TPE Seeking additional Bi-mode stock

[Fokx]

The "North Star" interiors on 185s are still nearly new in my head... it certainly doesn't seem like they need replacement.

Working the units myself I do get passengers that are used to other operators or haven’t travelled believing that they’re brand new trains or occasionally that standard is first class.

What I do wish however is that the DfT provide some funding or allowing spending for a mid-life refurbishment that will see the flat cloth seats replaced with a more robust moquette. Similar to what is currently taking place at a Northern.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Working the units myself I do get passengers that are used to other operators or haven’t travelled believing that they’re brand new trains or occasionally that standard is first class.

The non-80x TPE interior schemes are without a doubt the nicest on the network, though I would have gone grey for the leather seats in 1st instead of white as the white will get mucky. Though they are very slightly reminiscent of old East German D-Zug-Wagen. It's amazing what you can do with some fabric, new carpets and a roll or two of sticky-backed fake wood.

(The 80x are decent too, but the seats are all single-colour which makes them not as posh)

 

[py_megapixel]

So we should just have diesel under wires? This is environmental, nothing else

Well, for that to be the case, we need wires, and there are plenty of places that aren't getting them any time soon.

Is a 185 with an engine shut down (a measure introduced to cut fuel consumption and emissions) really substantially worse per car than a 150 or 156?

 

[Greybeard33]

Is a 185 with an engine shut down (a measure introduced to cut fuel consumption and emissions) really substantially worse per car than a 150 or 156?

Yes. A 185 carriage weighs half as much again as a 156 carriage. Therefore a 6-car 185 burns much more fuel, and emits much more pollution, than a 6-car 156, in accelerating to linespeed or in climbing a hill. That remains true regardless of the number of engines in use - the kinetic or potential energy required depends only on the weight.

The high axle load also causes much more track wear, which is why Network Rail track access charges are much higher and why 185s are not permitted to use MU or Sprinter differential speeds.

 

[Halish Railway]

I’d redeploy the 185s on EWR, albeit with the engines and fuel tanks on the centre coach removed as 2/3 engines would suffice on the flat route and to save weight and maintenance costs.

Also the 185s provide pretty much the same travelling experience as 350s (excluding 350/2s), as well as the 360s once they are refurbished with 2+2 seating.

Yes. A 185 carriage weighs half as much again as a 156 carriage. Therefore a 6-car 185 burns much more fuel, and emits much more pollution, than a 6-car 156, in accelerating to linespeed or in climbing a hill. That remains true regardless of the number of engines in use - the kinetic or potential energy required depends only on the weight.

The high axle load also causes much more track wear, which is why Network Rail track access charges are much higher and why 185s are not permitted to use MU or Sprinter differential speeds.

Quick correction - A 185 carriage weighs roughly twice as much as a 156’s.

185 total weight - 163t
156 total weight - Roughly 72t

 

[Spaceship323]

I’d redeploy the 185s on EWR, albeit with the engines and fuel tanks on the centre coach removed as 2/3 engines would suffice on the flat route and to save weight and maintenance costs.

Also the 185s provide pretty much the same travelling experience as 350s (excluding 350/2s), as well as the 360s once they are refurbished with 2+2 seating.


Quick correction - A 185 carriage weighs roughly twice as much as a 156’s.

185 total weight - 163t
156 total weight - Roughly 72t

Remember 185 is 3 car so 54t per car, 156 is 2 car so 36t per car...or half as much as @Greybeard33 rightly said.

 

[Wyrleybart]

That margin would quickly disappear if the “802 like” train didn’t have a kitchen. Unless of course there are already different 802 interior layouts

Question - why does a TPE 802 need a kitchen when an XC 220 or 221 or HST apparently doesn't ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Question - why does a TPE 802 need a kitchen when an XC 220 or 221 or HST apparently doesn't ?

XC 22x do have a small galley at the First Class end.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

An 802 galley has pretty much the same equipment as a voyager galley. Fridge, hot water and microwave. It’s not a kitchen like on LNERs units

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

I am guessing looking at it from a decent time horizon, just just short term penny pinching to replace stock that is old and becoming expensive to maintain.

6 or 7 car options is sensible as it allows the longer trains to go on the busier services where crowding is a problem, there may also be some view on connections into HS2 changing passenger flows or creating growth.

My money is on 7car version of 802, not convinced increasing from 5car to 6car gains much advantage over having the flexibility of all 5car fleet, if want extra capacity might as well go for over 100 extra seats.

If it was me, I'd go for 7 coaches. Even 36 First Class seats or (like on each of the 5-car GWR 80x trains) would be more than enough I'd have thought then add around 400 Standard Class seats.

 

[Wyrleybart]

An 802 galley has pretty much the same equipment as a voyager galley. Fridge, hot water and microwave. It’s not a kitchen like on LNERs units

Ahhh. Thanks, also to "Bletchleyite". So not a kitchen as such.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ahhh. Thanks, also to "Bletchleyite". So not a kitchen as such.

I think the 80x one is slightly bigger, but that's purely because it's only possible to do them in multiples of a window bay, and 1 would be too small, whereas the cab-end space on a Voyager is about the ideal size at about 1.5 bays. The same space is used for bikes on the Avanti ones at the other end of the train, don't know what XC now do with it as the bikes on those go in the old shop space.

 

[QSK19]

Working the units myself I do get passengers that are used to other operators or haven’t travelled believing that they’re brand new trains or occasionally that standard is first class.

They’re probably regular users of EMR accustomed to the dire situation with its Regional services. For us, a regional train built in 2005-06 with a half decent interior looks gleaming new right off the production line!

as well as the 360s once they are refurbished with 2+2 seating.

Let’s see what happens regarding that! Given how things have dragged on and DfT controlling the purse strings, I wouldn’t be surprised if the 360s don’t get 2+2 seating and only get a very light internal refurbishment of the existing layout (personal opinion only - no sources or insider knowledge).

 

[Spartacus]

Yes. A 185 carriage weighs half as much again as a 156 carriage. Therefore a 6-car 185 burns much more fuel, and emits much more pollution, than a 6-car 156, in accelerating to linespeed or in climbing a hill. That remains true regardless of the number of engines in use - the kinetic or potential energy required depends only on the weight.

True to an extent, but that ignores the efficiency of the source of the power, i.e. the diesel engine of the units concerned. A modern can will often weigh twice as much again as an equivalent car produced in the 80s, but will likely get far greater MPG.

 

[Watershed]

True to an extent, but that ignores the efficiency of the source of the power, i.e. the diesel engine of the units concerned. A modern can will often weigh twice as much again as an equivalent car produced in the 80s, but will likely get far greater MPG.

There is a lot more than weight to it. The force needed to continue travelling at a given speed is down to rolling resistance, which is dependent on the coefficient of drag as well as the friction of the wheels (whether steel or rubber) on the medium (whether steel or asphalt).

Of course more modern engines will use less fuel to provide the same force, but it's unlikely that the engine used on a class 185 is twice as efficient as that on a class 156, for example.

 

[Spartacus]

There is a lot more than weight to it. The force needed to continue travelling at a given speed is down to rolling resistance, which is dependent on the coefficient of drag as well as the friction of the wheels (whether steel or rubber) on the medium (whether steel or asphalt).

Of course more modern engines will use less fuel to provide the same force, but it's unlikely that the engine used on a class 185 is twice as efficient as that on a class 156, for example.

Oh, of course, and that's one reason why TPE had to start cutting off engines. I was just trying to illustrate how simplistic it was just considering weight and energy. It'd help it being a like for like comparison too, a 185 being specified to flatten the hills and accelerate hard is never going to compare to a 156. Perhaps an old 110...

 

[Greybeard33]

True to an extent, but that ignores the efficiency of the source of the power, i.e. the diesel engine of the units concerned. A modern can will often weigh twice as much again as an equivalent car produced in the 80s, but will likely get far greater MPG.

I was replying to a post that specifically asked for a comparison with a 150 or 156, but a more apt comparator might be a 3-car 170. A similar age unit, so it seems unlikely there is much difference in engine or transmission efficiency, but the 185 weighs 21% more than the 170.

For sure weight is only one of the factors affecting fuel consumption, but it is quite a significant one, particularly on a hilly route or one that requires frequent acceleration. Other factors (air resistance, rolling resistance, hotel power) are likely to be similar between the 170 and 185.

 

[D6975]

If it was me, I'd go for 7 coaches. Even 36 First Class seats or (like on each of the 5-car GWR 80x trains) would be more than enough I'd have thought then add around 400 Standard Class seats.

How many of the stations on TPE routes have platforms that are too short for 7x26m coaches? And as a secondary question, would using shorter coaches (as MML will) enable 7 coach trains to fit at these stations?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many of the stations on TPE routes have platforms that are too short for 7x26m coaches? And as a secondary question, would using shorter coaches (as MML will) enable 7 coach trains to fit at these stations?

80x have ASDO.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The "North Star" interiors on 185s are still nearly new in my head... it certainly doesn't seem like they need replacement.

Yes, exactly. I don't oppose their replacement for cascading, but TPE still need some of them, even with the same units and they are perfectly functional.

 

[D6975]

80x have ASDO.

Yes I know, but that wasn't what I asked.

 

[patrick.hearn3]

There are Civity bi-mode orders in Australia and Sweden, I wonder if CAF might pitch a bi-mode Class 397? DfT may welcome competition to 8xx, if only to keep Hitachi's price down.

 

[317 forever]

That would be a welcome outcome, but, if 25 new units replace 25 185s (minus 10 or so for the new Liverpool-Nottingham service and TPE maintenance and contingency needs), then Northern could get 15 for Man Vic/Wigan to Leeds, Halifax/Sheffield to Hull and Sheffield to Leeds/York. Allowing them to cascade some 158s to get rid of the worst 150s.

I think I saw reference to Liverpool - Nottingham in an earlier post here too. Is it therefore switching from EMR to TPE in due course?

 

[Fokx]

I think I saw reference to Liverpool - Nottingham in an earlier post here too. Is it therefore switching from EMR to TPE in due course?

Originally it was due to transfer but sadly the effects of Covid have put said transfer on a hiatus, and a decision is due to be made at a later date (2023 - the end of TPE’s original franchise/NRC agreement which has now been extended) wether to include the route in the TPE franchise/NRC or to keep it under EMR’s franchise/NRC. The main reason for this was that TPE were unable to facilitate train crew training in the expected timeframe.

Then it gets more complicated as EMR were then going to open a Liverpool depot for said route, and started recruitment but sadly once again the decision was made not to continue with said plan.

At the moment a transfer is not taking place and the route is to remain with EMR (keeping the 158 fleet that were due to leave for the time being) and a decision is once again due to be made once again by the DfT in the near future.

If it does transfer to TPE a proposed/rumoured future extension was Leicester.

 

[ainsworth74]

Ahhh. Thanks, also to "Bletchleyite". So not a kitchen as such.

You won't get Pullman Dining out of it but I've had a decent meal out of the galley area of a Voyager on VT to Holyhead and also from XC at various points on their route. So I wouldn't sell it short, if the will is there from the TOC they can do decent stuff with it.

 

[317 forever]

Originally it was due to transfer but sadly the effects of Covid have put said transfer on a hiatus, and a decision is due to be made at a later date (2023 - the end of TPE’s original franchise/NRC agreement which has now been extended) wether to include the route in the TPE franchise/NRC or to keep it under EMR’s franchise/NRC. The main reason for this was that TPE were unable to facilitate train crew training in the expected timeframe.

Then it gets more complicated as EMR were then going to open a Liverpool depot for said route, and started recruitment but sadly once again the decision was made not to continue with said plan.

At the moment a transfer is not taking place and the route is to remain with EMR (keeping the 158 fleet that were due to leave for the time being) and a decision is once again due to be made once again by the DfT in the near future.

If it does transfer to TPE a proposed/rumoured future extension was Leicester.

Sure, my own understanding was that the service was remaining with EMR for the foreseeable future. I was therefore surprised, maybe confused, to see it mentioned in the thread about additional TPE stock being sought.

 

[Fokx]

Sure, my own understanding was that the service was remaining with EMR for the foreseeable future. I was therefore surprised, maybe confused, to see it mentioned in the thread about additional TPE stock being sought.

Posters referring to the extra stock are implying that the released 185’s from TPE could pass to the future operator of the route, wether that’s TPE/EMR or someone else as they’re suitable and cleared for the Hope Valley route.

 

[TheBigD]

If it does transfer to TPE a proposed/rumoured future extension was Leicester.

First time I've seen or heard that particular rumour. Dont recall anyone on here mentioning it.
Are you able to expand on it at all?

 

[Killingworth]

First time I've seen or heard that particular rumour. Dont recall anyone on here mentioning it.
Are you able to expand on it at all?

One of many ideas for a third fast service between Manchester and Sheffield. Long since abandoned because there may be extra paths down the Hope Valley by 2023 but not at Manchester without platforms 15/16 and Sheffield.

 

[Fokx]

First time I've seen or heard that particular rumour. Dont recall anyone on here mentioning it.
Are you able to expand on it at all?

It was one of several ideas following the full first ownership of TPE as part of the vision and rebranding for ‘connecting the North’

These include:

Liverpool to Glasgow
Liverpool to Edinburgh (which is being split)
Redcar was to be extended to Saltburn (which is happening soon)
Manchester to Huddersfield local service extended to Wakefield Kirkgate
And some sort of connection from Manchester to Leicester via Derby.

The last two are the least likely extensions to happen and probably now will never happen due to pathing capacity and constraints, TPRU route closures including the Huddersfield upgrade and the fact franchising has ended and the DfT control the purse strings

Further evidence of this is that Derby, Leicester, Saltburn, Wakefield Kirkgate, Castleford and Nottingham are amongst the destinations available from manual destination blind lists and have been for many years.