TPE may keep 185s and send the Mk 5s to TfW

[skyhigh]

Eversholt who could easily find someone else to take on 21 185s

The speculative thread on 185 futures suggests otherwise... They're purpose built units for the route and aren't particularly attractive elsewhere.

 

[DanNCL]

The speculative thread on 185 futures suggests otherwise... They're purpose built units for the route and aren't particularly attractive elsewhere.

Emphasis on the word 'speculative'. We all know that if allowed many UK TOCs would snatch them up quickly. More likely though I suspect is Iarnrod Eireann would take them and convert them to run on Irish Gauge, as they've hinted previously that they'd be interested in doing.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Am I possibly the only one who read this thread’s title as “

“TPE Nova 3 sets to be withdrawn”, with “185s off to TFW”?​

Amazing how you can read it to imply something completely different to how the discussion has progressed…

Yes. I have been ignoring that inconsistency. Has the whole thread gone off at a tangent ?.

There are two ways of looking at this.

If the spare could be a mk5 set substituting, then it is better to spend money on that than another 33year old mk4 set

The alternative is have no long term plan for these routes so not keeping an eye open to grab any potential stock that would allow services to be improved.

I don't know how Wales focused TfW is, they accept English trains to Cardiff etc, but currently choose not to operate few miles over the English border to big cities like Bristol. What is their focus and aspirations as that might determine what gets approved financially

Surely no one wants one or two Mk5 sets as substitutes for a larger fleet of Mk4s. That really would be a microfleet.

TfW stray all the way past Crewe to Manchester iirc ?.

The reality is surely that the Mk5s are a mistake (like the 319 to 769 conversions) in that they were supposed to be a quick way to get new trains whilst TransPennine waited for the 802s and 397s to be delivered, but they turned out to be unreliable and so harder to get into service. If I were a train operator I would want a very good deal indeed on these before I would take them on. The threat of them having no home to go to is of course the market force which will drive the price down to something which might then make them worth the hassle. Failing that, they are likely to be the newest vehicles scrapped.

That was my impression. With hindsight TPE would have ordered more 802s and been as patient as they have ended up having to be anyway. Not even sure the 397s were worth missing out on 802s for. (I hate 8XXs btw !)

What is sad about that? If something doesn't work, it should be binned, and lessons can be learnt from the mistakes made. That is one of the advantages of leasing rolling stock. It is no different to an office block, or a shop, standing vacant because it isn't needed.

A train should not have sentimental value. It is just an investment, and in the case of these trains a bad one. The 68s could find other freight work. The rolling stock could be rebuilt, or recycled.

I have wondered are these an answer to some peoples desires for couchettes on the Scottish sleepers. Yeah I know 16 coaches long already and our small loading guage.

Furthermore another use for 68s would be doing push pull work with my beloved 442s .

According to the 2016 TPE franchise agreement, the lease expiry dates for the Mk5a's, 68s, 397s and 802s were to be 1st April 2023 (this was originally to be the end date of the franchise, until the DfT and First agreed early termination in 2021). I stand to be corrected, but I would assume that it remains the case that the stock can be returned to the lessors without penalty from this date.

Given the DfT's current focus on cost cutting, I imagine they will be looking critically at the scope for savings in TPE lease expenditure and other operating costs. The Mk5a+68 fleet would seem to be especially vulnerable unless new "firesale" lease rates have been negotiated.

Gulp, well that's it then - easy way out.

My sadness has nothing to do about sentimentality. It's sad to see an industry I care about waste money on failed projects, especially when there are so many other areas for potential improvement crying out for investment.

I suppose it is the leasing companies that lose out. The railway itself has not lost out on these trains if they are abandoned now. The railway did waste time, effort and money (unless charged on usage) trying to use them.

 

[Bevan Price]

Does anyone here know exactly what is the problem with Class 68/Mark 5 combinations.
Class 68s seem to have operated fairly satisfactorily on Chiltern in push-pull mode with Mark 3 stock.
So is the problem something silly like software problems, or what else ???

 

[DanNCL]

Does anyone here know exactly what is the problem with Class 68/Mark 5 combinations.
Class 68s seem to have operated fairly satisfactorily on Chiltern in push-pull mode with Mark 3 stock.
So is the problem something silly like software problems, or what else ???

A combination of DFT incompetence, TPE incompetence, CAF quality issues and an obsession with some forum members of binning anything on TPE that isn't a 185 or 802.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Does anyone here know exactly what is the problem with Class 68/Mark 5 combinations.
Class 68s seem to have operated fairly satisfactorily on Chiltern in push-pull mode with Mark 3 stock.
So is the problem something silly like software problems, or what else ???

The noise issues with the 68s (I love em pardon, what).

I know there have been issues with the Mk5s, new wiring connectors required iirc..

Nothing too major BUT the fact that the TPE Mk5s are significantly under-utilised compared to similarly new 397s and newer 802s rings alarm bells.

 

[YorksLad12]

So many people seem to be taking this thread as fact yet it’s in the speculative section and the source is a mate on Facebook.

... who was reading a post generated by ChatGPT by the sounds of it.

Anyway, they're all off to XC to replace the HST sets. I read an article about it in The Times*

(*If you're of an age, you'll get the reference )

 

[craigybagel]

I suppose it is the leasing companies that lose out. The railway itself has not lost out on these trains if they are abandoned now. The railway did waste time, effort and money (unless charged on usage) trying to use them.

TPE must have spent a considerable amount of time and man power getting these trains ready for service, before the first sets even arrived. Even if they don't have to pay the leasing costs, there's a lot of money gone into training, at a time when TPE have been struggling to man all their services as it is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2023 ==

Emphasis on the word 'speculative'. We all know that if allowed many UK TOCs would snatch them up quickly. More likely though I suspect is Iarnrod Eireann would take them and convert them to run on Irish Gauge, as they've hinted previously that they'd be interested in doing.

They looked at it, and decided not to bother. They've subsequently ordered new rolling stock purpose built for their network, so I'd say that ship has sailed

I don't know how Wales focused TfW is, they accept English trains to Cardiff etc, but currently choose not to operate few miles over the English border to big cities like Bristol. What is their focus and aspirations as that might determine what gets approved financially

They haven't got permission to run to Bristol. The services they run into England now is pretty much the limit of what they're allowed to run.

 

[Greybeard33]

Beacon Rail have a fleet that’s almost new with little prospect of finding work elsewhere, they’ll probably offer TPE a price that the DFT can’t refuse.

Beacon only owns the coaches, not the 68s, which could potentially find work as freight locos. And TPE is incurring substantial ongoing crew training costs from its attempts to operate the sets. Therefore I do not think that an attractive lease price offer from Beacon would necessarily be sufficient to save the Mk5a's.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

So many people seem to be taking this thread as fact yet it’s in the speculative section and the source is a mate on Facebook.

It's twitter actually.

 

[L+Y]

A combination of DFT incompetence, TPE incompetence, CAF quality issues and an obsession with some forum members of binning anything on TPE that isn't a 185 or 802.

This is more or less my understanding: lack of mk5 rakes in service is more due to training backlogs caused by industrial trouble than any inherent reliability (or lack thereof) in the rolling stock itself? Or am I incorrect?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Beacon only owns the coaches, not the 68s, which could potentially find work as freight locos. And TPE is incurring substantial ongoing crew training costs from its attempts to operate the sets. Therefore I do not think that an attractive lease price offer from Beacon would necessarily be sufficient to save the Mk5a's.

Yes. Also lets face it TPE have trained staff for the 185s (and have to keep them up-to-date) even if TPE do not use all of the 185s so it makes sense to use all of the 185s if TPE can dispense with another whole (micro) fleet instead.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2023 ==

This is more or less my understanding: lack of mk5 rakes in service is more due to training backlogs caused by industrial trouble than any inherent reliability (or lack thereof) in the rolling stock itself? Or am I incorrect?

My feeling is that, regardless of why the Mk5s are not used much, the here and now is that the Mk5s are a good candidate sadly for getting rid of. There seems to be a need for TPE to get rid of some stock or is there ?.

I just remembered - a number of the 185s were to go anyway. Would TPE be trimming down far enough to dispense with all the 185s if they kept the Mk5s ?. Just remembering the largely ignored & confused thread title. Worst still are both Mk5s and 185s going !.

Once the truth comes out its going to be a boring thread !.

 

[DanNCL]

Beacon only owns the coaches, not the 68s, which could potentially find work as freight locos. And TPE is incurring substantial ongoing crew training costs from its attempts to operate the sets. Therefore I do not think that an attractive lease price offer from Beacon would necessarily be sufficient to save the Mk5a's.

Technically we’re both right - Beacon owns the 68s and leases them to DRS who sub lease them on to TPE. The middle man (DRS) was cut out for the Mark 5s with Beacon leasing directly to TPE.

It’s in Beacon’s interests to ensure the Mark 5s have a long term future, with or without the 68s.

This is more or less my understanding: lack of mk5 rakes in service is more due to training backlogs caused by industrial trouble than any inherent reliability (or lack thereof) in the rolling stock itself? Or am I incorrect?

Spot on pretty much. Industrial relations and TPE’s decision to reduce crew route knowledge has led to the training issues.

Yes. Also lets face it TPE have trained staff for the 185s (and have to keep them up-to-date) even if TPE do not use all of the 185s so it makes sense to use all of the 185s if TPE can dispense with another whole (micro) fleet instead.

185 traction knowledge is starting to lapse too. Newcastle have lost it entirely, which might not seem relevant but during disruption will make things massively worse, as most Newcastle services now can’t be anything other than an 802. A 185 can only work to Newcastle if taken there and back by a York crew.

None of the three traction types on North TPE are signed by every crew anymore, and no crew signs all three traction types. Newcastle is missing 185s whilst Hull only has 185s. Everywhere else has either 68+Mark 5s or 802s but not both.

The whole thing is a mess.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2023 ==

I just remembered - a number of the 185s were to go anyway. Would TPE be trimming down far enough to dispense with all the 185s if they kept the Mk5s ?. Just remembering the largely ignored & confused thread title. Worst still are both Mk5s and 185s going !.

That would only be possible if Newcastle was cut to hourly, Redcar and Scarborough cut back to shuttles from York, and Hull going to Northern. Neither the Mark 5s nor 802s have great availability, they couldn’t cover anywhere near what the 185s cover on top of everything they already cover.

 

[JonathanH]

None of the three traction types on North TPE are signed by every crew anymore, and no crew signs all three traction types. Newcastle is missing 185s whilst Hull only has 185s. Everywhere else has either 68+Mark 5s or 802s but not both.

The whole thing is a mess.

That is why removing the 68+Mk5 has significant advantages for the effective operation of TPE. One less fleet to try and get traincrew to learn. One less fleet to pay out for maintenance.

Given so few services are worked by 68+Mk5, getting rid would make for a better operation.

 

[DanNCL]

That is why removing the 68+Mk5 has significant advantages for the effective operation of TPE. One less fleet to try and get traincrew to learn. One less fleet to pay out for maintenance.

Given so few services are worked by 68+Mk5, getting rid would make for a better operation.

One could argue the same for the 802s if it wasn’t for the recent removal of 185s from Newcastle. In fact being able to use the 802s flexibly on North TPE would require even more training than the same would for the 68+Mark 5 sets - three depots as opposed to two. And in both cases that’s keeping Hull as 185 only.

I’m not calling for the removal of the 802s here, but the inflexibility of those is seemingly accepted without question on these forums. Therefore I struggle to see why a less severe inflexibility is a reason to bin the 68+Mark 5 sets.

 

[43096]

Technically we’re both right - Beacon owns the 68s and leases them to DRS who sub lease them on to TPE.

Except for 68033/4 which are owned by DRS.

 

[matacaster]

It's nice to hear some intelligent thinking for once. The 68s are far more of a problem than the 185s, and if the 185s stay with TPE, people can stop talking about where to put them, as TPE is already their perfect home.

The 185's are very nice trains. Perfect for TPE, although fuel consumption and weight are a bit high.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

I'm a bit confused by the title of the thread. Does this mean new trains will replace some 185's then?

To be fair, the 185's are clearly more reliable than the 68's!

If 185's go to TfW, could this mean withdrawal of the planned retention of 8 153's?

 

[Fincra5]

I think the biggest issue is... TPE. They're a shambles, cannot get their house in order. I think their training programme is just that, a programme, nothing else!

Mk5s could be an interesting proposal for TFW. Cardiff Manchster is a long way on a small DMU.

Scotrail I could also see. Maybe even Norwich-Liverpool .

A TOC that already maintained CAF fleet would make sense, although different from DMUs/EMUs, there will be some commonality as far as maintainence goes.

Of course, lime everything, it's all speculation until its confirmed.

 

[Starmill]

I suppose it is the leasing companies that lose out. The railway itself has not lost out on these trains if they are abandoned now. The railway did waste time, effort and money (unless charged on usage) trying to use them.

TransPennine Express have been using direct public funding to pay leases on near-unused trains for many years now though. They've additionally been paying to rent storage sites for them.

 

[Trainbike46]

I think the biggest issue is... TPE. They're a shambles, cannot get their house in order. I think their training programme is just that, a programme, nothing else!

Mk5s could be an interesting proposal for TFW. Cardiff Manchster is a long way on a small DMU.

Scotrail I could also see. Maybe even Norwich-Liverpool .

A TOC that already maintained CAF fleet would make sense, although different from DMUs/EMUs, there will be some commonality as far as maintainence goes.

Of course, lime everything, it's all speculation until its confirmed.

no way for the Norwich-liverpool, that route requires sprinter differentials, which neither the 185 or the 68s can meet.

Why do people keep proposing stock that definitely isn't suitable (ie anything without sprinter differentials) for Norwich-Liverpool?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

no way for the Norwich-liverpool, that route requires sprinter differentials, which neither the 185 or the 68s can meet.

Why do people keep proposing stock that definitely isn't suitable (ie anything without sprinter differentials) for Norwich-Liverpool?

Because this is largely an enthusiasts forum where a large number of people aren’t expected to understand all the operational aspects of the railway.

 

[Trainbike46]

Because this is largely an enthusiasts forum where a large number of people aren’t expected to understand all the operational aspects of the railway.

That's fair enough, It's just surprising it keeps happening to that route in particular

I mean, I am an enthusiast too!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

That's fair enough, It's just surprising it keeps happening to that route in particular

I mean, I am an enthusiast too!

Well it’s not impossible to run services without sprinter differentials, the Scarborough line went from 158s with differentials to 185s and more latterly 68s without it just needs some timetable replanning (an almost identical situation to the Peterborough to Norwich route).

 

[craigybagel]

no way for the Norwich-liverpool, that route requires sprinter differentials, which neither the 185 or the 68s can meet.

Why do people keep proposing stock that definitely isn't suitable (ie anything without sprinter differentials) for Norwich-Liverpool?

Well it’s not impossible to run services without sprinter differentials, the Scarborough line went from 158s with differentials to 185s and more latterly 68s without it just needs some timetable replanning (an almost identical situation to the Peterborough to Norwich route).

AIUI the differences between SP and normal speeds on the line between Ely and Norwich are a lot larger than they were on the Scarborough line, to the point that it wouldn't be practical.

That said, limits can be changed. Going back to TfW, most of the route between Crewe and Ludlow has MU differentials that the 67s and MKIVs can't use, and they suffer a time penalty as a result. But it's planned that the line speeds will be changed soon to allow the 67s to run faster.

 

[mike57]

The Mk5s were a disappointment really, Not having underfloor engines, and end doors with vestibules should have delivered a much better quality of travel experience on the routes they were intended for, where journey times can be 2hrs+.

The reality was there seemed to be loads of teething problems with their introduction. the window alignment in standard class was about as bad it could get, and the noise from the 68s was/is a problem.

Add to that simple design problems, like the power/usb sockets being buried under the seat and almost inaccessable if someone is sitting next to you, a jiggly ride, and a general feeling of poor build quality (rattles and squeaks etc).

I also understand that although 'loco hauled' they are effectivley unpowered EMUs so can not be reformed to meet future changing needs without some (significant?) work, which really defeats one of the advantages of LHCS which is the ability to reform to meet changing needs quickly.

There are usually 2 or 3 parked at Scarborough, obviously not being used, whilst everyone is crammed into a 3 coach 185 between Leeds and Manchester.

Will they end up like the 180s, unloved and passed around?

 

[yoyothehobo]

Will they end up like the 180s, unloved and passed around?

And on fire half the time?

 

[WAB]

Will they end up like the 180s, unloved and passed around?

Grand Central will want them in that case - D. B. Arriva's Orphanage for Unloved Trains

 

[D365]

So many people seem to be taking this thread as fact yet it’s in the speculative section and the source is a mate on Facebook.

It's twitter actually.

You’re not helping your case!

 

[Fincra5]

Because this is largely an enthusiasts forum where a large number of people aren’t expected to understand all the operational aspects of the railway.

Not everyone knows all the Route Speeds ...