TfW Mark 4 sets - what should replace them?

[YorkRailFan]

They are for now. The aspirations are for something similar to the 93s but with more diesel power to replace them around 2027 when the current hire from DB runs to.

So likely modified 93s?

 

[sd0733]

So likely modified 93s?

More something with the same capabilities of battery and overhead rather than those in particular.

 

[YorkRailFan]

More something with the same capabilities of battery and overhead rather than those in particular.

Battery has had a lot of issue though of late, just look at the 777s.

 

[sd0733]

Battery has had a lot of issue though of late, just look at the 777s.

That doesn't mean it'll always will though. I'm sure given time the technology come to settle down and work, most things go through some teething issues

 

[YorkRailFan]

That doesn't mean it'll always will though. I'm sure given time the technology come to settle down and work, most things go through some teething issues

We'll see, hopefully the LNER CAF units won't have the same issues.

 

[RobShipway]

More something with the same capabilities of battery and overhead rather than those in particular.

I believe that the power for both the diesel engine HP and battery power for the class 93 can be modified. Not sure by how much though and whether it would be enough to power a small set of Mk4 coaches though. Whatever loco does replace the class 67, it will be a shame that it is not put together here in the UK.

 

[Bob Price]

Saw a battery loco photo recently where they hauled two wagons full of batteries yo be able to power them long distance. The technology isn't ready yet to replace diesel. The options are make the 67's work, modify for 68's or find something left field such as the 69's.

 

[fgwrich]

Never say never. Do you think that 68s have never been modified before to work with particular designs of push-pull sets? This isn't the first time the 67s have been modified either.

TfW management have certainly been sniffing around the 68s, they're not happy with DB. The savings in fuel would be considerable too.

I can't say I'm that surprised in the slightest. Chiltern were glad to get away from the 67s and the realms of DB (despite being part of... DB) when the 68s turned up. The 67s have never really covered themselves in glory, just a pretty average, fuel thirsty, minor (and annoying) fault ridden GM built by Alstom (the latter part's the problem in that).

 

[Rhydgaled]

I could see some 19x eventually going to the future iteration of EMR once the 15x and 170s become life-expired. So, at least they would be put to good use on lines which would still be slightly beyond the viability of bi-/tri-modes. TfW (and/or Northern and/or WMR for that matter) could then get the necessary bi-mode stock without having to rebuild anything.

The point is that (as far as I know) the UK rail industry only has one 'official' plan for net-zero: Network Rail's TDNS. If implemented, all passenger trains which are not capable of current collection from either OHLE, 3rd rail or (in very limited numbers, only about 20 units if I recall correctly, mostly on GWR branch shuttles) battery fast-charge points will need to be phased out during the programme. The currently expected total of 161 CAF Civity DMUs is far in excess of what could be used anywhere in the UK if we had the infrastructure recommended by TDNS which means either:

• net-zero not acheived until long after 2050
• scrapping CAF Civity DMUs with many years life left in the bodyshells
• finding some way to reuse as many components as possible (eg. the bodyshells) from the CAF Civity DMUs in new EMU/bi-mode stock

So likely modified 93s?

Surely the power-output of a class 99 in diesel-mode comes closer to what is required (Wikipedia states power output of 1,600 kW from a class 99 compared to 1,920 kW (class 47), 1,305 kW (class 37) and 900 kW (class 93)) although even the 99 doesn't compare to the power available from a 67 or 68 and you would of course need a passenger version with ETH and a higher top speed (class 99s being 75mph only according to Wiki).

 

[Krokodil]

if we had the infrastructure recommended by TDNS

A pretty big "if".

 

[Rhydgaled]

A pretty big "if".

Yes, but the only obvious alternative (the rail-industry not acheiving net-zero status until long after 2050) is rather unpalateable.

 

[Krokodil]

Yes, but the only obvious alternative (the rail-industry not acheiving net-zero status until long after 2050) is rather unpalateable.

I'm sure that the government have all sorts of ideas up their sleeves as to how they can fiddle the emissions figures to meet the overall target without actually needing to achieve any real gains.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'm sure that the government have all sorts of ideas up their sleeves as to how they can fiddle the emissions figures to meet the overall target without actually needing to achieve any real gains.

Still rather unpalateable. Fiddling the figures rather than actually making real improvements to the suituation is still bad.

 

[Krokodil]

Still rather unpalateable. Fiddling the figures rather than actually making real improvements to the suituation is still bad.

But it means that the politicians can pretend that they've done something, which is what matters

 

[HSTEd]

• scrapping CAF Civity DMUs with many years life left in the bodyshells

Would scrapping nearly 30 year old DMUs really be unreasonable?

But I would not be surprised if the TDNS is a bit of a dead letter, I expect the actual result will be a lot more spending on battery and minimal additional line of route electrification.

 

[Rhydgaled]

But it means that the politicians can pretend that they've done something, which is what matters

What matters to them maybe; but to the rest of life on Earth it is reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as soon as possible that matters.

Would scrapping nearly 30 year old DMUs really be unreasonable?

Based on the life of the 150s, 158s and mark 3s, the bodyshells probably have a life of around 35-40 years. As such, 30 years is a little on the low side but not unreasonable. However, given that installing OHLE is a time-consuming process I very much doubt that anything like what the TDNS can be delivered without either scrapping/converting the 19x DMUs well in advance of thier 30th birthdays or putting up wires that then see nothing but DMUs running under them for years. Already I expect Northern, GWR and ScotRail are the only TOCs with (m)any DMUs that spend very little time under the wires (or on 3rd rail electrified routes). Shrewsbury - Birmingham is a good example.

But I would not be surprised if the TDNS is a bit of a dead letter, I expect the actual result will be a lot more spending on battery and minimal additional line of route electrification.

Not much good for freight that (or the TfW mark 4 sets for that matter - methinks a battery loco would struggle to make it from Crewe to Newport). Even for multiple unit stock, a pantograph (or provision for one to be added easily) should be seen as an essential item - they can be used to recharge batteries as well as for supplying traction power while under the wires.

 

[Krokodil]

What matters to them maybe; but to the rest of life on Earth it is reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as soon as possible that matters.

Oh, I agree with you. The thing is that it's the politicians who get to decide what matters, not us.

 

[HSTEd]

Not much good for freight that (or the TfW mark 4 sets for that matter - methinks a battery loco would struggle to make it from Crewe to Newport). Even for multiple unit stock, a pantograph (or provision for one to be added easily) should be seen as an essential item - they can be used to recharge batteries as well as for supplying traction power while under the wires.

Well the Mark 4s will be scrap or in the museum long before 2050, so they aren't the biggest issue.
Freight is more of a challenge but it is possible that superior battery technology will save the day in time.

There aren't that many non electrified routes where freight trains travel great distances at high speed after all.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Shrewsbury - Birmingham is a good example.

Are you trying to say that TFW would benefit from more Bi-mode stock ?

In reality 197’s will run under the wires, as you say, Shrewsbury to Birmingham international, Newport to Cardiff Central, Crewe - Manchester, Halton curve - Liverpool and then Warrington to Manchester airport being about the longest stretch for TFW as far as I can tell. And that is under an hour (one way).
Compared to the distances they will run not under wires, it is easy to see why TFW would not order them as Bi-modes. Carrying all that additional weight of transformers and motors (and other stuff), would just mean more weight to be lugged around (and more pollution).

 

[Rhydgaled]

Well the Mark 4s will be scrap or in the museum long before 2050, so they aren't the biggest issue.

True (although I hope there will also be one preserved full 9-car rake (plus DVT) running railtours etc. with AC electric locomotives (including a 91) out on Network Rail (or whatever it ends up being called) metals). However this is a mark 4 thread and it's possible that the class 67s will be off-lease in 2028 (offical sources differ on this, some material suggests they were leased beyond 2033 and others say 2028).

Are you trying to say that TFW would benefit from more Bi-mode stock?

Yes and no. Yes to bi-modes, but not as we know them (other than converting the 231s to bi-mode). The long-distance routes (basically what the 197s were erronously ordered for, plus (eventually) mark 4 replacement (but not before 2030 in that case)) in my view need 90/100mph, end-gangwayed, long-distance bi-modes. Basically something like a 442 or 444, but bi-modal.

In reality 197’s will run under the wires, as you say, Shrewsbury to Birmingham international, Newport to Cardiff Central, Crewe - Manchester, Halton curve - Liverpool and then Warrington to Manchester airport being about the longest stretch for TFW as far as I can tell. And that is under an hour (one way).
Compared to the distances they will run not under wires, it is easy to see why TFW would not order them as Bi-modes. Carrying all that additional weight of transformers and motors (and other stuff), would just mean more weight to be lugged around (and more pollution).

Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton is not currently wired, which is why I picked SHR-BHI as an example. Under current plans the only passenger services able to make use of OHLE on this section would be the Avanti class 805s, since TfW and WMT both are intending to run nothing but CAF Civity DMUs on the route. This makes it much harder to make a business case for electrification until the diesel-only rolling stock is either cascaded away or due for replacement anyway. We have already seen 'bi-mode blight' with the availability of Hitachi's AT-300 series bi-modes contributing to delays and cancellations to the likes of GWML and MML electrification, and with these wiring still does provide some benefit. The effect new diesel-only stock has on the case for more electrification is even worse. I agree with you that the extent of electrification on TfW today is probably not sufficient to justify bi-modes at TfW (other than the Cardiff Metro) but we need to consider the case for electrification over the lifetime of any new stock. The map in the TDNS (which is still broadly what I think we should be aiming for) would require a pantograph on virtually everything outside 3rd rail areas (where it is 3rd rail shoes that would be mandatory).

To bring the topic of this thread front-and-centre, if you replaced the mark 4s by building more 197s you would (as well as trashing passenger comfort and the on-board ambience) make this 'blight' on medium-term electrification prospects even worse. Quite simply, whatever replaces the mark 4s MUST be capable of making use of OHLE. Hopefully (unlike all recent attempts at new trains) the mark 4 replacements will also provide a comfortable and attractive alternative to private car travel for long-distance journies, in which case I hope that said replacements will start appearing soon and see off the 197s first (for massive conversion to enable electric pickup for Metro routes) before moving on to replace the mark 4s at the end of the programme.

 

[Lurcheroo]

True (although I hope there will also be one preserved full 9-car rake (plus DVT) running railtours etc. with AC electric locomotives (including a 91) out on Network Rail (or whatever it ends up being called) metals). However this is a mark 4 thread and it's possible that the class 67s will be off-lease in 2028 (offical sources differ on this, some material suggests they were leased beyond 2033 and others say 2028).


Yes and no. Yes to bi-modes, but not as we know them (other than converting the 231s to bi-mode). The long-distance routes (basically what the 197s were erronously ordered for, plus (eventually) mark 4 replacement (but not before 2030 in that case)) in my view need 90/100mph, end-gangwayed, long-distance bi-modes. Basically something like a 442 or 444, but bi-modal.


Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton is not currently wired, which is why I picked SHR-BHI as an example. Under current plans the only passenger services able to make use of OHLE on this section would be the Avanti class 805s, since TfW and WMT both are intending to run nothing but CAF Civity DMUs on the route. This makes it much harder to make a business case for electrification until the diesel-only rolling stock is either cascaded away or due for replacement anyway. We have already seen 'bi-mode blight' with the availability of Hitachi's AT-300 series bi-modes contributing to delays and cancellations to the likes of GWML and MML electrification, and with these wiring still does provide some benefit. The effect new diesel-only stock has on the case for more electrification is even worse. I agree with you that the extent of electrification on TfW today is probably not sufficient to justify bi-modes at TfW (other than the Cardiff Metro) but we need to consider the case for electrification over the lifetime of any new stock. The map in the TDNS (which is still broadly what I think we should be aiming for) would require a pantograph on virtual everything outside 3rd rail areas (where it is 3rd rail shoes that would be mandatory).

To bring the topic of this thread front-and-centre, if you replaced the mark 4s by building more 197s you would (as well as trashing passenger comfort and the on-board ambience) make this 'blight' on medium-term electrification prospects even worse. Quite simply, whatever replaces the mark 4s MUST be capable of making use of OHLE. Hopefully (unlike all recent attempts at new trains) the mark 4 replacements will also be provide a comfortable and attractive alternative to private car travel for long-distance journies, in which case I hope that said replacements will start appearing soon and see off the 197s first (for massive conversion to enable electric pickup for Metro routes) before moving on to replace the mark 4s at the end of the programme.

I do agree with you totally. It would have been nice to see some joined up thinking with an entire fleet being replaced, but here we are.

If they decided to do Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton I suppose west mids could use the 730’s on that route at least.

 

[D365]

I believe that the power for both the diesel engine HP and battery power for the class 93 can be modified. Not sure by how much though and whether it would be enough to power a small set of Mk4 coaches though. Whatever loco does replace the class 67, it will be a shame that it is not put together here in the UK.

I don't understand what this post means.

 

[Topological]

Im still of the opinion that the answer is 197 and that the timetable should just go back to what it was, with through running across Cardiff.

Yes, some new designs with bimode capability would be good, but the lengths of wires to use the electrical functionality are too short. Even if Cardiff to Swansea gets wired there is still a huge gap on the Marches which makes diesel still come out on top.

For achieving net zero, there are other areas where more can be done before TfW Marches services come to the top of the list for decarbonising.

 

[Krokodil]

I'm of the view that "197" isn't the answer to much at the moment. 231s would be better, as they have electric transmission later conversion would be relatively straightforward.

 

[GC class B1]

I have found class 197 and all other caf units to have a very poor ride and a poor passenger experience because of this poor ride. I feel they are poorly designed and built and doubt very much that they will last 20 years.

 

[Western 52]

I have found class 197 and all other caf units to have a very poor ride and a poor passenger experience because of this poor ride. I feel they are poorly designed and built and doubt very much that they will last 20 years.

I agree. Having travelled on a smooth riding Mk4 today and then changing to a 197, the difference in ride is very noticeable. You can feel and hear the bogie banging about beneath you. Even the 1950s DMU sets rode better!

 

[The exile]

That doesn't mean it'll always will though. I'm sure given time the technology come to settle down and work, most things go through some teething issues

Hasn’t got much time to do so if the replacement is to be up and running in 2027 (less than 4 years unless that’s a “manage to get the first one to move a foot under its own power downhill on 31/12/27 before going back to the manufacturer for two years’ more work to be done on it”)

 

[43096]

I agree. Having travelled on a smooth riding Mk4 today and then changing to a 197, the difference in ride is very noticeable. You can feel and hear the bogie banging about beneath you. Even the 1950s DMU sets rode better!

That in itself is damning. Mark 4s have never historically been considered to have a good ride. That their replacements on the ECML and the 197s they now share track with have a significantly worse ride, tells you everything you need to know about the quality of new trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree. Having travelled on a smooth riding Mk4 today and then changing to a 197, the difference in ride is very noticeable. You can feel and hear the bogie banging about beneath you. Even the 1950s DMU sets rode better!

Smooth riding Mk4? The things are awful. I don't think BR ever built well riding LHCS - Mk2s bounced, Mk3s swayed and Mk4s, well, I've not often come close to pulling the red handle as I suspected a wheelset had derailed.

The CAF stock is bad too though. The Class 158 is really the benchmark.

 

[sd0733]

Hasn’t got much time to do so if the replacement is to be up and running in 2027 (less than 4 years unless that’s a “manage to get the first one to move a foot under its own power downhill on 31/12/27 before going back to the manufacturer for two years’ more work to be done on it”)

Given the delays to pretty much every new fleet and in most cases a lease extension to cover I'm sure there'll end up being some degree of flexibility in the end date. It's not as if anyone's falling over themselves to go and lease the 67s!
Given the time for everything else, even now 2027 does seem quite optimistic for getting 1 in service never mind a fleet, especially given driver training requirements etc.