Absolutely, they would be shot of the Mk3 sets on the Chiltern line at the drop of the hat if suitable units were available - indeed they will be first to go if passenger numbers don't recover, and the Wales Mk4 sets are a vanity project of the Welsh Government. I really wouldn't see them being interested in the Mk5 sets at all.
-
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!
Could TPE ditch the Mk5 sets?
- Thread starter Ben Bow
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
IF the mark 5 where to leave TPE I would suspect they would stay with a first group TOC, personally I would think they could work well replacing the castle HST sets and maybe if the night Rivera could be modified to work with the 68's so the last mark 5 to Plymouth or Penzance could provide the loco for the sleeper and vice versa for the first mark 5 of the day
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I still think Scotland is a possible destination if they did leave TPE, as they are (or would be with a rearrangement of the seats to be vaguely aligned to the windows in Standard) be a very similar thing but newer and hopefully - once some rework had been completed - more reliable.
The GWR "Castle" sets are running local services and so if you did want to replace them DMUs would be more sensible, e.g. the 175s, or more likely 16x, either directly or via a cascade of 158s.
YorksLad12
Established Member
You’ve made a mistake there to admit to being an enthusiast who actually enjoys going on trains, as opposed to just complaining on railway forums
I can be both. Most of the places I want to go to and people I want to see require a train journey - I have no car. My "issues", such as they are, with the Mk5a sets is that I tend to walk down the platform at Huddersfield to be sure of a seat and then end up in the coach with only tables (apart from a couple of airlines at the end). That means having to choose the 'right' one, as they don't match up with the windows so you can easily end up with a view of the pillar. If they go off-lease in 2023, fine; but I'd rather we got some revenue-generating service out of them first, hence my agreement with the previous comments.
Leeds converted anything that could be a siding into a platform (or car park) 20 years ago. And it still doesn't have enough platforms. And they can't easily be extended or altered because the station is on viaducts. And, really, you don't want to be sending ECS units east to lay over when they arrive and depart westwards; what would be better would be a facility in the Holbeck Triangle area. Or even on top of the old viaduct...
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The thing about that, though, is that they could change the seating layout in an afternoon per set with a spanner. Other than in low floor units like FLIRTs, and 1980s DMUs and EMUs that have equipment boxes under seats, the layout is flexible and designed to be so. Therefore the seat layout (which I agree is bad - too many tables and poor window alignment) isn't really a reason to want rid.
Last edited:
Not going to happen. There will be 4 fast services and two Semi-Fast services per hour between Leeds and Manchester once TRU is completed by the end of this decade - and Airport services are an important part of that.
However, one Airport service was set to be terminated at MCV because the DfT haven't sorted out Castlefield and 15/16 at Piccadilly yet. There's supposed to be some consultation going on in the near future about these services.
Firstly, it's largely because of the franchising system rather than First Group that this situation occurred. Secondly, TPE are interested in South Route services - just because they didn't get new trains doesn't mean they're not.
I bet the carpets, seat res displays and plug sockets would disagree with that!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
OK, you'd need a push-in plastic cover to put over the tracks where you took seats out.
Other than that...aren't the sockets seat-mounted, so while you couldn't radically change it you could turn some seats round?
DJ_K666
Member
I say bring back mk1 and 2 stock with a loco on the front. Since when LHCS need software? Power it all from the loco and have the wifi in an unobtrusive box. That way the problem is in that box or on the loco. And the seats would be properly matched with the windows. And probably infinitely more comfortable too.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I certainly think they should have been designed more like classic RIC LHCS rather than a single-ended unpowered MU rather like a 4-TC or something. That would have allowed far more flexibility.
DJ_K666
Member
Absolutely! The SR got the REP/TC thing right and on a shoestring as well. made for much more interesting operations too. I am building a TC (or will be once I find which box I put the sides in) as it's much cheaper than buying the Kernow model, excellent as that is.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Sorry, I should have typed "rather than like a 4-TC" as the present sets are a modern "5-TC" in essence - an unpowered fixed-formation MU.
DJ_K666
Member
Just with a cab at one end rather than both. Shame they have a non-gangwayed loco end as you could just couple 2 back to back
I would assume that anything like that would give software difficulties - they have a full TMS, which interfaces with the loco via a new socket installed just above the buffer beam. They are, as Bletchleyite says, effectively an unpowered MU. They are fixed-formation, so not really like LHCS of the past which (up to Mk4) could be mixed and matched as needed, including different Mk coaches. Mk4s were a step towards fixed formation, with their use of tightlock couplers within sets, but any mk4 vehicles could be swapped in and out, short formations used, etc, as they don't have a TMS.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Hopefully whatever shape the railway ends up in will stop the ORCATS raids, whereby TOCs are rewarded for running several (short) trains per hour, and we focus instead on running an appropriate number of services for the infrastructure instead.
The idea of York needing seven trains per hour to both Leeds and Newcastle is OTT, and encourages half-length trains, instead of a balanced four trains per hour (with each run by a longer unit).
Same goes with the nine trains per hour on the Manchester Airport branch, where the need to fit them into paths suitable for Cleethorpes / Barrow etc means that there are gaps of up to seventeen minutes despite the large number of services per hour - ridiculous.
But how do you wean northern England away from the idea that everywhere needs a direct train to everywhere? That's what's caused the mess that we are in - and we become fixated on a handful of Newcastle passengers wanting to go all the way to Manchester Airport, when we should really be trying to run something simple and reliable.
The apparent need for direct trains to places hundreds of miles away is a sign of weakness in your system, that shows that people cannot trust the other services.
Well, there's been no frequency improvements on the South TPE line since First took over (whereas the route through Leeds and the route up the WCML both saw increased frequencies)...
...they gave us two coach 170s on some services...
...the three new classes of trains ordered are for their other lines (only)...
...it doesn't require a great leap of imagination to think that South TPE is the left behind bit of the franchise.
Modern coaches are more complicated than Mk1s. This is not a bad thing.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It is and it isn't. Restriction of flexibility due to poorly designed TMS is a bad thing. There is no reason this needs to be as bad as it is. Individual RIC coaches are still built.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,187
"Unobtrusive box" is a gross over-simpliciation. Train wifi is nothing like your wifi router at home.
As for why software is necessary? Climate and lighting control, condition monitoring, seat reservation systems, passenger information systems, emergency alarms and intercoms, train occupancy monitoring...
Six-car 185s I feel are suited to the job, and the refurbishment did them a favour. Obviously it took a lot longer than it should have to get to that point. I'll agree that a 30 min frequency would be nice, but there are the several Hope Valley capacity issues that need to be resolved first, as well as the long-standing Liverpool-Nottingham-Norwich saga.
Last edited:
There is no way of increasing service frequency until the Hope Valley Capacity Upgrade is completed. The same cannot be said of the Diggle routes, where the lesser freight traffic and more modern signalling meant that frequency increases were possible.
And now you have all services running as double 185s. The (joint) longest on the TPE network.
A lot of these things are, in any case, dictated by politics and passenger volumes; the idea that there is a conspiracy against certain lines doesn't bear out reality.
Last edited:
The crash-worthiness of a coke tin? Who cares....
I'm not sure why there's been such an obsession with ORCATS on here. Not every decision is some sort of ORCATS raid despite what some people like to believe.
The idea of providing a fast and frequent service helps modal shift towards public transport, that is well evidenced. You may be able to strip one service out here or there but in reality only four trains an hour between York and Leeds won't go down well with customers or stakeholders. Especially as you need to factor in A) intermittent stations B) Destinations and connectivity. What trains are you going to strip out? What impact is that going to have? A non-starter.
Not the obsession with Northern England, more like London. What's the need for direct services to locations like Huddersfield and Blackpool when there's regular connections? Manchester Airport is completely different - one of the busiest airports in the UK and with many destinations compared to other airports. Enabling those in the North-East (not just Newcastle) to get their direct or with only one change is much better than stripping back locations and saying to someone - You need to change at Darlington, York and Manchester Pic to get to the Airport. That'll turn people off using rail.
It does require a big leap if you're not realistic to given situations. 1) There's no more capacity for a secondary TPE service between Manchester-Doncaster and beyond. Until the Hope Valley improvement scheme is completed, that won't be achievable. 2) It wasn't just the South route that has 170's - Hull did too. And why would TPE put brand new trains on the South Route when A) The capacity issues were on the core of the North route (the one you want to strip services from ironically) and B) Why would TPE put new trains on a route where there's speed constraints meaning they'd never run near their top speed and on a route that is not electrified past Stockport? Madness. Double 185 sets are now the norm.
221101 Voyager
Established Member
Been reading through this thread...
My suggestion is have a uniform fleet of either -
802's (with comfy seats and some nicer lighting)
Flirts with a 110 or 125 top speed
or
if there is such as thing how about a sleek high speed product from siemens?
If I could have something from scratch it'd be a train that has comfy seats, a good ride and one that is well made and reliable. Is there such a train in this new train era?
Now I shall watch many people get really iffy about my opinion!
My suggestion is have a uniform fleet of either -
802's (with comfy seats and some nicer lighting)
Flirts with a 110 or 125 top speed
or
if there is such as thing how about a sleek high speed product from siemens?
If I could have something from scratch it'd be a train that has comfy seats, a good ride and one that is well made and reliable. Is there such a train in this new train era?
Now I shall watch many people get really iffy about my opinion!
Been reading through this thread...
My suggestion is have a uniform fleet of either -
802's (with comfy seats and some nicer lighting)
Flirts with a 110 or 125 top speed
or
if there is such as thing how about a sleek high speed product from siemens?
If I could have something from scratch it'd be a train that has comfy seats, a good ride and one that is well made and reliable. Is there such a train in this new train era?
Now I shall watch many people get really iffy about my opinion!
There ain't going to be any more new train orders for TPE for a good while!
Sure about that?
Fairly! Given the economic state the country is going to be in, and the likely medium-term downturn in passenger numbers, the railways generally aren't likely to be allowed to spend much.
But there isn't a lot of cost to the government, the cost is to the ROSCO. I could see more 802s coming later on.
Agreed, particularly on lines which aren't making money
YorksLad12
Established Member
I slightly disagree here.
If you go back a few years when there were four tph Manchester to Leeds, that's 12 carriages per hour. If you ran it with four-carriage stock that would take you to 16 carriages; but that would cost way more than squeezing in a fifth path and sweating the assets. So 15 carriages it is/was. Now we theoretically have five-carriage/coach units four times per hour plus the Hull service (three carriages). Take out one of the runs to York and send that unit to Hull, and you still have a 33% increase in seating per hour (20 carriages instead of 15). That's quite good and would still contribute to modal shift while not overtaxing the railway.
As for the Edinburgh via ECML runs: do we need them? Do they need to be TPE? As far as I can tell the only new opportunity they offer is to people travelling from Huddersfield; Leeds has a direct XC service, York and Newcastle have direct XC and LNER services. Is there more value (now that we have bi-mode sets) in pulling that TPE path and extending one of LNER's Leeds terminators, if we want Leeds to have 2tph to Newcastle & Edinburgh?
But just to counter my own argument: TRU is based on four fast, two semi-fast (plus stoppers). I guess that reducing services will reduce the BCR. So to get electrification, does that mean running more services than really necessary?
What makes you think that? There are contracts on the extant rolling stock. It would cost to cancel them. New rolling stock has a cost too
Of course, any new rolling stock would be in the next franchise/contract, which isn't that far away.
As discussed in this thread, the lease on the Mk5s runs out in March 2023. It doesn't need to be renewed.
- Status