Could TPE ditch the Mk5 sets?

[DB]

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.

With the government taking responsibility directly rather than the franchisees, they will still have to guarantee the leasing charges. can't see them being keen to incur extra costs where they can avoid it at the moment.

 

[Energy]

With the government taking responsibility directly rather than the franchisees, they will still have to guarantee the leasing charges. can't see them being keen to incur extra costs where they can avoid it at the moment.

Will they? The lease ends in 2023, like mentioned by someone else they can just stop leasing them after that date if they decide they are having too many issues. Almost new trains have had their lease not renewed, the 350/2s and 707s but they were due to high cost rather than reliability.

 

[DB]

As discussed in this thread, the lease on the Mk5s runs out in March 2023. It doesn't need to be renewed.

But assuming they are all working by then, the ROSCO is likely to offer a good deal to keep them on lease, especially as they aren't the sort of thing which they can guarantee other takers for

 

[Energy]

But assuming they are all working by then, the ROSCO is likely to offer a good deal to keep them on lease, especially as they aren't the sort of thing which they can guarantee other takers for

Of course. They may be working fine by then and I hope they do. They may choose to not renew the lease and to add more 802s to simplify the fleet even if they sort out the mk5 problems, given the pain of 4 fleets I wouldn't be too surprised.

 

[JonathanH]

But assuming they are all working by then, the ROSCO is likely to offer a good deal to keep them on lease, especially as they aren't the sort of thing which they can guarantee other takers for

Assuming the pandemic is still ongoing well into 2022, which seems likely, it would seem a reasonable assumption that they are not all working by March 2023 because the required training won't be feasible. Is there even a plan to get the remaining traincrew trained?

Of course. They may be working fine by then and I hope they do. They may choose to not renew the lease and to add more 802s to simplify the fleet even if they sort out the mk5 problems, given the pain of 4 fleets I wouldn't be too surprised.

There would still be a lead period in though for 802s - they wouldn't be ready for March 2023 - I think it also needs to be remembered that the future structure of the railway remains unknown.

 

[Wolfie]

As discussed in this thread, the lease on the Mk5s runs out in March 2023. It doesn't need to be renewed.

It wasn't clear that replacement at that time was what was being spoken about. What is the lead time to have new stock available then (two years four months time)?

 

[DB]

It wasn't clear that replacement at that time was what was being spoken about. What is the lead time to have new stock available then (two years four months time)?

Well, they'd probably have to go through a procurement process, and it would depend on Hitachi's lead times, i.e. what else they had lined up.

Can't see this even being looked at in the near future though - it won't be a priority.

 

[JonathanH]

It wasn't clear that replacement at that time was what was being spoken about. What is the lead time to have new stock available then (two years four months time)?

I don't think replacement was being discussed, more a contraction of the TPE fleet made possible by reducing some of the services - the point being that once a fleet goes off lease there is no need to make any further lease payments.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The crash-worthiness of a coke tin? Who cares....

Trains don't crash very often, so that doesn't really enter into my consideration any more than whether a plane can survive hitting the ground at 500mph.

But it's neither here nor there really, because the TMS neither predicates the seating layout (which on the 397s is basically the same as on the Mk1s and Mk2s, i.e. a load of tables aligned with the windows), nor whether the train is likely to crash or not, nor how it behaves if it does.

 

[Greybeard33]

Or more the fact they’re plagued with software problems where the locomotive suddenly stops communicating with the locomotive, power supply problems that mean the loco HAS to be kept running much to the disappointment of Scarborough residents, a PIS system that’s half-missing, TMS faults and at one point axel issues

A characteristic of LHCS is that it is mechanically simpler than a MU. But, for push-pull operation, the electrical and software systems may be more challenging to develop/debug than those of a MU, because they have to interface with, and control, a loco designed and built by a different company.

If costly modifications are needed to the software and electrical systems in the Mk5As, and/or to the associated gubbins in the 68s, in order to sort out the reliability issues, maybe all parties involved (CAF, ROSCO, TPE, DfT) might conclude that withdrawal of the sets, with an agreed financial settlement, would be a more attractive solution?

 

[Fokx]

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.

The Hull service is booked 6 car except for some short Sunday morning services which then form 6 car later on.

IET trains are not ideally suitable for the local stopping services or the irregular stopping patterns of the Hull route due to their door size and dwell times, remember that on Mon to Saturday peaks and Sunday the Hull calls at all stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield, as well as additional calls such as Cross Gates, Garforth and Howden

 

[DJ_K666]

"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.

It's an unobtrusive box on Southern's313 stock. And that's one of the few things Southern actually got right. (Rare credit from me there.)

Vlimate control, as far as I am concerned, Warm air blowing in winter, cold air in summer and an on-off switch. No software needed there. Ok so we're talking a fixed rake unpowered EMU, not unlike the GatEx sets, just without the ex-2HAP motor coach at one end and 73 at the other, like the proper GatEx.

Got to admit I have necer actually sampled the 185s. Maybe once this Covid madness ends I will head out for a day out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Vlimate control, as far as I am concerned, Warm air blowing in winter, cold air in summer and an on-off switch. No software needed there.

Well, quite. What it requires is a pair of conventional mechanical thermostats, one controlling the aircon and one the heating in that vehicle, with the settings generally put a couple of degrees apart to prevent them "fighting". Put them in a mesh box so nobody other than the guard can prat with them.

I think they seem to include software for the mere sake of it at times. And I work in IT. A classic example of that, though, is the way you always in computer science courses used to use a corner shop as a case study. The answer to a 1990s corner shop was an off the shelf cash till, an accounts ledger book and a biro!

 

[37057]

I think those against software controlled systems are simply those that don't understand how these systems function in a modern train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think those against software controlled systems are simply those that don't understand how these systems function in a modern train.

No, we just don't think they should be controlled in that manner if it can't be done reliably.

 

[37057]

That's not really a reason though.

The alternative would be much more wiring and analogue equipment which would no doubt take space / wiring / expense. Operators tend to want these things to be automated, presumably so the train crew can focus on other things.

Badly designed software and hardware combinations can be a pain, but that's not to say all software controlled systems should be banished.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The alternative would be much more wiring and analogue equipment which would no doubt take space / wiring / expense. Operators tend to want these things to be automated, presumably so the train crew can focus on other things.

There it is. It's cheaper, so they do it. Cheap as...

Of course there is no reason for software to be rubbish if you test it before you flog it to anyone (most car ECUs aren't full of bugs, for example). Because the Internet eases software updates, it now seems acceptable to put junk out there because you can patch it later.

That you could do it with an aircraft (which kills people if it goes wrong, and indeed did) says everything about a lack of responsibility in people developing and testing this software.

 

[37057]

So while we're ranting about software, do we actually know what the issue with the stock?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Well, they'd probably have to go through a procurement process, and it would depend on Hitachi's lead times, i.e. what else they had lined up.
Can't see this even being looked at in the near future though - it won't be a priority.

I don't think any new rolling stock has been ordered since the government took control of the "franchises".
The TPE contract is due to be resolved by the end of January 2021 so we will soon see what the DfT's mood is.
TPE's immediate issue is that their fleet cost is higher than planned (new trains on the premises but no 185s removed).
I can't believe the DfT will let that continue.

 

[Purple Orange]

I don't think any new rolling stock has been ordered since the government took control of the "franchises".
The TPE contract is due to be resolved by the end of January 2021 so we will soon see what the DfT's mood is.
TPE's immediate issue is that their fleet cost is higher than planned (new trains on the premises but no 185s removed).
I can't believe the DfT will let that continue.

I can’t see any new fleet being ordered for a very long time. Look to how this whole route will evolve over the next 15-20 years. There is a big chance the intercity element of Manc-Leeds services won’t even include Liverpool. Think electrification & TRU and HS2 western branch with no connection to Liverpool.

 

[Greybeard33]

The alternative would be much more wiring and analogue equipment which would no doubt take space / wiring / expense. Operators tend to want these things to be automated, presumably so the train crew can focus on other things.

Badly designed software and hardware combinations can be a pain, but that's not to say all software controlled systems should be banished.

Implementation of functionality in software, as opposed to hardware and/or manual operating procedures, generally increases the non-recurring design costs (engineer and developer manhours) but reduces the per-unit manufacturing and/or operating costs (e.g. less wiring, more automation to simplify maintenance).

In the case of the Mk5a, the costs of the bespoke software could only be amortised over the 13 sets, so likely make up a higher proportion of the fleet total cost of ownership than for trains ordered in larger quantities.

With hindsight, perhaps it would have been wise to specify simpler, less automated, systems?

 

[LittleAH]

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?

The Edinburgh service actually made perfect sense given that TPE trains did get serviced at Craigentinny and that there's going to be some severe disruption in the coming years with WCML blockades north of Lockerbie. It gives those travelling from the NW to Scotland a direct service from Manchester to Edinburgh without changing trains of using RRB. However, given the rationalisation that is likely to take place - there is no need for that service to extend north of Newcastle - although I'd like to add the caveat that places such as Morpeth welcomed the extension and deserve a better service - one for the appropriate bodies to arrange and do XC or LNER really offer a good enough proposition to those locations?

Onto the North route frequency, even though 5 cars were in operation early in 2020, there were still overcrowding issues on the peaks and when events were on, notably Friday's too. While the commuter market will decrease, there's still a want to have fast and frequent service on the core route and leisure will be a driving force in how the railway recovers. There's too much short-term thinking in the railway and on here, that's why I like TRU's ambition of 4 fasts and 2 semi-fasts on the core route - it provides a fast and frequent service and make rail the quickest way of getting city to city.

Stripping a TPE service between Leeds and York for a LNER service out is also barmy given passenger flows. Who does that really benefit? If you travelling north from south of Doncaster you'd get a service not going through Leeds. Wakefield and Leeds already have an XC service too - all it would be used for is diversionary routes. If you're going to strip a service out, I'd say the Blackpool service would go and terminate at Leeds, especially if Neville Hill to Church Fenton is wired - why run diesel services under wires when TPE can pick up one of the intermittent stops? Also, as I posted on the Castleford thread, there's a great opportunity with the restoration of platform 2 at Castleford to run an hourly service Manchester - Huddersfield - Wakefield - Castleford - York should one of the services be stripped out.

I can’t see any new fleet being ordered for a very long time. Look to how this whole route will evolve over the next 15-20 years. There is a big chance the intercity element of Manc-Leeds services won’t even include Liverpool. Think electrification & TRU and HS2 western branch with no connection to Liverpool.

Disagree, should TRU be signed off with full electrification, you don't want to be running diesel services under entire stretches of wires. It would be the perfect opportunity for TPE's North route to have a single fleet of trains (80x - be that electric or bi-mode) with bi-modes taking on the services to Hull/Scarborough. NPR isn't likely to be around until the 2040's and even so, the 802's can run at 140mph which is what I imagine that NPR will strive to be. Also an opportunity for local services to return to Northern with electric fleets.

Also, the 185's that are freed up could then go to Northern, potentially replacing the nigh 40 year old 15x's and given the depot locations at Ardwick and York this would make sense. I've always felt 185's would be great on the Settle/Carlisle route, along with the Blackpool - York services.

 

[37057]

Implementation of functionality in software, as opposed to hardware and/or manual operating procedures, generally increases the non-recurring design costs (engineer and developer manhours) but reduces the per-unit manufacturing and/or operating costs (e.g. less wiring, more automation to simplify maintenance).

In the case of the Mk5a, the costs of the bespoke software could only be amortised over the 13 sets, so likely make up a higher proportion of the fleet total cost of ownership than for trains ordered in larger quantities.

With hindsight, perhaps it would have been wise to specify simpler, less automated, systems?

I imagine it depends what equipment is available when designing the trains.

I think it's fair to say that a sub system OEM that is supplying new build trains with modular systems is going to design something that is software controlled to some degree and for an entire market rather than just small fleets. So I guess the economy of your first point is swallowed by the OEMs rather than the vehicle builder with their individual train build orders?

In terms of TCMS I think it is also fair to say that any new build stock (especially when a driving cab is included) is going to have it, so I suppose software controlled trains are just inevitable.

 

[Wolfie]

I imagine it depends what equipment is available when designing the trains.

I think it's fair to say that a sub system OEM that is supplying new build trains with modular systems is going to design something that is software controlled to some degree and for an entire market rather than just small fleets. So I guess the economy of your first point is swallowed by the OEMs rather than the vehicle builder with their individual train build orders?

In terms of TCMS I think it is also fair to say that any new build stock (especially when a driving cab is included) is going to have it, so I suppose software controlled trains are just inevitable.

Yup, plug and play is the way many industries have gone.

 

[Greybeard33]

I imagine it depends what equipment is available when designing the trains.

I think it's fair to say that a sub system OEM that is supplying new build trains with modular systems is going to design something that is software controlled to some degree and for an entire market rather than just small fleets. So I guess the economy of your first point is swallowed by the OEMs rather than the vehicle builder with their individual train build orders?

In terms of TCMS I think it is also fair to say that any new build stock (especially when a driving cab is included) is going to have it, so I suppose software controlled trains are just inevitable.

Indeed I imagine the systems in the Mk5a (TMS, HVAC, PIS etc) are variants of mature systems CAF has used in much larger train orders for other customers. The issues are most likely to lie in bespoke modifications of the software to meet specific TPE requirements.

It is always tempting to specify lots of changes "because it's only software". However, when the overriding need is to get a reliable product into service as quickly as possible, it is more prudent to use standardised, "off the shelf", software with minimal changes, even though it might not do exactly what you want.

 

[YorksLad12]

The Edinburgh service actually made perfect sense given that TPE trains did get serviced at Craigentinny and that there's going to be some severe disruption in the coming years with WCML blockades north of Lockerbie. It gives those travelling from the NW to Scotland a direct service from Manchester to Edinburgh without changing trains of using RRB. However, given the rationalisation that is likely to take place - there is no need for that service to extend north of Newcastle - although I'd like to add the caveat that places such as Morpeth welcomed the extension and deserve a better service - one for the appropriate bodies to arrange and do XC or LNER really offer a good enough proposition to those locations?

Onto the North route frequency, even though 5 cars were in operation early in 2020, there were still overcrowding issues on the peaks and when events were on, notably Friday's too. While the commuter market will decrease, there's still a want to have fast and frequent service on the core route and leisure will be a driving force in how the railway recovers. There's too much short-term thinking in the railway and on here, that's why I like TRU's ambition of 4 fasts and 2 semi-fasts on the core route - it provides a fast and frequent service and make rail the quickest way of getting city to city.

Stripping a TPE service between Leeds and York for a LNER service out is also barmy given passenger flows. Who does that really benefit? If you travelling north from south of Doncaster you'd get a service not going through Leeds. Wakefield and Leeds already have an XC service too - all it would be used for is diversionary routes. If you're going to strip a service out, I'd say the Blackpool service would go and terminate at Leeds, especially if Neville Hill to Church Fenton is wired - why run diesel services under wires when TPE can pick up one of the intermittent stops? Also, as I posted on the Castleford thread, there's a great opportunity with the restoration of platform 2 at Castleford to run an hourly service Manchester - Huddersfield - Wakefield - Castleford - York should one of the services be stripped out.

I take your point about Craigentinny, but you missed mine about reallocating the path (that, or I didn't make it properly). If, for example, the Leeds to Edinburgh part was transferred onto an LNER Leeds terminator you'd have all the same frequencies as now, just with a different operator. You'd still have five fasts Leeds-York, but over three operators instead of two. None of it would be new mileage for LNER, but it would reduce the mileage for TPE which might help their core services on the North route (I seem to recall TFN saying something similar years ago, before the extension happened).

The problem with Manchester-Huddersfield-Wakefield-Castleford-York is that it will be prone to the same sort of disruptions as Blackpool/Manchester-Todmorden-Halifax-Bradford-Leeds(-York), crossing lots of other routes. Ultimately, we're guessing at what might happen post-TRU and post-Church Fenton in terms of services but for my money we should be using the infrastructure and paths with as few "off-piste excursions" as possible.

 

[Journeyman]

Yes, the 170's always seemed to turn up. Decent little trains to be fair.

This is why so many TOCs fight over them whenever there's any going spare.

 

[LittleAH]

I take your point about Craigentinny, but you missed mine about reallocating the path (that, or I didn't make it properly). If, for example, the Leeds to Edinburgh part was transferred onto an LNER Leeds terminator you'd have all the same frequencies as now, just with a different operator. You'd still have five fasts Leeds-York, but over three operators instead of two. None of it would be new mileage for LNER, but it would reduce the mileage for TPE which might help their core services on the North route (I seem to recall TFN saying something similar years ago, before the extension happened).

The problem with Manchester-Huddersfield-Wakefield-Castleford-York is that it will be prone to the same sort of disruptions as Blackpool/Manchester-Todmorden-Halifax-Bradford-Leeds(-York), crossing lots of other routes. Ultimately, we're guessing at what might happen post-TRU and post-Church Fenton in terms of services but for my money we should be using the infrastructure and paths with as few "off-piste excursions" as possible.

The Edinburgh service is more than likely going to be pulled back to Newcastle. It also seems pointless for LNER to operate such a service too in the future, especially if there's going to be a rationalisation of services on the ECML.

The point of a Manchester-Huddersfield-Wakefield-Castleford-York service is that it allows TPE to have plenty of drivers signed on a diversionary route and one that is going to be heavily used while TRU is happening. It also gives Wakefield and Castleford greater connectivity to York and Manchester.

 

[Fokx]

The point of a Manchester-Huddersfield-Wakefield-Castleford-York service is that it allows TPE to have plenty of drivers signed on a diversionary route and one that is going to be heavily used while TRU is happening. It also gives Wakefield and Castleford greater connectivity to York and Manchester.

Most drivers and conductors already sign said route. Even Sheffield drivers sign part of it (Huddersfield to Wakefield) as one of the Manchester stoppers comes to/from Crofton depot allowing for fleet rotation and maintenance.

Originally there was the plan for the Manchester to Huddersfield stopper to continue to Wakefield Kirkgate (presumably part-replacing Northerns Castleford service), largely to free up Platform 4 at Huddersfield for LNER Huddersfield to Kings Cross services. However due to Covid neither has happened.

 

[D365]

This is why so many TOCs fight over them whenever there's any going spare.

With the exception of Southern!

Perhaps it's a good thing that FTPE ordered their 185s from Siemens, rather than Bombardier.