New TPE Train Discussion

[RichmondCommu]

I wish it was possible but I don't think it is. Where would they stable the 68 backing on to the train? They would also take up a path in to and out of Lime Street (As the one against the buffers is released and needs to get to the depot). Don't get me wrong I would love to see just like when I were a lad it but there were stabling roads all over the shop at Lime Street then.

Just out of interest when were the stabling roads removed?

 

[fowler9]

Just out of interest when were the stabling roads removed?

To be honest mate I am guessing it was at some point when I was at Uni, 94-98 and was rarely using the train. Was just in Lime Street one day and noticed they were no longer connected. Am sure someone here can advise.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Perhaps it's a useful arrangement to provide redundancy and self-recovery if one fails since some will be new-builds. As the 68's become more reliable, then the DBSO/DVT's will be delivered and subsequently replace one loco just as they have bedded-in.

Given that the class 68's have been in service for sometime and all new loco's must surely go through a series of test's why would there be an issue with class 68 reliability?

 

[AndrewE]

Well it's not really shunting is it, train heads out of Liverpool, 68 at the front, heads up to Newcastle and back to Liverpool, pulls into station, second 68 pulls in behind, hooks up, then pulls out on next trip to Newcastle and back... First 68 then goes to depot until it's next needed

You are forgetting the UK obsession against employing people: with single-manned locos these moves need a shunter (at one time the most dangerous job on the railway) and an extra driver for the loco moves. The savings from doing away with these jobs pay for DVTs and all the extra wiring.
Not to mention track occupation in station throats.

 

[notlob.divad]

Lime Street still has stableing sidings in between the platforms but they aren't used and are all being ripped out next year. However the method being proposed is how football/aintree charters run. They stable the loco in the edge hill sidings before hand. Run both around at crewe and repeat the mirror image for the return. Problem is doing this on an hourly basis would be two extra moves through the tunnels for every train.

 

[AndrewE]

Perhaps it's a useful arrangement to provide redundancy and self-recovery if one fails

but T&T will only help in the event of a failure if they are wired together through the train, not common now I think.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there something particularly complicated about building DBSOs that means they need to take longer?

 

[AndrewE]

Is there something particularly complicated about building DBSOs that means they need to take longer?

Not sure which post you are replying to, but if we are talking about DVTs or DBSOs (or T&T for that matter) the control wiring has to run the length of the coaches with jumper cables so that the un-powered cab can pretend to be (or if T&T act as) another loco in multiple. I think that TDM working through the old 12 (24?)-volt train lighting system is dead now.

 

[Fudgefrog]

Been confirmed by Tony that the Pretendolino in the form of two rakes of 5 will be going to TPE for driver training Class 68's and may remain afterwards in service.

Bringing the Pretendolino set(s) on makes sense in the few months leading up to the new CAF carriages being introduced for 68 training, or to provide extra capacity between now and then, but presumably carriages must be introduced from somewhere in service between now and 2018 or else the driver training will be very premature? Is the talk of the Pretendelino being introduced soonish, or 2018?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I suppose, if paths are the problem, the trains could leave Liverpool Lime Street with the locomotive still on the rear and then stop and drop that loco nearer the/a depot. That locomotive would then be added to the rear of the next train as it headed towards Liverpool Lime Street. Just depends if there is a suitable location way beyond the station throat for a siding in between the two running lines.

Disadvantage would be the time penalty and the extra "shunting" staff required.

I thought I read up thread that seven sets would be required. Does that mean that most of the services will be formed of two 5-car sets/rakes ?.

 

[AndrewE]

I suppose, if paths are the problem, the trains could leave Liverpool Lime Street with the locomotive still on the rear and then stop and drop that loco nearer the/a depot. That locomotive would then be added to the rear of the next train as it headed towards Liverpool Lime Street. Just depends if there is a suitable location way beyond the station throat for a siding in between the two running lines.

Disadvantage would be the time penalty and the extra "shunting" staff required.

Maybe cut the time loss by dropping off the rear loco at Man Vic? Double power up the gradient to Edge Hill sounds good. In that case, why not drop off at Stalybridge to give extra power up the bank from Victoria, or even drop off at Diggle? Sod it, why not just re-fit TDM or some other through-wiring and re-invent the HST for extra power/acceleration over the whole journey?
You would not have suggested stopping at Edge Hill if you had read the abuse heaped on me for suggesting that Liverpool and Manchester portions could join or split at Crewe to make best use of the WCML paths available to Euston! That would not have even required a non-passenger stop (or the dangerous shunters job, let alone the extra driver)

 

[notlob.divad]

I wonder what the financials are that have dictated top and tail operation. Consider this; Liverpool to Newcastle is, near enough, 3 hours each way, so allowing for turn round time 7 trains are required for an hourly service. That means 14 locos for top and tail. But at Newcastle trains can reverse by either arriving or departing via the High Level Bridge so top and tail is not actually needed for that reversal. That just leaves Lime Street: if trains run with just a lead loco that needs 7 locos plus an additional turnover loco at Lime Street with the additional driving/shunting staff to go with it. Is it cheaper to lease 6 extra locos, with the additional track access charges, not to mention degraded performance, than employ those bodies at Lime Street? Or am I missing something?

Just re-read your post, and whilst it might be technically possible and avoid dragging extra units around it surely isn't going to be what happens. You have calculated 14 Locos required for your Liverpool-Newcastle runs. Well given eventually they will have 13 sets of 5 car carriages. 14 Locos (1 maintenance / spare) seems very sensible. Therefore top and tailing 7, 5 car sets whilst the remaining 17 carriages and 13 driving cabs are made, might just be the quickest way to get the trains on the rails. If this is the case presumably the track access costs have been weighed up against the cost of the penalty fares for not delivering the carriages when agreed.

 

[47802]

Just re-read your post, and whilst it might be technically possible and avoid dragging extra units around it surely isn't going to be what happens. You have calculated 14 Locos required for your Liverpool-Newcastle runs. Well given eventually they will have 13 sets of 5 car carriages. 14 Locos (1 maintenance / spare) seems very sensible. Therefore top and tailing 7, 5 car sets whilst the remaining 17 carriages and 13 driving cabs are made, might just be the quickest way to get the trains on the rails. If this is the case presumably the track access costs have been weighed up against the cost of the penalty fares for not delivering the carriages when agreed.

Indeed slightly bemused by this long debate about T&T or shunting Loco's around Lime Street, presumably this will be a very short term exercise to get a few sets into service ASAP.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The loco turnback is still in the station throat as are the stabling roads in between the platform roads. Wether they are still useable or not remains to be seen but the platform roads have not been used for some time

 

[Dave1987]

They never used the word promise or anything like it - no matter how many times you use it.

There were umpteen stories in late 2014 using phrasing similar to this:



http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...sh-inter-city-fleet-renewal-gathers-pace.html

They did make any stronger commitment than that, nor specify what level of orders and over what period - what is on the books now only gets them to about 2020 - and as noted above, the purchase of plants in Italy has added another dimension to Hitachi's operations in Europe.

And they might want to make some inroads into paying back the initial investment at Newton Aycliffe before they put in more money.

Take out the PR rubbish and you get exactly what I said, they will build fabrication facilities if they get enough orders. Only now they've bought that other plant no doubt they will want even more orders to build those facilities. Although I'm not surprised you are defending Hitachi.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Internal management have confirmed top and tail initially. No word on the pretendolino use tho...

 

[northwichcat]

Internal management have confirmed top and tail initially. No word on the pretendolino use tho...

A post from Tony Miles on wnxx suggests TPE are in talks with Porterbrook over 10 x mk3 carriages but it isn't clear whether those are just to get drivers trained on 68s hauled sets ahead of the CAF carriages arriving or whether they'll be used in passenger services.

 

[Greybeard33]

A post from Tony Miles on wnxx suggests TPE are in talks with Porterbrook over 10 x mk3 carriages but it isn't clear whether those are just to get drivers trained on 68s hauled sets ahead of the CAF carriages arriving or whether they'll be used in passenger services.

Won't TPE need replacement capacity from July 2016 when the 170s depart? Northern is using one less 185 from 11 July, but that unit cannot replace all four 170s.

 

[jimm]

Take out the PR rubbish and you get exactly what I said, they will build fabrication facilities if they get enough orders. Only now they've bought that other plant no doubt they will want even more orders to build those facilities. Although I'm not surprised you are defending Hitachi.

What is rubbish is your claim that Hitachi made a promise to install a bodyshell facility at Newton Aycliffe. They did no such thing.

All the statements they have made about the possibility of a bodyshell plant were conditional - nor did they say what level of orders might trigger such an investment.

CAF's investment in the UK to support its TPE orders seems to amount to 50 jobs and a shed - sorry, central logistics hub - to keep spares in. Some of these jobs would presumably have been on the way in any case to cover work for Northern and Caledonian Sleeper. And it's not even clear from the statement issued whether that figure of 50 includes the 25 posts Alstom is creating to run the support contract for CAF.

The Hitachi workforce at Newton Aycliffe - even without your beloved bodyshell plant - will be 730. Never mind all the people who will be working at the Hitachi-run maintenance depots.

I see that in the TPE press release, CAF's UK business development director says:

CAF now has a solid economic basis for further increasing its footprint in the UK.

Can we now expect you to demand that CAF immediately build a UK manufacturing plant, naturally complete with a bodyshell welding facility, on the back of that statement? Thought not.....

 

[D6975]

Well given eventually they will have 13 sets of 5 car carriages. 14 Locos (1 maintenance / spare) seems very sensible. Therefore top and tailing 7, 5 car sets whilst the remaining 17 carriages and 13 driving cabs are made, might just be the quickest way to get the trains on the rails. If this is the case presumably the track access costs have been weighed up against the cost of the penalty fares for not delivering the carriages when agreed.

That assumes all 13 rakes in service every day.
That's not going to happen.
12 rakes max I suggest, so 12 loco diagrams and 2 spare. (92% availability)
It might even be 11 and 3. (85% availability)

 

[notlob.divad]

That assumes all 13 rakes in service every day.
That's not going to happen.
12 rakes max I suggest, so 12 loco diagrams and 2 spare. (92% availability)
It might even be 11 and 3. (85% availability)

Its a fair point. I was trying to imply that 14 locos is not a too far away from what it could be expected they will eventually need. So using them to top and tail 7 sets to get the Liverpool-Newcastle service running with new carriages, is not as daft as it would at first seem, and is certainly more sensible than attaching/detaching and shunting Locos around at either end.

 

[D6975]

Its a fair point. I was trying to imply that 14 locos is not a too far away from what it could be expected they will eventually need. So using them to top and tail 7 sets to get the Liverpool-Newcastle service running with new carriages, is not as daft as it would at first seem, and is certainly more sensible than attaching/detaching and shunting Locos around at either end.

Agreed, it also means that the production line could first build all the ordinary carriages before being modified to build the DVTs or whatever they're going to be called.
A similar situation to when Voyagers were built as 4s then had the extra coach added in order to get as many sets up and running as quickly as possible.

 

[po8crg]

The order is for 66 carriages, not 65 - does anyone know if the odd one will be an extra driving cab, or an extra trailer car?

Separately, I'm guessing DFO for the driving cab and TSO trailers, to minimize the number of different car types - if the driving cab has standard-class seating, then you end up with DTSO, TSO and FO cars, which just makes life more complicated if a car is down-checked.

Finally, while the Mark IIs were DBSOs, there's no reason for a brake van on a modern vehicle, so they will surely be DTSOs or DFOs, depending on the class of accomodation.

 

[D6975]

The order is for 66 carriages, not 65 - does anyone know if the odd one will be an extra driving cab, or an extra trailer car?

Separately, I'm guessing DFO for the driving cab and TSO trailers, to minimize the number of different car types - if the driving cab has standard-class seating, then you end up with DTSO, TSO and FO cars, which just makes life more complicated if a car is down-checked.

Finally, while the Mark IIs were DBSOs, there's no reason for a brake van on a modern vehicle, so they will surely be DTSOs or DFOs, depending on the class of accomodation.

I'd guess at DFO (D), TSO and TSO (D) as the types.
The TSO (D) utilising the same bodyshell as the TSO.

The most logical spare would surely be an extra TSO (D).

 

[Whistler40145]

I don't know what all the fuss is about FTPE having loco hauled trains instead of EMUs, other countries seem to be happy.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[notlob.divad]

I don't know what all the fuss is about FTPE having loco hauled trains instead of EMUs, other countries seem to be happy.

The main issue I have is usable length v's platform length. In places where the Loco cannot overhang the platform due to signal sighting/blocking other lines. A Loco's length of platform space and thus usable moving volume is wasted. The loss of a Locos's length of moving volume that could otherwise be filled with people, luggage, bikes, and the seats, toilets, catering facilities, & luggage racks that cater for them. It equally restricts the proportion of full train length that is available for embarking/disembarking therefore increasing dwell times.

I understand exactly FTPE are doing what they are doing and it which is speed of delivery for a railway that is going to be in a state of flux due to major infrastructure upgrades during the majority of their franchise. However I do question the long term viability of these carriages if they cannot be adapted to EMUs in the future. Once Manchester - York is wired and the further anticipated demand on the railways increases, I could see these swapping back to the Liverpool - Edinburgh run having been adapted to a 6 car EMU configuration if that possibility is available.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They can be adapted to EMU very easily. Shove them in fixed formation, and shove an electric locomotive on the end. Really not hard - it's exactly how DB and SBB tend to operate these days. You couldn't dynamically split and join, but it's probably workable just to use them as the long trains.

 

[Whistler40145]

No doubt FTPE will have the platform lengths in mind for services run with LCHS. You won't have problems at Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Piccadilly P13/P14 plus most mainline platforms, not sure about Manchester Victoria, but Leeds, York, Darlington, possibly Durham and Newcastle wouldn't have a problem, the station I'd be concerned about is Manchester Airport if a loco hauled set happened to be diagrammed.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[61653 HTAFC]

No doubt FTPE will have the platform lengths in mind for services run with LCHS. You won't have problems at Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Piccadilly P13/P14 plus most mainline platforms, not sure about Manchester Victoria, but Leeds, York, Darlington, possibly Durham and Newcastle wouldn't have a problem, the station I'd be concerned about is Manchester Airport if a loco hauled set happened to be diagrammed.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

If the long term plan is loco+5, that should fit at all stations between Liverpool and York via Chat Moss that the service is likely to call at, being presumably no longer than 2x185.

 

[Starmill]

Furthermore you will probably find an electric locomotive and 5 coaches consuming more energy and accelerating more slowly than an equivalent EMU, to no particular benefit. It's purely circumstantial that this has happened (i.e. no wires).