Could TPE ditch the Mk5 sets?

[JonathanH]

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.

That York to Manchester might as well be the Redcar service with a separate Manchester to Leeds if necessary to maintain 4tph over the Pennines - Newcastle / Hull / Redcar / Leeds - and a Scarborough shuttle from York. 802s only on the Newcastle, 185s on everything else, perhaps 185s splitting at York with only one unit beyond to Redcar.

It wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility to use the 802 fleet for Liverpool to Newcastle and Manchester to Edinburgh via the WCML and ditch the 397s while they are at it.

 

[Watershed]

That York to Manchester might as well be the Redcar service with a separate Manchester to Leeds if necessary to maintain 4tph over the Pennines - Newcastle / Hull / Redcar / Leeds - and a Scarborough shuttle from York. 802s only on the Newcastle, 185s on everything else, perhaps 185s splitting at York with only one unit beyond to Redcar.

It wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility to use the 802 fleet for Liverpool to Newcastle and Manchester to Edinburgh via the WCML and ditch the 397s while they are at it.

In the unlikely event of any fleet simplification being seriously considered, the Hull Trains 802s currently racking up leasing bills would surely be the most attractive target for "re-use". Similarly with the East Coast OA operation, where 5 803s are on order.

10 extra 80x's together with long-term retention of all the 185s would make the most sense. That suggests it's unlikely to happen!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The service I would propose would be 4tph in total for north TPE, 2 Liv-Vic-wherever and 2 Pic-wherever (there are 4 "north TPE" destinations - Newcastle, Redcar, Scarborough and 'Ull - so one to each, no strong view on which way round), nothing to Ringway and the Ordsall Chord served by Northern extending services that presently terminate at Vic from the east around to Oxford Road bay or Ringway if they must. If you want Picc specifically change at York/Leeds or use the tram. Cleethorpes as it is using double 185s. Local stopping services back to Northern where they belong. Bin the Edinburgh off.

Would that be operable using just the 80x and double 185s?

(I'm ignoring the WCML because it's a bit separate and I don't see as strong a reason to bin the 397s, but if they got that bad there is no shortage of either available or soon-available 110mph EMUs such as 350/2s or the ex-GA Electrostars - or if Avanti go for a permanent reduction in service could they serve it using their 7-car 80x or shortened Pendolinos?)

 

[JonathanH]

10 extra 80x's together with long-term retention of all the 185s would make the most sense. That suggests it's unlikely to happen!

No extra units are required at all to eliminate the Mk5s. It can be done by cutting off the Edinburgh extensions on the Liverpool to Newcastle service, cutting the Scarborough back to a shuttle from York and reducing duplication between York and Newcastle.

Forget about TPE bringing in more stock on top of what they have without the Mk5s - it isn't needed.

Cleethorpes cut off at Piccadilly saves one 185. Removal of Newcastle to Airport saves 6 802s and a pair of 185s. Scarborough cut back to a York shuttle saves 4 or 5 units. Redcar longer running to the Airport saves 2 185s. I make that enough to remove the 15 185s and the Mk5 sets and an adequate service across the Pennines to meet the slightly lower future demand.

 

[LittleAH]

No extra units are required at all to eliminate the Mk5s. It can be done by cutting off the Edinburgh extensions on the Liverpool to Newcastle service, cutting the Scarborough back to a shuttle from York and reducing duplication between York and Newcastle.

Forget about TPE bringing in more stock on top of what they have without the Mk5s - it isn't needed.

Cleethorpes cut off at Piccadilly saves one 185. Removal of Newcastle to Airport saves 6 802s and a pair of 185s. Scarborough cut back to a York shuttle saves 4 or 5 units. Redcar longer running to the Airport saves 2 185s. I make that enough to remove the 15 185s and the Mk5 sets and an adequate service across the Pennines to meet the slightly lower future demand.

This view is far too short term.

Firstly, TPE's two services per hour between York and Newcastle are unlikely to be reduced to one. TfN, with support of local councils in the NE have just yesterday backed the continuation of these services rather than an additional London service. For any decision maker to ignore that many local stakeholders would go down like a lead balloon, given the ramifications of the long-term vision of rail in the North of England.

Secondly, we're expecting an announcement this year about TRU and how it will look. Should it be fully electrified, why would TPE run 185s on the route? More than likely that some new rolling stock would be running by the end of the decade.

Finally, it is likely that Redcar services may be extended to Saltburn at some point. Again, that requires more rolling stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This view is far too short term.

Fair point, though what they could do is ditch the Mk5s and get an order in for more 802s to replace them. Demand probably wouldn't fully recover in the time between that and them arriving.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Fair point, though what they could do is ditch the Mk5s and get an order in for more 802s to replace them. Demand probably wouldn't fully recover in the time between that and them arriving.

I'd sooner see 802s. It's a pity the Mk5 have so many faults. Same with the 397s. I think the 397s have been worse of late but they somehow slip under the radar. Whatever was ordered for Anglo-Scottish routes should have been 4-car with doubling permitted, like there used to be 8-car 350 workings before one hit a horse in late 2018.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whatever was ordered for Anglo-Scottish routes should have been 4-car with doubling permitted

Disagree; 4 isn't enough for anything at all, really, and as you won't have 12s running the benefit of that length is lost. Perhaps longer than 5, though; the 7-car Avanti 80x would be ideal were Liverpool not to get its extra TPH due to reduced demand. Or bin off Glasgow and just run to Edinburgh hourly; the latter has far, far higher demand from Manchester than the former, the Glasgows are generally much quieter from my observation.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The service I would propose would be 4tph in total for north TPE, 2 Liv-Vic-wherever and 2 Pic-wherever (there are 4 "north TPE" destinations - Newcastle, Redcar, Scarborough and 'Ull - so one to each, no strong view on which way round), nothing to Ringway and the Ordsall Chord served by Northern extending services that presently terminate at Vic from the east around to Oxford Road bay or Ringway if they must. If you want Picc specifically change at York/Leeds or use the tram. Cleethorpes as it is using double 185s. Local stopping services back to Northern where they belong. Bin the Edinburgh off.

Would that be operable using just the 80x and double 185s?

(I'm ignoring the WCML because it's a bit separate and I don't see as strong a reason to bin the 397s, but if they got that bad there is no shortage of either available or soon-available 110mph EMUs such as 350/2s or the ex-GA Electrostars - or if Avanti go for a permanent reduction in service could they serve it using their 7-car 80x or shortened Pendolinos?)

I think in reality the smartest thing is a standard half-hourly path (xx:24 and xx:54 I believe eastbound out of Liverpool, I think it's xx:02 and xx:34 into Liverpool), on the Liverpool <> York axis, only stopping between Manchester and Leeds at Huddersfield. That's 11 diagrams for 802 between Liverpool and Edinburgh (if you want to do that sort of thing, think long term I suppose); and then 6 diagrams for a Liverpool to Hull if you then use the other path. That's a good use of 17 units out of 19.

Add to that a half-hourly Piccadilly to York path (Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds, Garforth) extending to Redcar and Scarborough and you can encourage split and attach of the Redcar portion to give 11 units used; and Scarborough is 12 units (possibly 10 or 11 if you split / attach on Platform whatever it is up around the corner). That gives a remainder of around about 29 units.

12 units for Piccadilly to Cleethorpes (all doubles), and in theory 4 diagrams if you were smart and did Manchester - Castleford stopping via Huddersfield (6 units if you double two high peak services each way); and 2 diagrams for Huddersfield to Leeds. Instead of doubling them, you leave them as they are and just stop the odd other peak service at high peak at Mirfield, Batley and Morley (mixed) on the other services.

So far we've only got to 42 units. If you then finish with a half-hourly Airport to Stalybridge via Ordsall (good units for it) and a half-hourly Airport to Rochdale (might as well, no?) to give a standard, quarter-hourly Metro path over the Ordsall chord and you're now sitting on the last 9 units used. Obviously you need a maintenance spare, but you could sub-lease three 195s to mix into that lot; or sub-lease 6 units the other way to Northern.

Anyway, that's me...

 

[Greybeard33]

If you then finish with a half-hourly Airport to Stalybridge via Ordsall (good units for it) and a half-hourly Airport to Rochdale (might as well, no?) to give a standard, quarter-hourly Metro path over the Ordsall chord and you're now sitting on the last 9 units used.

No way will you get an extra two hourly paths through the Castlefield corridor to give 4tph on the Ordsall Chord. And services from the Chord need to go to Stalybridge. A service to Rochdale would have to cross the entire layout at Victoria, which would kill capacity through the station.

 

[JonathanH]

No way will you get an extra two hourly paths through the Castlefield corridor to give 4tph on the Ordsall Chord.

The idea is that the TPE ones are withdrawn from the Ordsall Chord with the TPE services terminating at Piccadilly via Guide Bridge instead.

Ah, I re-read the comment of the OP - yes, 4tph over the Ordsall curve, all local - isn't happening without some reduction in services elsewhere.

Anyway, it is getting off-topic - the point is that the Mk5s aren't needed even with only a possible future fleet of 36 185s. Some form of 185 replacement can be procured when there is more electrification in place and the Mk5s are a distant memory.

 

[daodao]

The service I would propose would be 4tph in total for north TPE, 2 Liv-Vic-wherever and 2 Pic-wherever (there are 4 "north TPE" destinations - Newcastle, Redcar, Scarborough and 'Ull - so one to each, no strong view on which way round), nothing to Ringway and the Ordsall Chord served by Northern extending services that presently terminate at Vic from the east around to Oxford Road bay or Ringway if they must. If you want Picc specifically change at York/Leeds or use the tram. Cleethorpes as it is using double 185s. Local stopping services back to Northern where they belong. Bin the Edinburgh off.

I agree, but would terminate the Cleethorpes service at Piccadilly and remove the airport extension.

There should be 2 tph only on the Ordsall curve, but it would be more useful to run them to Rochdale and beyond rather than Stalybridge and beyond even if that means crossing tracks at the east end of Victoria.

 

[tetudo boy]

I agree, but would terminate the Cleethorpes service at Piccadilly and remove the airport extension.

Count me in. Only Northern should operate to the airport. It's been mentioned before.

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

Regarding repurposing the Mk5As, the elephant in the room is what to do about the complex electronic systems. As discussed upthread, these still appear to be immature, and are only compatible with the specially modified subfleet of 68s, not any other loco. Use of the existing Mk5A/68 sets elsewhere on the network would likely encounter the same issues as keeping them with TPE, whereas the 68s could otherwise be transferred to freight operations.

I suppose one option might be to ditch the DTs and reform the remaining vehicles into rakes of hauled coaches similar to the Mk5s, e.g. for charter use. But would it be economically viable to modify and debug the TMS etc. for such a small fleet?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Regarding repurposing the Mk5As, the elephant in the room is what to do about the complex electronic systems. As discussed upthread, these still appear to be immature, and are only compatible with the specially modified subfleet of 68s, not any other loco. Use of the existing Mk5A/68 sets elsewhere on the network would likely encounter the same issues as keeping them with TPE, whereas the 68s could otherwise be transferred to freight operations.

I suppose one option might be to ditch the DTs and reform the remaining vehicles into rakes of hauled coaches similar to the Mk5s, e.g. for charter use. But would it be economically viable to modify and debug the TMS etc. for such a small fleet?

Have we seriously just had a suggestion for charter use for stock of this youth? Madness.

 

[43096]

I suppose one option might be to ditch the DTs and reform the remaining vehicles into rakes of hauled coaches similar to the Mk5s, e.g. for charter use. But would it be economically viable to modify and debug the TMS etc. for such a small fleet?

Pure crayonista. The cost of a new fleet of vehicles against the revenue from charter use is so far apart as to be an instant non-starter.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Pure crayonista. The cost of a new fleet of vehicles against the revenue from charter use is so far apart as to be an instant non-starter.

I was thinking more the public outrage...

 

[Greybeard33]

Pure crayonista. The cost of a new fleet of vehicles against the revenue from charter use is so far apart as to be an instant non-starter.

Sunk cost is irrelevant. Unless there is another use for them they are only worth the scrap value. If not TPE then where?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Sunk cost is irrelevant. Unless there is another use for them they are only worth the scrap value. If not TPE then where?

Someone somewhere would have them. It would be worth letting the ROSCO sort them at their cost and then taking them on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sunk cost is irrelevant. Unless there is another use for them they are only worth the scrap value. If not TPE then where?

Scotland?

 

[JonathanH]

Scotland?

No. If they don't work, they don't work. There is no justification for just finding work for them for the sake of it.

 

[Energy]

No. If they don't work, they don't work. There is no justification for just finding work for them for the sake of it.

Scotland would also have to want them. Given the reliability at TPE I doubt anyone will be willingly taking them on unless they have to.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

No. If they don't work, they don't work. There is no justification for just finding work for them for the sake of it.

As stated.

The ROSCO has not fully paid them off with CAF. CAF don't want the things to now be a multi-million loss. The ROSCO can simply withhold payment until they work fully, and then after all the work is done and the issues are resolved, they then find a new willing home.

Undoubtedly, someone would take them off their hands. Don't ask me where, when or why; but they would. They'd have to be daft not to then take a brand new fleet of modern trains.

 

[Energy]

As stated.

The ROSCO has not fully paid them off with CAF. CAF don't want the things to now be a multi-million loss. The ROSCO can simply withhold payment until they work fully, and then after all the work is done and the issues are resolved, they then find a new willing home.

Undoubtedly, someone would take them off their hands. Don't ask me where, when or why; but they would. They'd have to be daft not to then take a brand new fleet of modern trains.

Could be similar to the 458s, ROSCO just leases them for very cheap to get some use.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Could be similar to the 458s, ROSCO just leases them for very cheap to get some use.

Potentially. They need them working first!

 

[Journeyman]

As stated.

The ROSCO has not fully paid them off with CAF. CAF don't want the things to now be a multi-million loss. The ROSCO can simply withhold payment until they work fully, and then after all the work is done and the issues are resolved, they then find a new willing home.

Undoubtedly, someone would take them off their hands. Don't ask me where, when or why; but they would. They'd have to be daft not to then take a brand new fleet of modern trains.

A TOC would only take them on if there was a need for which they were suitable, and I'd argue they're a very, very niche product.

 

[Philip]

Does Manchester-Cleethorpes really need double 185s for the diagrams? Pre-pandemic I would say definitely but even when things get more towards 'normal', it is expected that rail travel will be nothing like it was, particularly longer distance. Also remember that the Liverpool to Nottingham looks likely to be double 185s before long.

 

[YorksLad12]

In the unlikely event of any fleet simplification being seriously considered, the Hull Trains 802s currently racking up leasing bills would surely be the most attractive target for "re-use". Similarly with the East Coast OA operation, where 5 803s are on order.

It's been mentioned elsewhere that that can't happen, though I can't recall chapter and verse. There may be scope for sub-leasing, the way GC do with their 180 to Northern (formerly both Arriva companies), and the 803s could only run the Scotland route.

Fair point, though what they could do is ditch the Mk5s and get an order in for more 802s to replace them. Demand probably wouldn't fully recover in the time between that and them arriving.

I'm no rolling stock expert but you make it sound as easy as swapping a bag of midget gems for a bag of Tangfastic.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Does Manchester-Cleethorpes really need double 185s for the diagrams? Pre-pandemic I would say definitely but even when things get more towards 'normal', it is expected that rail travel will be nothing like it was, particularly longer distance. Also remember that the Liverpool to Nottingham looks likely to be double 185s before long.

In theory the answer is no.

It is a shame TPE didn't get Nottingham and keep Cleethorpes. If they had a standard half-hourly path between Lime Street and Sheffield via Warrington and Piccadilly, you could easily drop 3 coaches off at Sheffield on both services, and attach gong the other way back to Liverpool. That means the capacity is matched to the Sheffield to Liverpool corridor.

But anyway, the main thing for Cleethorpes surely, where the diagrams are akin to:

CLE 06:26 / 09:04 MAN 09:18 / 11:51 CLE
Repeat continually.

Therefore, you could only have certain circuits as 6 car. I suppose.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A TOC would only take them on if there was a need for which they were suitable, and I'd argue they're a very, very niche product.

They are, but they would, if fixed, be perfectly suitable for any TOC operating other short LHCS formations or HSTs.