TPE Mark 5A coaching stock progress

[hibtastic]

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.

Surely they aren't that different to the 185s in terms of acceleration - they are only pulling 5 carriages. They've been quite nippy whenever I've seen them.

 

[edwin_m]

I posted the respective power:weight and percent of weight on motored axles somewhere on there. The 185 wins over the LHCS on both counts. However, if the 185 makes more stops then the timings of the different stock types could be very similar.

Raising low speed restrictions such as Ashton becomes more important if the chosen stock has relatively poor acceleration.

 

[dgl]

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.

I know there are some MU differentials somewhere on the route as the 158's could go faster on some sections than the 185's although the better hill climbing/acceleration make up for some of that.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

LHCS will suffer from poor dwell times compared to 185s, because of the door arrangement.
The 802s will behave exactly like the GWR versions, and they will be cruising the steep Devon banks which are no less onerous than the climbs to Standedge and Morley.
I'm sure First did their homework on all this, even if they have to use their trains in diesel mode longer than originally planned.
DfT will compensate them for any contractual issues over late electrification.

 

[Chester1]

Surely they aren't that different to the 185s in terms of acceleration - they are only pulling 5 carriages. They've been quite nippy whenever I've seen them.

On most routes id agree it doesn't matter but even if it is only a couple of minutes difference including dwell time difference it is still an enormous waste of money. The cost of upgrading the line to save a couple of minutes is very large. The reports published over the last year or so indicate the cost of the overall package required to meet the interim target of 40 minutes Manchester-Leeds is likely to be close to a billion. I am not a huge fan of the 185s but they are more suited to the route until it is electrified and will have lower dwell times than end door Mark 5s and 22 will go off lease.

 

[Bletchleyite]

LHCS will suffer from poor dwell times compared to 185s, because of the door arrangement.

Will they? Part of the problem with 185s is because of overcrowding.

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

The TPE ITT required bidders to assume that Manchester to York electrification might be complete in 2020 or soon after. They were required to bid a flexible rolling stock plan that would enable diesel traction to be replaced by electric at any point between then and the end of the franchise.

First's bid addressed this with the combination of the 802 bi-modes and the Mk5A LHCS, initially hauled by diesel 68s but with the option to switch to electric 88s later. Presumably the plan was that, once the wires were up, the 88-hauled LHCS could work the all-electric Newcastle/Edinburgh services, with the 802s on the partly-electrified Middlesbrough and Scarborough routes. 185s would still have been used on the skip stopping Piccadilly to Leeds/Hull services, for which their door layout is advantageous.

As BMIFlyer pointed out above, the diesel engine of a 88 has a power output of only 700kW, versus 2800kW for a 68, so a 88 cannot be used to haul a passenger train on an unelectrified line. The diesel capability is intended only for "last mile" freight use.

 

[Chester1]

The TPE ITT required bidders to assume that Manchester to York electrification might be complete in 2020 or soon after. They were required to bid a flexible rolling stock plan that would enable diesel traction to be replaced by electric at any point between then and the end of the franchise.

First's bid addressed this with the combination of the 802 bi-modes and the Mk5A LHCS, initially hauled by diesel 68s but with the option to switch to electric 88s later. Presumably the plan was that, once the wires were up, the 88-hauled LHCS could work the all-electric Newcastle/Edinburgh services, with the 802s on the partly-electrified Middlesbrough and Scarborough routes. 185s would still have been used on the skip stopping Piccadilly to Leeds/Hull services, for which their door layout is advantageous.

As BMIFlyer pointed out above, the diesel engine of a 88 has a power output of only 700kW, versus 2800kW for a 68, so a 88 cannot be used to haul a passenger train on an unelectrified line. The diesel capability is intended only for "last mile" freight use.

They were a great choice when the bids were made but 2 - 4 years of 68 haulage could easily become 10 or 20 the way the electrification project is going. 2022 is a reasonable marker, if the deadline is pushed back again then the Mark 5 sets should be cascaded and the spare 185s lease be extended. Class 88 electric haulage would be great though!

 

[CosherB]

They were a great choice when the bids were made but 2 - 4 years of 68 haulage could easily become 10 or 20 the way the electrification project is going. 2022 is a reasonable marker, if the deadline is pushed back again then the Mark 5 sets should be cascaded and the spare 185s lease be extended. Class 88 electric haulage would be great though!

You do seem rather fixated with your rolling stock plans. Would 10 to 20 years of 68s plus Mk5s on TPE be such a disaster?

A reminder of what was announced at the time of the franchise award:

First will bring in 220 new carriages, equivalent to 44 trains, and worth more than £400m, providing 125mph services across the network, as well as introducing new and additional services for Scotland, including a direct Liverpool to Glasgow service from December 2018.

 

[DarloRich]

You do seem rather fixated with your rolling stock plans. Would 10 to 20 years of 68s plus Mk5s on TPE be such a disaster?

A reminder of what was announced at the time of the franchise award:

exactly - what is needed is more capacity. I doubt passengers will care what form the new trains take!

 

[Bletchleyite]

exactly - what is needed is more capacity. I doubt passengers will care what form the new trains take!

I think they will - they will like all the new rolling stock because it appears to be to a very high standard as well as providing additional capacity.

I think they would like it a lot less if less of it was provided or to a lower standard.

 

[northwichcat]

The TPE ITT required bidders to assume that Manchester to York electrification might be complete in 2020 or soon after. They were required to bid a flexible rolling stock plan that would enable diesel traction to be replaced by electric at any point between then and the end of the franchise.

First's bid addressed this with the combination of the 802 bi-modes and the Mk5A LHCS, initially hauled by diesel 68s but with the option to switch to electric 88s later. Presumably the plan was that, once the wires were up, the 88-hauled LHCS could work the all-electric Newcastle/Edinburgh services, with the 802s on the partly-electrified Middlesbrough and Scarborough routes. 185s would still have been used on the skip stopping Piccadilly to Leeds/Hull services, for which their door layout is advantageous.

The TPE franchise agreement also includes the option of ordering new electric trains in 5, 6 or 8 car formations and returning more 185s. My guess is they were thinking new electric trains could release bi-modes for Hull and/or South TPE, which in turn makes 185s surplus to requirements.

 

[Mordac]

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.

That's the British way!

 

[Mordac]

I know there are some MU differentials somewhere on the route as the 158's could go faster on some sections than the 185's although the better hill climbing/acceleration make up for some of that.

Maybe they've been removed since then? I've looked at the Sectional Appendix for between Victoria and Leeds and couldn't see any. The only differentials were for passenger trains vs freight. This is only for the main TP route BTW, I'm pretty sure there's some on the South Transpennine.

 

[edwin_m]

Maybe they've been removed since then? I've looked at the Sectional Appendix for between Victoria and Leeds and couldn't see any. The only differentials were for passenger trains vs freight. This is only for the main TP route BTW, I'm pretty sure there's some on the South Transpennine.

I think we've established there are none of North Transpennine but enough on South Transpennine to make a difference to journey times (but largely cancelled out by the higher performance of 185s). The confusion arises, I think, because someone just used the unqualified term "Transpennine" and it wasn't clear which route (or both) they were referring to.

 

[BMIFlyer]

I think we've established there are none of North Transpennine but enough on South Transpennine to make a difference to journey times (but largely cancelled out by the higher performance of 185s). The confusion arises, I think, because someone just used the unqualified term "Transpennine" and it wasn't clear which route (or both) they were referring to.

North TPE between Selby and Hull and also between York and Scarborough.

South TPE between Chinley and Dore.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

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

There is on the dinsdale. But that's a diversionary route as opposed to a service route. I believe there are also speed restrictions in the selby area that requires 185s operate at the slower speed than 158/170s but I can't say for sure as I don't sign hull.

 

[edwin_m]

Suggesting that the LHCS might have slower timings than the 185s on Hull and Scarborough turns.

 

[northwichcat]

Suggesting that the LHCS might have slower timings than the 185s on Hull and Scarborough turns.

Scarborough services will be speeded up by making less stations calls e.g. no Stalybridge call and calling at just Newton-le-Willows between Manchester and Liverpool. Hull services will still be operated by 185s.

 

[Darandio]

There is on the dinsdale. But that's a diversionary route as opposed to a service route. I believe there are also speed restrictions in the selby area that requires 185s operate at the slower speed than 158/170s but I can't say for sure as I don't sign hull.

Have you had to go via Dinsdale recently?

The only lower restriction I can remember was on the old bridge between Bowesfield and Thornaby, but that is of course now gone.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

I don't think so. I understand that the 68's and the LHCS are relatively light weight and compare favourably compared to the 185. As far as I can see the only issue may be the end doors as opposed tothe 1/3 2/3 arrangement on the current stock giving rise to extended dwell times but the limited stop nature of the route should preclude this on the MBR-MIA services. LIV-SCA may have an impact but again it depends on the stopping patterns the shuttles to Man Picc adopt.

 

[Paul Duck]

There is on the dinsdale. But that's a diversionary route as opposed to a service route. I believe there are also speed restrictions in the selby area that requires 185s operate at the slower speed than 158/170s but I can't say for sure as I don't sign hull.

There is TP public service that goes via Dinsdale every morning and evening Monday To Fridays. Along with the 2 early morning empty stock movements from York To Middlesbrough and the empty stock movement from Newcastle to Middlesbrough.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Yes there is a couple of service trains but is still very much a diversionary route. Partly the reason why the service trains run is for route retention purposes. Newcastle conductors no longer have a route retention run along there as 5F82 is now crewed by York staff.

There is a bridge between Dinsdale and the FirthMoor estate where a sprinter differential applies. It may have been removed recently as I am due a review I'll take a closer look then.

 

[xotGD]

I don't think so. I understand that the 68's and the LHCS are relatively light weight and compare favourably compared to the 185. As far as I can see the only issue may be the end doors as opposed tothe 1/3 2/3 arrangement on the current stock giving rise to extended dwell times but the limited stop nature of the route should preclude this on the MBR-MIA services. LIV-SCA may have an impact but again it depends on the stopping patterns the shuttles to Man Picc adopt.

The loco-hauled sets will have 10 doors rather than the 6 on a 3-car 185, so perhaps fewer delays with boarding/alighting?

 

[CosherB]

The loco-hauled sets will have 10 doors rather than the 6 on a 3-car 185, so perhaps fewer delays with boarding/alighting?

Not sure what you're trying to say .... the LHCS will be five cars with doors at the carriage ends..?

 

[BMIFlyer]

Not sure what you're trying to say .... the LHCS will be five cars with doors at the carriage ends..?

9 doors available for passengers, not 10.

 

[edwin_m]

9 doors available for passengers, not 10.

And over a 5-car set that's fewer doors than a 185 on a per-length basis. More importantly the 185 doorways are twice the width and passengers can turn left or right on boarding (vice versa on alighting) so each door has about twice the number of passengers per second.

 

[YorkshireBear]

And over a 5-car set that's fewer doors than a 185 on a per-length basis. More importantly the 185 doorways are twice the width and passengers can turn left or right on boarding (vice versa on alighting) so each door has about twice the number of passengers per second.

You can still only get out one person at a time though due to the muppets crowding the doors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can still only get out one person at a time though due to the muppets crowding the doors.

And the people getting on before everyone has got off. Why is this a problem in the North? In the South people manage to be polite and wait.

 

[43096]

And the people getting on before everyone has got off. Why is this a problem in the North? In the South people manage to be polite and wait.

I don't think it's a north/south thing, but a regular/occasional user thing. Those who use the train or tube daily know the drill because they have the experience of using them in the peak. Occasional users don't, and as we know, normals are stupid.