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

[D365]

It’s hard to speculate without knowing the technical specifications of the vehicles

 

[Driverme10]

Nope, the plan there appears to be a withdrawl of LHCS full stop due to pollution controls wanted by Westminster Council

Nope, the plan there appears to be a withdrawl of LHCS full stop due to pollution controls wanted by Westminster Council.

Alot of comments dismissing Chiltern wanting them. Yet you can now see the recently installed bio diesel fueling equipment at Stourbridge, Installed just for 68s, to satisfy said council and allow continued operation of lhcs. Therfore I imagine Chiltern would gladly take them to replace the ageing mk3s if they had the option. Esp as crews already sign lhcs and 68s.

 

[AndrewE]

Alot of comments dismissing Chiltern wanting them. Yet you can now see the recently installed bio diesel fueling equipment at Stourbridge, Installed just for 68s, to satisfy said council and allow continued operation of lhcs. Therfore I imagine Chiltern would gladly take them to replace the ageing mk3s if they had the option. Esp as crews already sign lhcs and 68s.

Unfortunately biodiesel has got nothing at all to do with pollution control...
All Diesels create NOx in the cylinders, which might - or might not - be taken out by catalytic converters. Ever noticed a sharp smell when you are behind or overtaken by a diesel car? or in Standedge tunnel? It sets my asthma off.

Biodiesel just pretends to be green as it is made from crops grown with sunlight - and fossil-fuel powered tractors, and energy-intensive nitrate fertlisers.

 

[Peter Sarf]

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

.....................

I am not sure what lessons that might have been learnt from the unnecessary Nightstar Rolling Stock could be applied to the TPE post Covid situation.

The main lesson floating around as I see it is too many small fleets ordered and delays to implementation meaning the Mk5s were not te quick solution they were expected to be.

The Night Star Stock was arguably ordered for an ill thought out and un-viable idea. Or was it ? - que another thread.

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.

I always thought five coaches was a bit short. But does seven coaches fit at the stations served ?. Will seven coaches still be within the 68s capabilities ? - I imagine so which therefore prompts the question do the running costs of the 68 make more sense if the attached train it bigger ?.

There are going to be quite a fer driving-trailer coaches spare and I assume some first cless coaches will need altering to second class. Converting to six or seven x 7car sets means 24 or 17 coaches respectively spare overall. That would leave enough for 2 or 1 extra set.

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!

I think that, because of things like power operated doors and central locking, there is nowadays too much "intelligence" required down the length of the train to just get away with dumb stand alone coaches. Call it "progress" !.

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

That is correct the seated coach is the "brain" - I think a guards compartment also. Thus an extra "brain" coach has to be added-to the Fort William portion at Edinburgh on the Northbound and gets removed on the South bound. The rest of the Fort William portion gets added to the Aberdeen portions "brain" making up 8 or less coaches.

In the good ole days of locomotive hauled stock there was invariably a brake coach included (I think it was actually mandatory ?) so the "brain" or driving coach is only a more sophisticated variant of a long standing position.

 

[Greybeard33]

There are going to be quite a fer driving-trailer coaches spare and I assume some first cless coaches will need altering to second class. Converting to six or seven x 7car sets means 24 or 17 coaches respectively spare overall. That would leave enough for 2 or 1 extra set.

No need to convert any first class coaches to second. Each 5-car set has three standard class intermediate non-driving coaches, so to form six 7-car sets six of the remaining seven sets would simply donate two of these each.

Forming seven sets would be a bit more awkward, because one of the three intermediate standard class coaches has cycle stowage but 10 fewer seats. With only six donor sets, at least one of the resultant 7-car sets would have to have two cycle areas and at least one would have to have only one cycle area but more seats (unless one coach was reconfigured to enable a standardised formation).

 

[BoroAndy]

From this thread, and people at TPE in the know, it seems all traction, I. E. 185 and Nova3 are being retained. As the service improves, passenger numbers going up, like any business, you grow or fall down quickly. 2 tph are coming to SCA-YRK and I can't see the Nova3s going to 7 cars as 6 car 185s are a very tight squeeze at Seamer.

 

[Killingworth]

A reminder of what we're talking about. A smart looking fleet of trains that we've been looking forward to seeing in service here on South Pennine ever since 68032 Destroyer first stopped at Dore on a training run in November 2021.



It dropped by again this afternoon, this time hauling empty stock from Neville Hill to Longsight, balancing with 68034 that was reported to have worked through in the opposite direction this morning.

It's tantalising and keeps the spotters amused. (I just happened to catch it when waiting to catch trains on both occasions). However, the number of out of service runs that are generating no revenue must be costing a fortune.

Not having been able to board one all I know after over 2 years is that they look smart - and are noisy.

It sounds as though they'll be an excellent fit on South Pennine (external traction noise permitting). Walk through 5 coaches without underbody engines must make for a better experience than a 3 or 6 car formation. At present a trolley may be provided. In a crowded 3 car it may be unable to get through. On a 6 car one half may be almost empty and the other well filled. Sods Law and the trolley may be in the emptier half which is no help for first class passengers expecting that service.

First class passengers are very rare at present. Who'd buy such a ticket for an hourly train that may not turn up at all, run the full distance or arrive at the destination station after the following stopping service? Or a standard class ticket that may cost 2 or 3 times the slower stopping service that may be more reliable?

I write this at the end of a week when South Pennine performance has been much better (still poor measured against the timetable today) and an occasional Nova 3 has actually run in service. Swallows and summer? When a full reliable service is being, and is seen over several months to be being, run passenger numbers will return.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately biodiesel has got nothing at all to do with pollution control...
All Diesels create NOx in the cylinders, which might - or might not - be taken out by catalytic converters. Ever noticed a sharp smell when you are behind or overtaken by a diesel car? or in Standedge tunnel? It sets my asthma off.

Biodiesel just pretends to be green as it is made from crops grown with sunlight - and fossil-fuel powered tractors, and energy-intensive nitrate fertlisers.

This is a bit of a diversion. It's noise pollution that's the key issue, and 68s do make a right racket when left idling. The actual emissions from a 68 will be lower than an early 2000s DMU, the engine is much newer and there's only one so it's more efficient. There's also an extent of all the emissions being in one place, around the bridge at the end of Marylebone, to add to that.

If Westminster do this by specifying particulate and/or NOx emissions, the DMUs will be banned too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Apr 2023 ==

No need to convert any first class coaches to second. Each 5-car set has three standard class non-driving coaches, so to form six 7-car sets six of the remaining seven sets would simply donate two of these each.

Forming seven sets would be a bit more awkward, because one of the non-driving standard class coaches has the PRM toilet. With only six donor sets, at least one of the resultant 7-car sets would have to have two PRM toilets, and at least one would have to have only one PRM toilet but more seats (unless one coach was reconfigured to enable a standardised formation).

Didn't bother Virgin Trains who had a Voyager running round with two shops after they reformed their 4s into 5s. If I recall, they just made the coach that isn't consistent between sets into the unreserved coach.

Must admit though that my view was that they should have just built two types of independent coach reformable as desired - driving trailer first with two wheelchair spaces, bike spaces and accessible bog, and a load of standard opens each with a small toilet. Or if that would mean insufficient first class, just three types - driving trailer standard with bike spaces and no bog, standard open with small bog, first open with 2 wheelchair spaces and accessible bog. Wheelchair passengers and companion(s) would receive a free upgrade as they do on some of the 5-car 80x. Would make this all rather easier.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Must admit though that my view was that they should have just built two types of independent coach reformable as desired - driving trailer first with two wheelchair spaces, bike spaces and accessible bog, and a load of standard opens each with a small toilet. Or if that would mean insufficient first class, just three types - driving trailer standard with bike spaces and no bog, standard open with small bog, first open with 2 wheelchair spaces and accessible bog. Wheelchair passengers and companion(s) would receive a free upgrade as they do on some of the 5-car 80x. Would make this all rather easier.

Not sure what the bike space and small toilet situation is, but from a passenger perspective there are only three types of coach in a set. The non-cab end coach (First and Wheelchair spaces, with the auto upgrade as mentioned); three standard intermediates; and the driving trailer standard. You're basically suggesting they should have done exactly what they did in fact do. It wouldn't be possible to have fewer than three types of vehicle, because you've to accommodate the driving trailer and the other end car which couples to the loco, then your intermediates.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Not sure what the bike space and small toilet situation is, but from a passenger perspective there are only three types of coach in a set. The non-cab end coach (First and Wheelchair spaces, with the auto upgrade as mentioned); three standard intermediates; and the driving trailer standard. You're basically suggesting they should have done exactly what they did in fact do. It wouldn't be possible to have fewer than three types of vehicle, because you've to accommodate the driving trailer and the other end car which couples to the loco, then your intermediates.

I am a bit lost. So does that mean the three intermediate coaches are all the same in the current 5car sets ?.

 

[Neptune]

I am a bit lost. So does that mean the three intermediate coaches are all the same in the current 5car sets ?.

Coach B has the cycle area at one end. Coaches C & D are identical.

Train Seating Plans | Download Plans | TransPennine Express

Take a look at our seating plans for all our trains. Download seating plans today.

www.tpexpress.co.uk

Scroll down the link to see the Nova 3 seating plan.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Coach B has the cycle area at one end. Coaches C & D are identical.

Train Seating Plans | Download Plans | TransPennine Express

Take a look at our seating plans for all our trains. Download seating plans today.

www.tpexpress.co.uk

Scroll down the link to see the Nova 3 seating plan.

Thanks for that, makes sense. I got warm with information gleaned from a Rail Engineer article here

CAF's Mark 5 coaches - Rail Engineer

Listen to this article Rolling stock designers face many obvious design constraints. Yet, as will be seen, a not-so-obvious constraint for the new Mark 5A coaches in TransPennine Express (TPE) service between Liverpool and Scarborough was the length of London Euston’s longest platforms. These...

www.railengineer.co.uk

In a six line paragraph about 60% of the way down the article almost under a picture of the interior of a class 331 driving cab.
It matches except it suggests there are two intermediate coaches with bike storage - I reckon unlikely ?.

I have not copied and pasted the paragraph as I am unsure about copyright.

Both sources indicate the three intermediate coaches are nothing special (disability wise) except for some tip up seats replacing standard but "accessible" seats to enable bike storage and what looks like a parking ares for a catering trolley.

So replacing tip up seats and catering storage with standard seats might be easy. The seats would come out of the large surplus of Driving Standard Trailers and I can guess there is a rail in the floor for the seats. It would only require alteration of two coaches that were originally coach B. It is not a big difference to ignore anyway. If TPE decided to do nothing it would just need to avoid reservations in seats 1-7 & 66 - 72 of one of the two normally identical coaches (coach C or D not both).
The disabled capability proper (loo) is in the single first class coach.

Does leave TPE or the lessor with 6 or 7 surplus Driving Trailers on top of the existing one spare and also 6 or 7 surplus first class coaches.

Time to pack my crayons away now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure what the bike space and small toilet situation is, but from a passenger perspective there are only three types of coach in a set. The non-cab end coach (First and Wheelchair spaces, with the auto upgrade as mentioned); three standard intermediates; and the driving trailer standard. You're basically suggesting they should have done exactly what they did in fact do. It wouldn't be possible to have fewer than three types of vehicle, because you've to accommodate the driving trailer and the other end car which couples to the loco, then your intermediates.

Do all intermediates have the same seat layout and a small bog each? I don't think they do?

But the key is independent coaches, RIC style, so you could form them in any order you liked (including a DTSO in the middle if you felt like). A droppable buckeye could be used to avoid the risk of mid-train screw coupling use. Then they could be reformed ad-hoc, e.g. to run a very long additional for the Grand National.

As things stand the Mk5s have all of the disadvantages of LHCS and none of the advantages (bearing in mind you can barely hear the engines in an 80x).

 

[LOL The Irony]

The disabled toilet only being in first is a moot point, as you can always just fit one in place of a standard bog. After all, we can tear apart almost 40 year old trains and put them in, so why not much newer stock?

 

[mike57]

I can't see the Nova3s going to 7 cars as 6 car 185s are a very tight squeeze at Seamer.

An east bound 6 car 185 certainly doesn't fit, back carriage is over the end of the platform, with warnings to 'move forward'. I am not sure what the situation is with a 5 car Mk5 when the engine is at the Scarborough end, but I would imagine the last carriage is out of use.

In a sensible world 6/7 car Mk5s would be used on an hourly York - Manchester or Liverpool service, to provide capacity, just calling Leeds and Huddersfield, to avoid platform length issues. Scarborough-York would stay as a shuttle, because that avoids quite a few operational issues at York, maybe extending a peak hour service each way to Leeds. Running 3 car services on the main Leeds Machester route doesn't make sense given the limit of paths, and with the current TPE staffing issues fewer longer trains must make sense.

As things stand the Mk5s have all of the disadvantages of LHCS and none of the advantages (bearing in mind you can barely hear the engines in an 80x).

It just feels like the cheapest possible solution was found, with no thought given to future use once the original purpose was served/no long existed. If a a proper LHCS solution had been purchased a possible white elephant could have been turned into a really useful flexible solution to allow a response to short term issue/needs, e.g. crowd busters for events, longer services when diversions are in place, whilst still keeping the day to day service going in the standard configuration.

 

[JonathanH]

If a a proper LHCS solution had been purchased a possible white elephant could have been turned into a really useful flexible solution to allow a response to short term issue/needs, e.g. crowd busters for events, longer services when diversions are in place, whilst still keeping the day to day service going in the standard configuration.

A 'proper LHCS solution' of that type hasn't existed on the UK railway since the 1990s. I can't see anyone ever introducing one anywhere in the future.

 

[Philip]

If the reliability problems of the mk5 stock can be sorted, then it would make sense to order more of the 68/mk5 sets to replace 185s on the remaining all-diesel routes, as this would be cheaper than more 802s. The noise 'issue' of the 68s sounds like a case of looking for an excuse to criticize LHCS use; they are good reliable locos, less polluting than DMUs older than 10 years.

 

[Trainbike46]

Do the 185s need replacing though? they could just keep them...

 

[Greybeard33]

Do all intermediates have the same seat layout and a small bog each? I don't think they do?

The intermediates each have one small toilet, but Coach B has a different seating layout to the other two, with a cycle area and 10 fewer seats - see the layouts linked in #161.

But the key is independent coaches, RIC style, so you could form them in any order you liked (including a DTSO in the middle if you felt like). A droppable buckeye could be used to avoid the risk of mid-train screw coupling use. Then they could be reformed ad-hoc, e.g. to run a very long additional for the Grand National.

The CS Mk5s have Dellner couplers throughout to facilitate reformation, so I imagine the Mk5a's could be retrofitted with Dellners in place of the bar couplings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The CS Mk5s have Dellner couplers throughout to facilitate reformation, so I imagine the Mk5a's could be retrofitted with Dellners in place of the bar couplings.

Though even the CS coaches aren't independent RIC style coaches, they require the right ratio of seated coach to sleepers as the seated coach contains some technical gubbins required to make the others work.

With the excellent sound insulation of modern MUs, LHCS only has an advantage when you have fully independent vehicles you can form as you like.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Apr 2023 ==

The intermediates each have one small toilet, but Coach B has a different seating layout to the other two, with a cycle area and 10 fewer seats - see the layouts linked in #161.

So 4 types then?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Apr 2023 ==

If the reliability problems of the mk5 stock can be sorted, then it would make sense to order more of the 68/mk5 sets to replace 185s on the remaining all-diesel routes, as this would be cheaper than more 802s. The noise 'issue' of the 68s sounds like a case of looking for an excuse to criticize LHCS use; they are good reliable locos, less polluting than DMUs older than 10 years.

I'd order 802s. A single standard fleet would be most useful for TPE and they can use the wires where (increasingly) present.

 

[RailWonderer]

Do the 185s need replacing though? they could just keep them...

A few years ago it was announced that TPE would send 22 185s off lease once the mk5 and 802 (Nova 2 and 3) arrived but they reduced it to 15 off lease 185s then none at all. As a result TPE has a surplus of stock, hence there are more 185s than there is work for so there has been plenty of speculation about where the remainder would go. Then it gets repeatedly said they are not fit for any routes other than the TP because of their weight and running costs, that they won't be taken by any other ToCs.

TPE are in a shambles now and don't have enough crew with enough route knowledge to run them without doing a one way trip then returning ECS and leaving passengers in a huff. Any argument about TPE keeping 185s means they continue to sit idle or on the island track at Sheffield or somewhere where they are not ferrying passengers about, so they are being wasted where they are now. TPE have more than enough stock, but until the DfT/Treasury is in a better position and demanding service upgrades the 185s aren't going anywhere due to the costs of faciliating a move elsewhere.

 

[Trainbike46]

A few years ago it was announced that TPE would send 22 185s off lease once the mk5 and 802 (Nova 2 and 3) arrived but they reduced it to 15 off lease 185s then none at all. As a result TPE has a surplus of stock, hence there are more 185s than there is work for so there has been plenty of speculation about where the remainder would go. Then it gets repeatedly said they are not fit for any routes other than the TP because of their weight and running costs, that they won't be taken by any other ToCs.

TPE are in a shambles now and don't have enough crew with enough route knowledge to run them without doing a one way trip then returning ECS and leaving passengers in a huff. Any argument about TPE keeping 185s means they continue to sit idle or on the island track at Sheffield or somewhere where they are not ferrying passengers about, so they are being wasted where they are now. TPE have more than enough stock, but until the DfT/Treasury is in a better position and demanding service upgrades the 185s aren't going anywhere due to the costs of faciliating a move elsewhere.

I agree that currently TPE has more stock than it needs. However, the post I was replying to suggested buying more Mk5As, to replace the 185s, for which I don't see the logic (at all)

Though even the CS coaches aren't independent RIC style coaches, they require the right ratio of seated coach to sleepers as the seated coach contains some technical gubbins required to make the others work.

though the required ratio (one seated coach with up to 7 other coaches) is hardly very onerous, so if it is possible to change the Mk 5As to operate like the sleeper stock that would give (a lot) more flexibility.

 

[Greybeard33]

So 4 types then?

Yep.

 

[Bletchleyite]

though the required ratio (one seated coach with up to 7 other coaches) is hardly very onerous, so if it is possible to change the Mk 5As to operate like the sleeper stock that would give (a lot) more flexibility.

True. If the gubbins was in the DTSO that would work, you could use two DTSOs on a long set instead of the "iron girder" end coaches. Or even do it Swiss style - two sets either side of a central loco.

 

[XAM2175]

It just feels like the cheapest possible solution was found, with no thought given to future use once the original purpose was served/no long existed. If a a proper LHCS solution had been purchased a possible white elephant could have been turned into a really useful flexible solution to allow a response to short term issue/needs, e.g. crowd busters for events, longer services when diversions are in place, whilst still keeping the day to day service going in the standard configuration.

I'd order 802s. A single standard fleet would be most useful for TPE and they can use the wires where (increasingly) present.

What TPE really wanted was more 802s. The Mk 5s were never meant to be anything more than a quick and cheap work-around for Hitachi not being able to deliver more 802s in the timeframe desired, with "bi-mode" changed to "we can put a 'leccy loco on the front when the wires go up".

Obviously the "quick" bit didn't work out, and "cheap" took a denting too, but you're wasting time approaching the order from any perspective other than one of accepting that they were always meant to be DMUs in spirit.

 

[Meerkat]

I'm struggling to believe the formations could be as inflexible as portrayed - that would be a pretty big risk for the ROSCO on a relatively short lease.

 

[dosxuk]

I'm struggling to believe the formations could be as inflexible as portrayed - that would be a pretty big risk for the ROSCO on a relatively short lease.

They don't sound that inflexible from a ROSCO perspective though - most of the differences are in the internal fit out, which if a new customer needed something particularly different could probably be accomplished without too much cost or difficulty. What they aren't though, is flexible on a day-to-day, trip-to-trip basis. A close comparison could be the 222's - where none of the 9-car examples exist any more. To their ROSCO, it's a flexible train - they've been able to reform the fleet to 5 & 7 cars without too much difficulty to meet the needs of their client - but to EMR it's a fixed formation that can't be altered without major works.

 

[MattRat]

Do the 185s need replacing though? they could just keep them...

Especially since they only really work for TPE. If they get replaced, they are getting scrapped, no where else will take them unless they have serious modification.

An interesting theoretical, but nothing more. In the real world, they go for scrap, and no amount of foruming will change that, so the question is do people mind if they get scrapped or not?

 

[RobShipway]

Especially since they only really work for TPE. If they get replaced, they are getting scrapped, no where else will take them unless they have serious modification.

An interesting theoretical, but nothing more. In the real world, they go for scrap, and no amount of foruming will change that, so the question is do people mind if they get scrapped or not?

If there is space, couldn't the spare class 185 units be used to obtain parts? Admittedly, it still would be scrapping them, but at least if needed parts would be available to maintain the rest of the fleet.

Admittedly, it is a silly thought as I don't think that the MK5A coaches would fit through the tunnel on the Uckfield line, but I had wondered whether GTR Southern could have them to replace the class 171 units and the 171 units get converted back to be being class 170 units and given to say EMR?

 

[D365]

If the reliability problems of the mk5 stock can be sorted, then it would make sense to order more of the 68/mk5 sets to replace 185s on the remaining all-diesel routes, as this would be cheaper than more 802s.

How do you know this?

If there is space, couldn't the spare class 185 units be used to obtain parts? Admittedly, it still would be scrapping them, but at least if needed parts would be available to maintain the rest of the fleet.

Don't think you need to be concerned about parts, there are plenty of engineers and maintainers who know what they're doing