TfW Mark 4 sets - what should replace them?

[Bletchleyite]

Moderator note - split from:

Ex LNER (and Grand Central) Mark 4 sets for TfW

Now that the Azuma's are nearly in service and Mark 4's are going to be released in the coming weeks, do we know any more details about the three MK4 rakes that Transport for Wales are due to receive from LNER, such as which sets they'll be receiving and when they'll enter service by?

www.railforums.co.uk

I'd think a lot of any thoughts of increasing the fleet would depend on how they're performing between now and then, if HD08 doesn't materialise the odds of getting more would seem slim.

Might be useful for spare parts although there's some parts being changed soon on the tfw sets which limits their use even for that.

One can't help but wonder if a follow-on of a 5-car version of the LNER CAF units to replace them might be of more interest. They're already a CAF shop anyway, they'd be built in Wales, and they'd be useful for an electrified North Wales Coast if that does actually happen. And order a couple of extras and you could cascade 2-car 197s to bin off the HoW 153s and the 230s.

 

[craigybagel]

One can't help but wonder if a follow-on of a 5-car version of the LNER CAF units to replace them might be of more interest. They're already a CAF shop anyway, they'd be built in Wales, and they'd be useful for an electrified North Wales Coast if that does actually happen. And order a couple of extras and you could cascade 2-car 197s to bin off the HoW 153s and the 230s.

That was my first thought when I heard the news from LNER today. It shows that CAF can make a bi-mode fit within the British loading gauge. The requirements for diesel running would probably be more arduous at TfW than at LNER - greater distances and steeper inclines - but maybe there's a way as with the 810s at EMR the sets can be adapted for greater power on diesel, possibly at the worthwhile expense of reduced top speed (there's really no need for anything greater than 100 mph for TfW).

Even if that's not the route they choose to go down, I can't see them being that interested in the extra MKIVs in 2027 except as parts doners - I would hope there would already be a plan in place by then for TfW fleet to be replaced rather than expanded, potentially with as you suggest a cascade to take out the 153s and 230s (if Merseyrail don't do it for them).

 

[sd0733]

One can't help but wonder if a follow-on of a 5-car version of the LNER CAF units to replace them might be of more interest. They're already a CAF shop anyway, they'd be built in Wales, and they'd be useful for an electrified North Wales Coast if that does actually happen. And order a couple of extras and you could cascade 2-car 197s to bin off the HoW 153s and the 230s.

Unless something changes dramatically I can't see that happening.
There's a massive amount of investment going into the coaches and all the plans are to replace the 67s with something bi-mode rather than replace the lot. New components are being designed to update and replace some of the obsolete systems as parts get harder to get which isn't cheap.

 

[Lurcheroo]

If TFW did want to do away with the MK4 sets at some point(I hope not though), I could see fixed 5 car sets (bi-mode or Tri-mode) from CAF looking very appealing. If it came at a time when the Newport factory’s work was starting to dwindle then it would also be a good move politically.

 

[Rhydgaled]

It shows that CAF can make a bi-mode fit within the British loading gauge.

Interesting. In my view that just makes ordering the 197s as diesel-only rather than tri-mode even more criminal. At least as a tri-mode they could presumably be moved to the Rhymney line (releasing 756s for the TAM lines) whereas as diesel-only the 197s are stuck on the unwired (and therefore long-distance inter-urban) routes where their bodyshells are less appropriate than the outgoing stock.

As for the TfW mark 4s, I hope they will be with us for a good while yet. In the shorter-term, perhaps some of these CAF tri-modes to supplement the mark 4s could be an idea, allowing restoration of the three Holyhead-Cardiff mark 4 workings and extending Manchester-Cardiff mark 4 operation to Manchester-Swansea with a mix of mark 4s and new CAF tri-modes.

If it came at a time when the Newport factory’s work was starting to dwindle then it would also be a good move politically.

As the 195s and 331s are supposedly so very similar, another way to keep the Newport factory busy might be to send 195s, 196s and 197s there for convertsion to bi-mode. I expect it would be a very big job, possibly requiring full disassembly back to the bare bodyshells (the state they arrive at the Newport factory in ready for assembly) or at least to class 331s with range-extender battery capability.

 

[HSTEd]

I doubt it would take much performance on diesel for a multiple unit to beat a rake of coaches hauled by a bo-bo diesel locomotive.

 

[Caaardiff]

From a passenger perspective they are really good, but the reality of them is far more complicated than anyone imagined. They are maintained in Crewe (An Arriva Depot), maintenance is expensive, their current reliability isn't particularly great and lets not forget the mk4 coaches are over 30 years old. There's more simple offerings in terms of fleet for what TFW are trying to achieve, which ultimately is quite simply a 5 carriage service with a decent First class on South Wales - Manchester. The issue with the Mk4's is there aren't enough of them to provide a standard timetable to Manchester on every service, and many of them can't even make a full Swansea - Manchester day because of the range of the 67's.
Taking on more CAF units would provide a business case for a new Depot to be taken on to manage to additional workload as Chester can just about cope with what's been ordered now. It would make sense to look at putting Newport onto the network and make it into a maintenance Depot rather than an assembly plant once orders start to diminish. It would mean a more in house maintenance operation (TFW/CAF only)

 

[Energy]

Interesting. In my view that just makes ordering the 197s as diesel-only rather than tri-mode even more criminal. At least as a tri-mode they could presumably be moved to the Rhymney line (releasing 756s for the TAM lines) whereas as diesel-only the 197s are stuck on the unwired (and therefore long-distance inter-urban) routes where their bodyshells are less appropriate than the outgoing stock.

Being able to make a 10 car train bimode doesn't mean you can do the same to a 2 car train, we don't know what the config on the LNER units is like yet but it isn't unlikely that the driving cars may not have engines.

As the 195s and 331s are supposedly so very similar, another way to keep the Newport factory busy might be to send 195s, 196s and 197s there for convertsion to bi-mode. I expect it would be a very big job, possibly requiring full disassembly back to the bare bodyshells (the state they arrive at the Newport factory in ready for assembly) or at least to class 331s with range-extender battery capability.

No, they'd need significant changes to the bodyshell to fit the pantograph in, significant changes to the bogeys and drive to get electric motors and alternators in and finally significant changes to the electrical systems.

It is not worth the effort or money.

I'd much rather have a decent electrification programme in this country and cascaded turbostars refurbished to a high quality rather than the newly built 197s but we have them now.

 

[RobShipway]

Unless something changes dramatically I can't see that happening.
There's a massive amount of investment going into the coaches and all the plans are to replace the 67s with something bi-mode rather than replace the lot. New components are being designed to update and replace some of the obsolete systems as parts get harder to get which isn't cheap.

I would say that the class 67 is likely to be replaced by a class 93 tri-mode loco, but I am not sure that it would have enough power using battery/diesel to haul the mk4 coaches. I guess it is a case of wait and see what happens?

 

[43096]

I would say that the class 67 is likely to be replaced by a class 93 tri-mode loco, but I am not sure that it would have enough power using battery/diesel to haul the mk4 coaches. I guess it is a case of wait and see what happens?

Not this again. How many times do we have to go through the Class 93’s capability (or lack of it) away from the wires?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Being able to make a 10 car train bimode doesn't mean you can do the same to a 2 car train, we don't know what the config on the LNER units is like yet but it isn't unlikely that the driving cars may not have engines.

True, we still do not know the limits of bi-mode for the Civity UK platform but the Australian Civity bi-modes appear to be a mix of 3-car and 6-car sets as far as I can find from a quick Google. Assuming a 3-car bi-mode would also be possible for the Civity UK, it would have been a reasonable alternative to the diesel-only class 195 and 197 fleets (if it can't stretch to a 2-car bi-mode just order fewer units in total and have all the new trains being 3-car and 4-car units, with the small amount of 2-car work remaining in the hands of older units).

No, they'd need significant changes to the bodyshell to fit the pantograph in, significant changes to the bogeys and drive to get electric motors and alternators in and finally significant changes to the electrical systems.

It is not worth the effort or money.

I did say I expected it to be a very big job! The changes to the bodyshell (to cut a pantograph well) are why I said they might need to completely dissassemble them back to the bare bodyshell that arrives at the factory - since I understand welding aluminium bodyshells can require all electronics to be removed from the unit. At the very least it should be possible to reuse the bare bodyshells to build new EMUs (by adding a 3rd car to the 2-car sets and a 4th car to the 3-car sets) since the pantographs on the existing class 331s are not on the driving cars. Regrettably, the bogies might need to be scrapped and replaced by new ones although then again the existing 331s have the intermediate coaches so maybe the old DMU bogies could be reused under the new middle coaches and the old DMU driving vehicles get new EMU bogies?

I'd much rather have a decent electrification programme in this country and cascaded turbostars refurbished to a high quality rather than the newly built 197s but we have them now.

Agreed. There is no way I would suggest building a new fleet of DMUs and then going through the (probably outrageous) difficultly of converting them to something that has a pantograph. However, as you say we have them now and given the amount of energy that is required to produce the metal to make something like a train bodyshell or bogie I would rather we try to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle as much as possible but salvaging whatever can be used from the diesel-only trains that have stupidly been built for the UK since about 2015 (given a 35 year life, a DMU built then would be life-expired in 2050; anything built from then onwards will therefore still be running beyond the UK's net-zero target). We still need the electrification programme, but we also need to find a way to make use of as much as we can from the 19x DMUs - hence my somewhat crazy suggestion of rebuilding them.

 

[aem7ac]

Maybe surplus TPE 68s could come in for the time being to replace the 67s. Many have pointed out that a full replacement of the Mk4s likely isn't in order for the time being at least due to the amount of money spent on the Mk4s. If I'm not mistaken, TfW purchased these from the ROSCO. If so, I don't think they'd give up so quickly after semi-recently buying these.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Maybe surplus TPE 68s could come in for the time being to replace the 67s. Many have pointed out that a full replacement of the Mk4s likely isn't in order for the time being at least due to the amount of money spent on the Mk4s. If I'm not mistaken, TfW purchased these from the ROSCO. If so, I don't think they'd give up so quickly after semi-recently buying these.

It’s been said many times elsewhere on this site, it won’t happen because the MK4’s and 68’s would need modifications to work together.

 

[aem7ac]

It’s been said many times elsewhere on this site, it won’t happen because the MK4’s and 68’s would need modifications to work together.

Have not seen this elsewhere. Thought it would work because prior to OLR, Rail Express had an interview piece out about the Mk5s that said they were considering moving the motive power to 67s instead. So vice-versa I had assumed as well. Good to know.

 

[QSK19]

We still need the electrification programme, but we also need to find a way to make use of as much as we can from the 19x DMUs - hence my somewhat crazy suggestion of rebuilding them.

I could see some 19x eventually going to the future iteration of EMR once the 15x and 170s become life-expired. So, at least they would be put to good use on lines which would still be slightly beyond the viability of bi-/tri-modes. TfW (and/or Northern and/or WMR for that matter) could then get the necessary bi-mode stock without having to rebuild anything.

 

[YorkRailFan]

If the Mark 5s weren't so problematic, I would say them paired with 68s from TPE, but even if the Mark 5s didn't have cracking, TFW would still have a similar issue to TPE, a small micro-fleet with only a few crew members trained on them.

 

[Krokodil]

It’s been said many times elsewhere on this site, it won’t happen because the MK4’s and 68’s would need modifications to work together.

Never say never. Do you think that 68s have never been modified before to work with particular designs of push-pull sets? This isn't the first time the 67s have been modified either.

TfW management have certainly been sniffing around the 68s, they're not happy with DB. The savings in fuel would be considerable too.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Never say never. Do you think that 68s have never been modified before to work with particular designs of push-pull sets? This isn't the first time the 67s have been modified either.

TfW management have certainly been sniffing around the 68s, they're not happy with DB. The savings in fuel would be considerable too.

apologies saying ‘won’t happen’ is poor wording by me. It’s definitely do-able. From what I have heard, if TFW were to change loco types then they wanted to go away from diesel only.

I had wondered sometime ago if they would be better off with 68’s. I’d certainly be happy to see them and I’d have to seriously consider putting in a transfer request to Crewe

 

[YorkRailFan]

apologies saying ‘won’t happen’ is poor wording by me. It’s definitely do-able. From what I have heard, if TFW were to change loco types then they wanted to go away from diesel only.

I had wondered sometime ago if they would be better off with 68’s. I’d certainly be happy to see them and I’d have to seriously consider putting in a transfer request to Crewe

If they want to move away from diesel only, I would say either the 88s or 97s could be used.

 

[Krokodil]

From what I have heard, if TFW were to change loco types then they wanted to go away from diesel only.

While electrification is confined to Manchester-Crewe and Newport-Cardiff then no existing loco man enough for the job. Even a 93 (whenever they actually turn up) will only have as much power away from the wires as a 37 does, and that's only while the battery lasts, then you're into 31 territory.

I had wondered sometime ago if they would be better off with 68’s.

I think that the option was considered back when the franchise was first issued but there were none available. Obviously circumstances have changed in that respect.

If they want to move away from diesel only, I would say either the 88s or 97s could be used.

That'll be like being hauled by a class 20 on diesel. I'm not even sure that they have HEP on diesel so the passengers will boil in summer and freeze in winter (not to mention that the DVT will run out of juice).

 

[43096]

If they want to move away from diesel only, I would say either the 88s or 97s could be used.

Once again, we're into the territory of people not understanding the capabilities of these locos off wires. It's been done to death on here (and elsewhere) and still people don't get it.

 

[YorkRailFan]

That'll be like being hauled by a class 20 on diesel. I'm not even sure that they have HEP on diesel so the passengers will boil in summer and freeze in winter (not to mention that the DVT will run out of juice).

Would it be possible if Crewe-Shrewsbury was electrified?

 

[87015]

Never say never. Do you think that 68s have never been modified before to work with particular designs of push-pull sets? This isn't the first time the 67s have been modified either.

TfW management have certainly been sniffing around the 68s, they're not happy with DB. The savings in fuel would be considerable too.

Would the current Chiltern 68s be plug and play with Mk4s or have the TfW sets been further modded from standard TDM?

 

[43096]

Would it be possible if Crewe-Shrewsbury was electrified?

No.

 

[sd0733]

Would the current Chiltern 68s be plug and play with Mk4s or have the TfW sets been further modded from standard TDM?

Both the locos and coaches were modified for TfW. Even only select 67s can be used as they have an extra socket next to the multiple working one where the '42 way' cable from the coaches connect.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Nov 2023 ==

I had wondered sometime ago if they would be better off with 68’s. I’d certainly be happy to see them and I’d have to seriously consider putting in a transfer request to Crewe

68s were as good as ruled out on cost grounds some time ago. Unless things change dramatically they won't be joining the fleet.

The 67s maintenance contract with DB is up for renewal soon and it's planned that TfW will be able to have a more 'hands on' approach with them, at the moment they're having to go to Crewe ETD for almost everything for DB to do. There's also 1 loco currently being modified which may well be joined by a second extra.

 

[43096]

The 67s maintenance contract with DB is up for renewal soon and it's planned that TfW will be able to have a more 'hands on' approach with them, at the moment they're having to go to Crewe ETD for almost everything for DB to do. There's also 1 loco currently being modified which may well be joined by a second extra.

That is presumably a hint that TfW want to do more in-house with the 67s? That's not going to end well: putting them on depots that don't know them and an organisation that is pretty shambolic with its own fleet introductions (230s and Mark 4s to name two).

 

[sd0733]

That is presumably a hint that TfW want to do more in-house with the 67s? That's not going to end well: putting them on depots that don't know them and an organisation that is pretty shambolic with its own fleet introductions (230s and Mark 4s to name two)

From what I understand its more to enable some more minor exams to be carried out on depot at Canton and ATC Crewe rather than either going to ETD or waiting for DB engineers. There's also a couple of mods they want to do to help with a delay points- Cab door mods as they keep opening and tail/marker light replacement with LED as trains are brought to a stop a surprising number of times due to signallers/Station staff not seeing the tail lights lit.

 

[Krokodil]

Cab door mods as they keep opening

Used to happen in Mk3 days too. 67029 in particular was a menace.

tail/marker light replacement with LED as trains are brought to a stop a surprising number of times due to signallers/Station staff not seeing the tail lights lit.

Again I remember this happening a few times in Mk3 days. They really are dim.

 

[YorkRailFan]

No.

Well then 67s look to be the future.

 

[sd0733]

Well then 67s look to be the future.

They are for now. The aspirations are for something similar to the 93s but with more diesel power to replace them around 2027 when the current hire from DB runs to.