Where? We don't have spare locomotives stationed around the network. The TP 68+Mk5s are effectively units with a single power unit.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
My idea for Class 88s in future passenger work
- Thread starter James_D
- Start date
- Status
Where? We don't have spare locomotives stationed around the network. The TP 68+Mk5s are effectively units with a single power unit.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Halish Railway
Established Member
It’s 342 seats of a Nova 1 vs 291 of a Nova 3.
Back on topic, the original plan post TPRU was as some previous posts have mentioned was to swap the 68 for an electric locomotive and have them swap diagrams with the 802s. Bear in mind though that an 88, even with re-gearing will still be limited to 110 mph due to the silly blunt-end rule, therefore meaning that a modern Class 91 style of locomotive will have to be ordered to achieve 125mph which was always the plan as the Mk5as were specified for a top speed of 125mph (I’m pretty sure that they were hauled around the Velim test track by a Siemens Vectron or something similar to that).
Oops that was meant to say more.
It may have been the original plan although it was never a great one in my view the sensible plan would have been a single fleet of 802 yes we know the 68's were meant to have a quicker timescale etc. Now in this instance having already got the MK5's if and when we get electrification from Manchester to York then yes you could look for a suitable electric loco but the Loco Hauled fleet is a smaller fleet than the 802's so couldn't cover all existing services and also has less capacity than the 802's. So if you wanted to go down that route ideally you would want to add additional Mk5 rakes and an additional coach to the existing fleet. So the most likely option to me is a new EMU fleet and find another home for the Loco Hauled Trains.
Getting back more to the original point, a Loco Hauled train may also have the disadvantage of taking up valuable platform space and as recent orders suggest for Electric trains its dead in the water, for Diesel/Electric Bi-modes its also likely dead in the water given the effective AT300 for Intercity and Stadler for regional and possibly other manufacturers in the future, along with the difficulty in getting a Bi-mode Locomotive with decent diesel power in the UK Loading gauge. Obviously moving forward we may want to get away from Diesel/Electric Bi-modes to other forms of Bi-modes but that's getting somewhat off thread.
That leaves Diesel Loco Hauled which may have some merit as we have seen in the TPE order but we are now getting to the point where we shouldn't be ordering purely diesel trains anyway.
Last edited:
Trouble is though, I think if you're having to send a rescue loco into "an increasingly busy railway" then the damage has already been done and there's always going to be the scenario when the failed train is blocked in! As already said you need to have locos sat around along with their crews. TOCs seem to get by with units, maintenance control and their tech riders. Even depot staff if required.
On another note though, I find it's quite rare for a unit to stop and have no means of continuing, even to the nearest station to de-train and tuck away into a sidings or loop. I think the only times I've known it happened is when an EMU (with only one pantograph) has had an A.D.D activation, and that's a single point failure they (single pan units) share with locos. Edit, had a 185 brought back with no alternators so lost main res (basically needed another unit as a very expensive surrogate compressor!) and another time one ran out a fuel
. The only time I've physically been on a train that has failed was a Class 47 with low water pressure (suprised?!) Fortunately it was fixed before the line protection had been laid out...I see no real point in concentrating all your diesel and electric traction equipment (mass) into a box at one end of the train when you can stash it throughout and have extra levels of redundancy. I prefer locos in terms of interest but they don't really make much sense for modern passenger operations.
Last edited:
CBlue
Member
Other disadvantages with loco hauled is that extending trains with additional carriages puts a dent in performance, especially accelleration. Heavier load but same amount of power coming out the loco. At least with a MU the additional carriages can be motor cars. Modern MU's also have distributed traction, so suffer far less issues with wheelslip and as a result can keep to timings far better.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Indeed, they have more in common with a single-ended 4-TC unit than individual, standalone UIC coaches.
What is interesting about the Mk5a is that the TMS can handle up to 7 vehicles. Post-TRU, make the current rakes 7 vehicles long and build some more with an electric loco on the end capable of 125mph and you've got a pretty solid fleet to work the TPE LIV-EDB and MIA-NCL routes.
CBlue
Member
TPE already have 125 mph capable electric fleets of a far more standard design, no? I don't think they need more variety.
Last edited:
They already have 3 small fleets and the 185s. If anything I can see the 68+mk5s being ditched in the next franchise for more 802s if they are available.
Probably, the 397s are the smallest fleet at TPE (not by much though) and the only units they are similar at all to in the UK are the 331s which are still quite different. With Avanti ordering IETs it would make sense if the next TPE franchise went for them to take over WCML duties.
Halish Railway
Established Member
Are they really hated and unreliable? I haven't been on so I can't speak from personal experience, but they seem to be viewed in a positive light on this forum. As for their reliability, their introduction has been more successful than that of the Nova 3.
I wouldn't call them hated or unreliable but their late introduction certainly hasn't been good for them. Many people on this forum like them, although that maybe because they look quite nice.
I would suggest that you maybe have a biased opinion as there are several TPE front-line staff who are giving largely positive comments over in the Cl397 Build thread.
For clarity - 397 is neither hated or unreliable less than what would be expected of a class of its age. Class 350 served the WCML TPE operation well for quite a number of years so any suggestion that 397 would not be able to do the same is a bit short-sighted.
Looking to the future, there is clearly a lack of understanding on this forum of how franchise and rolling stock agreements are written up. The next TPE franchise will certainly not see Class 397 or Mk5a being replaced by Class 802. Redeployed to other routes is a much more likely scenario.
I said "If anything" because the chances of them being ditched is low.
- Status