TPE may keep 185s and send the Mk 5s to TfW

[Philip]

Especially since they only really work for TPE. If they get replaced, they are getting scrapped, no where else will take them unless they have serious modification.

An interesting theoretical, but nothing more. In the real world, they go for scrap, and no amount of foruming will change that, so the question is do people mind if they get scrapped or not?

I would say it's more likely that any of EMR, Cross Country, SWR, Northern and TfW could use them, rather than going for scrap.

 

[Snow1964]

Presumably the locos and driving trailer cost more than the ordinary intermediate coaches.

Is there any logic in ordering more coaches to increase them all to 7car, instead of reforming. If going to start a programme of spending money to convert spare first class coaches then it becomes difference in cost, not 100% new cost.

I suppose it really depends on if the alternative of some 802 formations at 5car could really do with something bit bigger capacity, but doubled up unit would be excessive.

However probably be lot more potential residual usage from 7car formations to special events, everything from Grand National to Football extras, and maybe that will turn out to be the mk5s eventual use.

I have no idea what TPEs extra requirements are, but I know in my part of the world (GWR) was thought to be over 25 weeks a year (Cheltenham races, Henley regatta, Glastonbury festival, summer holiday beach routes in Cornwall, Bath Christmas markets etc)

 

[Meerkat]

Especially since they only really work for TPE. If they get replaced, they are getting scrapped, no where else will take them unless they have serious modification.

An interesting theoretical, but nothing more. In the real world, they go for scrap, and no amount of foruming will change that, so the question is do people mind if they get scrapped or not?

It all depends on price, as usual.
The sprinters aren't getting any younger or more numerous, and if expensive to run 185's are still cheaper than getting new DMUs built they could be used as stopgaps until bi-modes eventually appear to start the cascades.

 

[daodao]

TPE should keep the 185s and bin the class68/Mk5 combinations. Similarly Chiltern should bin their microfleet of loco-hauled carriages. Sooner rather than later, TfW should do likewise, given the problems their refurbished loco-hauled trains are causing.

 

[xotGD]

TPE should keep the 185s and bin the class68/Mk5 combinations. Similarly Chiltern should bin their microfleet of loco-hauled carriages. Sooner rather than later, TfW should do likewise, given the problems their refurbished loco-hauled trains are causing.

Picking up on your three points in turn:

1. No they shouldn't.
2. No they shouldn't.
3. No they shouldn't.

Other than the overnights, these are the only proper trains left running on the national network. They should be cherished, and the operators applauded.

 

[D365]

Other than the overnights, these are the only proper trains left running on the national network. They should be cherished, and the operators applauded.

Playing along with your definition of "proper" trains... the HSTs, Chiltern Mk3s and LNER/TfW Mk4s don't meet your standards?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Picking up on your three points in turn:

1. No they shouldn't.
2. No they shouldn't.
3. No they shouldn't.

Other than the overnights, these are the only proper trains left running on the national network. They should be cherished, and the operators applauded.

How ridiculous and enthusiast-centric. Some realism is needed here. A train does not have to be hauled by a locomotive to be considered a proper train, and as technology progresses it’s frankly more of an embarrassment to run such trains rather than units.

 

[Peter Sarf]

A 'proper LHCS solution' of that type hasn't existed on the UK railway since the 1990s. I can't see anyone ever introducing one anywhere in the future.

True. The days of spare coaches with life left in them but little residual value lying all around in yards are long gone.

If the reliability problems of the mk5 stock can be sorted, then it would make sense to order more of the 68/mk5 sets to replace 185s on the remaining all-diesel routes, as this would be cheaper than more 802s. The noise 'issue' of the 68s sounds like a case of looking for an excuse to criticize LHCS use; they are good reliable locos, less polluting than DMUs older than 10 years.

I doubt TPE will be throwing good money after bad. The Mk5s were apparently a stop gap measure because Hitachi could not PROMISE to deliver early enough. If money was around for new trains now it would most likely be more 802s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2023 ==

How ridiculous and enthusiast-centric. Some realism is needed here. A train does not have to be hauled by a locomotive to be considered a proper train, and as technology progresses it’s frankly more of an embarrassment to run such trains rather than units.

I think he was being a little tongue in cheek. As for embarrassment I offer the Pacers as evidence - did we really have them ?.

 

[Wolfie]

How ridiculous and enthusiast-centric. Some realism is needed here. A train does not have to be hauled by a locomotive to be considered a proper train, and as technology progresses it’s frankly more of an embarrassment to run such trains rather than units.

Spot on. If that is the extent of the argument put to HMT to retain them then they would be off lease tomorrow.

 

[RobShipway]

How ridiculous and enthusiast-centric. Some realism is needed here. A train does not have to be hauled by a locomotive to be considered a proper train, and as technology progresses it’s frankly more of an embarrassment to run such trains rather than units.

Playing along with your definition of "proper" trains... the HSTs, Chiltern Mk3s and LNER/TfW Mk4s don't meet your standards?

So HST trains, Mk3 & Mk4 coaches are not real trains?

How did trains start with Stephenson's rocket steam engine? Oh yeah, they started with an engine pulling along carriages and was the same with the Flying Scotsman and Mallard steam engines.

Yes, many trains in the last 20 - 30 years have moved to be being multiple unit trains whether it is IET trains or class 397 if we are keeping it to Inter-City trains, but you have got MK4 trains that travel from London to Leeds that plenty of people travel on and of course the Cross Country trains and GWR HST trains, both of which have an engine or two pulling or pushing carriages.

 

[Iskra]

Should the class 68’s be transferred away from TP after all the Scarborough depot nonsense, associated cost and the disruption that driver training has caused and accentuated on TPE south, then I would sincerely hope that some sort of inquiry is held and someone is held accountable for the unnecessary disruption and total waste of public funds.

 

[mike57]

Should the class 68’s be transferred away from TP after all the Scarborough depot nonsense, associated cost and the disruption that driver training has caused and accentuated on TPE south, then I would sincerely hope that some sort of inquiry is held and someone is held accountable for the unnecessary disruption and total waste of public funds.

Short term I would rather any inquiry is directed towards improving the current dire state of TPE services, 24 cancellations today, and another 22 short journeys, a typical day. This afternoon there is a huge 3 hour gap in Scarborough - York services from 12.52 to 15.52 at Seamer. Hence my arguement that the current service is unusable. Sorting this needs to be number 1 priority, then worry about longer term use of rolling stock and if the operator has made the best use of public funds.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Short term I would rather any inquiry is directed towards improving the current dire state of TPE services, 24 cancellations today, and another 22 short journeys, a typical day. This afternoon there is a huge 3 hour gap in Scarborough - York services from 12.52 to 15.52 at Seamer. Hence my arguement that the current service is unusable. Sorting this needs to be number 1 priority, then worry about longer term use of rolling stock and if the operator has made the best use of public funds.

Absolutely this- by blaming the LHCS sets for problems on TPE you're not treating the disease, just one of the symptoms.

 

[Iskra]

Short term I would rather any inquiry is directed towards improving the current dire state of TPE services, 24 cancellations today, and another 22 short journeys, a typical day. This afternoon there is a huge 3 hour gap in Scarborough - York services from 12.52 to 15.52 at Seamer. Hence my arguement that the current service is unusable. Sorting this needs to be number 1 priority, then worry about longer term use of rolling stock and if the operator has made the best use of public funds.
View attachment 132458

I agree, but we’ve been saying that for how long now, and we still have a service that isn’t fit for purpose? Northern seem to have broadly sorted themselves out over the last couple of years, TP are still nowhere near.

 

[BoroAndy]

CONTROVERSIAL!!!!.... Remove Scarborough to York from TPE and give to Northern. Also give them enough Nova3 sets to run the service. 1 tph SCA-YRK and 1 tph SCA-BPN. Well, they couldn't do any worse, and the powerful Nova3s would be running over the pennines albeit on the Calderdale route.

 

[mike57]

I agree, but we’ve been saying that for how long now, and we still have a service that isn’t fit for purpose? Northern seem to have broadly sorted themselves out over the last couple of years, TP are still nowhere near.

And there doesn't seem to be any credible plan to get back to a full timetable. I am due to visit York in two weeks, to visit NRM. Plan would be 13.10 at Bempton, 13.52 Seamer, York 14.38. No chance based on this week. So another car clogging up the already overloaded A64, as bus takes too long.

Northern certainly on our route are fairly reliable, just the odd cancellation, and a bit of late running recently due to problems north of Bridlington. If TPE offered a similar level of service as Northern I would be happy to use the train again for trips to York and points west.

 

[JonathanH]

CONTROVERSIAL!!!!.... Remove Scarborough to York from TPE and give to Northern. Also give them enough Nova3 sets to run the service. 1 tph SCA-YRK and 1 tph SCA-BPN. Well, they couldn't do any worse, and the powerful Nova3s would be running over the pennines albeit on the Calderdale route.

Not really practical as they need to get back to Longsight for servicing.

 

[mike57]

F

CONTROVERSIAL!!!!.... Remove Scarborough to York from TPE and give to Northern. Also give them enough Nova3 sets to run the service. 1 tph SCA-YRK and 1 tph SCA-BPN. Well, they couldn't do any worse, and the powerful Nova3s would be running over the pennines albeit on the Calderdale route.

Forget about running West of York at the moment, give it to Northern and just run a reliable hourly shuttle. 2tph would be nice, but with 3 hour gaps from TPE an hourly shuttle would be an improvement. Not bothered what rolling stock is used, just need to see a regular service.

 

[Peter Sarf]

F

Forget about running West of York at the moment, give it to Northern and just run a reliable hourly shuttle. 2tph would be nice, but with 3 hour gaps from TPE an hourly shuttle would be an improvement. Not bothered what rolling stock is used, just need to see a regular service.

Could say that about many parts of TPE routes. The underlined bit sums it up really .

 

[RobShipway]

F

Forget about running West of York at the moment, give it to Northern and just run a reliable hourly shuttle. 2tph would be nice, but with 3 hour gaps from TPE an hourly shuttle would be an improvement. Not bothered what rolling stock is used, just need to see a regular service.

If TPE forget about running West of York, then where should their trains be based? As JonathanH points out they do need get back to Longsight depot, which is in Manchester and is South West of York!

I do not work for TPE or work in the rail industry, but much of what I read suggests that TPE has too few staff especially drivers and the drivers that they have are not trained up on all types of stock that they use.

Now, it maybe me but from what I have mostly read, I must confess from these forums would seem to suggest that TPE are wanting their staff to be familiar with all types of stock used. Which is a great goal, however that takes time to happen and in the meantime you have passengers without trains.

Now I would be interested to know, how many staff members TPE have that speciailise in running the local hauled stock in comparison with say the class 802 units? I was going to say the class 185, but I am suspecting that all drivers have had experience with driving the class 185 units, even if they do not specialise in driving it currently.

Yes, TPE have been running services with the MK5A coaches since 2019, so should have enough staff trained up with running them. But if they have had a large number of staff leave and the majority of that staff where to do with running the class 68 and MK5A coaches, then that at some point is going to effect the business. This means that it will take time for TPE to recruit new staff to be trained on the class 68 and MK5A coaches.

 

[mike57]

TPE have been running services with the MK5A coaches since

TPE service has been terrible in our area since May 2018, I was traveling 2 times per week then and was getting at least 1 significant delay repay per week (1 hour+).

As a company they have completely failed travellers, and I can't wait to see them replaced. They don't have a plan and haven't had for 5 years. The DfT are not blameless but TPE seem happy to take their management fee and [insert suitable word] the passengers.

As a passenger the least of my concerns is rolling stock at the moment I would be happy to see anything as long as it runs to timetable.

 

[xotGD]

Playing along with your definition of "proper" trains... the HSTs, Chiltern Mk3s and LNER/TfW Mk4s don't meet your standards?

The post I replied to referred to TPE Mark 5a sets, Wales Mark 4 sets and Chiltern Mark 3 sets. So yes, I was including all three in my definition. Excluding LNER Mark 4 sets was on oversight on my part, so apols for that.

How ridiculous and enthusiast-centric. Some realism is needed here. A train does not have to be hauled by a locomotive to be considered a proper train, and as technology progresses it’s frankly more of an embarrassment to run such trains rather than units.

Funnily enough, I am an enthusiast, not a TPE fleet manager. I post from self interest, and I am confident that my thoughts are shared by many in the enthusiast community.

While I acknowledge that some enjoy zipping about the country to tick off plastic, that's not my bag.

 

[RailWonderer]

The Mk5s were a disappointment really, Not having underfloor engines, and end doors with vestibules should have delivered a much better quality of travel experience on the routes they were intended for, where journey times can be 2hrs+.

The reality was there seemed to be loads of teething problems with their introduction. the window alignment in standard class was about as bad it could get, and the noise from the 68s was/is a problem.

Add to that simple design problems, like the power/usb sockets being buried under the seat and almost inaccessable if someone is sitting next to you, a jiggly ride, and a general feeling of poor build quality (rattles and squeaks etc).

I also understand that although 'loco hauled' they are effectivley unpowered EMUs so can not be reformed to meet future changing needs without some (significant?) work, which really defeats one of the advantages of LHCS which is the ability to reform to meet changing needs quickly.

There are usually 2 or 3 parked at Scarborough, obviously not being used, whilst everyone is crammed into a 3 coach 185 between Leeds and Manchester.

Will they end up like the 180s, unloved and passed around?

No underfloor engines is normally what people most like about loco hauled services, a superior ride quality, plus all loco hauled services have a jiggly squeaky ride which is what many like most about HST rides.

Unfortunately these 68 mk5s only operate Leeds/York - Scarboro so I never had the chance to do more than 30 minutes on one but they seemed fine for the journeys they do and have a very nice ambience. The window alignment was the only thing that made them feel cheap, and certainly no cheaper than an IET.

 

[Signal_Box]

"About the contract you signed for the Mk4s."
"What about it?"
"If you want to end the contract early please remember the penalty clause. It's going to cost you a lot to dump them now."
"Oh!"
I'm assuming the Mk4s are not on some crazy deal where TfW can simply walk away and hand them back whenever they like.

This story does come across as a solution looking for a problem. The Mk5s will have to be very cheap and very much more reliable for anyone to take them on.

I’m sure (stand corrected) TfW Rail brought outright the MK4 sets, but lease the 67s?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jul 2023 ==

I can see why the MK5 + 68 would be a good idea (on paper at least).

13 sets would probably be enough with a spare or two to cover the Holyhead / Manchester to South Wales services.

“Nice” five vehicle trains that’ll bring much needed capacity on the long haul services, with the risk (if their reliable) of short forming.

Enable release of 197s units to strengthen locals in North Wales/North West and South East / West Wales.

Retain maintenance at Longsight and Crewe that’ll enable technician knowledge to build and improve.

But, unless the WAG could get them for a bargain price, with a very penalty heavy reliable improvement contract then it’ll never happen, even if it could be a good and long term move.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

I’m sure (stand corrected) TfW Rail brought outright the MK4 sets, but lease the 67s?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jul 2023 ==

I can see why the MK5 + 68 would be a good idea (on paper at least).

13 sets would probably be enough with a spare or two to cover the Holyhead / Manchester to South Wales services.

“Nice” five vehicle trains that’ll bring much needed capacity on the long haul services, with the risk (if their reliable) of short forming.

Enable release of 197s units to strengthen locals in North Wales/North West and South East / West Wales.

Retain maintenance at Longsight and Crewe that’ll enable technician knowledge to build and improve.

But, unless the WAG could get them for a bargain price, with a very penalty heavy reliable improvement contract then it’ll never happen, even if it could be a good and long term move.

Send the 68 Mk5a to Chiltern replace the 67 Mk3s.

 

[greyman42]

Unfortunately these 68 mk5s only operate Leeds/York - Scarboro so I never had the chance to do more than 30 minutes on one but they seemed fine for the journeys they do and have a very nice ambience.

Ride quality is poor.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Send the 68 Mk5a to Chiltern replace the 67 Mk3s.

Chiltern haven't used 67s for years.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

Chiltern haven't used 67s for years.

Sorry I meant 68s.

 

[Driverme10]

Word is some of them are going chiltern now they've been given the green light for loco hauled till 2028.

 

[LittleAH]

be extremely surprised if they’re still with TPE in 2024…