Could TPE ditch the Mk5 sets?

[squizzler]

More likely they will remain on TPE as Nova 3 for the foreseeable, where they help in bootstrapping the cities either side of the Pennines into a Northern megalopolis until NPR comes along to consummate it. It Might make sense to use the 185s during the current suppression of travel. That does not mean their limitations have magically disappeared, that of them being too small, heavy, and being old fashioned diesel mechanical not easily converted to electric, although I concede they have proven reliable and their interior ambience is good by DMU standards.

It seems extraordinary that many in this forum want to get rid of any nice things as soon as they appear on the network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We are about to go into a period where all sorts of fleets are going to get parked up because of a downturn in demand and the vast costs which have been racked up since March 2020.

EMUs, yes - there are already a load parked up, though I would expect a reshuffle and repurposing to allow all the ex-BR kit (31x, 32x possibly except 323 but possibly including them, 455 etc) to be scrapped, or possibly "769ed" to replace 150s directly.

DMUs (which when a loco is coupled on the end these basically are) rather less so. There's a huge shortage of DMUs, and even with that there are still large fleets of ex-BR kit with old, polluting engines and which are now, except possibly 158s which were ahead of their time when built, seen as old and undesirable by passengers.

This is why I can't see them being scrapped.

These trains are reported to be unreliable - it is not just about headline price.

The suggestion is that CAF would fix and test them properly before remarketing, as has I understand happened with the Fyra sets. I'm not hearing stories of them being junk in operation in Italy.

Operators are better off with the best elements of their existing stock and binning off anything non-standard.

I don't agree. There will be huge pressure for wholesale scrapping of 150/153/155/156, and something has to replace them.

The DfT appears to be under no obligation at all to allocate this stock to any other route.

No, but that doesn't mean they won't.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

It seems extraordinary that many in this forum want to get rid of any nice things as soon as they appear on the network.

Nice things? The purpose of a train is primarily to move people between two points, if because of unsolvable reliability issues it fails to achieve this anything else about the train is a bit academic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nice things? The purpose of a train is primarily to move people between two points, if because of unsolvable reliability issues it fails to achieve this anything else about the train is a bit academic.

They aren't that nice anyway, other than First Class. Standard is rather average and vastly inferior to the Class 185 in pretty much every way other than engine noise levels.

 

[squizzler]

Nice things? The purpose of a train is primarily to move people between two points, if because of unsolvable reliability issues it fails to achieve this anything else about the train is a bit academic.

Nova3 reliability problems are no more likely to be insoluble than that of the Flex769. Speculation as to their abandonment is just that at this stage, maybe @4-SUB 4732 has read the tea leaves correctly, perhaps not.

Talking of the 769s which entered service in the Valles before the North, perhaps TfW should have the Nova3s. Perhaps the Welsh are just better than Northern England at getting new trains to work

The Nova would also be closer to CAF's Newport outpost.

They aren't that nice anyway, other than First Class. Standard is rather average and vastly inferior to the Class 185 in pretty much every way other than engine noise levels.

They are five cars rather that three, which I think most would consider vastly more significant to their journey comfort than trivialities such as window spacing. With the emerging paradigm of fewer but longer trains on the network going forward, there is also the possibility they could be lengthened to seven cars, the 'killer app' of loco hauled cars.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Talking of the 769s which entered service in the Valles before the North, perhaps TfW should have the Nova3s. Perhaps the Welsh are just better than Northern England at getting new trains to work

The Nova would also be closer to CAF's Newport outpost.

TfW do seem to like their loco-haulage, and they have ordered too few 197s, something they now seem to be recognising by talking about taking more 67+Mk4 sets. This does potentially make them a destination once they're fixed, as old Mk4s won't last forever.

They are five cars rather that three, which I think most would consider vastly more significant to their journey comfort than trivialities such as window spacing. With the emerging paradigm of fewer but longer trains on the network going forward, there is also the possibility they could be lengthened to seven cars.

That's possible, but I think by 185s we're now thinking double 185s (a double 185 has more capacity than a Mk5 set - there's 28m more train there), I think the idea of operating single ones is pretty much out other than those stopping services that could do with going back to Northern.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

there is also the possibility they could be lengthened to seven cars, the 'killer app' of loco hauled cars.

it’s a darn sight easier to lengthen a 185 formed train (by coupling another 185 to it), this can be done in minutes. Reforming the hauled coaches requires a complex amount of software changes as whilst they are coaches they are designed as a fixed formation.

 

[Greybeard33]

The facts that:
1. CAF won't want to scrap them or have them sat around doing nothing, because that will cost them a fortune in lost income.
2. They aren't suitable for other countries (other than the possible edge cases of Ireland and Thailand/Malaysia) due to being narrow, high floor but stepless and short vehicles. Nowhere other than the UK and Ireland is interested in such things.

...would suggest that they will, once fixed, be offered to the market at an attractive price, and thus a UK TOC is very likely to take them because of that price.

That might be valid if they were multiple units. But any potential TOC user will also have to lease the locos to propel them. Whatever CAF does to the coaches, the heavy 68s will still incur high track access charges, and will still cause noise and air pollution in terminal stations and depots.

I understand Beacon Rail Leasing owns both the Mk5As and the 68s, but leases the 68s to DRS, which sub-leases them to TPE. Depending on the terms of the various contracts between CAF, Beacon, DRS and TPE, Beacon/DRS might find it commercially more attractive to park/scrap the coaches and sub-lease the 68s to the FOCs for freight haulage, rather than sub-lease both the 68s and the coaches to another TOC at "fire sale" rates.

 

[squizzler]

it’s a darn sight easier to lengthen a 185 formed train (by coupling another 185 to it), this can be done in minutes. Reforming the hauled coaches requires a complex amount of software changes as whilst they are coaches they are designed as a fixed formation.

The problem with connecting two 185s is that the costs are effectively double. By comparison, a seven car Nova3 with class 68 would be only be marginally more expensive than five as an asset and in terms of running costs, but with proportionally greater increase in seated capacity. One set of staff and refreshments trolley could rove the full length of the train.

Whilst loathe to give too much credence to speculation of Nova3 being dumped by TPE, if they had to be redeployed, the owners may well find an open access operator is more interested in longer trains so they could reduce cost per seat (their business model might target price conscious customers), and that justified lengthening them to seven car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst loathe to give too much credence to speculation of Nova3 being dumped by TPE, if they had to be redeployed, the owners may well find an open access operator is more interested in longer trains so they could reduce cost per seat (their business model might target price conscious customers), and that justified lengthening them to seven car.

You could, I guess, fairly easily do a 10-car formation by just coupling two back to back, with the reinforced end coaches converted to normal gangways and bar couplers and a DT on both ends. Or 9-car with a DT scrapped/kept as spare.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

The problem with connecting two 185s is that the costs are effectively double. By comparison, a seven car Nova3 with class 68 would be only be marginally more expensive than five as an asset and in terms of running costs,

But a 5 car Nova 3 is far far more expensive to operate than a 3 car 185 so that argument works both ways.

 

[squizzler]

But a 5 car Nova 3 is far far more expensive to operate than a 3 car 185 so that argument works both ways.

What is your source - or is this your intuition? I know units are meant to be cheaper than short trains with locos and the 185 manufacture must be partially amortised, but on the other hand the 185 is overpowered, heavy and considered quite hard on the track. You would expect the longer train to be proportionally more expensive to run, the question is whether the difference is greater or less than expected in light of the difference in capacity.

 

[Domh245]

What is your source - or is this your intuition? I know units are meant to be cheaper than short trains with locos and the 185 manufacture must be partially amortised, but on the other hand the 185 is overpowered, heavy and considered quite hard on the track. You would expect the longer train to be proportionally more expensive to run, the question is whether the difference is greater or less than expected in light of the difference in capacity.

Track access charges for a single 185 vehicle are either 18.38 or 15 pence/mile (depending what HB stands for in this context to make it cheaper?) - a 68 is 65.07 pence/mile - a 3 car 185 then (using the more expensive of the two values) is cheaper than the 68 on it's own (the mk5a vehicles are 7.62p/mile each - a complete nova3 set is 103.17p/mile)

That doesn't take into account fuel but I'd be surprised if the 68 was less thirsty than the 185

 

[Bletchleyite]

Track access charges for a single 185 vehicle are either 18.38 or 15 pence/mile (depending what HB stands for in this context to make it cheaper?) - a 68 is 65.07 pence/mile - a 3 car 185 then (using the more expensive of the two values) is cheaper than the 68 on it's own (the mk5a vehicles are 7.62p/mile each - a complete nova3 set is 103.17p/mile)

That doesn't take into account fuel but I'd be surprised if the 68 was less thirsty than the 185

It also doesn't take into account that the Mk5 sets are 5-car, and the 185s are likely to be run as pairs.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

What is your source - or is this your intuition? I know units are meant to be cheaper than short trains with locos and the 185 manufacture must be partially amortised, but on the other hand the 185 is overpowered, heavy and considered quite hard on the track. You would expect the longer train to be proportionally more expensive to run, the question is whether the difference is greater or less than expected in light of the difference in capacity.

Source is track access charges which I was going to dig out but have been beaten to it.

A 3 car 185 is considerably cheaper than a 5 car NOVA 3 and a 6 car 185 is about the same I make out having double checked.

 

[Domh245]

It also doesn't take into account that the Mk5 sets are 5-car, and the 185s are likely to be run as pairs.

The claim was that a 3 car 185 was cheaper than a 5 car mk5 rake, so that's what I did the maths on.

A double 185 will be anywhere between 90 and 110.28 p/vehicle mile depending on what HB stands for.
A 7 car mk5 rake (as that was also mentioned) would work out at 118.41p/mile fwiw

Doing a quick cost/seat/mile a Nova 3 as is comes out at 0.35p/seat/mi, a 185 between 0.25 and 0.30 p/seat/mi

 

[Jamesrob637]

Another 397 has failed today - should this thread be renamed "Should TPE get rid of all stock from CAF?!"

 

[LucyP]

That isn't how it works. They don't own the stock, they merely lease it from the leasing company who own it. They will have to pursue a claim against the leasing company for breach of lease, and the leasing company will pass that claim onto CAF/work with CAF to find an engineering solution to the problems, because the leasing company will have to compensate TPE.

There is no way these new trains are not going to continue with TPE. There was a government commitment to provide new trains on the route as part of the Northern Powerhouse, not recycled, refurbished, clapped out old trains from somewhere else.

I don't know why this thread has droned on for 12 pages about alternative trains or whether locos should be used, or changing the seats, and the other nonsense. You have to wonder whether anyone on this site ever actually uses a train, or just takes a photo of it and records its number.

The new trains are far better than the old ones, because there are more seats. That was what this project was all about. Once Corona is over, that will once again become the most important thing. With the old trains there were never enough seats.

The next issue is about speed, because the journey from Leeds to Manchester and Manchester airport in particular has never been slower. The difference between going South from Leeds and going West from Leeds is astonishing.

Commuters in the North put up with Pacers for nearly 40 years. Do you think anyone cares about ride quality or sound deadening of a CAF train compared with another manufacturer? Anything is better than a Pacer's.

Yes the trains need to work, and they will be fixed. They then just need to turn up on time, arrive on time, there needs to be a seat and that will do thank you.

There were so many cancellations because there were insufficient drivers trained on the new units. There is no way that anyone would put up with that again, so that some recycled trains could be brought in to replace the CAF units.

 

[squizzler]

Another 397 has failed today - should this thread be renamed "Should TPE get rid of all stock from CAF?!"

I am not an avid follower of fleet reliability, so hopefully my understanding of the figures is correct:

According to Roger Ford's Golden Spanner awards, the MTIN (Miles per Technical Incident) in period 7 (up to mid october last year) for the Nova 1, 2, 3 fleets are 13,139, 12,546 and 8,828 miles respectively. That for the LNER class 801 was 12,479 miles. So if the best CAF is as good as the worst IEP fleet and the Nova 3 might only go two thirds as far before breaking down, it is still far from a wash out. Anyone reading this thread would be forgiven for thinking the TransPennine line must be littered with conked out Novas awaiting Thunderbird recovery.

As for the relative running cost of a Nova 3 vs a brace of 185s, the lack of corridor between units must make it harder to do revenue protection and catering. It is no good having the most economical train if the customers can travel without coughing up

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another 397 has failed today - should this thread be renamed "Should TPE get rid of all stock from CAF?!"

"Should the railway stack up all the poorly-designed and poorly-built CAF stock and go and dump it in front of their front door with the local Press photographers there in force"?

A bit analogous to angry farmers dumping a truckload of manure at the Council offices once in a while?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jan 2021 ==

As for the relative running cost of a Nova 3 vs a brace of 185s, the lack of corridor between units must make it harder to do revenue protection and catering. It is no good having the most economical train if the customers can travel without coughing up

To be fair I also don't think when you consider all the costs of operation, the difference between 90p a mile and £1.10 a mile (as quoted upthread) is really very important. The fuel alone will be well above that.

I'm amazed it's that cheap, to be honest, whatever you're running!

 

[Watershed]

To be fair I also don't think when you consider all the costs of operation, the difference between 90p a mile and £1.10 a mile (as quoted upthread) is really very important. The fuel alone will be well above that.

I'm amazed it's that cheap, to be honest, whatever you're running

That's the variable access charge, i.e. the amount billed for each train run. It's solely designed to cover incremental costs, so I don't necessarily find it an unbelievable figure.

 

[43096]

Probably worth repeating here what Tony Miles posted on another forum earlier today:

Rumours are completely wrong - although I've seen them. Spoke yesterday to the ROSCO and TPE and both confirm plans are underway to increase use as soon as conditions allow. (although I wouldn't be surprised if any fleet anywhere in the UK got a rest whilst services are reduced - tomorrow is the last day for IC225 sets on LNER for a few months) - Driver training etc. has been an issue at TPE in particular. Sources tell me that after months and years of CAF being a little less than "on the ball" re the Mk5a sets things have got hugely better in the last few weeks. It may be the case that as CAF still hasn't been paid for the sets the state of its finances have finally encouraged the company to get things sorted so many millions of pounds/euros finally get paid!

 

[37057]

The claim was that a 3 car 185 was cheaper than a 5 car mk5 rake, so that's what I did the maths on.

A double 185 will be anywhere between 90 and 110.28 p/vehicle mile depending on what HB stands for.
A 7 car mk5 rake (as that was also mentioned) would work out at 118.41p/mile fwiw

Doing a quick cost/seat/mile a Nova 3 as is comes out at 0.35p/seat/mi, a 185 between 0.25 and 0.30 p/seat/mi

HB - Hydro Bush, I suspect.

All modified 2015/16. Its the bush that connects the radial arms (axle boxes) to the bogie frame.

Edit, its actually 'Hall Bush'.

 

[Domh245]

HB - Hydro Bush, I suspect.

All modified 2015/16. Its the bush that connects the radial arms (axle boxes) to the bogie frame.

Edit, its actually 'Hall Bush'.

Ah that would make sense with the lower price then if it's in the suspension and reduces track wear presumably - if they're all fitted then that knocks all the quoted numbers in my posts to the lower range.

I see in the price list that the SW desiros were also fitted with these, as were some 221s (VT/WC?) and 390s

 

[grangergranger]

Looks like the continental version rather than class 68/88.

This would definitely be perfect for the Mk5a presuming the cab will be near the same as the 68s. When the TRU is completed, these would be useful if more of the planned 30 where ordered just like the extra 13 68s where ordered for TPE. (Nevertheless, this is fanasty ).

 

[Bletchleyite]

This would definitely be perfect for the Mk5a presuming the cab will be near the same as the 68s. When the TRU is completed, these would be useful if more of the planned 30 where ordered just like the extra 13 68s where ordered for TPE. (Nevertheless, this is fanasty ).

Is it fantasy? The Mk5s were always intended to be paired with an electric locomotive once more of the North is wired.

 

[Energy]

Is it fantasy? The Mk5s were always intended to be paired with an electric locomotive once more of the North is wired.

I could definetly see it happening, especially if DRS wanted their 68s back. Beacon Rail is also the owner of the 93s as well as the mk5s.

 

[sjpowermac]

Probably worth repeating here what Tony Miles posted on another forum earlier today:

Many thanks for posting the Tony Miles quote, really appreciated

You’ve spoilt it though, I was really enjoying all the wild rumours echoing round!

As an aside, there have been a few irritations with the 68s recently, decidedly non-Mk5a related. I wonder how long before there’s a thread about that!

 

[xotGD]

Probably worth repeating here what Tony Miles posted on another forum earlier today:

Good news. Perhaps all those posters who were so sure that they were on the way out will now see the error of their ways?

 

[sjpowermac]

Good news. Perhaps all those posters who were so sure that they were on the way out will now see the error of their ways?

There’s a first time for everything