TPE Mark 5A coaching stock progress

[43096]

According to the Railways Illustrated 'Rumour Mill', TPE has indicated that it will hire the Pretendolino coaches from September - initially for crew training and then formed into 2 rakes of 5 with DVTs - passenger services using this stock will begin in December (2017).

Hire? They are already on lease to TPE and have been for some time!

 

[sprinterguy]

That is my understanding too. TPE looked at it again and decided that training Newcastle crews on the Mark 5s for a short period of use wasn't worth it.

Ah, in which case I must confess to not having kept up to date with this latest bit of jiggery-pokery regarding the new trains' introduction, apologies.

 

[scarby]

Hire? They are already on lease to TPE and have been for some time!

OK, good. I just repeated what the sort snippet said, so evidently that detail was wrong. Presumably whoever submiited it didn't realise that.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

DVTs will not be used either as this will require additional driver training and the mk3 will be T+T. The RFMs are supposedly being modified to accomodate a train crew office and cycle storage.

 

[IanXC]

That is my understanding too. TPE looked at it again and decided that training Newcastle crews on the Mark 5s for a short period of use wasn't worth it.

I suppose that training Newcastle crews for a short period can be avoided, and the 185s freed up from Scarborough and Middlesbrough can be used to strengthen the Newcastle's anyway.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Given that Newcastle crews sign Middlesbrough and Scarborough at the mo it looks like we will lose these routes or will end up signing the traction anyway, especially as some services to liverpool go in via cheshire lines and out via the moss or vice versa using the same crew and trainset.

Then again, losing the 'boro and gaining edinburgh will change newcastle diagrams considerably!

 

[xotGD]

According to the Railways Illustrated 'Rumour Mill', TPE has indicated that it will hire the Pretendolino coaches from September - initially for crew training and then formed into 2 rakes of 5 with DVTs - passenger services using this stock will begin in December (2017).

Do these coaches have droplights? Will we be able to flail?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Given that Newcastle crews sign Middlesbrough and Scarborough at the mo it looks like we will lose these routes or will end up signing the traction anyway, especially as some services to liverpool go in via cheshire lines and out via the moss or vice versa using the same crew and trainset.
Then again, losing the 'boro and gaining edinburgh will change newcastle diagrams considerably!

I just don't get TPE strategy for its new stock.
You'd expect all the new fleets to be "go anywhere", like the 185s.
Small sub-fleets are just trouble.
397 to Glasgow fails at Lime St? Send a standby 802 or LHCS.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think an all-EMU fleet for the WCML services makes sense, and is no different from the present 350 vs. 185 fleet in that sense. But otherwise ideally they'd have had all 802s for the rest. Trouble is they were not able to deliver them quickly enough - they have taken the entire follow on order for FirstGroup, I believe. Hence the need for something else.

 

[ainsworth74]

Do these coaches have droplights? Will we be able to flail?

Considering Mk4s do not have droplights it would be strange to take a step back and install droplights on the Mk5s.

 

[ash39]

I think the droplight comment was tongue in cheek!

Even worse, first class is next to the loco so no chance of hearing the loco from one coach away!

 

[najaB]

Considering Mk4s do not have droplights it would be strange to take a step back and install droplights on the Mk5s.

I think the question was about the Pretendolino rather than the Mk5s.

 

[Bornin1980s]

Given that Newcastle crews sign Middlesbrough and Scarborough at the mo it looks like we will lose these routes or will end up signing the traction anyway, especially as some services to liverpool go in via cheshire lines and out via the moss or vice versa using the same crew and trainset.

Then again, losing the 'boro and gaining edinburgh will change newcastle diagrams considerably!

You're dropping the Middlesbrough routes? Please don't! I remember having to take an alternative route to York due to TPE strike action, and the two car Darlington pacer carried a load even five carriages might struggle with.

Also, I was really looking forward to riding on the new push-pull trains. Still, if that route reverts to Northern, we might see 158s on Yarm viaduct again, just like when my grandparents lived below it.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the question was about the Pretendolino rather than the Mk5s.

Oh

Sorry...

You're dropping the Middlesbrough routes? Please don't! I remember having to take an alternative route to York due to TPE strike action, and the two car Darlington pacer carried a load even five carriages might struggle with.

No it is possible that Newcastle TPE crews may no longer sign Middlesbrough. If this were to happen then the service will continue using crews from other depots.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

No, TPE arent dropping Middlesbrough. Sorry, should have been clearer! They will be crewed by York and Scarborough crews as they are now. Newcastle staff also currently work Middlesbrough but are set to lose Middlesbrough and Scarborough off their route cards as they wont sign Mk5. They will however gain Edinburgh ECML

 

[Greybeard33]

Given that Newcastle crews sign Middlesbrough and Scarborough at the mo it looks like we will lose these routes or will end up signing the traction anyway, especially as some services to liverpool go in via cheshire lines and out via the moss or vice versa using the same crew and trainset.

I understand the Scarborough and Newcastle services will both be routed via the Chat Moss line from May 2018. Do you know if you will continue to sign the CLC as a diversionary route?

 

[edwin_m]

I understand the Scarborough and Newcastle services will both be routed via the Chat Moss line from May 2018. Do you know if you will continue to sign the CLC as a diversionary route?

It'll be interesting to see what happens here, considering that diversion onto the CLC would involve running via Guide Bridge and Piccadilly or via the Ordsall Chord and reversing at Oxford Road.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It'll be interesting to see what happens here, considering that diversion onto the CLC would involve running via Guide Bridge and Piccadilly or via the Ordsall Chord and reversing at Oxford Road.

I'd expect TPE crews will still sign Stalybridge to Picc via Guide Bridge, as the semi-fast services will run that way presumably into the low-numbered platforms at Piccadilly. Crossing the throat as the current Liverpool to Scarborough services do will be less likely, as that's one of the key reasons for building the Ordsall Chord. Staly to Picc via Guide Bridge and Ardwick will likely also be used to access Ardwick depot.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

As we see with the diversion of the newcastle services into Picc due to limited capacity across the throat they often terminate at picc and in the low numbered platforms. Its rare they continue through to Liverpool unless other services have been thinned out.

It is expected that cheshire lines will be retained as a diversionary route, but it is possible the route will be removed off the cards of some depots but not others. Personally route knowledge should be standard across the network as far as I am concerned. I cant see why york and Liverpool crews sign Calder Valley yet Newcastle crews dont. Newcastle and Scarborough cover Middlesbrough, but manchester airport crews dont. This potentially causes short term planning diagramming issues and adds to disruption managament problems. Standardising route and traction knowledge across all depots simplifies cross coverage and improves disruption resilience. A couple of training days a year or diagrammed diversions as with some early morning and evening services to maintain route knowledge is a small price to pay for the benefits it can bring

 

[CAF397]

I just don't get TPE strategy for its new stock.
You'd expect all the new fleets to be "go anywhere", like the 185s.
Small sub-fleets are just trouble.
397 to Glasgow fails at Lime St? Send a standby 802 or LHCS.

350 fails at Manchester Airport they can currently step up units and pinch a 185. 397 fails at Manchester Airport (or Lime St as above) and the driver and guard will probably not sign LHCS or 802s even if they're available.

Stock is going to become route specific, and certain depots only sign certain routes. Will be fun during disruption.

 

[NotATrainspott]

As said by others, the main problem for TPE seems to be Hitachi's production constraints. If they were able to build another few 802s, I doubt a ROSCO would have gone for the Mk5A option. While a fleet of three types rather than four would have been easier, it wouldn't have been possible in the timeframe of the franchise.

Now, that doesn't mean it'll always be that way. The TPE franchise includes an option for a good number of additional pure EMUs. Plausibly these will be a follow-on order for the 397s. Once TP North electrification is done, it should be possible to swap out the 802s for these 397s, with the 802s heading basically anywhere which can make use of bi-mode InterCity units.

The only other way of having a consistent fleet would have been to order AT300 for the WCML services. Ignoring production constraints this would have been perfectly possible, but then an ever-so-slightly-compromised bi-mode design would be used on a service that really has no need for bi-mode operation. The ECML and GWML bi-mode sets make sense given that Kings Cross and Paddington can see a train come in from an electrified origin (e.g. Edinburgh) and then sent back out to an unelectrified destination (e.g. Aberdeen), but that never happens on the TP Scotland services. The only way that TP Scotland AT300 trains could have been used on other services would have been if they were fully fitted with diesel engines, but they would almost never be used. Straight electric AT300s would have allowed fleet commonality but they would be trapped on the western side of the Pennines, and then would cost more to build and run than a pure EMU like the 397.

 

[Philip]

Will 185s continue to be used for strengthening and/or a backup option once everything's sorted? 12 units for all of the Scotland services seems a wee tight considering a couple will be required for the Liverpool services and another couple on maintenance diagrams.

 

[Clansman]

Will 185s continue to be used for strengthening and/or a backup option once everything's sorted? 12 units for all of the Scotland services seems a wee tight considering a couple will be required for the Liverpool services and another couple on maintenance diagrams.

I'd imagine that's dependent on if the staff will continue to sign them on other routes.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Allegedly, this is the end result of all the changes:

 

[SpacePhoenix]

350 fails at Manchester Airport they can currently step up units and pinch a 185. 397 fails at Manchester Airport (or Lime St as above) and the driver and guard will probably not sign LHCS or 802s even if they're available.

Stock is going to become route specific, and certain depots only sign certain routes. Will be fun during disruption.

Will that also be for a given depot, just certain links or all the links?

 

[IanXC]

Allegedly, this is the end result of all the changes:

Am I right in thinking York depot currently does more than just stabling, but will end up only doing stabling/or having no role at all?

 

[Nymanic]

The TPE franchise includes an option for a good number of additional pure EMUs. Plausibly these will be a follow-on order for the 397s. Once TP North electrification is done, it should be possible to swap out the 802s for these 397s, with the 802s heading basically anywhere which can make use of bi-mode InterCity units.

I believe the only stock option available is for additional 397s. But at around 15m shorter than an 802, and with over 50 fewer seats* (according to the Franchise Agreement), the shrink in capacity brought about by a switch to 397s would be very significant.

*Assuming the 5-car length is kept. Longer stock is possible, but 5-car is as long as you can go if you want the option of doubled-up or portion workings.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I believe the only stock option available is for additional 397s. But at around 15m shorter than an 802, and with over 50 fewer seats* (according to the Franchise Agreement), the shrink in capacity brought about by a switch to 397s would be very significant.

*Assuming the 5-car length is kept. Longer stock is possible, but 5-car is as long as you can go if you want the option of doubled-up or portion workings.

I don't think TPE plans to double up services, 10 car is already too long for Oxford Road and some other key platforms.
I'd also say the 802s are "oversized" at 26m rather than 397/LHCS "undersized" at 23m.
They had to take the AT300 stock option optimised for GWR.

 

[scarby]

I think the droplight comment was tongue in cheek!

Even worse, first class is next to the loco so no chance of hearing the loco from one coach away!

Well I'm planning on booking a 1st advance from Scarborough to York and back on some desolate midweek evening. Into the York Tap and back on the last train - my "own" loco-hauled mini-railtour.

 

[Mollman]

The TPE franchise includes an option for a good number of additional pure EMUs. Plausibly these will be a follow-on order for the 397s. Once TP North electrification is done, it should be possible to swap out the 802s for these 397s, with the 802s heading basically anywhere which can make use of bi-mode InterCity units.

The excuse for not electrifying Selby - Hull included the fact that the 802s would be switched onto Manchester - Hull following TP electrification. Of course we all know that what a politician says and what happens tend to be miles apart!