commuter unit because of it - the fact that it has 23m vehicles means the saloons between the doors are that bit bigger.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've never understood the obsession with end versus mid coach doors on the likes of TPE. A Class 185 does not feel like a commuter unit because of it - the fact that it has 23m vehicles means the saloons between the doors are that bit bigger.

I find the Class 380 has an oddly InterCity feel to it myself, despite the door positions.

 

[Purple Orange]

I've never understood the obsession with end versus mid coach doors on the likes of TPE. A Class 185 does not feel like a commuter unit because of it - the fact that it has 23m vehicles means the saloons between the doors are that bit bigger.

But the mountains of suitcases in the doorways are bloody irritating. On end-door carriages it feels a little bit tidier, even if that is just perception.

 

[tbtc]

185s aren't "one third"/"two thirds" trains - the floor plan (https://www.tpexpress.co.uk/travelling-with-us/onboard-facilities/seating-plan) shows that they are more like...

• five seats
• door
• ten seats
• door
• five seats

...i.e. more like "one quarter"/"three quarters" trains - but some people get stuck in a binary world where everything must either be "InterCity" or "Commuter" - frustrating!

But, I know, I know, arguing about door positions is about as futile as arguing about seats or colour schemes... nobody is going to change their mind.

 

[Bletchleyite]

1/4 3/4 makes more sense than actual thirds, because it means you have an even number of people going to each door from each direction.

 

[notadriver]

Personally I feel like the 185 is the typical 1/3 and 2/3 layout in that there is no vestibule doors in the saloons apart from in 1st class making it feel like a commuter train.

I think 68s and 185s are moreorless equally matched when it comes to performance. I think 802s really suffer on the long stretch they do on diesel power between Manchester Victoria and York.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally I feel like the 185 is the typical 1/3 and 2/3 layout in that there is no vestibule in the saloons apart from in 1st class making it feel like a commuter train.

There is, of course, no reason you can't fit vestibule doors on that layout, other than cost as you'll need 4 sets plus the gangway.

 

[notadriver]

There is, of course, no reason you can't fit vestibule doors on that layout, other than cost as you'll need 4 sets plus the gangway.

And personally I think 185s just feel old compared to mk5/68. Like comparing a 2005 bus to a nearly new one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And personally I think 185s just feel old compared to mk5/68. Like comparing a 2005 bus to a nearly new one.

Mk5s feel to me like European style LHCS, just a bit smaller. Probably the only UK stock that does.

185s are I suppose a bit like a Stagecoach Gold bus - a commuter style vehicle done out a bit posh.

 

[Richard Scott]

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.

Well you haven't been on the right ones then. Plenty of European loco hauled trains that can keep unit timings. 68s do accelerate well, don't have any figures for them but bet they'd easily match 158/170 timings if not better them. Maybe not as quick as a 185 but would expect they don't use as much fuel as a pair of 185s (know it's going off topic but knew someone who worked for Cross Country and he said a 5 car Voyager used same amount of fuel as an HST set).

 

[yrreb]

The original intention was to order an entire fleet of IETs but the turnaround time was longer than required - they probably still wouldn't all be built by now. The Nova 3 was there to get around that (and Nova 2 Civity in conjunction with what Northern have introduced), with a quicker turnaround time having the prime mover be something already well bedded into service, but evidently this one selling point is also the one that failed spectacularly as there are still only a number of Nova 3 sets in regular service around the clock.

 

[43096]

The original intention was to order an entire fleet of IETs but the turnaround time was longer than required - they probably still wouldn't all be built by now. The Nova 3 was there to get around that (and Nova 2 Civity in conjunction with what Northern have introduced), with a quicker turnaround time having the prime mover be something already well bedded into service, but evidently this one selling point is also the one that failed spectacularly as there are still only a number of Nova 3 sets in regular service around the clock.

That is not correct. Locomotive haulage was effectively mandated in the franchise bid documents: DfT were wanting the 442s re-used, but First decided on new build. Without the Mark 5s and 68s, the bid would have been non-compliant.

Previously referenced here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tpe-fleet-are-the-mk5s-the-right-choice.209937/post-4811644

 

[LittleAH]

That is not correct. Locomotive haulage was effectively mandated in the franchise bid documents: DfT were wanting the 442s re-used, but First decided on new build. Without the Mark 5s and 68s, the bid would have been non-compliant.

Previously referenced here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tpe-fleet-are-the-mk5s-the-right-choice.209937/post-4811644

Actually, you are not correct in reference to yrreb's post. As is stipulated in the Invitation to Tender, there are references to current rolling stock that TPE could've used - but it is open ended for new rolling stock.

Again, what yrreb said is correct. The original intention was to order an entire fleet of IETs but the turnaround time was longer than required

 

[Energy]

Again, what yrreb said is correct. The original intention was to order an entire fleet of IETs but the turnaround time was longer than required

Can you find a source for this? (The original intention bit, the turnaround time is already known)

there are references to current rolling stock that TPE could've used

Here is the stock available:

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.

Not 14X, 15X or 17X is very limiting. Available diesel stock at the time was 20 Scotrail 170s and 8 LO 172s which aren't allowed as they are 17Xs. I believe some sprinters were also available but I wouldn't call them suitable. They basically had the choices of new build or 442s.