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

[D365]

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.

because the Class 800 generator units were ’underrated’, i.e. there was power in reserve.

Unless the diesel engines in the ROG Class 93s are similarly underrated (not sure why they would be), there’s no more power to unlock without changing the engines. At which point you’re dealing in massive hypotheticals.

 

[Wolfie]

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


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.

People (for which read the LHCS mafia) seem determined, cost irrelevant, to find a way to keep, what by the day seems a more flawed purchase, in service somehow. Thankfully HMT are not rail enthusiasts or tickers.... If they can't be used at a sensible cost the Mk5s have zero future.

 

[RobShipway]

People (for which read the LHCS mafia) seem determined, cost irrelevant, to find a way to keep, what by the day seems a more flawed purchase, in service somehow. Thankfully HMT are not rail enthusiasts or tickers.... If they can't be used at a sensible cost the Mk5s have zero future.

Then by all accounts none of the TPE fleet accept the class 185 units has a future on that basis. The Caledonian Sleeper trains do not have a future and neither do the GWR Sleeper trains. Yet, many would say that the MK5 coaches in the Caledonian sleeper services are flawed, but there is still plenty of customers paying to go on these trains. Likewise the GWR sleeper trains.

There are many people that prefer when travelling to not have the noise of diesel engine under their feet, hence why I know many people prefer travelling on the class 68 & MK3 coaches that Chiltern use, than using the class 168 units. Likewise I know a good many people that prefer travelling on the MK5A coaches with class 68, than a class 185 unit.

The other point I would also like to make, is that if TPE are finding the MK5A coaches so bad at working with the class 68 locomotive, why was this not picked up in testing before handover to public use or is it acceptable to be wasting tax payers money for carriages that are not more than 6 years old. A use should be found for them somewhere, even if it is to work within the Caledonian sleeper train or be used as spares for the MK5 coaches, as the TPE coaches should be correctly identified as MK5A not Mk5.

 

[Wolfie]

Then by all accounts none of the TPE fleet accept the class 185 units has a future on that basis. The Caledonian Sleeper trains do not have a future and neither do the GWR Sleeper trains. Yet, many would say that the MK5 coaches in the Caledonian sleeper services are flawed, but there is still plenty of customers paying to go on these trains. Likewise the GWR sleeper trains.

There are many people that prefer when travelling to not have the noise of diesel engine under their feet, hence why I know many people prefer travelling on the class 68 & MK3 coaches that Chiltern use, than using the class 168 units. Likewise I know a good many people that prefer travelling on the MK5A coaches with class 68, than a class 185 unit.

The other point I would also like to make, is that if TPE are finding the MK5A coaches so bad at working with the class 68 locomotive, why was this not picked up in testing before handover to public use or is it acceptable to be wasting tax payers money for carriages that are not more than 6 years old. A use should be found for them somewhere, even if it is to work within the Caledonian sleeper train or be used as spares for the MK5 coaches, as the TPE coaches should be correctly identified as MK5A not Mk5.

The best way of not wasting taxpayers money would be to terminate the TPE Mk5a lease at the first available opportunity. Perhaps the ROSCO can offer an alternative proposition involving the stock to another TOC, perhaps one not within the ambit of DfT/HMT, who knows.

There are lots of credible reports that the Chiltern Mk3s will be got rid of as soon as is possible too.

I concede that sleeper trains, a micro fleet within the railway, are different but they will continue in the UK if and only if someone is prepared to continue to pick up the enormous losses that they make.

 

[Energy]

Then by all accounts none of the TPE fleet accept the class 185 units has a future on that basis.

Can the 397s and 802s not be used for a reasonable cost? Both seem fine, though the Italian 802s aren't quite as reliable as the 800s built in Britain or Japan. TPE needs to loose some of its excess stock, whether that be the originally planned 22 185s or the less utilised mk5as.

Yet, many would say that the MK5 coaches in the Caledonian sleeper services are flawed, but there is still plenty of customers paying to go on these trains.

Caledonian Sleeper doesn't have a large amount of excess rolling stock, its also funded by the Scottish Government who are happier to cover its large subsidy.

or is it acceptable to be wasting tax payers money for carriages that are not more than 6 years old

The way to not waste tax payers money is to not renew the lease. Beacon will find a use with them whether that be Scotrail, TfW or overseas, look at the Nightstar rolling stock.

 

[Philip]

TPE needs to loose some of its excess stock, whether that be the originally planned 22 185s or the less utilised mk5as.

Unless TPE resolve their problems and revert to the timetable they had planned in 2019, in which case they will need to keep all of their stock, until new stock arrives.

 

[Wolfie]

Unless TPE resolve their problems and revert to the timetable they had planned in 2019,in which case they will need to keep all of their stock, until new stock arrives.

Why would TPE almost uniquely be allowed their pre-COVID plans? What makes you believe for one minute that DfT/HMT would pay for that?

 

[Philip]

Why would TPE almost uniquely be allowed their pre-COVID plans? What makes you believe for one minute that DfT/HMT would pay for that?

Well, TfW and Avanti to name a couple are both running near enough the same level of service - Cross Country as well once the second Manchester service returns. Northern and WMT aren't far off 2019 levels of service either.

 

[AndrewE]

Why would TPE almost uniquely be allowed their pre-COVID plans? What makes you believe for one minute that DfT/HMT would pay for that?

Maybe their offering is already inadequate for the current demand, let alone the demand that would be generated by a decent trustworthy (i.e. reliable) TransPennine service. What about when NPR expectations (or improved reliability) starts building demand even further?

 

[dosxuk]

Unless TPE resolve their problems and revert to the timetable they had planned in 2019, in which case they will need to keep all of their stock, until new stock arrives.

Didn't those plans also involve getting rid of half the 185's, which are now intended to stay - meaning something else could be got rid of instead without having to reduce the timetable.

That said, just running their full current timetable would seem like a big step up in capacity.

 

[43096]

Source: Shaun (friend on social media)

Quotes from his messages

"Hearing there is the possibility that TPE will withdraw the Nova 3s and keep the 21 class 185s which were supposed to go off lease instead"

"Hearing TfW are interested in them for their Cardiff - Manchesters"

"13 sets would cover the entire timetable unlike 8 mk4 sets."

"Would also release some 197s to replace the 230s on the borderlands line"

From another forum, it seems TPE's MD had a good laugh when told about this.

 

[RobShipway]

Can the 397s and 802s not be used for a reasonable cost? Both seem fine, though the Italian 802s aren't quite as reliable as the 800s built in Britain or Japan. TPE needs to loose some of its excess stock, whether that be the originally planned 22 185s or the less utilised mk5as.

Caledonian Sleeper doesn't have a large amount of excess rolling stock, its also funded by the Scottish Government who are happier to cover its large subsidy.

The way to not waste tax payers money is to not renew the lease. Beacon will find a use with them whether that be Scotrail, TfW or overseas, look at the Nightstar rolling stock.

But as a country we should have learned by the mistakes of ordering the Nightstar Rolling Stock to not be making such mistakes again.

The best way of not wasting taxpayers money would be to terminate the TPE Mk5a lease at the first available opportunity. Perhaps the ROSCO can offer an alternative proposition involving the stock to another TOC, perhaps one not within the ambit of DfT/HMT, who knows.

There are lots of credible reports that the Chiltern Mk3s will be got rid of as soon as is possible too.

I concede that sleeper trains, a micro fleet within the railway, are different but they will continue in the UK if and only if someone is prepared to continue to pick up the enormous losses that they make.

But the same reasons, one of which is the noise of the class 68 in taking the Chiltern MK3's out of Marylebone, I can see that being the same reasoning at places like Edingburgh if the MK5A where used to replace the HST fleet with Scotrail. Hence, you would need something like class 93 that could be used either on OHLE or battery power when entering or exiting Edingburgh station.

Another alternative, although there is not enough of them would be if the MK5A fleet did go to Scotland to use them with class 73/9 engines. But 6 out of the eleven rebuilt class 73 engines do work with the Caledonian Sleeper train, hauling sections of the trains northbound from Edingburgh.

The problem that you have with the MK5A going to TFW and I believe that it is the same with Scotrail to be honest, is that they have a contract with DB Cargo for supply of motive power for coaching stock. This would mean that either the MK5 coaches or specific class 67 locomotives would need to be converted to haul the MK5A sets.

 

[Fuzzytop]

I could well imagine the Mk5s coming off-lease from TPE. While they appeal to me as an enthusiast, it's clear that cutting such a fleet would be an obvious choice in light of the cost cuts demanded by DfT.

They're probably quite a good fit for Wales, but I'd be surprised if they ended up there just yet.

TfW doesn't strike me as swimming in money at the moment and, having recently invested in the Mk4 sets and indeed purchased them outright, the case for replacing them with a fleet of Mk5s which will require regular lease payments alongside re-investment in staff training, route proving etc seems to me questionable at best.

Presumably replacement of the Mk4s with Mk5s would also result in losing most of the catering, with the Mk5s having no buffet and much smaller galley. I'm not sure whether the loss of this would be a political issue.

That said, I'm very biased because I considerably prefer the passenger environment of a Mk4!

 

[D365]

The problem that you have with the MK5A going to TFW and I believe that it is the same with Scotrail to be honest, is that they have a contract with DB Cargo for supply of motive power for coaching stock.

The most recent LHCS to be operated by ScotRail was supplied by DRS (Class 68 + Mk2s).

 

[EZJ]

As a driver of both sets of traction we have been told that the plan is most likely that all 185 traction will be retained and a fair bit of time and money is being spent on 68/Mk5's to finally address the numerous issues they have with a view to seeing the fleet reduced to six or seven rakes with 7 coaches on each. Training courses are starting as we speak for various depots so I don't see the 68/Mk5 going anywhere soon.

 

[Mzzzs]

They have a future somewhere in the railway.
Also what problems do the 68/Mk5's have?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As a driver of both sets of traction we have been told that the plan is most likely that all 185 traction will be retained and a fair bit of time and money is being spent on 68/Mk5's to finally address the numerous issues they have with a view to seeing the fleet reduced to six or seven rakes with 7 coaches on each.

Now that could be quite useful, though I bet TPE are wishing they'd bought truly independent LHCS instead of unpowered single-ended multiple units to make that a bit easier!

 

[EZJ]

They have a future somewhere in the railway.
Also what problems do the 68/Mk5's have?

The majority of issues are due to awful communication between loco systems and that off the coaches. This is what is being looked at now.

 

[xotGD]

Because this is largely an enthusiasts forum

You could have fooled me. It seems to be primarily populated by people desperate to bin off the only crank-friendly trains in the north of England!

 

[Energy]

From another forum, it seems TPE's MD had a good laugh when told about this.

Fair enough, they have bigger problems at the moment

But as a country we should have learned by the mistakes of ordering the Nightstar Rolling Stock to not be making such mistakes again.

Well they've been ordered, if TPE don't want them they'll be Beacon's problem not the governments.

Hence, you would need something like class 93 that could be used either on OHLE or battery power when entering or exiting Edingburgh station.

Again 93 isn't powerful enough.

Another alternative, although there is not enough of them would be if the MK5A fleet did go to Scotland to use them with class 73/9 engines. But 6 out of the eleven rebuilt class 73 engines do work with the Caledonian Sleeper train, hauling sections of the trains northbound from Edingburgh.

The 73/9s often have class 66s assisting, Caledonian Sleeper isn't particularly time sensitive either.

As a driver of both sets of traction we have been told that the plan is most likely that all 185 traction will be retained and a fair bit of time and money is being spent on 68/Mk5's to finally address the numerous issues they have with a view to seeing the fleet reduced to six or seven rakes with 7 coaches on each. Training courses are starting as we speak for various depots so I don't see the 68/Mk5 going anywhere soon.

Good to see.

 

[D365]

From another forum, it seems TPE's MD had a good laugh when told about this.

Can’t blame him. We enthusiasts sometimes seem to try too hard to solve perceived rolling stock problems.

 

[RobShipway]

As a driver of both sets of traction we have been told that the plan is most likely that all 185 traction will be retained and a fair bit of time and money is being spent on 68/Mk5's to finally address the numerous issues they have with a view to seeing the fleet reduced to six or seven rakes with 7 coaches on each. Training courses are starting as we speak for various depots so I don't see the 68/Mk5 going anywhere soon.

That is good to see and read. Personally, I think the idea that started this thread, was someone starting an April fools joke. Yes, it can be argued I have participated, but at least I was willing to see the MK5A coaches go somewhere else, if the rumour was true. Others seem to want to just ditch and scrap them or send them off to foreign countries where they probably be sold for only a third of the cost to purchase them in the first place, just like what happened with the Nightstar coaches.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Can’t blame him. We enthusiasts sometimes seem to try too hard to solve perceived rolling stock problems.

I’m not sure what you mean by “perceived,” but the problems with the MK5s on TPE are definitely there.

 

[D365]

I’m not sure what you mean by “perceived,” but the problems with the MK5s on TPE are definitely there.

Trying to pass the Mk5s on to a different operator, be it with Class 93s or any other locomotive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Apr 2023 ==

That is good to see and read. Personally, I think the idea that started this thread, was someone starting an April fools joke. Yes, it can be argued I have participated, but at least I was willing to see the MK5A coaches go somewhere else, if the rumour was true. Others seem to want to just ditch and scrap them or send them off to foreign countries where they probably be sold for only a third of the cost to purchase them in the first place, just like what happened with the Nightstar coaches.

It's a good thing that none of us have the final say, then.

 

[liamf656]

From another forum, it seems TPE's MD had a good laugh when told about this.

“But my friend said so!!”

@Jacob Porrett , it’s probably worth altering your title slightly so it comes across as more of a question than factual

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Apr 2023 ==

Source: Shaun (friend on social media)

Quotes from his messages

"Hearing there is the possibility that TPE will withdraw the Nova 3s and keep the 21 class 185s which were supposed to go off lease instead"

"Hearing TfW are interested in them for their Cardiff - Manchesters"

"13 sets would cover the entire timetable unlike 8 mk4 sets."

"Would also release some 197s to replace the 230s on the borderlands line"

Going back to the start, on what planet does your friend think that money can be put forward for more loco hauled stock for TFW!? They own the mk4s so it would be a huge waste to bin them so soon, for something just as expensive to operate.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

As a driver of both sets of traction we have been told that the plan is most likely that all 185 traction will be retained and a fair bit of time and money is being spent on 68/Mk5's to finally address the numerous issues they have with a view to seeing the fleet reduced to six or seven rakes with 7 coaches on each. Training courses are starting as we speak for various depots so I don't see the 68/Mk5 going anywhere soon.

That would no doubt solve the overcrowding issues significantly and please a lot of passengers !

 

[daodao]

The mk-5s could be used to re-introduce a restaurant car express service from Manchester (London Road) to Plymouth (North Road) via the Maindee East curve.

 

[randyrippley]

I heard from someone who says he knows someone whose dog knows the stationmasters cat, that the plan is to move the mk5 and 73/9 to Waterloo-Exeter, with the third rail shoes reinstated.
The 158 / 159 get displaced to Wales
The Scottish sleepers then get rebuilt HST power cars topping and tailing

 

[mike57]

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.

Are they?, they split up into 3(?) units at Edinburgh, and AFAIK there is no DVT, I get the feeling the TPE Mk5s are far less flexible than the CS ones.

 

[Trainbike46]

Are they?, they split up into 3(?) units at Edinburgh, and AFAIK there is no DVT, I get the feeling the TPE Mk5s are far less flexible than the CS ones.

I may be wrong here, but I think the seated coach is the 'brain', and all consist must therefore include at least one of those