Could TPE ditch the Mk5 sets?

[daodao]

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.

It is ridiculous to advocate cessation of fast services from Liverpool to Leeds via Manchester; it is a key route. HS2 north of Crewe and NPR are a distraction, albeit supported by professional crayonistas, and unaffordable post Brexit/Covid. The existing services just need some enhancement, with longer trains running at a frequency of at least 2 tph, cutting out stops other than Victoria and Huddersfield, and electrification/removing speed restrictions (TRU).

 

[Killingworth]

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.

When we speak of capacity we need to be careful not to assume that demand will return to what it was in January 2020. It won't, and certainly not for years.

At present it no longer needs a 6 coach South Pennine train on most services, and on many it's not needed for distancing either. Loadings are barely 20% of normal on all but a few. The Hope Valley upgrade by 2023 (assuming it is ever sanctioned by HM Treasury where it seems to be currently stuck) will allow more trains to be run but more 6 coach units would be over capacity on a 3rd hourly service.

Assuming EMRs Liverpool - Nottingham goes to TPE and uses 185s (still speculative) and replaces 4 coach 158s with 6 coach 185s there would be massive over capacity!

There have to be a lot of reality checks. What service levels will be needed from 2022 onwards? We just don't know. Some markets will return more strongly than others. Commuting will recover in some areas and at some stations less well than leisure, but where and when? What is the best use of rolling stock to meet those needs? It's too early to say.

By 2022 we'll be looking at revised and new diversionary routes as various upgrades get under way. It can be as quick to get from Manchester to Hull via Sheffield when there's no direct service, but a through 185 could almost match via Leeds. But the route via Leeds is part of the Manchester- Leeds core.

Deployment of Novas and 185s was difficult before Covid. Running costs and reliability of all diesel units will be big factors, but in the short to medium term, once distancing can be relaxed, TPE has too many. Keeping a few more 185s for a simpler fleet might be a sound move.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

Reading this entire thread feels like too much hard work, so I'll just suggest that if TPE get rid, the Chiltern Commuters would love some new 100mph loco hauled carriages to be paired with their class 68s, and maybe some more 68s and Mk5as to cascade the 168s to force out the 165s

 

[Tim_UK]

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.

The modern climate control systems are quite clever. With a mix of outside fresh air, heating, cooling and dehumidifying.

Also add in that one minute they could be empty, and the next minute 85 warm, sweaty, soaked in rain people get in. Even in winter, that will probably need cooling rather thern heating. If you left the full heat on, you'd get a sweaty, smelly, misty tropical effect. And do all this and use a sensible amount of fuel. And without the aircon giving people legionaires disease.

Even low spec cars now have a thermostat in the hot/cold dial on your car heating. Just leave it in the middle and don't worry whether it is a hot or a cold day.

Modern diesel engines also just don't chuck out that much spare heat. Idling away might take hours to warm the train up. At lot of diesel cars have electric heaters to run for the first 20 minutes or so until the engine actually warms up.

I know somebody who installs in building climate control. The latest systems can sense when somebody has farted and increase the ventilation for a few minutes.

And software is everywhere. Even my £15 electric toothbrush has a microcontroller in it.

It's not that what you said couldn't work, it's more that the world has just moved on. And people expect better. If your trains are smelly and damp, expect the customers to drive their cars instead.

 

[DB]

Reading this entire thread feels like too much hard work, so I'll just suggest that if TPE get rid, the Chiltern Commuters would love some new 100mph loco hauled carriages to be paired with their class 68s, and maybe some more 68s and Mk5as to cascade the 168s to force out the 165s

Chiltern is a largely commuter operation, for which the 168s/170s are far more suitable, with their 1/3 and 2/3 doors. They only have LHCS because of a severe stock shortage at the time. I can see no reason at all why they would go for anything other than DMUs when replacing them - and indeed they abandoned plans for additional Mk3 sets when they were able to get hold of some 170s instead.

And on a point of detail, Chiltern and TPE 68s are not the same - both have bespoke modifications for the stock which they operate.

Oh, and a 5-car Mk5a rake will be shorter than many of the formations Chiltern operate...

 

[tbtc]

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

ORCATS is precisely why TOCs tried to "game" the system, by focussing on running lots of short trains.

Look at how Derby to Birmingham went from there trains per hour to five when Virgin's XC service was increased to half hourly so Central Trains fought back by extending their Matlock - Derby service through to Birmingham - demand from Derby to Birmingham hadn't gone up by 40% but it was a case of "you're throwing one more service per hour along the track so we need to win back market share by running another short train each hour".

So TPE go up from three to four on the Leeds - York corridor, meaning Northern added an extra train per hour (by speeding up the Blackpool service so that the intermediate stops were given to a new Leeds - York service).

We now have seven services per hour on the Leeds - York corridor, rather than five, but with no infrastructure improvements or platforms - which means that a minor delay to one service can quickly have knock on effects.

For example, from Leeds to York you have departures at xx:04, xx:14 and xx:18 - three trains in under fifteen minutes. Coming back you have a few examples of two trains within five minutes (e.g. if there's any delay between Redcar to York on the xx:20 to Manchester Airport then that's going to kick into the xx:23 from York to Blackpool Airport).

We just don't have the infrastructure to accommodate all of these short trains.

Clearly, if you ask passengers, they want a frequent service, sure, "stakeholders" will demand that their town has a direct service to as many places as possible, but there's just not the capacity to ensure that everywhere has a direct service to everywhere.

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.

Everyone wants direct services to places like Airports but how much demand is there actually to get from Newcastle to Manchester Airport though? Thousands a day? Hundreds? Dozens? Spread over several hours of service each day?

Is it really worth turning services into a mess of hourly routes to facilitate these passengers? (not like Newcastle doesn't have its own Airport - not as big as Manchester but still a range of international destinations)

Or if it's so important for Newcastle to have direct links to Manchester Airport then how come lots of other places closer to Manchester don't have one? If Newcastle doesn't have as many destinations from its Airport that Manchester has then surely the same can be said of Birmingham - yet they seem to cope without a service to Manchester's amazing airport (?)

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.

So there was no need for new trains on the South TPE route as there weren't any capacity issues... but First have doubled up services anyway?

Want to think that one through again?

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.

The idea of running hourly services just to keep up staff route knowledge is a nonsense.

A Manchester - York service via Castleford would be a waste of time - overtaken by a few of the existing services via Leeds. Fair enough if you want to extend the Huddersfield stopper to Wakefield, which essentially just brings back what FNW inherited from BR. But why extend to York? Wakefield already has an hourly York service. Castleford can't sustain a regular bus service to York, so I'm not sure how busy a train would be. We've enough problems with all of the short DMU services running around northern England without throwing scarce resources at an hourly service on a route with no current daytime passenger service. This should be filled in the "luxury" column.

Reading this entire thread feels like too much hard work, so I'll just suggest that if TPE get rid, the Chiltern Commuters would love some new 100mph loco hauled carriages to be paired with their class 68s, and maybe some more 68s and Mk5as to cascade the 168s to force out the 165s

That'd be fine for me - whilst the TPE rakes and the Chiltern rakes aren't identical, the TPE ones would be a lot less "non-standard" down south than they are in northern England - and we'd take a handful of 168/170s in exchange (given that they would be able to work with the ex-Scotrail Turbostars around these parts).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Chiltern is a largely commuter operation, for which the 168s/170s are far more suitable, with their 1/3 and 2/3 doors. They only have LHCS because of a severe stock shortage at the time. I can see no reason at all why they would go for anything other than DMUs when replacing them

EMUs are what should replace them.

 

[DB]

That'd be fine for me - whilst the TPE rakes and the Chiltern rakes aren't identical, the TPE ones would be a lot less "non-standard" down south than they are in northern England - and we'd take a handful of 168/170s in exchange (given that they would be able to work with the ex-Scotrail Turbostars around these parts).

They'd be non-standard anywhere. Chiltern only have four Mk3 rakes (plus a slam-door rake used only for two services a day) - the majority of their fleet is DMUs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Dec 2020 ==

EMUs are what should replace them.

Yes, ideally, but I was assuming that electrification isn't likely to happen for some time!

If it wasn't for the fact that the Chiltern franchise was due to end soon, I expect that they would have been after some of those 170s which have become available in the past couple of years.

 

[Journeyman]

They'd be non-standard anywhere. Chiltern only have four Mk3 rakes (plus a slam-door rake used only for two services a day) - the majority of their fleet is DMUs.

The thing to emphasise here is that they only operate loco hauled services because no suitable DMUs are available, and so they have absolutely zero enthusiasm for acquiring new hauled stock.

The second they can dump locos, they will.

 

[Jamesrob637]

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.

Vlimate control is a new one on me. Is that climate control by video? A few "vloggers" I know might be a dab hand there!

 

[Purple Orange]

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.

Perhaps I should expand my point. NPR will be nothing more than TRU and full electrification may not be realised until HS2 reaches Manchester.

It is ridiculous to advocate cessation of fast services from Liverpool to Leeds via Manchester; it is a key route. HS2 north of Crewe and NPR are a distraction, albeit supported by professional crayonistas, and unaffordable post Brexit/Covid. The existing services just need some enhancement, with longer trains running at a frequency of at least 2 tph, cutting out stops other than Victoria and Huddersfield, and electrification/removing speed restrictions (TRU).

Why? Nothing states the status quo should remain intact.

TRU will have 6 fast tph between Leeds & Manchester. Who is to say they will all go to Liverpool? Let’s say Liverpool gets no link to HS2, but the junction at Piccadilly towards Leeds is linked to the existing line to Huddersfield. The station is designed for trains from Leeds to head through the HS2 tunnel, but if there is no Liverpool link, why shouldn’t they continue to Birmingham? Under that scenario, Leeds-Birmingham is faster via Manchester than the current XC route (assuming the eastern branch is not built). Given Birmingham is planned for 2 x200m HS2 tph to Manchester & Leeds, without the eastern branch it makes a lot of sense to have 4 tph to Birmingham from Leeds via Manchester. Liverpool could see 2 fast tph via Victoria.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Dec 2020 ==

ORCATS is precisely why TOCs tried to "game" the system, by focussing on running lots of short trains.

Look at how Derby to Birmingham went from there trains per hour to five when Virgin's XC service was increased to half hourly so Central Trains fought back by extending their Matlock - Derby service through to Birmingham - demand from Derby to Birmingham hadn't gone up by 40% but it was a case of "you're throwing one more service per hour along the track so we need to win back market share by running another short train each hour".

So TPE go up from three to four on the Leeds - York corridor, meaning Northern added an extra train per hour (by speeding up the Blackpool service so that the intermediate stops were given to a new Leeds - York service).

We now have seven services per hour on the Leeds - York corridor, rather than five, but with no infrastructure improvements or platforms - which means that a minor delay to one service can quickly have knock on effects.

For example, from Leeds to York you have departures at xx:04, xx:14 and xx:18 - three trains in under fifteen minutes. Coming back you have a few examples of two trains within five minutes (e.g. if there's any delay between Redcar to York on the xx:20 to Manchester Airport then that's going to kick into the xx:23 from York to Blackpool Airport).

We just don't have the infrastructure to accommodate all of these short trains.

Clearly, if you ask passengers, they want a frequent service, sure, "stakeholders" will demand that their town has a direct service to as many places as possible, but there's just not the capacity to ensure that everywhere has a direct service to everywhere.



Everyone wants direct services to places like Airports but how much demand is there actually to get from Newcastle to Manchester Airport though? Thousands a day? Hundreds? Dozens? Spread over several hours of service each day?

Is it really worth turning services into a mess of hourly routes to facilitate these passengers? (not like Newcastle doesn't have its own Airport - not as big as Manchester but still a range of international destinations)

Or if it's so important for Newcastle to have direct links to Manchester Airport then how come lots of other places closer to Manchester don't have one? If Newcastle doesn't have as many destinations from its Airport that Manchester has then surely the same can be said of Birmingham - yet they seem to cope without a service to Manchester's amazing airport (?)



So there was no need for new trains on the South TPE route as there weren't any capacity issues... but First have doubled up services anyway?

Want to think that one through again?




The idea of running hourly services just to keep up staff route knowledge is a nonsense.

A Manchester - York service via Castleford would be a waste of time - overtaken by a few of the existing services via Leeds. Fair enough if you want to extend the Huddersfield stopper to Wakefield, which essentially just brings back what FNW inherited from BR. But why extend to York? Wakefield already has an hourly York service. Castleford can't sustain a regular bus service to York, so I'm not sure how busy a train would be. We've enough problems with all of the short DMU services running around northern England without throwing scarce resources at an hourly service on a route with no current daytime passenger service. This should be filled in the "luxury" column.



That'd be fine for me - whilst the TPE rakes and the Chiltern rakes aren't identical, the TPE ones would be a lot less "non-standard" down south than they are in northern England - and we'd take a handful of 168/170s in exchange (given that they would be able to work with the ex-Scotrail Turbostars around these parts).

Your issue about linking Newcastle to Manchester airport is missing the point. It’s not about linking Newcastle, but more so about linking West Yorkshire with 2 tph. The fact that the trains start at Newcastle & Middlesbrough is not the issue.

Just like the Liverpool-Edinburgh via Newcastle service, it’s not about linking Liverpool & Edinburgh, but rather linking Leeds, York & Newcastle with Edinburgh. Nothing wrong with having multiple TOCS running the service to Edinburgh up the ECML - it is providing the closest thing we can to proper consumer choice.

 

[DJ_K666]

Vlimate control is a new one on me. Is that climate control by video? A few "vloggers" I know might be a dab hand there!

Lol I think that'll be the next big thing...

 

[Aictos]

That is too radical, but the number of services running from Leeds to York, and also from York to Edinburgh on the ECML not operated by the ECML franchise, should be pruned. XC should just run 1 tph via Doncaster and the Selby cut-off to Edinburgh and not beyond (with their other service terminating at Leeds).

Northern Connect should run 2 tph Liverpool-M/c Victoria-Huddersfield-York, with alternate trains calling at all stations to Newcastle or all stations to Middlesbrough, operated by bi-mode multiple units with at least 5 coaches. TPE's 19 five-car Class 802 sets should be sufficient for these services.

There should be 1 tph Blackpool-Bradford-York (calling at all stations between Leeds and York), and also (as Northern Connect) 1 tph (semi-fast) M/c Piccadilly-Leeds-York-Scarborough; the other 1 tph semi-fast M/c Piccadilly to Leeds should extend to Hull, as at present. Until more of these routes are wired, class 185 dmus should suffice.

With this pattern of services, could the Mk5 sets be ditched as surplus to requirements?

The Northern service between York and Blackpool I was under the impression that it was classed as a Northern Connect route and as minimum really ought to be 2tph with 3 car DMUs/EMUs or run the existing 1tph as a 6 car DMU/EMU.

And besides the Class 68 loco haulage would be better I think on Manchester to Scotland via Bolton and let the Class 800 types run to Newcastle and onto Edinburgh because if they did fail, they could get assistance from a LNER thus leaving the 185s to operate on TPE South.

I might be out of touch with TPE but that would make more sense I think then senselessly chopping the service.

 

[DB]

The Northern service between York and Blackpool I was under the impression that it was classed as a Northern Connect route and as minimum really ought to be 2tph with 3 car DMUs/EMUs or run the existing 1tph as a 6 car DMU/EMU.

And besides the Class 68 loco haulage would be better I think on Manchester to Scotland via Bolton and let the Class 800 types run to Newcastle and onto Edinburgh because if they did fail, they could get assistance from a LNER thus leaving the 185s to operate on TPE South.

I might be out of touch with TPE but that would make more sense I think then senselessly chopping the service.

The WCML services are electric and under the wires all the way, so not suitable for Class 68.

 

[Elecman]

The WCML services are electric and under the wires all the way, so not suitable for Class 68.

There are the ex Grand Central 90s doing nothing

 

[CBlue]

There are the ex Grand Central 90s doing nothing

Yeah....modify some 40 year old electric locos to work with the electrics and driving trailer on a modern rake of coaches, what could go wrong

 

[DB]

Yeah....modify some 40 year old electric locos to work with the electrics and driving trailer on a modern rake of coaches, what could go wrong

Yes, quite!

And the Grand Central locos actually belong to DB, who have recently been using one of them at least for freight.

 

[Aictos]

There are the ex Grand Central 90s doing nothing

Plus if you really want a more recent loco, you've got the Class 88 which is capable of both freight and passenger workings, all you really need to consider is cascading some Class 90s for DRS freight and using the Class 88 for passenger service.

Maybe uprated to 110mph operation and if that's not possible you have the Class 91 locos which if downrated could have a easier life on TPE which would be similar to how the Class 55s were cascaded from ECML express workings to TPE semi fast workings which ain't as intensively worked.

 

[DB]

Plus if you really want a more recent loco, you've got the Class 88 which is capable of both freight and passenger workings, all you really need to consider is cascading some Class 90s for DRS freight and using the Class 88 for passenger service.

Maybe uprated to 110mph operation and if that's not possible you have the Class 91 locos which if downrated could have a easier life on TPE which would be similar to how the Class 55s were cascaded from ECML express workings to TPE semi fast workings which ain't as intensively worked.

There are nowhere near enough class 88s even if DRS didn't need them, and it wouldn't be viable to order more just for this.

And 90s would not be a viable substitute for what DRS use the 88s for - they need the diesel capability.

 

[Domh245]

Don't forget that the Mk5s were designed to work with the stadler equipment on the 68s, it'll be a very 'involved' conversion to make them work with anything else

 

[sjpowermac]

Don't forget that the Mk5s were designed to work with the stadler equipment on the 68s, it'll be a very 'involved' conversion to make them work with anything else

68019 to 68025 were designed and built by Vossloh, 68026 to 68034 were built by Stadler (who by then had taken over Vossloh).

The kit installed on the Class 68s that allows them to interface with the Mk5a stock was designed and manufactured by CAF.

The original intention was that once the core TPE route was electrified then the Class 68 would be switched out for an electric loco. The Class 88 was mentioned at the time, together with the proposed Class 93.

It is certainly true though that to have full functionality of the stock you would need a loco specifically modified to work with them.

 

[DB]

68019 to 68025 were designed and built by Vossloh, 68026 to 68034 were built by Stadler (who by then had taken over Vossloh).

The kit installed on the Class 68s that allows them to interface with the Mk5a stock was designed and manufactured by CAF.

The original intention was that once the core TPE route was electrified then the Class 68 would be switched out for an electric loco. The Class 88 was mentioned at the time, together with the proposed Class 93.

It is certainly true though that to have full functionality of the stock you would need a loco specifically modified to work with them.

That's true, but it's also worth noting that the CAF equipment in the 68s is the TMS - the multiple working system is the 68 native one, which in this country is only found on the 68 and 88.

 

[sjpowermac]

The CAF equipment in the 68s is the TMS. The actual multiple working system is the 68 native one, which in this country is only found on the 68 and 88.

So in your opinion the CAF kit installed in the cab of the locomotive isn’t an ‘interface’? Please do enlighten me.

At what point did I claim the multiple working system was installed on anything other than Classes 68 and 88?

 

[DB]

So in your opinion the CAF kit installed in the cab of the locomotive isn’t an ‘interface’? Please do enlighten me.

At what point did I claim the multiple working system was installed on anything other than Classes 68 and 88?

Yes, that's right, but the CAF equipment on its own isn't enough - the loco also needs to be fitted with the compatible multiple working system, as you hadn't mentioned it.

 

[sjpowermac]

For what it’s worth, I do think the time is rapidly approaching when some kind of decision will be made on the Nova 3 sets. I’m not certain as to the lead time on the Hitachi trains but suspect that to get them in traffic for March 2023 they would need to be ordered imminently.

All the posts others have made on ripping up the timetable so that TPE could settle for a fleet comprised of Nova 1/Nova 2/Class 185 seems to be moving backwards rather than forwards.

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

We seem to have had the answer from various posts that there have been problems with the loco to stock interface (the CAF specific part).

In addition, the one time I’ve been on a Nova 3 that has failed, the word was it was due to the Automatic Hot Axel Box Detector activating (I’m not a technical person, so hope I’ve got that right). The train arrived at Leeds on time and with the Public Information System ect working, the stock then ran back to Longsight.

I do think that at least part of the problem has been the very small number of daily diagrams that, as I understand it is due to crewing constraints. Whilst we are into the sixteenth month in service, I would imagine that operating such a small fleet must make it very difficult for engineers to pick up trends in faults and to test out solutions to the problems.

By the way, interesting discussion on software on trains, I completely agree with all you put there.

 

[Moderating team]

Just a gentle reminder for all to please bear in mind our forum rules (which are linked to at the bottom of every page)

As stated in our rules, if anyone has any concerns, these should be reported to us directly using the reporting button.

Please do not react/reply to to any posts that are thought to be breaking the rules; simply report them using the report system, and please make no reference to them on the forum. Please do not attempt to take matters into your own hands and engage in what is known as 'backseat moderation'

Thank you

 

[sjpowermac]

At no point did I say it wasn't an interface. I was merely clarifying that the CAF equipment on its own isn't enough - the loco also needs to be fitted with the compatible multiple working system, as you hadn't mentioned it.

I also never accused you of claiming that it was fitted to any other classes of loco

Many thanks for clarifying your post.

 

[37057]

We seem to have had the answer from various posts that there have been problems with the loco to stock interface (the CAF specific part).

In addition, the one time I’ve been on a Nova 3 that has failed, the word was it was due to the Automatic Hot Axel Box Detector activating (I’m not a technical person, so hope I’ve got that right). The train arrived at Leeds on time and with the Public Information System ect working, the stock then ran back to Longsight.

I do think that at least part of the problem has been the very small number of daily diagrams that, as I understand it is due to crewing constraints. Whilst we are into the sixteenth month in service, I would imagine that operating such a small fleet must make it very difficult for engineers to pick up trends in faults and to test out solutions to the problems.

By the way, interesting discussion on software on trains, I completely agree with all you put there.

Looking from the outside in, it does seem strange how there appears to be three (?) sets out daily performing reasonably well recently (to me at least, granted I don't pay that much attention). It seems to suggest that at least some combination of loco & stock operate without a hitch. If interface issues are what's holding them back I suppose they may be keeping those combinations together for as long as their exam cycles allow (I believe the stock & loco exams don't align to allow this), to eliminate any 'problem' loco / set combos?

I don't think failures such as the one you mention should be too much concern, if they're irregular. Those issues at this stage can be a part of a learning curve for the technicians, performance engineers etc to iron out over time. If those defects become regular then that's when quick action and a solid plan is required so they don't become too much of a burden on performance.

My own ponder is - would the entire situation differ if the contract was different. Ie. If the manufacturer was also responsible for the maintenance & daily availability, rather than the combination of TOC (TPE), the motive power provider (DRS), the owner (Beacon), the manufacturer (CAF) and the maintainer (Alstom). There must be lots of accountants between them trying to offset any penalties!

I also can't see them 'scrapping' the entire project either. More likely a solution will be found.

 

[47271]

Quick question on the TPE mk5s, especially in the context of a couple of posts here suggesting that Scotrail might like to take them on in due course.

I've never been on a Nova3, lockdown saw to that, but sadly I've got plenty of experience of the rickety and badly designed Caledonian Sleeper mk5. In its present state I'd sooner spend three hours on a Turbostar than put up with the wretched mk5, and especially the terrible knocking and vertical movement from the bogies on all but the most perfect of track.

Do the TPE mk5s knock in the same way, because if they do then I don't want them in England now and again, and I certainly won't want them in Scotland on a daily basis?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do the TPE mk5s knock in the same way, because if they do then I don't want them in England now and again, and I certainly won't want them in Scotland on a daily basis?

I didn't notice them doing, though I've only had one ride. I genuinely thought that First Class was special - best in the UK, probably, slightly better than Pendolino 1st. The seating layout in Standard is a bit rubbish, but that's easily fixed.