TPE Mark 5A coaching stock progress

[js1000]

For once this is not TPE's fault, CAF have delivered a product which does not meet the required standard. Apart from the brake issue which is in a nutshell it takes 17 seconds to get a complete brake release on all the coaches which leads to dragging brakes. The on-board alarms are not up to UK spec and all the tables in 1st class are to be removed as they do not meet the required safety standards. This is all down to CAF and I fully back the decision not to take ownership of the trains and delay their introduction.

There was also a video of the CAF's 195 to Northern which rattled far too much for a new train. Good on TPE for questioning the standard of their order.

 

[AndrewE]

Utter drivel. It's not TPE's fault whatsoever, CAF have delivered a product that isn't fit for service. What should TPE do, accept trains riddled with issues to keep their estimated times of coming into service? Or work with CAF to fix the issue so that when they come into service there's not the issues as they've been so open about?

TPE have nothing to apologise for here. All with CAF, who are not doing themselves any favours.

But which company decided that it couldn't be bothered to introduce the stop-gap Mk 3 trains it had promised (or accepted as a franchise commitment?) If they had been introduced and were running now the delays to the next generation of rolling stock wouldn't be such a serious concern.

 

[Darandio]

But which company decided that it couldn't be bothered to introduce the stop-gap Mk 3 trains it had promised (or accepted as a franchise commitment?) If they had been introduced and were running now the delays to the next generation of rolling stock wouldn't be such a serious concern.

They could be bothered to introduce them. They just couldn't be bothered to offer suitable arrangements to those who couldn't access them.

 

[ainsworth74]

Lets not go through TPE and Mk3 debacle again on this thread. Stick to the topic.

 

[AndrewE]

They could be bothered to introduce them. They just couldn't be bothered to offer suitable arrangements to those who couldn't access them.

Try reading post 1591:

The plan was dropped because TPE didn’t want to put them into service and it would have been inconvenient for them. The public disability statement from TPE didn’t even mention disabled people but not being introduced due to issues with wheelchair users has become a firm fact amongst some enthusiasts regardless.

 

[DunfordBridge]

NOVA 3 confirmed as now not entering service until Spring 2019

https://www.tpexpress.co.uk/travelling-with-us/the-nova-fleets/nova-3

Looks like the class 68s are all dressed up with nowhere to go. Things are not getting much better but tell a lie, the 18:45 from York to Scarborough was only five minutes late tonight.

Are there still any class 442 units still going spare? Next question, are they disabled-friendly? Think these would do nicely in the interim until they can engineer a decent brake release on the mark 5A stock.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Looks like the class 68s are all dressed up with nowhere to go.

DRS are probably rubbing their hands together. At one point, TPE were paying DRS for loco's that were still operating for DRS.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Utter drivel. It's not TPE's fault whatsoever, CAF have delivered a product that isn't fit for service. What should TPE do, accept trains riddled with issues to keep their estimated times of coming into service? Or work with CAF to fix the issue so that when they come into service there's not the issues as they've been so open about?
TPE have nothing to apologise for here. All with CAF, who are not doing themselves any favours.

TPE has a franchise agreement with DfT and has made public commitments for entry into service.
Sure, it may be CAF's fault underneath, but TPE signed up to the service dates, not CAF.
The ROSCO will be involved too.
I wonder if the 397s will be any better?

 

[BeHereNow]

TPE has a franchise agreement with DfT and has made public commitments for entry into service.
Sure, it may be CAF's fault underneath, but TPE signed up to the service dates, not CAF.
The ROSCO will be involved too.
I wonder if the 397s will be any better?

Finally someone speaks some sense.

 

[twpsaesneg]

Content of the press release now on the Railway Gazette website.

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...ranspennine-express-nova-3-fleet-delayed.html

TransPennine Express Nova 3 fleet delayed
12 Nov 2018




UK: TransPennine Express’s fleet of CAF Nova 3 push-pull coaches is now expected to enter service ‘slightly later than planned’ in spring 2019, the operator confirmed on November 12.

TPE said CAF had recently made it aware of a ‘technical issue with a key on-board system’ on the Mark 5A coaches, and was ‘working hard to ensure this is addressed as soon as possible prior to delivery of the trains’.

The operator stressed that the issue does not affect its Nova 1 Hitachi AT300 electro-diesel multiple-units or Nova 2 CAF inter-city EMUs which are also expected to enter service next year.

‘While we are keen to start the roll out of the Nova 3s as soon as possible, it is important that we allow CAF to address the issue identified during the train testing process’, said TPE Managing Director Leo Goodwin. ‘It was hoped that our customers would start to experience these new trains before the end of the year, but we will all now have to wait until the New Year.

‘This issue does not affect the other Nova fleets; we will start to see new trains in service by spring next year, and we are still on track to complete the roll out of all three fleets of trains by 2020’, he said, adding that ‘it may be a short delay to the programme, but it will definitely be worth the wait.’

Once in service, the Nova 3 push-pull financed by Beacon Rail will operate between Liverpool, Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Scarborough and Middlesbrough.

Last month Caledonian Sleeper confirmed that the introduction of its fleet of CAF coaches had been put back from autumn 2018 until spring 2019, saying the approvals process was ‘time-consuming and complex’ and there was ‘still work to be done’ before they could enter service.

 

[DunfordBridge]

DRS are probably rubbing their hands together. At one point, TPE were paying DRS for loco's that were still operating for DRS.

So Transpennine are going be paying for these fine locos which are presumably going to be stood around doing nothing for several weeks through the lack of any half-decent stock that they can haul. Puts a few taxi fares for disabled passengers into perspective, not that I would have wanted my late mother to travel by taxi from York to Scarborough when she was a disabled passenger.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So Transpennine are going be paying for these fine locos which are presumably going to be stood around doing nothing for several weeks through the lack of any half-decent stock that they can haul. Puts a few taxi fares for disabled passengers into perspective, not that I would have wanted my late mother to travel by taxi from York to Scarborough when she was a disabled passenger.

Yeah, there is a view that a taxi is a superior mode of transport because it's more expensive and personal; personally I find it rather *inferior* due to e.g. often poorly-trained staff.

 

[DarloRich]

Utter drivel. It's not TPE's fault whatsoever, CAF have delivered a product that isn't fit for service. What should TPE do, accept trains riddled with issues to keep their estimated times of coming into service? Or work with CAF to fix the issue so that when they come into service there's not the issues as they've been so open about?

TPE have nothing to apologise for here. All with CAF, who are not doing themselves any favours.

For once this is not TPE's fault, CAF have delivered a product which does not meet the required standard. Apart from the brake issue which is in a nutshell it takes 17 seconds to get a complete brake release on all the coaches which leads to dragging brakes. The on-board alarms are not up to UK spec and all the tables in 1st class are to be removed as they do not meet the required safety standards. This is all down to CAF and I fully back the decision not to take ownership of the trains and delay their introduction.

So, in your world, the customer has no responsibility to undertake quality checking of the manufacturing process and parts used? You must be very brave. It isnt ALL down to CAF. TPE or their agents also have a responsibility

 

[Ben Bow]

The whole loco-haulage idea was sold on the pretext that it was the quickest way to get new trains into service. But at best, that is going to be marginal now and brings with it operational complexity, for example at Middlesbrough, which will blight the fleet for years to come. Meanwhile, at the end of the blame game are long suffering TPE passengers who now know there will be no additional capacity for the busy festive season, especially on Saturdays when Northern are on strike.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The whole loco-haulage idea was sold on the pretext that it was the quickest way to get new trains into service. But at best, that is going to be marginal now and brings with it operational complexity, for example at Middlesbrough, which will blight the fleet for years to come. Meanwhile, at the end of the blame game are long suffering TPE passengers who now know there will be no additional capacity for the busy festive season, especially on Saturdays when Northern are on strike.

What complexity will be caused, given that they are, operationally, basically going to be DMUs that just happen to have all the engines in an extra coach at the end?

 

[absolutelymilk]

The whole loco-haulage idea was sold on the pretext that it was the quickest way to get new trains into service. But at best, that is going to be marginal now

Even if the Mark 5As come into service at the same time as the 802s, having two production lines means that more trains will be in service by a given time than if they had just gone with 802s. It also meant that if the 802s had been significantly delayed, then they would at least have the loco-hauled stock to increase capacity.

 

[Ben Bow]

At the moment there is one homogeneous fleet of DMU's which all train crews sign. In the future, the North route will have 3 different types of train which cannot work with each other, and for which there will be traction specific crews. Fine when everything is going well, but once things start to go awry it makes recovery much more difficult. Additionally, the loco-hauled sets cannot be strengthened to accommodate extra demand due to one-off events - sporting fixtures, concerts etc. Short term gain, long term pain.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At the moment there is one homogeneous fleet of DMU's which all train crews sign. In the future, the North route will have 3 different types of train which cannot work with each other, and for which there will be traction specific crews. Fine when everything is going well, but once things start to go awry it makes recovery much more difficult. Additionally, the loco-hauled sets cannot be strengthened to accommodate extra demand due to one-off events - sporting fixtures, concerts etc. Short term gain, long term pain.

I must admit I think their choice to go for bar-coupled 5-car sets was a poor one; they would have been better off going for Scharfenberg coupled coaches as per the CS ones, which would allow easy changes of formation later. But by and large the DMUs and EMUs aren't going to be running in multiple either because of platform lengths, so whether they can run in multiple is about as relevant as it is for an 11-car Pendolino.

 

[MisterT]

So, in your world, the customer has no responsibility to undertake quality checking of the manufacturing process and parts used? You must be very brave. It isnt ALL down to CAF. TPE or their agents also have a responsibility

This ^^

When the first Dutch Sprinter Next Generation trains were made by CAF, the build quality was not exactly the best and there were more than a few issues with the trains.
NS appointed someone to oversee the build quality and together with CAF, the whole production line was changed and changes were made to the design to overcome the issues.
As of yesterday, the first CAF trains are in revenue earning service without real issues and the last few things will be ironed out with a software update this week.
Personally, I was impressed with the NS CAF units when I got my training on them and even my usually most complaining co-worker liked them as they are quite easy to use. Everything is self-explaining and any experienced driver could drive them without even looking at the manual.
I really hope that the UK CAF units will be equally liked among staff.

 

[Class37.4]

The whole loco-haulage idea was sold on the pretext that it was the quickest way to get new trains into service. But at best, that is going to be marginal now and brings with it operational complexity, for example at Middlesbrough, which will blight the fleet for years to come. Meanwhile, at the end of the blame game are long suffering TPE passengers who now know there will be no additional capacity for the busy festive season, especially on Saturdays when Northern are on strike.

Indeed I think your right but there could be other factors in the decision, such as leasing and running costs of the two trains and potentially the dft who seemed quite keen to make use of loco hauled trains using 442, at least we didn't end up with that old junk

 

[LOL The Irony]

So Transpennine are going be paying for these fine locos which are presumably going to be stood around doing nothing for several weeks through the lack of any half-decent stock that they can haul. Puts a few taxi fares for disabled passengers into perspective, not that I would have wanted my late mother to travel by taxi from York to Scarborough when she was a disabled passenger.

Well I wouldn't call them fine having seen one up close in the flesh at Gresty Bridge but pretty much, yes and yes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed I think your right but there could be other factors in the decision, such as leasing and running costs of the two trains and potentially the dft who seemed quite keen to make use of loco hauled trains using 442, at least we didn't end up with that old junk

Yes, at least it isn't the Scottish situation of old trains being used which are more knackered than people thought.

 

[37201xoIM]

TPE has a franchise agreement with DfT and has made public commitments for entry into service.
Sure, it may be CAF's fault underneath, but TPE signed up to the service dates, not CAF.
The ROSCO will be involved too.
I wonder if the 397s will be any better?

Quite. Yes, the specific teething troubles lie presumably with the manufacturer - but I'm sorry, this is surely nothing above and beyond what one would expect with any new fleet: nothing, ever, works perfectly out of the box. It just doesn't! Any prudent operator makes reasonable allowance for snagging (and I do mean snagging - not AnsaldoBreda Albatross levels of sheer fundamental crapness!). These trains should have been in service for the December 2017 TT. Let's remember TPE delayed excessively the actual signing of their contract with CAF - it was evident that when their franchise proposal was submitted, they weren't actually ready as negotations with CAF were not complete: that is a significant factor in the delay.

Question: I wonder why the brake issue was not identified at Velim?

 

[Bornin1980s]

This is rediculas. In the days of steam, trains were routinely strengthened on the move. Now, we have to wait years for longer trains, and even they may be too short. How did we end up like this?

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is rediculas. In the days of steam, trains were routinely strengthened on the move. Now, we have to wait years for longer trains, and even they may be too short. How did we end up like this?

I think that would have required a very different order, such as for 2 and 3-car CAF DMUs (which could then run in any formation from 2 to 7-car, thinking of platform lengths using a Chiltern type model - Chiltern are really very good at using their various DMU lengths to meet demand). Which in retrospect would probably have made sense, but back when what they have was ordered we thought there would be wires.

The WCML services are a bit different and what was ordered is fine, but will probably need expanding to 6 or 7-car in short order.

 

[matacaster]

According to Yorkshire Post, this is the issue

"Train manufacturer CAF recently made TPE aware of the problem with the brakes which means trains judder to a halt when they are stopping at slow speeds."

If this is true, why wasn't it picked up on the test circuit at Velim (is it)?

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...use-the-brakes-do-not-work-properly-1-9440997

 

[sprinterguy]

Starting to look quite busy at the International depot: As of 14:20 today, 68022 was attached to a mark 5 rake outside the shed, with 68025 standing outside on one of the shed roads and another unidentified 68 attached to a rake inside the shed. There was another carriage rake without a loco visible in one of the sidings at Longsight.

Off topic but I was also surprised to see a Northern 156 and 142 stabled towards the south end of the International depot, which isn't a regular sight.

 

[EE Andy b1]

Off topic but I was also surprised to see a Northern 156 and 142 stabled towards the south end of the International depot, which isn't a regular sight.

Waiting for the Wheel lathe!

 

[_toommm_]

Starting to look quite busy at the International depot: As of 14:20 today, 68022 was attached to a mark 5 rake outside the shed, with 68025 standing outside on one of the shed roads and another unidentified 68 attached to a rake inside the shed. There was another carriage rake without a loco visible in one of the sidings at Longsight.

Off topic but I was also surprised to see a Northern 156 and 142 stabled towards the south end of the International depot, which isn't a regular sight.

Been there since midday yesterday.

 

[sprinterguy]

Waiting for the Wheel lathe!

Ah, suspected that might have been what it was, especially at this time of year. Thanks for the confirmation.