TPE Mark 5A coaching stock progress

[edwin_m]

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!

As far as I recall the franchise bidders were told to assume that there would be no electrification between Stalybridge and Leeds over the entire franchise term, so it's a problem for the next franchise what stock to deploy when that actually happens (assuming it does at all).

If electrification is to be completed during the next franchse then bidders would have to offer a rolling stock solution to take advantage of it. This could be, for example, some new high-quality 125mph EMUs, bi-modes serving Hull, Middlesborough and Scarborough and the remaining 185s eliminated from the franchise and maybe even a fleet of more standard EMUs for Manchester-Leeds/York semi-fasts. It could also include replacement of 68s with 88s on the push-pull rakes but if the rolling stock market then is like it is now then it's quite possilbe they would disappear instead.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

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.

some great boozers in Thirsk, as the new lad who recently transferred there from Swindon ticket office will testify!

I believe that electrification only as far as Selby was justified in order to *ahem* encourage some private investment to pay for the rest (I.e Hull Trains)

 

[jzw95]

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

How can the crew for the 802 be in Glasgow, when the trains won't go anywhere near there (according to the diagram)?!

 

[najaB]

How can the crew for the 802 be in Glasgow, when the trains won't go anywhere near there (according to the diagram)?!

Glasgow and Edinburgh aren't that far apart - an hour, hour and a half tops.

 

[IanXC]

I believe that electrification only as far as Selby was justified in order to *ahem* encourage some private investment to pay for the rest (I.e Hull Trains)

I had the impression that it was to do with a new feeder for the ECML being required at Gascoigne Wood and that driving getting that onto the network? Plus of course it being a very useful scheme in itself purely from an ECML perspective.

On the Selby to Hull scheme isn't it more that the DfT got cold feet and so 802s were ordered and all the impetus taken out?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

How can the crew for the 802 be in Glasgow, when the trains won't go anywhere near there (according to the diagram)?!

Glasgow crews sign ECML to Newcastle which is used for replacement WCML diversions. They dont however sign any of the north TPE route south of Newcastle

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Glasgow crews sign ECML to Newcastle which is used for replacement WCML diversions. They dont however sign any of the north TPE route south of Newcastle

TPE operating Newcastle-Edinburgh will also need diversion knowledge via Carlisle and Carstairs for 802s.
Although today, XC seem to terminate from the south at Newcastle, leaving only VTEC to divert.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

185s are certainly capable of running Tyne Valley as the recent BLS/TPE charter showed, and as 800 series trains for VTEC will probably be cleared to run tyne valley too thedes no reason why TPE cant. Cannot comment about voyagers but XC under Virgin have sent HSTs that way in the past. Bear in mind tho there is limited capacity that way which may limit the number of trains that can run

If the WCML is shut skme TPE NCL services are extenced to EDB to maintain an anglo scottish connection with Manchester Airport. At the mo thats the only WCML diversion offered by TPE

 

[IanXC]

TPE operating Newcastle-Edinburgh will also need diversion knowledge via Carlisle and Carstairs for 802s.

I'm not sure that necessarily follows!

What with the increase in Northern services planned for the Tyne Valley capacity for diversions will surely be limited. That said I wonder if we could see TPE 802s coupling up to VTEC 800s for 14/15 car (non stop) Newcastle to Edinburgh?!

Edit: perhaps we all need to remember this thread ​is actually about the Mark 5A hauled stock and all keep a bit more on topic?!

 

[jzw95]

Glasgow and Edinburgh aren't that far apart - an hour, hour and a half tops.

I realise what sort of distance we're talking about, but that adds another 3 hours of 'non-productive' time onto a shift. Given the TPE crew are presumably based at Central, they can't avail themselves of the fast and frequent shuttle service. Would it not make more sense to either have a small crew based at Waverley, or to just base them all at Newcastle? Well, clearly not, but I guess my question is why not? I don't know anything about the operational issues, so genuinely curious.

 

[najaB]

Would it not make more sense to either have a small crew based at Waverley, or to just base them all at Newcastle? Well, clearly not, but I guess my question is why not? I don't know anything about the operational issues, so genuinely curious.

It probably comes down to cost - the cost of 3 hours 'extra' duty time versus the cost of a new crew base.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

I sincerely hope TPE have a traincrew base at Newcastle!!! XD

 

[jopsuk]

What is the current production status? Complete carriages?

 

[CAF397]

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.

Currently there is 8 daily diagrams - 4 Glasgows and 4 Edinburghs. On a Friday a 185 is placed on a Glasgow diagram to allow one or two Edinburghs to be strengthened to 8-cars (350 not on Maintenence would be the other).

So during the week, arguably there are 2 350s on Maintenence/other.

12 397s means 4 extra units (8 diagrams on current timetable), so this allows for 2 on Liverpools with 2 still on Maintenence/other.

I can see 185s being removed from certain depots route cards as if they're not diagrammed normally, keeping the traction refreshed may prove problematic.

 

[CAF397]

It probably comes down to cost - the cost of 3 hours 'extra' duty time versus the cost of a new crew base.

Some productive diagrams may occur where they go Glasgow-Carlisle-Edinburgh (break) Edinburgh-Newcastle-Edinburgh (pass to Glasgow).

Virgin drivers have (had?) jobs where they only work one way Preston-Glasgow and pass back, or work Preston to Edinburgh, pass to Glasgow and work back. I'm sure TPE diagrams will be more productive than Virgin ones.

 

[jzw95]

Some productive diagrams may occur where they go Glasgow-Carlisle-Edinburgh (break) Edinburgh-Newcastle-Edinburgh (pass to Glasgow).

I thought the trains on the Liverpool-Newcastle-Edinburgh route weren't going anywhere near Glasgow or Carlisle? That's why it seemed odd to me. Presumably cost, as najaB says.

 

[Nean]

I thought the trains on the Liverpool-Newcastle-Edinburgh route weren't going anywhere near Glasgow or Carlisle? That's why it seemed odd to me. Presumably cost, as najaB says.

However if drivers sign both types of traction then they would be able to unless I'm mistaken?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I thought the trains on the Liverpool-Newcastle-Edinburgh route weren't going anywhere near Glasgow or Carlisle? That's why it seemed odd to me. Presumably cost, as najaB says.

Except on days when the ECML is closed for engineering work (similarly working via Newcastle when the WCML is closed).
Periodic closures of both routes (non-conflicting) seems to be a feature of the NR maintenance regime these days.
The WCML north of Preston is regularly closed over bank holiday weekends.
The TOCs shouldn't just give up and bustitute because of their "don't sign the route" weaknesses.
TPE at least recently has worked Liverpool/Manchester-York-Edinburgh when the WCML was closed.

 

[driver_m]

Some productive diagrams may occur where they go Glasgow-Carlisle-Edinburgh (break) Edinburgh-Newcastle-Edinburgh (pass to Glasgow).

Virgin drivers have (had?) jobs where they only work one way Preston-Glasgow and pass back, or work Preston to Edinburgh, pass to Glasgow and work back. I'm sure TPE diagrams will be more productive than Virgin ones.

Can't we keep this on topic, before it ends up going on about smelly toilets now you've mentioned the 'v' word.

How are these new vehicles actually getting on?

 

[CosherB]

Can't we keep this on topic, before it ends up going on about smelly toilets now you've mentioned the 'v' word.

How are these new vehicles actually getting on?

Last I saw was this, three months ago.

http://www.globalrailnews.com/2017/03/07/caf-and-tpe-reveal-first-mark-5a-bodyshell/

I doubt the CAF / TPE marketing teams won't be revealing anything else until a completed carriage can be rolled out (literally!).

And this from April for the CS stock:

http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/exclusive-september-arrival-for-caledonian-sleeper-mk-5s

 

[Nymanic]

For anyone subscribed to Railway Herald, there's a a small image of a carriage bodyshell, in what appears to be a base grey, included in the latest issue. It's more advanced than the couple or so photos from several months ago.

It's not much, but it's something.

 

[Chester1]

What are the alternative uses for them now that Transpennine electrification seems to be indefinitely delayed? Discussion in another thread came to the conclusion that they would be slower between Manchester and Leeds hauled by a class 68s compared with a 185 therefore making it more expensive to upgrade track to meet the target journey time of 40 minutes.

It does appear that they are now not particularly suited to the route they will serve. Are class 68s the fastest accelerating diesel locomotives that are compatible with Mark Vs? Would a more appropriate use of Mark Vs be class 88 haulage on services that are predominantly electric with some diesel required?

 

[dgl]

From what I've heard 68's accelerate like a rat up a drainpipe.

Remember though that 185's hill climbing capability, with voyager levels of power despite a lower top speed, will mean that they should accelerate faster than the 68's. Whether that is a problem I don't know and with the fact 185's can't use sprinter differential speeds (as I suspect the 68's can't either) there might not be as much difference in timings really.

Sent from my Lumia 625 using Tapatalk

 

[Mordac]

From what I've heard 68's accelerate like a rat up a drainpipe.

Remember though that 185's hill climbing capability, with voyager levels of power despite a lower top speed, will mean that they should accelerate faster than the 68's. Whether that is a problem I don't know and with the fact 185's can't use sprinter differential speeds (as I suspect the 68's can't either) there might not be as much difference in timings really.

Sent from my Lumia 625 using Tapatalk

I don't think there's any sprinter differentials on the transpennine line.

EDIT: Confirmed, there aren't. Also, it's worth pointing out that 185s can't do any MU differentials at all, not just sprinter differentials! But there aren't any of those on the transpennine line either.

 

[Chester1]

From what I've heard 68's accelerate like a rat up a drainpipe.

Remember though that 185's hill climbing capability, with voyager levels of power despite a lower top speed, will mean that they should accelerate faster than the 68's. Whether that is a problem I don't know and with the fact 185's can't use sprinter differential speeds (as I suspect the 68's can't either) there might not be as much difference in timings really.

Sent from my Lumia 625 using Tapatalk

It will be hill climbing and quicker dwell times that will make a 185 faster. I think the latest plans are for Manchester Piccadilly to Hull and the two skip stop services to be run by 185s. The loco hauled Mark Vs will now run Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough and Liverpool to Scarborough. 802s for Manchester Airport to Newcastle and Liverpool to Edinburgh via Newcastle. A solution could be to alter stopping patterns to limit the stops made by loco hauled and 802 services to non or only one stop.

 

[BMIFlyer]

What are the alternative uses for them now that Transpennine electrification seems to be indefinitely delayed? Discussion in another thread came to the conclusion that they would be slower between Manchester and Leeds hauled by a class 68s compared with a 185 therefore making it more expensive to upgrade track to meet the target journey time of 40 minutes.

It does appear that they are now not particularly suited to the route they will serve. Are class 68s the fastest accelerating diesel locomotives that are compatible with Mark Vs? Would a more appropriate use of Mark Vs be class 88 haulage on services that are predominantly electric with some diesel required?

The engine on a class 88 is not powerful enough to haul a rake of Mk5 coaches over the pennine hills and keep to time. The 68 on the other hand is perfect for the task.

 

[Chester1]

The engine on a class 88 is not powerful enough to haul a rake of Mk5 coaches over the pennine hills and keep to time. The 68 on the other hand is perfect for the task.

Sorry I was unclear. I meant some 88s hauling Mark Vs on different routes. Perhaps altering the order to have some 3 + DVT sets and hiring them out to Northern? Windermere and Barrow 2 hourly services to Manchester Airport would probably need 5 sets rostered. There would be no shortage of alternative Northern services to use the 319 flexes on. The Scarborough and Middlesborough services do not need intercity trains just extra capacity. The 22 spare 185s that are going off lease would be more than adequate and be faster.

 

[keith1879]

What are the alternative uses for them now that Transpennine electrification seems to be indefinitely delayed? Discussion in another thread came to the conclusion that they would be slower between Manchester and Leeds hauled by a class 68s compared with a 185 therefore making it more expensive to upgrade track to meet the target journey time of 40 minutes.

It does appear that they are now not particularly suited to the route they will serve. Are class 68s the fastest accelerating diesel locomotives that are compatible with Mark Vs? Would a more appropriate use of Mark Vs be class 88 haulage on services that are predominantly electric with some diesel required?

Prepared to be corrected ....but wasn't the TP stock order placed on the assumption of no electrification during the franchise (something that was in the ITT). So nothing has changed.

 

[43096]

Sorry I was unclear. I meant some 88s hauling Mark Vs on different routes. Perhaps altering the order to have some 3 + DVT sets and hiring them out to Northern? Windermere and Barrow 2 hourly services to Manchester Airport would probably need 5 sets rostered. There would be no shortage of alternative Northern services to use the 319 flexes on. The Scarborough and Middlesborough services do not need intercity trains just extra capacity. The 22 spare 185s that are going off lease would be more than adequate and be faster.

What?

Northern have their own rolling stock plans without needing daft ideas dreaming up. The TPE plan with 68s is entirely feasible.

You seem to be inventing problems that don't actually exist.

 

[Chester1]

What?

Northern have their own rolling stock plans without needing daft ideas dreaming up. The TPE plan with 68s is entirely feasible.

You seem to be inventing problems that don't actually exist.

All the indicators are that transpennine electrification won't be done by 2022 and probably much later. That suggestion isnt as daft as NR likely to soon spend very large sums of money on increasing line speeds between Manchester and Leeds while the TOC introduces trains that can't hill climb as well as the 185s unless the route is wired, which is looking a long way off. The 68s are an OK interim solution but its a waste of money doing stuff like the current works around Ashton-under-Lyne to lose time through using diesel locomotive hauled units to travel over the Pennines. There doesn't seem to be any coherent plan and 68s are a interim solution that risks turning into the long term option.