Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?

[Vectron383]

Yep- DB’s stock has operated on those routes for decades and are decidedly ‘low tech’ kit compared to the Mk5as. I remember reading a blog post by a guard who worked the unrefurbed flixtrain sets, who remarked how when new the coaches were steam-hauled. Any use in the continent would require deep and substantial modifications- sure, they were hauled by Vectrons at Velim, but the work to secure those for service and actually get the 2 to work together while carrying passengers is an entirely different can of worms with many smaller cans inside.

 

[Bartsimho]

The Mk5a coaches could go anywhere really but I think the Class 68's will end up with DRS and be used for freight with them being so loud and the Class 37's being from the 60's so probably have high maintenance costs and poorer reliability.
I would then guess the next OAO to start operating would choose the coaches as a quicker way to start operating with many different locos being able to haul them

 

[JonathanH]

I would then guess the next OAO to start operating would choose the coaches as a quicker way to start operating with many different locos being able to haul them

Maybe to haul them but not to push them.

They are of very little use to an open access operator who above all need reliability from day 1.

 

[Neptune]

The Mk5a coaches could go anywhere really but I think the Class 68's will end up with DRS and

They are already DRS locos on a hire arrangement with TPE so it’s a fair bet they’ll end up working for them as mentioned many times up thread.

be used for freight with them being so loud and the Class 37's being from the 60's so probably have high maintenance costs and poorer reliability.

What has the volume of the loco got to do with the traffic they work on?

I would then guess the next OAO to start operating would choose the coaches as a quicker way to start operating with many different locos being able to haul them

Only modified 68’s can work with them as intended (push pull mode). Otherwise they are just hauled stock.

 

[gc4946]

The only possible use I can see for all the sets with new owners would be replacing IETs and Castle sets on Penzance-Cardiff services.
Otherwise if Transport for Wales had no Mk4s and 67s they could have claimed them.

 

[Snow1964]

I suppose from a speculative standpoint, can't rule out someone wanting the mk5a as long distance open access operator, even hauling them with electric locos on some routes.
Possibly even aiming to run extras to football matches, race meetings, festivals etc. Although routinely spot hiring relief trains is not something that has happened much for about 30 years.

A very long shot is some additional coaches ordered to lengthen the sets. A mk5b added mid set (not as daft as it might sound, weren't a batch of mk3b coaches added when it was found there were not enough mk3s).

 

[Iskra]

I suppose from a speculative standpoint, can't rule out someone wanting the mk5a as long distance open access operator, even hauling them with electric locos on some routes.
Possibly even aiming to run extras to football matches, race meetings, festivals etc. Although routinely spot hiring relief trains is not something that has happened much for about 30 years.

A very long shot is some additional coaches ordered to lengthen the sets. A mk5b added mid set (not as daft as it might sound, weren't a batch of mk3b coaches added when it was found there were not enough mk3s).

Liverpool-Nottingham with EMR hasn’t been mentioned yet I don’t think. Would help with DMU’s, capacity on a busy route, could keep them at the existing maintenance facility and run a route they have already run mainly. The main issue is what loco’s would haul them if DRS want their loco’s back.

Alternatively may DRS buy them cheap, and use them as spot-hire LHCS sets to cover DMU shortages, like they did with with the 37/68+Mk2 sets?

I do think TfW, Chiltern, GWR or Open Access are more likely though.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Cardiff-Penzance is an option surely?
More than enough poke for the banks of Devon & Cornwall.
Doesn’t go anywhere near London so no upsetting them either.

Got to be better than a rancid IET!

What’s rancid about an IET?

If referring to the seats the IETs and mk5s pretty much have the same seats.

It referring to the rise quality the mk5s ride just as hard.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"Rancid" is a basher's term, and bashers don't like multiple units

Personally I'd take an 80x over Mk5s. Bigger windows, a better layout and longer vehicles so more capacity.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

"Rancid" is a basher's term, and bashers don't like multiple units

Personally I'd take an 80x over Mk5s. Bigger windows, a better layout and longer vehicles so more capacity.

Ah, I forget bashers prefer having a single point of failure on their train.

Meanwhile back to the operational railway…

 

[JonathanH]

Alternatively may DRS buy them cheap, and use them as spot-hire LHCS sets to cover DMU shortages, like they did with with the 37/68+Mk2 sets?

DRS are reported to have zero interest in getting involved in passenger trains again.

Possibly even aiming to run extras to football matches, race meetings, festivals etc. Although routinely spot hiring relief trains is not something that has happened much for about 30 years.

Indeed, and the fact it hasn't happened might be a very good indication as to it not being likely to happen now. The economics of a dedicated relief train operation would simply never stack up. Moreover, it would need some traincrew to have the requisite traction and route knowledge for a large range of different areas.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Liverpool-Nottingham with EMR hasn’t been mentioned yet I don’t think. Would help with DMU’s, capacity on a busy route, could keep them at the existing maintenance facility and run a route they have already run mainly. The main issue is what loco’s would haul them if DRS want their loco’s back.

Alternatively may DRS buy them cheap, and use them as spot-hire LHCS sets to cover DMU shortages, like they did with with the 37/68+Mk2 sets?

I do think TfW, Chiltern, GWR or Open Access are more likely though.

The DfT do not want them on any of their TOCs. Abroad seems their most likely future.

 

[Iskra]

The DfT do not want them on any of their TOCs. Abroad seems their most likely future.

How do we know that?

I'd still suggest that Open Access or spot hire would be more likely than abroad.

In terms of abroad, would the Enterprise service be a decent option?

 

[py_megapixel]

In terms of abroad, would the Enterprise service be a decent option?

I think it has a different track gauge.

 

[Iskra]

I think it has a different track gauge.

Yes, but it is possible to re-gauge rolling stock fairly easily.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The DfT do not want them on any of their TOCs.

Though notably neither ScotRail nor TfW are their TOCs.

 

[Iskra]

Though notably neither ScotRail nor TfW are their TOCs.

A good point!

 

[RobShipway]

How do we know that?

I'd still suggest that Open Access or spot hire would be more likely than abroad.

In terms of abroad, would the Enterprise service be a decent option?

Though notably neither ScotRail nor TfW are their TOCs.

A good point!

What Open Access Operator would be able to use the MK5A coaches and with what motive power?

Not sure that you would get enough power from a class 93 on diesel/battery power to haul the MK5A coaches on non electrified sections, but the only TOC I can think that may use the MK5A coaches is Scotrail. However, Scotrail I believe have a contract to be using the HST Inter7City fleet until 2030? If that is the case, then Scotrail would be better to wait until 2027 and look at Hitachi AT300 or CAF Civity Class 397 equivalents nearer the time, to lease brand new.

With regards to Transport for Wales, they have no need for them with using class 67 + Mk4, class 197, 230, 231, 398 & 756 trains.

 

[Energy]

However, Scotrail I believe have a contract to be using the HST Inter7City fleet until 2030? If that is the case, then Scotrail would be better to wait until 2027 and look at Hitachi AT300 or CAF Civity Class 397 equivalents nearer the time, to lease brand new.

There aren't enough mk5as for Scotrail. There are more 222s which are more reliable.

 

[RobShipway]

There aren't enough mk5as for Scotrail. There are more 222s which are more reliable.

True.

 

[JonathanH]

I'd still suggest that Open Access or spot hire would be more likely than abroad.

Would you care to suggest how a business case for spot hire could be remotely feasible? Who is going to hire them? How frequently?

 

[warwickshire]

Have heard a possibility rumour from local sources in Warwickshire area, about possibility Chiltern or looking at mk5 and 68 sets, to replace the mk3, as a temporary measure until the new units arrive 2028 ie new dmus etc. But it's only a looking at into basis at the moment.

 

[Iskra]

Would you care to suggest how a business case for spot hire could be remotely feasible? Who is going to hire them? How frequently?

Rather than discussing theoreticals, how about recounting the many real-life examples of occasions where LHCS has covered for the lack of available units in the last couple of decades. Considering DRS own the most compatible locomotives, it isn't entirely inconceivable that they could pick the Mk5's up cheap from a leasing company looking to cut its losses, and hire them out as needed and use them for various tasks, possibly passenger services, but even NR may be interested in them for test trains or even things like testing locomotives with trailing loads, route learning, whatever... And I'm still waiting for a source that DRS are no longer interested in supplying services to passenger TOC's

What Open Access Operator would be able to use the MK5A coaches and with what motive power?

Not sure that you would get enough power from a class 93 on diesel/battery power to haul the MK5A coaches on non electrified sections, but the only TOC I can think that may use the MK5A coaches is Scotrail. However, Scotrail I believe have a contract to be using the HST Inter7City fleet until 2030? If that is the case, then Scotrail would be better to wait until 2027 and look at Hitachi AT300 or CAF Civity Class 397 equivalents nearer the time, to lease brand new.

With regards to Transport for Wales, they have no need for them with using class 67 + Mk4, class 197, 230, 231, 398 & 756 trains.

One of the new ones on South Wales-London or Stirling-London routes that will need rolling stock quickly, or even GC if they can't get anything better than their current 180's. Anything could be happening behind the scenes right now, and stranger things have happened very recently than relatively modern carriages finding a new home. I have acknowledged the locomotive issue already and still think the difficulties of locomotive compatibility will be lesser in the UK, than if these carriages are run overseas, which works in the Mk5's favour.

Scotrail will probably go for 222's as the fleet size is right.

TFW are still having a whole host of issues with their DMU fleets, so MK5a's and 68's may still appear there on something like Manchester-North Wales, to supplement rather than replace the Mk4 sets.

 

[ABB125]

The DfT do not want them on any of their TOCs. Abroad seems their most likely future.

[cynic mode]

I wonder if this is because TPE didn't do the "right" thing (which was lease the class 442s and haul them), so DfT want to make a point that if you don't do what they want, there are consequences?

 

[Iskra]

[cynic mode]

I wonder if this is because TPE didn't do the "right" thing (which was lease the class 442s and haul them), so DfT want to make a point that if you don't do what they want, there are consequences?

The consequences are that the DFT pays more for leasing future rolling stock to essentially cover the cost of the Mk5’s. Thus, the leasing company is going to be compensated either way, so it probably just wants to offload the problem as quickly as possible to any taker with the price being fairly irrelevant.

That’s assuming @Clarence Yard ’s statement is fact of course, as the statement is unverified.

 

[ABB125]

The consequences are that the DFT pays more for leasing future rolling stock to essentially cover the cost of the Mk5’s. Thus, the leasing company is going to be compensated either way, so it probably just wants to offload the problem as quickly as possible to any taker with the price being fairly irrelevant.

Ah, but that's a problem for the next government...

That’s assuming @Clarence Yard ’s statement is fact of course, as the statement is unverified.

@Clarence Yard is, as far as I'm aware, a very reliable source of information about anything to do with First Group

 

[Iskra]

Ah, but that's a problem for the next government...

@Clarence Yard is, as far as I'm aware, a very reliable source of information about anything to do with First Group

The next government might not be too far away, and I doubt either this government or the next wants ‘Northern England’s shiny new trains scrapped/exported to X’ as a headline when there are daily short-forms, cancellations and capacity shortfalls across the area. It would also make a mockery of ‘levelling up’ and let not forget that these trains operate on the patch of various high-profile Labour city-regions mayors, who are implicated via Transport for the North.

Thanks for adding that context.

- - - -

Is future use with 88’s more likely?

Also, if Beacon own DRS’ 68’s surely they can lean on DRS heavily if they wish.

 

[yorkie]

The DfT do not want them on any of their TOCs. Abroad seems their most likely future.

How do we know that?

The likes of you and me would know that because someone like @Clarence Yard says so!

As for how @Clarence Yard knows, they'd be wise not to answer that. But they will know.

 

[Iskra]

The likes of you and me would know that because someone like @Clarence Yard says so!

As for how @Clarence Yard knows, they'd be wise not to answer that. But they will know.

Fair enough

 

[Energy]

[cynic mode]

I wonder if this is because TPE didn't do the "right" thing (which was lease the class 442s and haul them), so DfT want to make a point that if you don't do what they want, there are consequences?

They didn't have to go with the First bid and the DfT authorised the 442s scrapping.

The 68s get joined complaints where ever they run regular passenger services and the mk5a sets are so far not particularly reliable (in push pull at least). They make no sense for any of the DfT operations, so far this thread is finding routes the stock would be least worst at.

The next government might not be too far away, and I doubt either this government or the next wants ‘Northern England’s shiny new trains scrapped/exported to X’ as a headline when there are daily short-forms, cancellations and capacity shortfalls across the area.

The 68s are hardly popular, you can easily hide the news with the new Northern order or ordering a few more 802s from Newton Aycliffe.

and let not forget that these trains operate on the patch of various high-profile Labour city-regions mayors, who are implicated via Transport for the North.

Burnham is more interested in running the local rail himself, like TfL.

Also, if Beacon own DRS’ 68’s surely they can lean on DRS heavily if they wish.

I guess? But the 68s will be on a long lease and Beacon wouldn't want to jeopardise future DRS deals if they lease the mk5as overseas instead.

The consequences are that the DFT pays more for leasing future rolling stock to essentially cover the cost of the Mk5’s. Thus, the leasing company is going to be compensated either way, so it probably just wants to offload the problem as quickly as possible to any taker with the price being fairly irrelevant.

Companies accept a certain amount of risk, the mk5as being returned has increased the risk so leases will likely go up. I suspect we will see the return to longer leases.