Could TPE ditch the Mk5 sets?

[LittleAH]

Good news. Perhaps all those posters who were so sure that they were on the way out will now see the error of their ways?

I'll quite happily put money on them not being with TPE in 5/6 years time.

 

[Killingworth]

I'll quite happily put money on them not being with TPE in 5/6 years time.

Will there be a TPE in 5/6 years time?

 

[LittleAH]

Will there be a TPE in 5/6 years time?

Most likely. It would be fair to assume that TPE like other operators will be going down the management contract route.

 

[sjpowermac]

I'll quite happily put money on them not being with TPE in 5/6 years time.

Even though, as an enthusiast, I hope that you are wrong, I’m sure there is at least some chance you will win that bet.

I’m certain that you are absolutely spot on with the service levels and how stakeholders would react to any deviation from current plans for the North, and rightly so.

From a practical point of view, how long would you estimate it would take to get 13 (15? to eliminate 185s to Redcar) Class 802s delivered?

I don’t work in the rail industry but I would guess the EMR order will keep Hitachi busy for a bit, but would it be correct to say an order would need to be placed quite soon to replace the Nova 3 sets before their current end of lease in 2023?

Many thanks for your thoughtful and considered posts, they have made for interesting reading in amongst the wild speculation. That said I did enjoy the post that someone made about 68s in the Far East, that would be one be one great vacation

 

[tpjm]

I think it’s clear to see from the wild speculation across this forum that many members have little grasp of what it takes to run a railway, not least how the procurement of rolling stock works.

The TPE franchise as it stands is due to conclude in 2023. It’s very likely now that due to COVID, the government will seek to transition franchised operators to new terms, either as a Direct Award or a franchise variation. Consequently, the lease on the Mk5as was also dated 2023. Any extension past this point is entirely based on the agreed train service as part of a future contract which nobody on this forum can possibly know.

The Class 185s are a lovely train, but they have their limitations. I don’t need to go into detail, but something that seems to be frequently missed is that they are powered by 3 or 6 very thirsty 750hp diesel engines. With a nationwide objective for decarbonisation, it is completely unacceptable to suggest that this fleet should be retained on the Transpennine route beyond the next 10 years.

The way I see it (and this is my personal opinion and carries no weight from my day job):
1. Retain the Mk5as on the north route (whichever circuit works best) and change the loco to a new Class 93.
2. Assuming the DfT have a rethink and give Liverpool > Nottingham to TPE, retain the Mk5as with a Class 68 and move them to work LIV-NOT and a third fast path via Hope Valley (also subject to Dore being redoubled)
3. Get rid of the fleet, have wasted lots of money which is irrecoverable, keep the 185s to run under the wires post-electrification as 3 car units until another batch of 80x can be made.
4. Retain them as is for at least the next 5-10 years. Post-electrification, find a new home for them.

I don’t see option 3.

 

[37424]

I think it’s clear to see from the wild speculation across this forum that many members have little grasp of what it takes to run a railway, not least how the procurement of rolling stock works.

The TPE franchise as it stands is due to conclude in 2023. It’s very likely now that due to COVID, the government will seek to transition franchised operators to new terms, either as a Direct Award or a franchise variation. Consequently, the lease on the Mk5as was also dated 2023. Any extension past this point is entirely based on the agreed train service as part of a future contract which nobody on this forum can possibly know.

The Class 185s are a lovely train, but they have their limitations. I don’t need to go into detail, but something that seems to be frequently missed is that they are powered by 3 or 6 very thirsty 750hp diesel engines. With a nationwide objective for decarbonisation, it is completely unacceptable to suggest that this fleet should be retained on the Transpennine route beyond the next 10 years.

The way I see it (and this is my personal opinion and carries no weight from my day job):
1. Retain the Mk5as on the north route (whichever circuit works best) and change the loco to a new Class 93.
2. Assuming the DfT have a rethink and give Liverpool > Nottingham to TPE, retain the Mk5as with a Class 68 and move them to work LIV-NOT and a third fast path via Hope Valley (also subject to Dore being redoubled)
3. Get rid of the fleet, have wasted lots of money which is irrecoverable, keep the 185s to run under the wires post-electrification as 3 car units until another batch of 80x can be made.
4. Retain them as is for at least the next 5-10 years. Post-electrification, find a new home for them.

I don’t see option 3.

For option 3. why would you have to keep the 185's post electrification I'm sure some replacement EMU can be procured in time for electrification completion whenever that is and they clearly don't have to be 80x based.

If you want to get rid of the MK5's then the best time to do it is now or retain then until electrification is complete and either effectively replace them with EMU's or keep them and find a suitable Electric Loco or Bi-mode Loco. By the time the core route is electrified probably in about 10 years if your lucky given CAF quality they will probably be clapped out by then anyway.

As for wasting money then its up to the TPE to kick them back to the leasing company and the leasing company to kick them back to CAF if they are not fit for purpose and the 68's could probably find other work.

 

[BayPaul]

One factor that hasn't been mentionned - with the railways now being effectively nationalised, and the government reported to be looking at reducing costs, one great way to do this is to get expensive rolling stock off lease. The challenge, of course, is that all of this expensive rolling stock is tied up in long-range contracts. Depending on how the contract is structured, you would have to hope that CAF and the ROSCO are so deeply into breach of contract at the present time, with the huge delays and unreliable stock, that it may be possible for TPE to simply walk away from the contract. That probably isn't the case for much modern stock, so it could well be possible. If this is the case, then it would be very unlikely that any other operator would be allowed to take them off of CAFs hands, as if they had trains that could go off lease cheaply, presumably they would also be dropped without replacement. The evidence against this possibility is the 707s, which could have been dropped in a similar fashion, but weren't, the difference being that the 707s are pretty decent trains!

 

[squizzler]

One factor that hasn't been mentionned - with the railways now being effectively nationalised, and the government reported to be looking at reducing costs, one great way to do this is to get expensive rolling stock off lease.

Beacon Rail, the owners of the mk5, are a newer Rosco with a smaller portfolio of stock organically grown for specific markets. Eversholt who own the 185s are a legacy owner of all sorts of old stock. As well as having higher overhead, eversholt know they can easily find new operators for the 185s, in Ireland if need be. This suggests that if TPR get rid of the higher rent stock it would be the 185s that fall in this category.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Beacon Rail, the owners of the mk5, are a newer Rosco with a smaller portfolio of stock organically grown for specific markets. Eversholt who own the 185s are a legacy owner of all sorts of old stock. As well as having higher overhead, eversholt know they can easily find new operators for the 185s, in Ireland if need be. This suggests that if TPR get rid of the higher rent stock it would be the 185s that fall in this category.

While 185s could be moved off the main bulk of TPE, they could still be used on the Cleethorpes and Liverpool-Notts, as doors at thirds are important for Castlefield performance.

 

[billio]

Today, Look North carried another piece on the noise associated with the 68000's at the Scarborough depot. Apparently it is 18 months since this was first raised and nothing has happened.
The Fleet Director of TPE stated that they expected the issue of noise at night and early in the morning would be resolved in about 6 weeks. This would result from a change in the TPE train plan which gave the impression they would use different stock late at night and in the early morning.

 

[matacaster]

In all honesty, apart from that it's wasteful (and can potentially problematic for paths) to run them under the wires, I maintain the 185s post-refurbishment (and even beforehand they weren't terrible) are excellent units for TPE. There just needed to be more of them. from the start. I'm glad they're not going away as, other than perhaps the quietness of not sitting above an engine, it's hard to feel Mk5s, or even 802s are much of an upgrade.

I'll second that. 185s are superb for transpennine use.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2021 ==

Could part of solution be 2 x 185's being hauled by an electric loco? The 158s are great apart from being diesel powered and nobody else seems to want them. Other than carting redundant diesel engines about (except they could be used in an emergency) why not - should be relatively easy too?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll second that. 185s are superb for transpennine use.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2021 ==

Could part of solution be 2 x 185's being hauled by an electric loco? The 158s are great apart from being diesel powered and nobody else seems to want them. Other than carting redundant diesel engines about (except they could be used in an emergency) why not - should be relatively easy too?

If Mk5s were hauled by an electric locomotive the noise issue wouldn't exist. Wasn't that the long term plan?

 

[JonathanH]

If Mk5s were hauled by an electric locomotive the noise issue wouldn't exist. Wasn't that the long term plan?

There isn't any route they could be electrically hauled on that doesn't already have its own dedicated stock. It doesn't resolve the problems at Scarborough which, let's not forget, has a dedicated depot built specifically for the 68s and Mark 5 sets. Any plan to remove the 68s from the route would result in that depot being shut.

That said, I agree the writing is on the wall for these trains now, it if wasn't already.

 

[HST43257]

If Mk5s were hauled by an electric locomotive the noise issue wouldn't exist. Wasn't that the long term plan?

Pretty sure (and hoping) that the plan post TRU is electric locos with the Mk5s, but I’d rather see 90s with the Mk5s on current 802 routes, then the 802s do the other routes. Fleet numbers don’t work with diagrams, I am aware.

 

[Purple Orange]

Pretty sure (and hoping) that the plan post TRU is electric locos with the Mk5s, but I’d rather see 90s with the Mk5s on current 802 routes, then the 802s do the other routes. Fleet numbers don’t work with diagrams, I am aware.

The 802s are needed on the ECML proper to Newcastle & Edinburgh. Their spec isn’t needed on a much slower line to Scunthorpe & Middlesbrough.

 

[JonathanH]

Pretty sure (and hoping) that the plan post TRU is electric locos with the Mk5s, but I’d rather see 90s with the Mk5s on current 802 routes, then the 802s do the other routes. Fleet numbers don’t work with diagrams, I am aware.

That doesn't really fit with a purpose built depot at Scarborough.

When is there going to be a continuous electric supply all the way over the Pennines? Stalybridge to Huddersfield seems to still be some way off.

Internal documentation released to the unions suggests that 68's & Mk5A's will just operated morning & evening peak services throughout. Daytime services will just shuttle between York & Scarbrough. The Manchester Airport to Redcar (eventually Saltburn) will be 68's & Mk5A's.
When 68's & Mk5A's were ran on York depot for training complaints came from residents on Leeman Road so training has been moved to Gascoigne Wood to combat this

I think it is all over for this fleet. The noise problem is clearly unacceptable at multiple locations and the service you describe with many fewer through services from Scarborough beyond York is at a level where there are probably enough 185s to cover it.

This gives TPE the perfect opportunity to pull out of using them on Scarborough services and training to use them on Redcar services can simply be stopped.

 

[AGH]

As both a user and resident backing onto a 68mk5 route, from a user perspective they are better than a 185 mainly as untill they turned up 185s pre covid were nearly always 3 car and overcrowded. Interiors are perfectly acceptable. As a resident, they are quite simply too loud. A 66 with all the taps open is quieter. Bi mode engine replacement is surely the immediate future for these sets. Cannot see them being ditched at all.

 

[JonathanH]

Bi mode engine replacement is surely the immediate future for these sets. Cannot see them being ditched at all.

There isn't any such locomotive available though, certainly not without a long period of inactivity - building a new bi-mode locomotive seems like a rather excessive answer to a problem that can be resolved using pairs of 185s, particularly with a reduced timetable.

 

[AGH]

Its the green issue though. There is an increased push to minimise diesel use. Where I live we get the 800s switching as they progress and the 68smk5 churning out noise and fumes when under wires. They are old tech (as are the 185s) and it's either ditch the rakes or find a solution. Either way it's difficult I grant you. However wherever the 68s go, there are difficulties. Can't see a long term future for them aside from filling gap's.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Its the green issue though. There is an increased push to minimise diesel use. Where I live we get the 800s switching as they progress and the 68smk5 churning out noise and fumes when under wires. They are old tech (as are the 185s) and it's either ditch the rakes or find a solution. Either way it's difficult I grant you. However wherever the 68s go, there are difficulties. Can't see a long term future for them aside from filling gap's.

In the first instance they need to find a shore supply based solution so engines are not idling. Idling internal combustion engines are and should be socially unacceptable in any setting.

Like DB have done since the 1990s, the setup needs to allow for startup just a couple of minutes before departure.

 

[JonathanH]

In the first instance they need to find a shore supply based solution so engines are not idling. Idling internal combustion engines are and should be socially unacceptable in any setting.

They seem to have dealt with that part of the issue. The problem appears to be caused by these locomotives moving off the depot at 0520 and 0620 (and the preparation time) and indeed arriving at 2305 which only gives affected residents less than six hours quiet time. It is noticeable that the video clip on the news story showed the train moving rather than idling.

 

[RobShipway]

They seem to have dealt with that part of the issue. The problem appears to be caused by these locomotives moving off the depot at 0520 and 0620 (and the preparation time) and indeed arriving at 2305 which only gives affected residents less than six hours quiet time. It is noticeable that the video clip on the news story showed the train moving rather than idling.

I know a few people that lived near Steam depots back in the 1950's and they would say that 6 hours quiet time is luxury compared to the time. A friend of mine lives near the Mid Hants depot at Ropley and he says that even though the trains may not start on the line until about 10am, you can always hear them starting to warm the steam engines up at about 5 - 5:30am in the morning.

I have not seen the mentioned video, but surely the people doing the complaining realised that they where living nearby to a depot or a railway line that may see a fair bit of train activity?

 

[Wolfie]

I know a few people that lived near Steam depots back in the 1950's and they would say that 6 hours quiet time is luxury compared to the time. A friend of mine lives near the Mid Hants depot at Ropley and he says that even though the trains may not start on the line until about 10am, you can always hear them starting to warm the steam engines up at about 5 - 5:30am in the morning.

I have not seen the mentioned video, but surely the people doing the complaining realised that they where living nearby to a depot or a railway line that may see a fair bit of train activity?

Re your first para the simple response is "so what". Attitudes have moved a lot in terms of what is and is not acceptable in 60-70 years. Rail enthusiasts really need to understand that while they like thrash, clag etc most people do not.

Re your same para the same question applies. Noise legislation does not draw the distinction which you seek to, as various night clubs, pubs, churches, farmers etc have found out.

 

[Purple Orange]

If there is no future for the 68s on the TPE network, in the short term it makes sense to use 185s. However that is not a medium term solution (let alone a long-term solution). Within the medium term, it won’t be long until 50% of the total route between Liverpool & Scarborough will be completely electrified (Liverpool-Stalybridge, Huddersfield-Leeds, Church Fenton-York). Upon completion of the current work to Stalybridge and Church Fenton, 35% of the route will be electrified. (Long-term we are in NPR territory).

The total distance is a little over 140 miles, which is longer than London to Bristol and apart from London, the Liverpool-Scarborough route takes in far bigger metropolitan areas than anything on the GWML.

So, is it not better to bite the bullet and order more bi-mode trains?

 

[Wolfie]

If there is no future for the 68s on the TPE network, in the short term it makes sense to use 185s. However that is not a medium term solution (let alone a long-term solution). Within the medium term, it won’t be long until 50% of the total route between Liverpool & Scarborough will be completely electrified (Liverpool-Stalybridge, Huddersfield-Leeds, Church Fenton-York). Upon completion of the current work to Stalybridge and Church Fenton, 35% of the route will be electrified. (Long-term we are in NPR territory).

The total distance is a little over 140 miles, which is longer than London to Bristol and apart from London, the Liverpool-Scarborough route takes in far bigger metropolitan areas than anything on the GWML.

So, is it not better to bite the bullet and order more bi-mode trains?

Sounds ideal for 769s.

 

[Purple Orange]

Sounds ideal for 769s.

Ha! I given them 12 months before dropping apart!

 

[Wolfie]

Ha! I given them 12 months before dropping apart!

I'm sure, if they haven't all been turned into coke tins by then, that if that happens someone will come up with a 442-based short-term fix...

 

[Mikey C]

Why is the noise from the 68s considered such a problem, when I'm not aware of similar levels of complaint about the Chiltern mainline ones?

 

[RobShipway]

Re your first para the simple response is "so what". Attitudes have moved a lot in terms of what is and is not acceptable in 60-70 years. Rail enthusiasts really need to understand that while they like thrash, clag etc most people do not.

Re your same para the same question applies. Noise legislation does not draw the distinction which you seek to, as various night clubs, pubs, churches, farmers etc have found out.

Yes, but being someone that lived not far from Martins Heron station on the Waterloo - Reading route for about 10 years between 2007 - 2017, you would hear all manor of noises coming from the railway at all times of night or day. Whether it be Steam engines or diesel engines pulling excursion trains blowing their horns at people on the platforms or other noises being made from local services stopping or going through the station without stopping.

Being about 5 minutes walk away from Martins Heron station, when I moved in I certainly expected that I would be hearing noises from the railway line. As did many others, who where not rail enthusiasts.

There certainly was a far bit of noise for those that lived nearer to the station, when the platforms where extended as there was a lot of work that went on at night time. But residents where warned about the noise either by leaflets through their letterbox or seeing the details about it within the ticket office. There was also from time to time, people from Network rail at the station ticket office where you could ask questions about the project.

If people are unhappy about the class 68 moving off from the depot at 5am and/or 6am, then that suggests to me that someone from the depot is not communicating to the local community as to why the engines are needing to move at those times. But again, if those people complaining knew that they where living next to a depot then I would have thought that they should allow for the fact that there will be still some noises that you cannot avoid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sounds ideal for 769s.

It really doesn't. If you wanted to give TPE a homogeneous fleet, which they probably should have done, 80x would be it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jun 2021 ==

Why is the noise from the 68s considered such a problem, when I'm not aware of similar levels of complaint about the Chiltern mainline ones?

Because the depot isn't in a residential area?