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

[HamworthyGoods]

Not everyone knows all the Route Speeds ...

That was my exact point!

 

[Trainbike46]

That was my exact point!

yeah, I should have made my point (the 185s, 68s, and other stock that can't use sprinter differentials, are unsuitable for any services on -Peterborough-Ely-Norwich/Stansted) in a slightly nicer way. Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[Fincra5]

That was my exact point!

All very well... which is why people speculate. That's what this section is about

 

[anthony263]

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 ==


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

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.

Although James price has said they'd like to run.ti Bristol TM and London

 

[Bevan Price]

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

But only 3 coaches means that they are too small. and there are probably not enough to run 6 car formations on all TP services.

 

[Starmill]

But only 3 coaches means that they are too small. and there are probably not enough to run 6 car formations on all TP services.

To be fair to TPE would be if the locomotive-hauled sets could turn out a sensible number of diagrams, though of course not for the Manchester - Huddersfield and Huddersfield - Leeds services.

 

[LOL The Irony]

But only 3 coaches means that they are too small. and there are probably not enough to run 6 car formations on all TP services.

Not all of TPE's services will require double 185s. Knowing where to put them would allow for the busy services to be double 185.

 

[BoroAndy]

Sounds utterly ridiculous. Back in the day, TPE customers showed preference for better, modern inter-city type trains to replace Dmus. The 185s are comfortable but not good enough going forward. In my opinion the Nova3s are very good, as long as TPE have the crews to run them. That problem should be disappearing now. They need to get single crews doing full East Coast to West Coast, and slowly partially pase out the 185s. Rumour has it that York-Scarborough will go to 2 tph from December, so no way can they afford to lose any units, and in this summer months trains to Scarborough and Cleethorpes using 3 car 185s are not fit for purpose. Plus rake into account the revised depot operations at Scarborough TMD and the investment in training. The eventual class 68 replacement would be the class 93, tri mode locos, presumably utilising g the mk 5a carriages.

 

[43096]

The eventual class 68 replacement would be the class 93, tri mode locos, presumably utilising g the mk 5a carriages.

Another Class 93 and it's magical capabilities post!

 

[craigybagel]

Another Class 93 and it's magical capabilities post!

Indeed - I've lost count of how many times (including once already on this very thread!) I've had to point out that a 93 on diesel is fairly useless for hauling passenger trains.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Sounds utterly ridiculous. Back in the day, TPE customers showed preference for better, modern inter-city type trains to replace Dmus. The 185s are comfortable but not good enough going forward. In my opinion the Nova3s are very good, as long as TPE have the crews to run them. That problem should be disappearing now. They need to get single crews doing full East Coast to West Coast, and slowly partially pase out the 185s. Rumour has it that York-Scarborough will go to 2 tph from December, so no way can they afford to lose any units, and in this summer months trains to Scarborough and Cleethorpes using 3 car 185s are not fit for purpose. Plus rake into account the revised depot operations at Scarborough TMD and the investment in training. The eventual class 68 replacement would be the class 93, tri mode locos, presumably utilising g the mk 5a carriages.

I agree that when they run, the Mk5a sets are a big step-up from the 185s. It seems that the problems the sets seem to have is largely down to TPE's policies regarding staffing rather than an inherent flaw with the coaches themselves.

The noise issue with the depot at Scarborough is an odd one- whilst I don't doubt that having a 68 start up at 4am would be a pain, we have seen noise pollution being wrongly correlated with air pollution: Chiltern at Marylebone for example.

 

[RobShipway]

Indeed - I've lost count of how many times (including once already on this very thread!) I've had to point out that a 93 on diesel is fairly useless for hauling passenger trains.

On diesel alone yes, may possibly be useless, but the same was said with regards to the class 800 and look how they perform now. They also have a set of rechargeable battery packs, power from which can be used at the same time as the diesel, which then gives it the same power as being on OHLE power. I am sure that like the class 800 engines, the ratio of power output using the diesel engine could be changed on the class 93, if found not to be adequate.

The class 93 will also have a higher top speed than the class 68 or 88 with having a top speed of 110mph, which if TPE ends up keeping the MK5A fleet may give them better paths on WCML and ECML, then they have with being powered by a class 68.

I agree that when they run, the Mk5a sets are a big step-up from the 185s. It seems that the problems the sets seem to have is largely down to TPE's policies regarding staffing rather than an inherent flaw with the coaches themselves.

The noise issue with the depot at Scarborough is an odd one- whilst I don't doubt that having a 68 start up at 4am would be a pain, we have seen noise pollution being wrongly correlated with air pollution: Chiltern at Marylebone for example.

This is where i believe that the class 93 will be superior, as when depot areas such as Scarborough, they could use their rechargeable battery packs on their own to move away from the depot with starting the diesel engine later on in the journey that the class 93 is making.

As it says in the article https://www.railfreight.com/technol...3-the-science-of-modern-traction/?gdpr=accept: All these technological enhancements challenge the established order of brute power and diesel traction. With the UK government goal of eliminating diesel-only traction from Britain’s railways by 2040, there is a growing incentive to develop and deploy electric and hybrid traction. However, with green ambition out pacing electrification, and around half the UK network still without wires, the case for locomotives like the class 93 grows ever more compelling.

 

[D365]

On diesel alone yes, may possibly be useless, but the same was said with regards to the class 800 and look how they perform now. They also have a set of rechargeable battery packs, power from which can be used at the same time as the diesel, which then gives it the same power as being on OHLE power.

No it wasn’t - the Class 800s were understood to have adequate performance on diesel, for the routes that they were specified to operate on. The difficultly came where electrification upgrades had been delayed or postponed.

The Class 93 batteries are for low speed acceleration / regen only; batteries will not allow a 93 in IP (independently powered) mode to match the performance of a 93 on overhead traction. Put it this way - they definitely will not have the capability of a 68 on diesel.

 

[LittleAH]

yeah, I should have made my point (the 185s, 68s, and other stock that can't use sprinter differentials, are unsuitable for any services on -Peterborough-Ely-Norwich/Stansted) in a slightly nicer way. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Long term plan is for Norwich - Liverpool to split at Nottingham. So 185s are a distinct possibility

 

[craigybagel]

On diesel alone yes, may possibly be useless, but the same was said with regards to the class 800 and look how they perform now. They also have a set of rechargeable battery packs, power from which can be used at the same time as the diesel, which then gives it the same power as being on OHLE power. I am sure that like the class 800 engines, the ratio of power output using the diesel engine could be changed on the class 93, if found not to be adequate.

The class 93 will also have a higher top speed than the class 68 or 88 with having a top speed of 110mph, which if TPE ends up keeping the MK5A fleet may give them better paths on WCML and ECML, then they have with being powered by a class 68.


This is where i believe that the class 93 will be superior, as when depot areas such as Scarborough, they could use their rechargeable battery packs on their own to move away from the depot with starting the diesel engine later on in the journey that the class 93 is making.

As it says in the article https://www.railfreight.com/technol...3-the-science-of-modern-traction/?gdpr=accept: All these technological enhancements challenge the established order of brute power and diesel traction. With the UK government goal of eliminating diesel-only traction from Britain’s railways by 2040, there is a growing incentive to develop and deploy electric and hybrid traction. However, with green ambition out pacing electrification, and around half the UK network still without wires, the case for locomotives like the class 93 grows ever more compelling.

Unless Wikipedia is very wrong (which I'll admit is always a possibility), they'll have 1700 HP with battery and diesel engine combined. It can sustain this for 10 minutes before the batteries run out, at which point it drops to 1200hp. In no way is that going to be enough.

 

[Neptune]

Unless Wikipedia is very wrong (which I'll admit is always a possibility), they'll have 1700 HP with battery and diesel engine combined. It can sustain this for 10 minutes before the batteries run out, at which point it drops to 1200hp. In no way is that going to be enough.

Class 93 is just the latest in a line of ‘classes of bi-mode locomotive that people think are suitable for hauling loco-hauled passenger trains but refuse to look how weak they are off the wires’. For previous references please see the class 88.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Long term plan is for Norwich - Liverpool to split at Nottingham. So 185s are a distinct possibility

That plan has been discontinued, long term plan now is for it to remain as a through route.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The class 99 may be the only suitable replacement for 68s, with it's 2100hp off the wires, being higher than the off wire performance of a 93 with its 1740hp available. Whether that'll still be enough is another matter, but they're the most suitable electro-diesel loco currently.

 

[D365]

The class 99 may be the only suitable replacement for 68s, with it's 2100hp off the wires, being higher than the off wire performance of a 93 with its 1740hp available.

To the best of my knowledge, the GBRf 99s are not intended for passenger operations. Whether a variant would be possible is a different matter; at least we’re in the right subforum for it.

 

[DanNCL]

For reference, a 93 on diesel alone is equivalent to a class 27 - these were used in pairs on the Edinburgh-Glasgow route as a single loco wasn't enough. A 93 on both diesel and battery power is equivalent to a 37.

No it wasn’t - the Class 800s were understood to have adequate performance on diesel, for the routes that they were specified to operate on. The difficultly came where electrification upgrades had been delayed or postponed.

The 800s were known from the outset to be inadequate for running to Plymouth and Inverness. For Plymouth that was resolved by uprating the engines. For Inverness the 'solution' was to re-time the services, end-to-end HST timings only being maintained thanks to the much shorter dwell times offered by the 800.

The class 99 may be the only suitable replacement for 68s, with it's 2100hp off the wires, being higher than the off wire performance of a 93 with its 1740hp available. Whether that'll still be enough is another matter, but they're the most suitable electro-diesel loco currently.

To the best of my knowledge, the GBRf 99s are not intended for passenger operations. Whether a variant would be possible is a different matter; at least we’re in the right subforum for it.

The biggest issue with the 99 is it's top speed, 75mph max isn't going to cut it. However if Stadler could offer a 100mph version of it you'd have a perfect replacement for the 68s.

The 3800hp of the 68 doesn't need to be matched by any replacement. The 2500hp of the 47 would be sufficient and the 99 comes quite close to this.

 

[Neptune]

For reference, a 93 on diesel alone is equivalent to a class 27 - these were used in pairs on the Edinburgh-Glasgow route as a single loco wasn't enough. A 93 on both diesel and battery power is equivalent to a 37.

And they didn’t have to provide power for air conditioning. This fact still won’t stop those that think the 93 is the answer.

The class 99 may be the only suitable replacement for 68s, with its 2100hp off the wires, being higher than the off wire performance of a 93 with its 1740hp available. Whether that'll still be enough is another matter, but they're the most suitable electro-diesel loco currently.

This 75mph co-co freight loco doesn’t sound ideal to me to be honest. What would you lose once you’re providing hotel power to the air conditioning and are you re-gearing for 100mph?

Weren’t First Group tendering for a suitable bi-mode loco for TPE and GWR anyway?

 

[RobShipway]

The 800s were known from the outset to be inadequate for running to Plymouth and Inverness. For Plymouth that was resolved by uprating the engines. For Inverness the 'solution' was to re-time the services, end-to-end HST timings only being maintained thanks to the much shorter dwell times offered by the 800.

Thank you for proving my point.

For reference, a 93 on diesel alone is equivalent to a class 27 - these were used in pairs on the Edinburgh-Glasgow route as a single loco wasn't enough. A 93 on both diesel and battery power is equivalent to a 37.

That is also my understanding as well.

Weren’t First Group tendering for a suitable bi-mode loco for TPE and GWR anyway?

I thought that First Group where looking at class 93 or a version of it, even if it is not the Directrail version?

 

[Peter Sarf]

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.

That is my view. If fleet size is going to have to reduce then it makes sense to simplify the overall fleet by dropping the smallest sub fleet. The sub fleet is further vulnerable if it is not being fully used and has a backlog of training built up. The 68s + Mk5s are nowhere fully utilised, are a small fleet and suffer from being unusable due to lack of trained staff.

What ever the reason for the obvious lack of use of the TPE 68s + Mk5s they are the obvious choice if cutbacks are innevitable.

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.

I suppose the fact the 802s are BiMode gives them an advantage.

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

I wonder how the Mk5s compare to the 68+Mk5s ?. Obviously the 68 has to be heavier than each vehicle of a 185. What the fuel consumption ?.

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?

I would no longer assume reliability of the various fleets is a factor judging by what others have said. But actions speak louder than words - the TPE Mk5s are not being used much.

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?

My feeling, as someone who is an enthusiast with some knowledge, is that the Mk5s need to be on a more intercity type route/service.

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?

There are looking to be plenty of surplus fleets around going forward.

I think any modern rake of LHCS is going to be a Multiple Unit. Its "progress". It is not too bad - can still add/remove coaches as long as there is a DVT to be the "brain". The Caledonian Sleeper Mk5s are the same - up to 8 coaches in a MU so probably the same limit.

The class 99 may be the only suitable replacement for 68s, with it's 2100hp off the wires, being higher than the off wire performance of a 93 with its 1740hp available. Whether that'll still be enough is another matter, but they're the most suitable electro-diesel loco currently.

As time goes by more and more powerful Bi Modes on diesel are likely. So there is a future. But too far away ?.

Also my attitude is that the sections of a whole route that are not electrified are probably less important so do not need/justify the same power as the core. If they were worthy of more power then they would be higher up on the priority list for electrification any way. Obviously that argument will only be valid once the Manchester-Leeds-York bit is electrified. That would leave the ends and a bit of discontinuous electrification. Would a 93 or 99 be adequate on the York to Scarborough section for instance ?.

Of course I am clinging on to the hope that further electrification anywhere in the UK (well England !) is not doomed. If electrification of TP core is doomed then the excuse for Mk5s is diminished.

So I could read into the demise of TPE Mk5s that this means electrification is not coming.

How much more conjecture do you want !.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Mar 2023 ==

EDIT :-

For reference, a 93 on diesel alone is equivalent to a class 27 - these were used in pairs on the Edinburgh-Glasgow route as a single loco wasn't enough. A 93 on both diesel and battery power is equivalent to a 37.

So a 93 at each end ?. Rather like the 27s at each end of the Glasgow Edinburgh services.

The biggest issue with the 99 is it's top speed, 75mph max isn't going to cut it. However if Stadler could offer a 100mph version of it you'd have a perfect replacement for the 68s.

The 3800hp of the 68 doesn't need to be matched by any replacement. The 2500hp of the 47 would be sufficient and the 99 comes quite close to this.

I suppose top speed is just about gearing - like the 66/6s have different gearing to the 66/5s. So a 99 with a higher gear ratio ?. Are we getting closer to the spec needed coupled with electrification of the more demanding bits ?.

 

[Neptune]

I thought that First Group where looking at class 93 or a version of it, even if it is not the Directrail version?

I don’t recall at any point first group specifying a class (a favourite thing to do on this forum). They specified what they wanted a bi-mode locomotive to be capable of for both the mk5 hauled services and for the Night Riviera. I would surmise that the diesel engines would need to be powerful enough for hill climbing at a sufficient speed while providing the draining hotel power which is required for both these services. The class 93 just won’t cut it in the format that ROG have ordered.

 

[D365]

Thank you for proving my point.

What point is that? The 800s were specced for a job, and the generator units configured accordingly. For the more demanding diesel routes, the 802s were configured accordingly.

The Class 93s are specced to ROG requirements, the difference being that there is no additional diesel/battery performance to unlock.

 

[43096]

So a 93 at each end ?. Rather like the 27s at each end of the Glasgow Edinburgh services.

So you instantly double the cost of the locomotives. I’m not sure why it is so hard to see that using something that is not up to the job is not a good idea.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I don’t recall at any point first group specifying a class (a favourite thing to do on this forum). They specified what they wanted a bi-mode locomotive to be capable of for both the mk5 hauled services and for the Night Riviera. I would surmise that the diesel engines would need to be powerful enough for hill climbing at a sufficient speed while providing the draining hotel power which is required for both these services. The class 93 just won’t cut it in the format that ROG have ordered.

Of course the Devon Banks are demanding and the sleeper stock does demand a lot of ETH !. The only mitigation for is that the sleeper really does not need to rush to its destination.

 

[RobShipway]

Of course the Devon Banks are demanding and the sleeper stock does demand a lot of ETH !. The only mitigation for is that the sleeper really does not need to rush to its destination.

Or add a power pack unit at the end of the train or in the middle just like the flirt trains.

What point is that? The 800s were specced for a job, and the generator units configured accordingly. For the more demanding diesel routes, the 802s were configured accordingly.

The point that the class 800 trains where not original specified with enough power to be making the hills down to Plymouth. A change to their power later to match the power of the class 802 units had to be made. Many people if my memory serves where saying that the power output could not be changed. I was one of those that was saying, yes it can be changed and I am saying the same for the class 93 engines as well. So we will see what may occur within the next year or two and see who is correct.

 

[6Gman]

Unless Wikipedia is very wrong (which I'll admit is always a possibility), they'll have 1700 HP with battery and diesel engine combined. It can sustain this for 10 minutes before the batteries run out, at which point it drops to 1200hp. In no way is that going to be enough.

Oh, I don't know. The Class 28 Co-Bos were 1200hp and they were a great succ . . .

Oh, hang on.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Oh, I don't know. The Class 28 Co-Bos were 1200hp and they were a great succ . . .

Oh, hang on.

I never encountered a Co-Bo class 28 but apparently they sounded VERY powerful .