Could TPE ditch the Mk5 sets?

[Tim_UK]

Do the TPE mk5s knock in the same way, because if they do then I don't want them in England now and again, and I certainly won't want them in Scotland on a daily basis?

I went on a couple when they first launched. nice to ride on.

 

[Aictos]

Looking from the outside in, it does seem strange how there appears to be three (?) sets out daily performing reasonably well recently (to me at least, granted I don't pay that much attention). It seems to suggest that at least some combination of loco & stock operate without a hitch. If interface issues are what's holding them back I suppose they may be keeping those combinations together for as long as their exam cycles allow (I believe the stock & loco exams don't align to allow this), to eliminate any 'problem' loco / set combos?

I don't think failures such as the one you mention should be too much concern, if they're irregular. Those issues at this stage can be a part of a learning curve for the technicians, performance engineers etc to iron out over time. If those defects become regular then that's when quick action and a solid plan is required so they don't become too much of a burden on performance.

My own ponder is - would the entire situation differ if the contract was different. Ie. If the manufacturer was also responsible for the maintenance & daily availability, rather than the combination of TOC (TPE), the motive power provider (DRS), the owner (Beacon), the manufacturer (CAF) and the maintainer (Alstom). There must be lots of accountants between them trying to offset any penalties!

I also can't see them 'scrapping' the entire project either. More likely a solution will be found.

You mean like Hitachi and Siemens to name just two who have a contract to provide a set number of units per day in return they are responsible for maintaining the fleet so is rather important to them to ensure the fleet is reliable.

 

[sjpowermac]

Looking from the outside in, it does seem strange how there appears to be three (?) sets out daily performing reasonably well recently (to me at least, granted I don't pay that much attention). It seems to suggest that at least some combination of loco & stock operate without a hitch. If interface issues are what's holding them back I suppose they may be keeping those combinations together for as long as their exam cycles allow (I believe the stock & loco exams don't align to allow this), to eliminate any 'problem' loco / set combos?

I don't think failures such as the one you mention should be too much concern, if they're irregular. Those issues at this stage can be a part of a learning curve for the technicians, performance engineers etc to iron out over time. If those defects become regular then that's when quick action and a solid plan is required so they don't become too much of a burden on performance.

My own ponder is - would the entire situation differ if the contract was different. Ie. If the manufacturer was also responsible for the maintenance & daily availability, rather than the combination of TOC (TPE), the motive power provider (DRS), the owner (Beacon), the manufacturer (CAF) and the maintainer (Alstom). There must be lots of accountants between them trying to offset any penalties!

I also can't see them 'scrapping' the entire project either. More likely a solution will be found.

Many thanks for your reply, interesting to get an engineering perspective on things.

I think some of the problems have been loco specific and not actually related to the stock. 68026 has recently returned to the route following extensive extensive repair work and has had problems three times that were unrelated in any way to the Mk5a stock.

I’m not sure if you’ve seen the actual TPE specific connector between the loco and stock, but the whole assembly and housing doesn’t look particularly robust. I wouldn’t trust such a delicate piece of kit in a nice dry office, let alone exposed to the elements over the Pennines! Again, if this is a problem then I’d guess an engineering solution wouldn’t be such a difficult thing to switch.

I think the significant improvement in reliability of the CAF built Nova 2 trains does give cause for optimism with the Nova 3 sets.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Many thanks for your reply, interesting to get an engineering perspective on things.

I think some of the problems have been loco specific and not actually related to the stock. 68026 has recently returned to the route following extensive extensive repair work and has had problems three times that were unrelated in any way to the Mk5a stock.

I’m not sure if you’ve seen the actual TPE specific connector between the loco and stock, but the whole assembly and housing doesn’t look particularly robust. I wouldn’t trust such a delicate piece of kit in a nice dry office, let alone exposed to the elements over the Pennines! Again, if this is a problem then I’d guess an engineering solution wouldn’t be such a difficult thing to switch.

I think the significant improvement in reliability of the CAF built Nova 2 trains does give cause for optimism with the Nova 3 sets.

Only yesterday a York to Scarborough was 3-car instead of 5. Another was 3-car rather than 6 but they might have just detached the second 185 after the first shuttle due to lack of demand.

 

[37057]

I’m not sure if you’ve seen the actual TPE specific connector between the loco and stock, but the whole assembly and housing doesn’t look particularly robust. I wouldn’t trust such a delicate piece of kit in a nice dry office, let alone exposed to the elements over the Pennines! Again, if this is a problem then I’d guess an engineering solution wouldn’t be such a difficult thing to switch.

I do know the connector you mean - they're made by Harting and are widely used on rolling stock. They're actually good connectors in my opinion but I'm not sure they're best suited for the environment they're mounted on, or for a circuit that is regularly disturbed, especially when careful precision won't always be a priority when going between rail vehicles! However, I think you'd do well to damage the pins & sockets as they contact only when the housings are aligned, just look at how set back they are in relation to their respective housings / bushings.

The detritus inside the connector of this photo shows they're not immune from weather ingress though, which could be a problem especially on those sensitive communication lines...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/37190-dalzell/48453752491/in/album-72157644055036824/

On the vehicles I work on they're used as a semi-permanent connector, so you only disturb them if you're either changing a component or fault finding (you would try avoid disconnecting and find a terminal rail somewhere!) etc. Most of them are secured by screws, rather than the clips too.

 

[Fokx]

Only yesterday a York to Scarborough was 3-car instead of 5. Another was 3-car rather than 6 but they might have just detached the second 185 after the first shuttle due to lack of demand.

It was due to coupling issues between the two units, not to do with demand

 

[AlexNL]

The Fyra EMUs mentioned previously came from AnsaldoBreda as they provided the lowest price...

This is something which is said often, but is actually not true. During the "best and final offer" phase of the tender process there were two bidders: Alstom and AnsaldoBreda. At the time, the price per seat of the French bid was lower than AnsaldoBreda's.

However, at this point NS once again changed their mind about what they wanted: NS lowered the amount of trains they wanted to order immediately, and wanted a bigger option to pick up at a later point in time. This is when Alstom decided to withdraw from the tender altogether, leaving NS with no choice but to go for AnsaldoBreda.

The alternative would have been to cancel the process altogether and to restart the tender, but that would've led to long delays which would put NS in breach of contract.

 

[sjpowermac]

I do know the connector you mean - they're made by Harting and are widely used on rolling stock. They're actually good connectors in my opinion but I'm not sure they're best suited for the environment they're mounted on, or for a circuit that is regularly disturbed, especially when careful precision won't always be a priority when going between rail vehicles! However, I think you'd do well to damage the pins & sockets as they contact only when the housings are aligned, just look at how set back they are in relation to their respective housings / bushings.

The detritus inside the connector of this photo shows they're not immune from weather ingress though, which could be a problem especially on those sensitive communication lines...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/37190-dalzell/48453752491/in/album-72157644055036824/

On the vehicles I work on they're used as a semi-permanent connector, so you only disturb them if you're either changing a component or fault finding (you would try avoid disconnecting and find a terminal rail somewhere!) etc. Most of them are secured by screws, rather than the clips too.

Again, many thanks for taking the time to give an engineering perspective. I see your point about the pins, they are well back!

One thing that has been a bit puzzling has been the automated announcements on the train. When initially introduced there were problems with truncated announcements, so you would hear ‘we are now arriving at’ and then no station was given. That problem seemed to be resolved by about November 2019 but it’s back again now! Not the end of the world, but I can see how such a glitch might be annoying to the staff.

Only yesterday a York to Scarborough was 3-car instead of 5. Another was 3-car rather than 6 but they might have just detached the second 185 after the first shuttle due to lack of demand.

That was due to 68026 on 06:54 Liverpool to Scarborough being terminated at Manchester Victoria, with the problem being with the locomotive.

 

[LittleAH]

Most drivers and conductors already sign said route. Even Sheffield drivers sign part of it (Huddersfield to Wakefield) as one of the Manchester stoppers comes to/from Crofton depot allowing for fleet rotation and maintenance.

Originally there was the plan for the Manchester to Huddersfield stopper to continue to Wakefield Kirkgate (presumably part-replacing Northerns Castleford service), largely to free up Platform 4 at Huddersfield for LNER Huddersfield to Kings Cross services. However due to Covid neither has happened.

Really? Given I was on a service stuck between Marsden and Huddersfield last summer during disruption at Dewsbury as platform 4&8 both had TPE trains in with drivers who didn't sign that route, I'm going to respectfully disagree.

TRU is going to rely on a lot of diversion, most notably via Wakefield and Castleford. And given the backlog in competency/training due to Covid (and potential training for additional new/current staff on new trains including Mk5/68's), along with the additional connectivity, that kind of service makes logical sense. And I suggested it as a poster was wanting to strip services our via Garforth - to which he now describes as a 'luxury'.

 

[Fokx]

Really? Given I was on a service stuck between Marsden and Huddersfield last summer during disruption at Dewsbury as platform 4&8 both had TPE trains in with drivers who didn't sign that route, I'm going to respectfully disagree.

You can respectfully disagree but it’s true. I sign it myself as I had the joy of learning part of the route on Northern’s 3 times a day Hud- CFD route earlier this year. I believe videos of said route are also available on Don Coffey’s YouTube channel which show former driver refresh duties.

Manchester and York conductors and drivers both sign the route, and I believe that the Airport do too. I’m not too sure about Liverpool or Hull.
You have to remember however that very few night services operate that way (those that do are largely YK depot based). If a driver or conductor isn’t happy with their own competency having not been that way for a long period of time, they can refuse to accept the diversion of offered on the grounds they require a route refresh.

 

[LittleAH]

You can respectfully disagree but it’s true. I sign it myself as I had the joy of learning part of the route on Northern’s 3 times a day Hud- CFD route earlier this year. I believe videos of said route are also available on Don Coffey’s YouTube channel which show former driver refresh duties.

Manchester and York conductors and drivers both sign the route, and I believe that the Airport do too. I’m not too sure about Liverpool or Hull.
You have to remember however that very few night services operate that way (those that do are largely YK depot based). If a driver or conductor isn’t happy with their own competency having not been that way for a long period of time, they can refuse to accept the diversion of offered on the grounds they require a route refresh.

As true as it may be, there is a significant backlog in training and that route is vital for TRU diversions once the project starts in earnest. You may not know this, but I work on the railway.

 

[BogiePicker]

A rather left-field, theoretical question. What would be involved in sandwiching a Class 68 between two sets of Mk5s? Bit like an APT or 755.

You would have two separate 'trains' but not dissimilar to coupled Voyagers, IETs et cetera. Mk5 carriages are supposed to be quite short.

Obviously this will seem ridiculous to some. But. I think the 68 is too overpowered for a single rake of Mk5s. And everyone is saying the Mk5s should be binned from the TPE network.

 

[Watershed]

A rather left-field, theoretical question. What would be involved in sandwiching a Class 68 between two sets of Mk5s? Bit like an APT or 755.

You would have two separate 'trains' but not dissimilar to coupled Voyagers, IETs et cetera. Mk5 carriages are supposed to be quite short.

Obviously this will seem ridiculous to some. But. I think the 68 is too overpowered for a single rake of Mk5s. And everyone is saying the Mk5s should be binned from the TPE network.

You'd probably need a substantial rewrite of the TMS on both the loco and the sets, as it is designed for one loco to be attached to one rake of five coaches. That is quite apart from any physical alterations needed.

The formation you suggest would be about 245m long, so you'd need a very long platform to accommodate all doors - and you can't hang the loco off the front/end of the platform with impunity, as with the current formation.

There are only a few stations in the entire network with platforms that long - in both directions. Calling anywhere else would require SDO (never ideal) and/or lengthening, which comes with its own costs.

You'd also need a suitable route. There aren't exactly many out there which have sufficient demand to justify 10 coaches, but are unelectrified, max 100mph, and can be served with a fleet of what would be 6 units.

Finally, whilst a 68 has plenty of power, it's got to put it all down over 4 axles. So with 10 coaches to haul, performance would be in the realms of the rather anaemic Intercity 225s.

In short it's not an ideal situation but unfortunately I think your idea is a non-starter.

 

[BogiePicker]

Thanks for your answer.

 

[xotGD]

. And everyone is saying the Mk5s should be binned from the TPE network.

Not quite everyone!

Some of us are hoping to enjoy them for many years to come.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not quite everyone!

Some of us are hoping to enjoy them for many years to come.

In 1st I assume? Nothing looks enjoyable about Standard bar the colour scheme. Decent seats? Nope. Window view? Nope.

 

[xotGD]

In 1st I assume? Nothing looks enjoyable about Standard bar the colour scheme. Decent seats? Nope. Window view? Nope.

I would be very happy to travel in First. A nicer seat and free cuppa would be good but the main attraction would be a better vantage point for the thrash.

 

[Purple Orange]

What is the thrash?

 

[Journeyman]

What is the thrash?

Noise of a diesel engine working hard. Some locos have better thrash than others. Class 68s are well thought of in this regard.

 

[sjpowermac]

Noise of a diesel engine working hard. Some locos have better thrash than others. Class 68s are well thought of in this regard.

Except by residents of Scarborough living adjacent to the new depot

 

[Journeyman]

Except by residents of Scarborough living adjacent to the new depot

True. Let's face it, loco haulage in 2020 isn't a great idea.

 

[sjpowermac]

True. Let's face it, loco haulage in 2020 isn't a great idea.

Happy New Year to you too!

 

[Purple Orange]

Noise of a diesel engine working hard. Some locos have better thrash than others. Class 68s are well thought of in this regard.

So, just like petrol heads, hearing someone rave about ‘thrash’ is like witnessing anyone on top gear get too excited by the sound of a car engine being revved?

 

[Journeyman]

So, just like petrol heads, hearing someone rave about ‘thrash’ is like witnessing anyone on top gear get too excited by the sound of a car engine being revved?

Yes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except by residents of Scarborough living adjacent to the new depot

Only because, unlike what Germany has done for years, the UK railway prefers to leave engines running, making a racket and kicking out filth, for its own benefit (saving wear) rather than for everyone else's benefit (saving pollution, both noise and air). DB practice is, and has been for years, that engines are stopped if the locomotive or DMU is not going to be running immediately. And quite right, too; the railway should be legally required to do so, and if they don't want to pay the extra cost of the wear it causes to start the engine when it's cooled a bit, they should invest in pre-heaters powered from a ground supply or similar. Same for powering the stock (e.g. heating/aircon) while in a terminus or yard.

Engines, of any type of vehicle, should not be left idling when the vehicle does not need to be moving there and then.

Bus companies are terrible for it, too - engines left idling when on bus stations, when all you need powering is the ticket machine and some 12V LED strip lighting, which uses no more electricity than a smartphone.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Sounds like this is getting closer...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sounds like this is getting closer...

What is, ditching them? Can you say more about what you've heard and where from?

Glad I got a ride; even though Standard is mediocre, 1st is lovely. Even beats the UK "king of 1st" the Pendolino.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

What is, ditching them? Can you say more about what you've heard and where from?

Glad I got a ride; even though Standard is mediocre, 1st is lovely. Even beats the UK "king of 1st" the Pendolino.

Just vastly more people and swirling rumour. Seems unlikely it would magically be four different rail-connected people discussing it on the same day.

Things include:

- Noise abatement order against TPE / NR by Scarborough Council (if that’s their name) due to sitting on notch 3 when supplying ETS.
- Sets not fully paid-off by ROSCO anyway.
- DfT / TPE seeking to use a force majeure clause in the contract.

68 availability / reliability good; Mk5s not so much. 397s probably only surviving due to the nature of the route they operate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks. I hope if they do they don't return to the land of short-formations again, but instead keep the 185s and reduce services so they can stick with everything being 5 or 6-car. Perhaps those local services that are a poor fit could return to Northern to release the 185s?

An interesting question is what CAF/the ROSCO will then do with them. I can't see them being scrapped, like the junk that was the FYRA sets they will surely be fixed up and end up somewhere.

(If only they could just build another few hundred Class 170 vehicles! )

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Thanks. I hope if they do they don't return to the land of short-formations again, but instead keep the 185s and reduce services so they can stick with everything being 5 or 6-car. Perhaps those local services that are a poor fit could return to Northern to release the 185s?

Well, they’d only take this option to delete the Mk5s if they have plans for wider service reductions. E.g.:
- Scarborough only a shuttle
- Cleethorpes still truncated to Piccadilly
- Half-hourly services from Newcastle to Manchester / Liverpool turned into an hourly Newcastle - Liverpool and hourly York - Manchester; therefore less 802s needed and less 185s etc.

This would probably allow full retention of all 185s, 397s and 802s.