TfW Mark 4 sets - what should replace them?

[Krokodil]

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.

I loved the ride of the Mk3s

 

[Western 52]

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.

Yes the 158s are a good ride, and smoother than anything else TfW has. I find the MK4 ok myself, but they are not running as fast on TfW as they did on the east coast, which may make a difference.

 

[GC class B1]

Yes the 158s are a good ride, and smoother than anything else TfW has. I find the MK4 ok myself, but they are not running as fast on TfW as they did on the east coast, which may make a difference.

From memory the specification for ride quality for some new trains used the HST ride quality as a minimum requirement. This was the case in the specification for a new EMU I was involved with in Australia, but I don’t know how you define ride quality to decide whether the design was compliant. The Australian EMU was a double decker and the ride input from the bogie was very good but the problem was that the body vibrated at its natural frequency.
The ride on TfW Mk 4 sets is very good but all CAF units I have travelled on are awful at any speed. The class 158 T4 is well designed but I think a lot more expensive than the current designs. You get what you pay for if you are lucky.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes the 158s are a good ride, and smoother than anything else TfW has. I find the MK4 ok myself, but they are not running as fast on TfW as they did on the east coast, which may make a difference.

Certainly true of 80x. They're quite smooth at low speed through Cornwall and Devon, but once they get to 125 on the mainline it's like a roller coaster. To be fair Mk3s weren't dissimilar, I never understood why people seem to look at them with rose tinted spectacles on.

I've only done Mk4s on the ECML but I can quite believe they're smoother at lower speed.

 

[43096]

Certainly true of 80x. They're quite smooth at low speed through Cornwall and Devon, but once they get to 125 on the mainline it's like a roller coaster. To be fair Mk3s weren't dissimilar, I never understood why people seem to look at them with rose tinted spectacles on.

It's not rose tinted spectacles. People who know far more about it than you or I do will tell you how good a ride the Mark 3 has.

 

[Krokodil]

I never understood why people seem to look at them with rose tinted spectacles on.

I worked Mk3s every day and the way they glided over S&C was great compared to the other stock I've signed in my career. I used to get complaints when a 175 was substituted. Only gripe I'd say about them is that sometimes the coaches would concertina when the 67 first powered up and started shoving.

 

[Rhydgaled]

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.

And I'm still of the opinion that one-nine-sevens (or one-anything-anything, given that denotes a straight DMU), with the benefit of hindsight, shouldn't have been the answer for anyone specifying new-build trains since the late 2000s. In hindsight 172s should probably have been the last straight DMUs built; although the class 196 fleet, with only 26 units, is probably small enough to avoid being too big an issue for decarbonisation the same certainly cannot be said for the 195s and 197s.

I agree that the loss of through-running across Cardiff is a shame, but would argue that running the mark 4s through between Manchester and Swansea, with connecting 175s from Cardiff and Swansea to Carmarthen, would have been a far better way to do it than KeolisAmey's policy of buying a shedload of cheap new DMUs for most things outside the South East Wales Metro.

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.

Newport to Crewe is indeed a long gap to do on diesel, and maybe the economics for the TOC would still come out in favour of a straight DMU under the wires to Swansea and Manchester. However, my main concerns here are:

1. reducing GHG emissions rapidly and
2. the economics of the electrification

If you have bi-modes on Swansea-Manchester it improves the case for wiring between Cardiff and Swansea, since you can add the fuel savings while under the wires to the benefits when working out the BCR of the electrification scheme. If the only trains you are going to run on a route are straight DMUs, the benefits are essentially zero until you can withdraw the DMUs and replace them with something that can make use of the wires. Yes, in the short term you could cascade the DMUs around to put bi-modes or EMUs on the routes you're wiring, but the alot of the work the Civity DMUs are best-suited to (eg. Liverpool-Manchester (via Warrington Central) stoppers and Shrewsbury-Birmingham stoppers) are also not going to be the last routes that want wiring.

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.

Yes, but reaching net-zero is urgent and to get there (according to Network Rail) we need to get through all the higher-priority stuff AND stuff like the Marches. We cannot get to where Network Rail says we need to be while we have (m)any trains that have no ability to pickup power from OHLE or third rail.

In the meantime, we need rail to be wining passengers out of cars. At the moment, cancellations, shortforms, delays and dreadful seats are putting people off rail, some vowing never to travel by train again. We need the opposite - an attractive product that leads passengers to think "this is better than my car, I'll choose rail again in future" and I think a reliable service of mark 4 sets, once lengthened to 5 coaches, is far more likely to acheive that than a reliable service of 5-car 197s. Hence, I don't think we should be in a rush to replace the mark 4s and, when the time comes to do so, it must be with something of comparable (or better) quality - not a massive downgrade in quality as the 197s are.

 

[Topological]

The MK4 is just not suitable, we saw it again yesterday with multiple sets failing and cancellations everywhere. I cannot see a single benefit of them that actually stands up to scrutiny.

What brings people back to trains is having a seat that is relatively new and ideally clean. The fact that seat is within a 197, a 175 or a mk4 is irrelevant really. If you put the same interior as a mk4 into the 197 (ignore the door locations, just bring the seats/tables across) then really any advantage the Mk4 might have would evaporate.

I get that this is a rail forum and people like to think about the glamour of the historic Intercity and loco hauled stock, but this is a stopping train between Cardiff adn its surrounds that tacks onto other regional parts to make a longer distance train. East Coast mainline (even one stopping at Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick and Dunbar en route to Edinburgh*, the Marches is not)

For net zero, we should be electrifying Bristol, Oxford, Ideally Birmingham to Bristol, Birmingham to Cardiff (infill Gloucester to Severn Tunnel Junction) etc. That will help far more. Lines like the Marches need to wait for the battery technology and we have to be realistic to say that is a long way away.

In a perfect world the 175s would still work and there would be no need for any of this. 175s could have gone to either Holyhead routes, or Cardiff to Manchester in longer formations (2+3 like proposed for the 197s say) and then there would be no Mk4 to replace. Sadly that ship sailed a long while ago when it was chosen to maintain 197s at Chester. Not one to revisit now.

I just know people like working trains and the current set up is not working.

Maybe the answer is just keep 4 car 150s for the route?

 

[sd0733]

Hence, I don't think we should be in a rush to replace the mark 4s and, when the time comes to do so, it must be with something of comparable (or better) quality - not a massive downgrade in quality as the 197s are.

They're in no rush to replace the coaches. The actual sets most of the people who matter are pleased with the performance of the Mk4s now. Its the locos that are the cause for concern. Unless anything dramatic changes it'll be a difference In what hauls the Mk4s rather than replacing the Mk4s themselves

 

[RobShipway]

They're in no rush to replace the coaches. The actual sets most of the people who matter are pleased with the performance of the Mk4s now. Its the locos that are the cause for concern. Unless anything dramatic changes it'll be a difference In what hauls the Mk4s rather than replacing the Mk4s themselves

Would it be any different with using class 68, instead of the class 67? If the ride would be the same whether you use class 67 or 68, what locomotive would you use with the MK4's?

 

[sd0733]

Would it be any different with using class 68, instead of the class 67? If the ride would be the same whether you use class 67 or 68, what locomotive would you use with the MK4's?

In theory but would also cost a fortune in additional leasing and mods to the coaches/locos to make them compatible again.

It's planned to be something in a few years with something with AC/Battery capability.

Until then the 67s do have plans for improvements but it requires a new way of working with DB to get them through.

 

[Krokodil]

Would it be any different with using class 68, instead of the class 67? If the ride would be the same whether you use class 67 or 68, what locomotive would you use with the MK4's?

I believe that Chiltern's 68s used a third less fuel than the 67s they replaced.

 

[43096]

I believe that Chiltern's 68s used a third less fuel than the 67s they replaced.

And they have around 500hp more power.

 

[Krokodil]

Probably better at putting it down on the rail too, geared for 100mph vice 125.

 

[gingertom]

Would it be any different with using class 68, instead of the class 67? If the ride would be the same whether you use class 67 or 68, what locomotive would you use with the MK4's?

might have some issues with noise, unless Stadler can come up with improvements to the silencers.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The MK4 is just not suitable, we saw it again yesterday with multiple sets failing and cancellations everywhere. I cannot see a single benefit of them that actually stands up to scrutiny.

Reliability is indeed of great importantance, but reliability issues / teething troubles are often seen with new fleets as well. Ignoring the reliability issues (in the hope that the people 'on the ground' are going to sort them out fairly soon), the TfW mark 4 sets provide a number of passenger benefits. For example, the most-obvious alternatives (158s, 175s and 197s) do not, have a full kitchen/buffet able to provide hot meals. The DMU options also suffer from underfloor engine noise. Compared to 175s, the mark 4s additionally have the benefit of providing a 4 coach train (soon to be 5 coaches) which is gangwayed throughout. Compared to 197s, (assuming the TfW fleet access specification document is correct) the mark 4s provide more toilets in a 4-coach set than the 197s will in 5 coaches. The only real shortcoming of a 5 coach mark 4 set compared to the planned 5-car class 197 formations, assuming all the teething troubles are ironed out with both, is that the mark 4 formation could probably do with being 4 full standard coaches and a buffet 1st rather than 3.5 standard (0.5 being the buffet) and a whole coach of first class. A buffet first would have a similar capacity (perhaps even slightly more) as the 'Standard Plus' section on a 197.

What brings people back to trains is having a seat that is relatively new and ideally clean.

Having clean trains (inside and out) is a good thing, but are you suggesting that "having a seat that is relatively new" is a good thing? Quite the opposite - it is new seats that have driven me away from long-distance rail travel, they are just too hard.

The fact that seat is within a 197, a 175 or a mk4 is irrelevant really. If you put the same interior as a mk4 into the 197 (ignore the door locations, just bring the seats/tables across) then really any advantage the Mk4 might have would evaporate.

You couldn't fit the mark 4 interior into a 197, the doors on the latter are too wide. The underfloor engines wouldn't evaporate either, and I'm not sure if the windows are big enough to get the table bays aligned.

For net zero, we should be electrifying Bristol, Oxford, Ideally Birmingham to Bristol, Birmingham to Cardiff (infill Gloucester to Severn Tunnel Junction) etc.

In the short-term, yes; but the Marches needs to follow eventually.

Lines like the Marches need to wait for the battery technology and we have to be realistic to say that is a long way away.

No - the Marches needs to wait yes, but for electrification not for battery operation all the way from Newport to Crewe.