TPE Mk5/68 sets.

[Broken70]

I’m afraid this is incorrect, a 6 car 185 only needs one driver and one guard.

Normally, Issues around shunting 6 car 185s in Sheffield at present and as such these moves need 2 crews to operate them, one driver/crew in each 185.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Normally, Issues around shunting 6 car 185s in Sheffield at present and as such these moves need 2 crews to operate them, one driver/crew in each 185.

How many TPE South services require shunting at Sheffield though? Surely most of them simply run through?

 

[TreacleMiller]

How many TPE South services require shunting at Sheffield though? Surely most of them simply run through?

Theres usually a decent amount of shunting going off, including splitting 6s into 3s to cover a service or more recently, splitting and then cancelling a 6 but running a 3.

 

[Confused52]

Theres usually a decent amount of shunting going off, including splitting 6s into 3s to cover a service or more recently, splitting and then cancelling a 6 but running a 3.

We understand that they are doing shunting at the moment but that is because they are not running through. What we are trying to understand is WHY they are not running through. The logic just presented shows that running through takes less crews than splitting! However we are told by various sources that TPE have lots of 185 sets, enough to run all the Mk5 diagrams and by the company's MD that they have enough staff (to a parliamentary select committee- to whom lying is often career limiting). These two things cannot logically be true simultaneously whilst there is still splitting and cancellations. So what is going on?

Today the cancellations on Journey Check may seem better but when one looks at "Other Train Service Updates" for the South route you see many more occurrences of the form "..will be started from Manchester Piccadilly.
It will no longer call at Liverpool Lime Street, etc" which are short form cancellations. What is the root cause of them?

 

[LittleAH]

Can I smell an emergency timetable having improved things?

No, because...

1) Monday saw 4 cancellations in a row on services between York - Manchester
2) The only real chance to the current timetable due to engineering work is the additional two hourly Man Pic - Newcastle isn't running and the Scarborough's are being curtailed at York.

 

[Killingworth]

These units are seen some days along the Hope Valley but very, very rarely in service. They're signed by TPE Cleethorpes and Manchester, but not Sheffield, drivers. I understand Manchester sign to Sheffield and Cleethorpes to Manchester.

Yesterday afternoon one took a rest in Earles Sidings - playing freight trains? See; https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K03187/2023-03-25/detailed

 

[sjpowermac]

These units are seen some days along the Hope Valley but very, very rarely in service. They're signed by TPE Cleethorpes and Manchester, but not Sheffield, drivers. I understand Manchester sign to Sheffield and Cleethorpes to Manchester.

Yesterday afternoon one took a rest in Earles Sidings - playing freight trains? See; https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K03187/2023-03-25/detailed

68020/TP02 being returned to Longsight following modification work on the Mk5a stock. Earlier, 68032/TP03 worked Longsight to Neville Hill.

Hope that helps

 

[GardenRail]

How many TPE South services require shunting at Sheffield though? Surely most of them simply run through?

Depends how many per day get kncoked on the head in Platform 1b at Sheffield last minute. More regular than you might think. Then because its 2x185s they go empty all the way to Meadowhall to change ends in a platform to come back to Sheffield Sidings. All because the drivers won't walk the ballast.

 

[Killingworth]

68020/TP02 being returned to Longsight following modification work on the Mk5a stock. Earlier, 68032/TP03 worked Longsight to Neville Hill.

Hope that helps

Curious that almost new stock that's so lightly used needs modification. Is the modification work an indication of a fault that's been keeping them out of service?

 

[driverd]

I’ve noted that you have thanked posters who have made speculative and/or untrue statements, but taken aim in a patronising tone at someone who posted facts. So, I’m slightly cautious of correcting your post, but here goes.

Just to wade in here, and I don't mean to do so in a patronising way, but at one end of this you seem to be pretty forthright in dismissing others, but at the same time ask to be corrected?

I'm going to come back on a few bits and bobs here and I will add that I'm not able to back up what I'm saying by linking to articles left right and centre in the railway press, its just lived experience (working at depots affected) and what you hear from talking to colleagues. If that's not up to your expectations then please take it or leave it as you will.

1. The three train crew depots that sign Class 68/Mk5a sets on the North Route have the following route knowledge:

York and Manchester drivers: Manchester to Scarborough

Scarborough drivers: Leeds to Scarborough

The one thing that has changed there is that previously Scarborough drivers worked beyond Leeds as far as Manchester.

I’ve only noted routes directly relevant to the Class 68s, the drivers do sign other routes as part of their work with Class 185s e.g. to Saltburn for York/Scarborough drivers.

I’d struggle to see how that could be described as “limited route knowledge” of the core routes.

Yes, indeed about the way the train crew diagrams are constructed, but I’ll return to that later.

The issue isn't the core route, though. It's the diversions, especially around now with the Calder valley diversions during the Stalybridge blockade.

Naturally, when you have crew that can only take traction on one route, it reduces operational flexibility. This is always going to make it less attractive to run a microfleet and threaten to reduce resilience.

As others have repeatedly mentioned, the matter is compounded by the limited number of staff who sign 68s. Prior to 2017, all north route crew, give or take some of the extremeties and their depots, pretty much went anywhere on all traction (185s). Thus, if the proverbial hits the fan, any crew member can take any train.

Naturally, not so now. This then acts as a deterrent to deploying a niche fleet when other options are available/your available crew don't sign the routes.

2. Correct, but I believe this group accounts for just 15 drivers, so I’m not sure it will be possible to ‘heavily’ roster them. Not helpful in the slightest, but it wouldn’t account for all of the Class 185 substitutions. I have to say though, I am completely nonplussed by the idea of rostering drivers who don’t sign Class 68s to Class 68 turns.

So I think you've answered your own question here. The (very quick and easy) guide to rostering is for 2 drivers in you have 1 driver off, so for 15 drivers you are looking at circa 10 drivers (in reality, probably around 8), where turns are uncovered.

Given that that could easily be 8 trips between York and Manchester that are not covered, each day, that pretty effectively wipes out your class 68 timetable.

3. DfT micro-management, as you note, is speculation. To be fair, the DfT did recently sign off an improved rest day working offer for drivers of time and a half, with a minimum payment for 10 hours. This compares with time and three-quarters, with a minimum payment for 10 hours that was in place previously. I make no representation as to whether this is a good/bad/indifferent offer.

This is absolutely happening and I have it first hand from colleagues in senior positions. The ability to make independent decisions compared to 5 years ago has gone. TOCs are all being squeezed to save every last penny and managed accordingly, with relatively minor expenditure needing high level sign off and govt approval - the natural question that should follow, given all the problems highlighted with this microfleet throughout this thread and elsewhere, is, how long do the 68s realistically have left? (though we are firmly in the lands of speculation here)

 

[Harvey10]

According to rumors at York depot from the May timetable change the 68s will be allocated to the Saltburn to Manchester Airport services as TPE plan to use more in service.
Scarborough’s will be then operated by 185.

 

[sjpowermac]

The issue isn't the core route, though. It's the diversions, especially around now with the Calder valley diversions during the Stalybridge blockade.

Agreed, but I’m not sure it’s really anything different from what I put later on in the post you quoted, particularly the part I’ve put in bold…

Here are the day to day reasons that there are few Class 68/Mk5a sets working.

From December there were six diagrams for the North Route working as two three day cycles. In theory a set was programmed to work as follows:

Day 1
Longsight start with
1P05 0242 Manchester Piccadilly-York
Ending the day in Scarborough station

Day 2
Scarborough station start
Ending the day on Scarborough TMD

Day 3
Scarborough TMD start
Ending the day on Longsight after
1P98 2245 Scarborough-Manchester Piccadilly

A further three diagrams were arranged in a similar way:

Day 1
Longsight start with
1P07 0359 Manchester Airport-Scarborough
Ending the day in Scarborough station

Day 2
Scarborough station start
Ending the day on Scarborough TMD

Day 3
Scarborough TMD start
Ending the day on Longsight after
1U80 1948 Scarborough-Manchester Piccadilly

The problem with these diagrams have been as follows:

1. Not all Manchester drivers sign Longsight-Piccadilly, so you could have a situation with 1P05/1P07 fully crewed, but nobody to work the 5P05/5P07 ecs moves. Similar comments apply to the ecs moves from 1U80/1P98. So, getting on/off the depot is your first problem.

2. The routes followed by 1P05/1P07/1P98 are often quite circuitous. Calder Valley is baked in, but also sometimes via Wakefield Kirkgate. So, ‘diversionary’ routes are a requirement to operate the everyday service.

3. Worse still, on some days 1P07 is routed via Castleford. This route is signed by all Scarborough drivers, but that’s of no use at 0550ish in the morning. Not all York/Manchester drivers sign this route. So, you can have a situation where the direct route via Micklefield is open, but the train gets cancelled because it’s due to operate via Castleford and the driver doesn’t sign that route.

I’m struggling to see how you’ve disagreed with anything I’ve put.

So I think you've answered your own question here. The (very quick and easy) guide to rostering is for 2 drivers in you have 1 driver off, so for 15 drivers you are looking at circa 10 drivers (in reality, probably around 8), where turns are uncovered.

Given that that could easily be 8 trips between York and Manchester that are not covered, each day, that pretty effectively wipes out your class 68 timetable.

As I understand it, all of the drivers at both York and Manchester who were originally due to be trained on Class 68/Mk5a completed that training by November 2022.

Again, as I understand it, there is a small link (15?) of Class 185 only drivers at York that are due to commence Class 68/Mk5a training imminently.

So, would you explain why you think it’s a good idea to roster drivers from a link that don’t currently sign Class 68/Mk5a to diagrams allocated to Class 68/Mk5a?

There’s already plenty of work between Manchester and York for York drivers who only sign Class 185s (all the Saltburn trains), so why the need to deploy them on relativity short hops (e.g. York-Leeds on one train) and hence knock out a whole Class 68/Mk5a diagram?

This is absolutely happening and I have it first hand from colleagues in senior positions. The ability to make independent decisions compared to 5 years ago has gone. TOCs are all being squeezed to save every last penny and managed accordingly, with relatively minor expenditure needing high level sign off and govt approval - the natural question that should follow, given all the problems highlighted with this microfleet throughout this thread and elsewhere, is, how long do the 68s realistically have left? (though we are firmly in the lands of speculation here)

I have given an example of what I think it’s reasonable to assume are DfT interventions in TPE operations:

1. Agreeing to sign off a Rest Day Working agreement that seems to surpass most such agreements within the industry (though I make no comment as to whether 1.5 x time, minimum pay for 10 hours is a good deal or not).

2. Agreeing to train additional drivers on Class 68/Mk5a.

Given the level of micromanagement that you claim, it would be astonishing if those interventions were not DfT backed. Do you agree that both interventions, on the face of it at least, appear to be reasonably positive?

In relation to TPE and the Mk5a fleet in particular, can you give any indication of negative DfT interventions?

I'm going to come back on a few bits and bobs here and I will add that I'm not able to back up what I'm saying by linking to articles left right and centre in the railway press, its just lived experience (working at depots affected) and what you hear from talking to colleagues. If that's not up to your expectations then please take it or leave it as you will.

1. Making diversionary routes a requirement to run the normal timetable is a bad idea. We both agreed.

2. The problems of rostering drivers without Class 68/Mk5a knowledge to Class 68/Mk5a diagrams. I think we sort of agree on that point.

3. DfT micromanagement, at no point did I say “it’s not true and it’s not happening”. I referred to “speculation” in reply to a post where it was specifically quoted as being a reason for the lack of Class 68/Mk5a stock in service. So, I don’t think we disagree on this point either.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Mar 2023 ==

Curious that almost new stock that's so lightly used needs modification. Is the modification work an indication of a fault that's been keeping them out of service?

It would be surprising to modify something that wasn’t causing problems in service.

I’m struggling to think of any new train that hasn’t required some form of modification after in service experience. This isn’t something particularly new though, the Mk4 sets, now much lauded, had bogie modifications made fairly soon after introduction on the ECML. Going back further, there were all the problems with HST sets overheating in the early days together with traction motor problems.

To give a positive though:
68033/TP07 has been out-based at Scarborough since 10.03.2023 and has operated without any major incidents. Several other sets have enjoyed 10 day stints too…

 

[driverd]

I'm just going to quote your conclusion to save repetition in the thread - but just to dissect a few things:

1. Making diversionary routes a requirement to run the normal timetable is a bad idea. We both agreed.

I don't agree at all. Diversions are an excellent idea and help provide service resilience. Crew need to operate over diversionary routes to retain the route knowledge, so those trips have to be rostered somewhere - as you noted, these are usually at the extremities of the day.

It may well be the case that these diversions at the extremities arent optional - there could be a recurring possession that requires these routes to be used. Its just unfortunate that this may torpedo your fleet plan in the process.

One of the key reasons TPE finds itself in the current mess it is in is due to the loss of diversionary routes from crews route knowledge due to mismanagement. Its the same mismanagement that you have previously highlighted - you now have a link of drivers required to sign traction to deliver the current timetable who do not sign the traction. Note that they wont be rostered to the job until they sign the traction. Other competent drivers will ve moved to cover work but when this isnt possible it leaves the decision of 185 sub of cancel the train.

2. The problems of rostering drivers without Class 68/Mk5a knowledge to Class 68/Mk5a diagrams. I think we sort of agree on that point.

Pretty much hit on this above. No one is rostered to something they don't sign (the software used prevents this), but it means you do have to spread even thinner your existing competent staff. The solution would therefore be to train staff prior to the roll out of a timetable.

3. DfT micromanagement, at no point did I say “it’s not true and it’s not happening”. I referred to “speculation” in reply to a post where it was specifically quoted as being a reason for the lack of Class 68/Mk5a stock in service. So, I don’t think we disagree on this point either.

For the two positive interventions you've mentioned I can think of tens of negative ones.
Who has been preventing reaching any agreement with the unions for the last 2 years or so?
It's not been TPE.
Who has stipulated the post-covid service level TPE can operate (and thus resulting in further exacceebation of the loss of route and traction knowledge)?
Its not the company.
Who has failed to agree to allow the expenditure and pay rest days so crew can be trained on traction required to run the current timetable prior to the timetable commencing? (clue: not TPE)

 

[sjpowermac]

I'm just going to quote your conclusion to save repetition in the thread - but just to dissect a few things:



I don't agree at all. Diversions are an excellent idea and help provide service resilience. Crew need to operate over diversionary routes to retain the route knowledge, so those trips have to be rostered somewhere - as you noted, these are usually at the extremities of the day.

It may well be the case that these diversions at the extremities arent optional - there could be a recurring possession that requires these routes to be used. Its just unfortunate that this may torpedo your fleet plan in the process.

One of the key reasons TPE finds itself in the current mess it is in is due to the loss of diversionary routes from crews route knowledge due to mismanagement. Its the same mismanagement that you have previously highlighted - you now have a link of drivers required to sign traction to deliver the current timetable who do not sign the traction. Note that they wont be rostered to the job until they sign the traction. Other competent drivers will ve moved to cover work but when this isnt possible it leaves the decision of 185 sub of cancel the train.




Pretty much hit on this above. No one is rostered to something they don't sign (the software used prevents this), but it means you do have to spread even thinner your existing competent staff. The solution would therefore be to train staff prior to the roll out of a timetable.



For the two positive interventions you've mentioned I can think of tens of negative ones.
Who has been preventing reaching any agreement with the unions for the last 2 years or so?
It's not been TPE.
Who has stipulated the post-covid service level TPE can operate (and thus resulting in further exacceebation of the loss of route and traction knowledge)?
Its not the company.
Who has failed to agree to allow the expenditure and pay rest days so crew can be trained on traction required to run the current timetable prior to the timetable commencing? (clue: not TPE)

OK, this time I’m going to bite.

1. Regarding diversionary routes. You may remember that the original question was “why are there so few Class 68s operating each day”. In summary my reply was “because 1P05/1P07 are booked over diversionary routes that not all drivers sign”. Which part of that is factually incorrect?

I agree that where you can reliably crew a train to operate over the diversionary route, it’s an excellent way of maintaining route knowledge. It happens every night with two trains from Scarborough that run through to Leeds, going via Castleford in one direction and Micklefield in the other. Both very reliable trains.

Would you be able to quote for us the percentage of the time that 1P05/1P07 have run since the December timetable change.

I notice too that you’ve neatly side stepped the Longsight-Manchester ‘problem’ that nobody seems very keen to talk about…

In addition, whilst the Stalybridge blockade is on, would you be able to share why it isn’t possible to sort a bit of the backlog regarding Route learning? Or is something taking place? Im genuinely curious.

2. Regarding the Class 185 drivers being deployed to diagrams that were originally Class 68/Mk5a, you’ve yet to provide a convincing argument as to why you think this is/was a good idea. Your quip about rostering software isn’t really an explanation as to why do this in the first place.

3. I’m surprised that you’ve not got Leo Godwin into that somewhere…

 

[Urobach]

According to rumors at York depot from the May timetable change the 68s will be allocated to the Saltburn to Manchester Airport services as TPE plan to use more in service.
Scarborough’s will be then operated by 185.

Interesting - last I'd heard was from May, Mk5 diagrams being reduced to 1 set running per day (on the south route) with the majority of the sets moving to warm storage...

 

[sjpowermac]

Interesting - last I'd heard was from May, Mk5 diagrams being reduced to 1 set running per day (on the south route) with the majority of the sets moving to warm storage...

Given some of the responses to this thread from TPE insiders, probably TPE themselves don’t know, but you can guarantee it will all be someone else’s fault…

 

[driverd]

OK, this time I’m going to bite.

In fairness the bite wasn't too nasty, I thought I would be getting more of an angry reply there (it's actually refreshing to disagree in a civil manner)!

1. Regarding diversionary routes. You may remember that the original question was “why are there so few Class 68s operating each day”. In summary my reply was “because 1P05/1P07 are booked over diversionary routes that not all drivers sign”. Which part of that is factually incorrect?

Nothing incorrect, it's more just the you need to get that crew over those routes. I'm aware I've drifted a little, I just meant it wasn't necessarily a bad idea to do so in the extremities of the day. Were probably in general agreement here - unfortunately though I suspect there's very little option given the crew numbers and trips over diversions necessary but to crew them as they do.

I agree that where you can reliably crew a train to operate over the diversionary route, it’s an excellent way of maintaining route knowledge. It happens every night with two trains from Scarborough that run through to Leeds, going via Castleford in one direction and Micklefield in the other. Both very reliable trains.

Would you be able to quote for us the percentage of the time that 1P05/1P07 have run since the December timetable change.

I expect you're not wrong there. I've no idea how often those trains have run. Ideally you'd put the diverts as 185s only so they can be reliably covered and crew can maintain knowledge. The issue is achieving this, whilst balancing your fleets and crews.

I notice too that you’ve neatly side stepped the Longsight-Manchester ‘problem’ that nobody seems very keen to talk about…

I'm not a TPE manager or employee. I work in the industry and am aware of the problems/explanations given but I'm nothing to do with the company and dont have inside knowledge - I have just had plenty of conversations with staff, read up on the background and a careers worth of experience to help understand the compounding nature of the problems faced. I suspect (and that's purely a suspicion), that TPE can't get too many paths off the depot ad-hoc, or it's simply not cost effective to swap out a unit (or a combination of both). To do so would require a driver to bring out the 68 and another driver to put the 185 to bed, as well as the driver on the booked job. 2 additional drivers, to facilitate a move that's thoroughly unnecessary as there is already a 185 covering the turn. It's likely just not something desirable.

In addition, whilst the Stalybridge blockade is on, would you be able to share why it isn’t possible to sort a bit of the backlog regarding Route learning? Or is something taking place? Im genuinely curious.

My understanding (again, as someone outside the company), is that this is being done where possible, but the Stalybridge blockade saves substantially less staff than you might imagine.

Those crew who already sign diversions are deployed, those who do not will be seeing longer diagrams (with a lengthy pass (positioning move in layperson speak) necessary to get a Mamchester crew to cover Hull work) etc. This is necessary as a rule, because there typically isn't enough crew at either end of a route to cover a service that is usually shared between 2 depots. I re-iterate, however, this is purely speculation.

2. Regarding the Class 185 drivers being deployed to diagrams that were originally Class 68/Mk5a, you’ve yet to provide a convincing argument as to why you think this is/was a good idea. Your quip about rostering software isn’t really an explanation as to why do this in the first place

So the Dec 22 timetable increased mk5 deployment on the North Route from the previous timetable. As such, more crew need to sign them. It is my understanding that this was desired, such that the 185s could remain 6 car (and as such, couldn't cover all the diagrams themselves). Crew training was required to cover this reliably, however, with no rest day agreement, this was unachievable. This was due (as I understand it) to a mixture of over ambition on the part of management, poor industrial relations leading to less flexibility (and strict working to rule) on part of crew/unions and a lack of will to spend to remedy the industrial relations situation on the part of the treasury/DfT (as pointed out earlier, by the terms of a direct award, additional expenditure required govt sign off). As all this was coming together the clock was ticking towards the timetable coming into effect and the outcome has been that 185s are destrengthend and substituted to backfill.

3. I’m surprised that you’ve not got Leo Godwin into that somewhere…

Management are far from blameless, however, the goal posts have shifted substantially in the past 5 years. The playbook as was in the TPE glory days (if you will) no longer applies and that's taking a whole lot of time for everyone to adjust to.

 

[sjpowermac]

In fairness the bite wasn't too nasty, I thought I would be getting more of an angry reply there (it's actually refreshing to disagree in a civil manner)!



Nothing incorrect, it's more just the you need to get that crew over those routes. I'm aware I've drifted a little, I just meant it wasn't necessarily a bad idea to do so in the extremities of the day. Were probably in general agreement here - unfortunately though I suspect there's very little option given the crew numbers and trips over diversions necessary but to crew them as they do.



I expect you're not wrong there. I've no idea how often those trains have run. Ideally you'd put the diverts as 185s only so they can be reliably covered and crew can maintain knowledge. The issue is achieving this, whilst balancing your fleets and crews.



I'm not a TPE manager or employee. I work in the industry and am aware of the problems/explanations given but I'm nothing to do with the company and dont have inside knowledge - I have just had plenty of conversations with staff, read up on the background and a careers worth of experience to help understand the compounding nature of the problems faced. I suspect (and that's purely a suspicion), that TPE can't get too many paths off the depot ad-hoc, or it's simply not cost effective to swap out a unit (or a combination of both). To do so would require a driver to bring out the 68 and another driver to put the 185 to bed, as well as the driver on the booked job. 2 additional drivers, to facilitate a move that's thoroughly unnecessary as there is already a 185 covering the turn. It's likely just not something desirable.



My understanding (again, as someone outside the company), is that this is being done where possible, but the Stalybridge blockade saves substantially less staff than you might imagine.

Those crew who already sign diversions are deployed, those who do not will be seeing longer diagrams (with a lengthy pass (positioning move in layperson speak) necessary to get a Mamchester crew to cover Hull work) etc. This is necessary as a rule, because there typically isn't enough crew at either end of a route to cover a service that is usually shared between 2 depots. I re-iterate, however, this is purely speculation.



So the Dec 22 timetable increased mk5 deployment on the North Route from the previous timetable. As such, more crew need to sign them. It is my understanding that this was desired, such that the 185s could remain 6 car (and as such, couldn't cover all the diagrams themselves). Crew training was required to cover this reliably, however, with no rest day agreement, this was unachievable. This was due (as I understand it) to a mixture of over ambition on the part of management, poor industrial relations leading to less flexibility (and strict working to rule) on part of crew/unions and a lack of will to spend to remedy the industrial relations situation on the part of the treasury/DfT (as pointed out earlier, by the terms of a direct award, additional expenditure required govt sign off). As all this was coming together the clock was ticking towards the timetable coming into effect and the outcome has been that 185s are destrengthend and substituted to backfill.



Management are far from blameless, however, the goal posts have shifted substantially in the past 5 years. The playbook as was in the TPE glory days (if you will) no longer applies and that's taking a whole lot of time for everyone to adjust to.

Your original reply was quite shirty, but at least considered, I saw no reason to do anything but try and give a considered response.

Just a gentle reminder though that the question I was responding to was “why are there so few Class 68/Mk5a sets in daily service”.

I’ve not seen anything in your latest reply that disagrees with the points I made in my first post.

We got side tracked (pun intended) a bit with diversionary routes, but I’m sure your friends at TPE won’t disagree with the statement “1P05/1P07 are often cancelled due to no driver being available that signs one of the diversionary routes”. Again, I agree, they are where they are and on balance it’s probably better to cancel a train around 90% of the time, but at least keep some drivers with route knowledge.

Regarding Longsight, you may like to enquire of your friends the percentage of drivers who currently sign the depot.

My intention was never to get involved in the politics of the situation and indeed if you look back I stated quite clearly that I wasn’t being critical of any front line staff or indeed management. I mainly focused on the locomotive diagrams and the problems created by placing them on overnight trains over exotic routes.

 

[KevL]

Im quite disappointed by scarbro going back to 185s. the mk5s were a great improvement. Its also going to affect scarborough really badly. in summer our population is 3x that in winter, and quite a lot comes in by train.

 

[Bob figgis]

At least 4 sets out on the Scarborough workings today according to RTT.
68030 + set 8 worked across from Manchester Airport on 1P07
68028 + set 11
68024 + set 10
68033 + set 7

 

[pennine]

Im quite disappointed by scarbro going back to 185s. the mk5s were a great improvement. Its also going to affect scarborough really badly. in summer our population is 3x that in winter, and quite a lot comes in by train.

But if its double 185's it would represent an increase in capacity over mk5

 

[IslandLine101]

I guess what we are all really waiting for at this point is the announcement of planned diagrams from the May TT change. If they’re headed for warm storage it will be a great shame, and a massive waste of a lot of peoples time.

 

[sjpowermac]

But if its double 185's it would represent an increase in capacity over mk5

A lot of the time when Class 185s have substituted for Class 68/Mk5a it has been a single unit.

As I understand it, the Class 185 fleet is quite intensively diagrammed, so any substitutions tend to be achieved by splitting a 6-car train into two 3-car trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2023 ==

Im quite disappointed by scarbro going back to 185s. the mk5s were a great improvement. Its also going to affect scarborough really badly. in summer our population is 3x that in winter, and quite a lot comes in by train.

You make a very good point about Scarborough’s economy and how busy the trains get in the summer months. Let’s hope that TPE/DfT/whoever can sort out a reasonable service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2023 ==

I guess what we are all really waiting for at this point is the announcement of planned diagrams from the May TT change. If they’re headed for warm storage it will be a great shame, and a massive waste of a lot of peoples time.

Yes, agreed. A lot of people have put a lot of effort into the project. I guess we won’t have to wait too much longer and let’s hope for a positive outcome.

 

[class397tpe]

Apparently the 68+MK5s are running a couple of diagrams on TPE south today! And all the way through to Liverpool - is that a first for south TPE?

Realtime Trains | 1B64 0543 Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes | 30/03/2023

Real-time train running information for 1B64 0543 departure from Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes on 30/03/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 1B85 1524 Cleethorpes to Liverpool Lime Street | 30/03/2023

Real-time train running information for 1B85 1524 departure from Cleethorpes to Liverpool Lime Street on 30/03/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Geeves]

Its the same train but seems to be doing okay so far! 68025 and TP05 doing the honors

 

[Killingworth]

Its the same train but seems to be doing okay so far! 68025 and TP05 doing the honors

South Pennine has been doing better, so far, this week with far fewer cancellations. There may be more scope for regular 68 working?

 

[SteveyBee131]

Apparently the 68+MK5s are running a couple of diagrams on TPE south today! And all the way through to Liverpool - is that a first for south TPE?

Realtime Trains | 1B64 0543 Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes | 30/03/2023

Real-time train running information for 1B64 0543 departure from Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes on 30/03/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 1B85 1524 Cleethorpes to Liverpool Lime Street | 30/03/2023

Real-time train running information for 1B85 1524 departure from Cleethorpes to Liverpool Lime Street on 30/03/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Was nice to see, and on a service I don't recall being in the usual 'plan' for them (I say plan loosely as I know it rarely happens!). It could very well be the first time one's gone the full length, definitely of the ones I've managed to track down, but don't take my words as gospel

 

[ricj]

Just to be sure, these are now definitely never going to be running to Middlesbrough/Redcar as planned?

 

[Freightmaster]

Just to be sure, these are now definitely never going to be running to Middlesbrough/Redcar as planned?

from post #71:

According to rumours at York depot from the May timetable change the 68s will be allocated to the Saltburn to Manchester Airport services as TPE plan to use more in service.
Scarborough’s will be then operated by 185.

 

[Fokx]

According to rumors at York depot from the May timetable change the 68s will be allocated to the Saltburn to Manchester Airport services as TPE plan to use more in service.
Scarborough’s will be then operated by 185.

I wouldn’t count on that being factual, I’d certainly not place a bet on it.

It doesn’t align to the current crew knowledge of the route on the western end. For route retention purposes, there is a requirement for Airport - Saltburn services to be operated by 185’s for the benefit of Manchester Piccadilly and Liverpool crew. (albeit admittedly not necessarily all of the diagrams).

Interesting - last I'd heard was from May, Mk5 diagrams being reduced to 1 set running per day (on the south route) with the majority of the sets moving to warm storage...

Exactly what I’ve heard, albeit it one on the North and one on the South.