TPE to Withdraw Class 397s?

[Steddenm]

Just spoke to a guard on one of the Class 397s on TPE and he said that TPE are withdrawing the 397s and 802s will take their place on the West Coast due to problems with them. Apparently the heating doesn't work, drivers are constantly having to reset the pantograph, they have problems with the galley and "rough riding".

I don't know how true this is, but if they get withdrawn where would they end up? He said it isn't a temporary measure.

 

[bengley]

It's wibble

 

[sonic2009]

And what's going to take the 802s place?

Certainly never seem to see an issue when I've been on a cl397.

 

[JonathanH]

And what's going to take the 802s place?

Keep the service as it is and they only need 7 to run Newcastle to Liverpool.

If some gaps are acceptable on the West Coast hourly pattern and they forget about Newcastle to Edinburgh services since 802s can access Craigentinny via the West Coast services maybe a service pattern could be found which only needs 16 diagrams across the two routes.

 

[bengley]

And what's going to take the 802s place?

Certainly never seem to see an issue when I've been on a cl397.

To be fair TPE do have a lot of spare 802s at the moment, albeit not enough to replace all 397s. 397s are becoming more reliable but are still subject to a lot of issues (not necessarily visible to the public) some 2 years after their introduction.

 

[DanNCL]

This comes up frequently. The 397s are not being withdrawn. Period.

802s will have one booked diagram on the West Coast, but that is to help rotate them through Craigentinny for maintenance once TPE cut their frequency between Newcastle and Edinburgh, and has nothing to do with the 397s.

Considering sometimes TPE can’t even get enough working 802s out each day for the 7 diagrams on the Liverpool - Newcastle route, there’s zero chance of them all of a sudden getting a load more working for the WCML services too.

 

[swt_passenger]

Keep the service as it is and they only need 7 to run Newcastle to Liverpool.

If some gaps are acceptable on the West Coast hourly pattern and they forget about Newcastle to Edinburgh services since 802s can access Craigentinny via the West Coast services maybe a service pattern could be found which only needs 16 diagrams across the two routes.

Meanwhile in another thread they’re suggesting an additional 2 Edinburgh to Berwick services on top of 5 Edinburgh to Newcastles. Doesn’t seem they’re being forgotten about:

New East Linton Station - Progress & Updates

To be fair that’s why I was asking the question. I would hate for the station to open with only a handful of trains.

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[JonathanH]

Meanwhile in another thread they’re suggesting an additional 2 Edinburgh to Berwick services on top of 5 Edinburgh to Newcastles. Doesn’t seem they’re being forgotten about:

New East Linton Station - Progress & Updates

To be fair that’s why I was asking the question. I would hate for the station to open with only a handful of trains.

www.railforums.co.uk

Indeed, but the interesting point about that is quite why it needs to be TPE operating that service. A 5-car LNER 801 would be more appropriate (admittedly with too much first class) and would successfully remove an operator from that part of the route in line with Government policy.

 

[swt_passenger]

Indeed, but the interesting point about that is quite why it needs to be TPE operating the service. A 5-car LNER 801 would be more appropriate (admittedly with too much first class) and would successfully remove an operator from that part of the route in line with Government policy.

Yes I‘d agree - but presumably they’d say all their existing stock was already accounted for. Transferring a few units over would work though.

 

[Purple Orange]

Assuming that the 397s are staying, how are TPE going to be utilising the 19 802s? 7 on Liverpool-Newcastle, 1 on Manchester-Scotland and the remaining 11 will be doing what exactly?

 

[dgl]

Assuming that the 397s are staying, how are TPE going to be utilising the 19 802s? 7 on Liverpool-Newcastle, 1 on Manchester-Scotland and the remaining 11 will be doing what exactly?

Backups for when the others are stopped with cracks

 

[JonathanH]

Assuming that the 397s are staying, how are TPE going to be utilising the 19 802s? 7 on Liverpool-Newcastle, 1 on Manchester-Scotland and the remaining 11 will be doing what exactly?

There are only ever going to be 15 or 16 diagrammed from a fleet of 19.

4 for Manchester to York has been suggested and presumably 2 for this Newcastle to Edinburgh plan.

Whatever the plan TPE are paying lease costs for loads of stock that sits in sidings most of the time.

 

[Purple Orange]

There are only ever going to be 15 or 16 diagrammed from a fleet of 19.

4 for Manchester to York has been suggested and presumably 2 for this Newcastle to Edinburgh plan.

Whatever the plan TPE are paying lease costs for loads of stock that sits in sidings most of the time.

Ok, so why not join this Newcastle-Edinburgh to the Liverpool-Newcastle?

 

[JonathanH]

Ok, so why not join this Newcastle-Edinburgh to the Liverpool-Newcastle?

Pathing would be a good reason. If TPE are going to serve more stations between Newcastle and Edinburgh than the other operators they are going to have to go in a certain place on the trainplan. On a two-track railway all the way from Northallerton to Edinburgh that is going to cause an issue with the desire to also run non-stop services.

 

[Purple Orange]

Pathing would be a good reason.

Is the Newcastle-Edinburgh not hourly?

 

[JonathanH]

Is the Newcastle-Edinburgh not hourly?

No - posted above as five a day plus two shorter workings.

 

[Purple Orange]

No - posted above as five a day plus two shorter workings.

Ah I see. I had missed that fact.

 

[DanNCL]

Assuming that the 397s are staying, how are TPE going to be utilising the 19 802s? 7 on Liverpool-Newcastle, 1 on Manchester-Scotland and the remaining 11 will be doing what exactly?

The remaining 11 likely won’t do anything. Availability is so poor that there have been occasions where there haven’t even been enough working 802s to cover the 7 Liverpool - Newcastle diagrams, as well as at least one occasion where hiring an 802 out to Lumo has meant not having enough to cover TPE’s own 802 diagrams. Keeping the WCML diagram from December 802 worked will be a higher priority than the Liverpool-Newcastle diagrams because of the connection to Craigentinny, which means unless availability miraculously improves we’ll end up either with frequent 185 substitutions or cancellations on the Liverpool - Newcastle route.

If TPE have any commonsense they’ll get some crews trained up to allow the Newcastle - Edinburgh shuttles to use 397s when required to minimise cancelled services.

Ok, so why not join this Newcastle-Edinburgh to the Liverpool-Newcastle?

Pathing would be a good reason. If TPE are going to serve more stations between Newcastle and Edinburgh than the other operators they are going to have to go in a certain place on the trainplan. On a two-track railway all the way from Northallerton to Edinburgh that is going to cause an issue with the desire to also run non-stop services.

I haven’t seen the exact planned times so could be wrong here, but if I recall correctly in order to include the proposed Cramlington and Widdrington stops, as well as Reston, the Newcastle - Edinburgh service will need to leave Newcastle before the Liverpool service arrives, in order not to hold up services behind it on the northern ECML.

 

[tbtc]

I haven’t seen the exact planned times so could be wrong here, but if I recall correctly in order to include the proposed Cramlington and Widdrington stops, as well as Reston, the Newcastle - Edinburgh service will need to leave Newcastle before the Liverpool service arrives, in order not to hold up services behind it on the northern ECML.

Amazing - we're going to prioritise "having 125mph trains regularly stopping at Widdrington and Reston" over "having regular Liverpool - Edinburgh services"

Not TPE's fault, of course, they are just doing what they are told etc etc, but another example of tails wagging dogs (e.g. given how busy XC can be between West Yorkshire and Edinburgh - it's often cited on here as a justification for people's Leeds - Settle - Carlisle - Glasgow ambitions)

 

[LittleAH]

397s are staying. Not sure where this nonsense has come from.
2 or 4 802 services a day on WCML

 

[mike57]

I suspect the people who have to deliver the service at TPE would like to get rid of both the the 397 and Mk5s and replace them with 802s. but the reality is the money has been spent and the units delivered. They may be less than perfect, but they are stuck with them. There is another thread on micro-fleets, which discusses some of the issues. Common sense tells you one standardised fleet of units (i.e. 802s) would be much easier to manage going forwards, and probably have a lower lifetime costs, even if there are teething troubles with the 802s. 3 different new units = potentially 3x teething troubles. Thats what you get when you throw common sense out the window and give accountants and managers who probably have a lot of letters after their name but no real world experience free rein. 802s were always going to be the best fit for TPE, 125mph units and bi-mode. Can be used on all routes, and can take advantage of extentions to electrification even if a complete route isnt electrified.

Just an off the wall thought, could class 88s be used with Mk5s to deliver the Newcastle - Edinburgh shuttle? This is the speculative ideas thread after all. This would free up 802s for core services.

 

[JonathanH]

Just an off the wall thought, could class 88s be used with Mk5s to deliver the Newcastle - Edinburgh shuttle? This is the speculative ideas thread after all. This would free up 802s for core services.

Not really a great idea to use 100mph stock on a route with 125mph trains and 125mph stock on routes with much lower speeds (although I concede that the route north of Newcastle is slower than that).

Do DRS have class 88s spare?

 

[XAM2175]

Thats what you get when you throw common sense out the window and give accountants and managers who probably have a lot of letters after their name but no real world experience free rein.

We're just ignoring the whole full-Hitachi-order-book thing, are we?

 

[Purple Orange]

We're just ignoring the whole full-Hitachi-order-book thing, are we?

I have wondered whether there might have been scope to procure 12 x 801 units rather than 12 x 397 units, in addition to the 19 x 802 units, but leaving the services run by the Mk5a units to remain as 185s?

However, the 397s look like a great train - nobody seems to be complaining about them. If there is an issue about reducing the type of fleet, can’t the Mk5a units not be transferred up to Scotland for the sleeper services and then TPE concentrate the 802s on the trans pennine routes?

 

[XAM2175]

I have wondered whether there might have been scope to procure 12 x 801 units rather than 12 x 397 units, in addition to the 19 x 802 units, but leaving the services run by the Mk5a units to remain as 185s?

I can't answer this for sure but I imagine the answer was no, because it would have been the most obvious thing to do.

If there is an issue about reducing the type of fleet, can’t the Mk5a units not be transferred up to Scotland for the sleeper services and then TPE concentrate the 802s on the trans pennine routes?

I doubt very much that there is actually a need to reduce the number of types in the fleet, and certainly CS don't have any need for more stock. GWR for the Night Riviera, maybe, but there'd be a lot of work involved in converting them to sleepers.

However, the 397s look like a great train - nobody seems to be complaining about them.

I expect this is in part because only a very small number of members fall into their natural catchment - except for shuttling up and down the north WCML you have to actively go out of your way to catch one. Personally I think they're excellent - pretty much the best standard class interior fitted to a train in Britain in a very long time. Plenty of table groups and all aligned to huge windows, tasteful lighting and decoration, and - perhaps controversially - I very much like the seats too. I even break journeys to and from London in Manchester or Wigan or thereabouts to change to and from 397s when I have time, rather than taking a 390 all the way.

 

[D6130]

Personally I think they're excellent - pretty much the best standard class interior fitted to a train in Britain in a very long time. Plenty of table groups and all aligned to huge windows, tasteful lighting and decoration, and - perhaps controversially - I very much like the seats too. I even break journeys to and from London in Manchester or Wigan or thereabouts to change to and from 397s when I have time, rather than taking a 390 all the way.

I fully agree!

 

[mike57]

Bearing in mind the 397s and Mk5s were late going into service if the actual into service date had been known/suspected at the time of order would that of changed the strategy, as in 'OK well they wont be available until ... may as well order 80x and wait for the current production runs to finish'

Having multiple smaller fleets (185, 397, 802, Mk5) must increase the complexity of operations and costs, more training, different maintenance requirements, cant swap units around as easily. Assuming TPE had been able to purchase just 802s then current operations would be much simpler, they could shuttle units between ECML and WCML operations, and all their drivers would just need to know one type of unit.

I have only had one short Manchester - Preston run on a 397 it was OK, seats were comfortable, lighting was adequate but not intrusive, but surely that is down to the way the units are fitted out, could be an 802 or 397 body shell, its not going to matter. I dont think the issue is passenger enviroment, I think its more 'under the hood' stuff. Same with the Mk5s as a passenger they are an improvement on 185 for long journeys, doors at the ends, no engine under the floor, seats on a par with 185s, but I gather staff are not impressed, there have been a lot of issues with them.

 

[XAM2175]

Bearing in mind the 397s and Mk5s were late going into service if the actual into service date had been known/suspected at the time of order would that of changed the strategy, as in 'OK well they wont be available until ... may as well order 80x and wait for the current production runs to finish'

Yeah, we all know that now. At the time, though, CAF promised delivery long before Hitachi could and TPE believed them.

That's a very different situation to what you originally described, which was "[inexperienced] accountants and managers" "throwing common sense out the window" and ordering three different types just because they could.

 

[mike57]

Yeah, we all know that now. At the time, though, CAF promised delivery long before Hitachi could and TPE believed them.

That's a very different situation to what you originally described, which was "[inexperienced] accountants and managers" "throwing common sense out the window" and ordering three different types just because they could.

I think they probably took what they were told as gospel, rather than thinking 'Whats the likelyhood of that actually being acheivable' or 'Whats the worst that could happen' I see it all the time in (my) industry, people make optimistic claims, everyone believes them, and anyone questioning them or suggesting caution is shouted down. Decisions are then made based on these claims, and then it all comes crashing down when the "widgets" are late or dont work as expected. So my point is instead of having a healthy sense of scepticism based on experience, they buy into the sales pitch and are then shocked at the outcome.

Anyone from the 'hands on' end of any business will recognise this, and in my experience in other industries accountants are particularly unwilling to listen to voices of caution, and will then try and pass the blame when it goes belly up.

 

[XAM2175]

So my point is instead of having a healthy sense of scepticism based on experience, they buy into the sales pitch and are then shocked at the outcome.

Fair enough. Ultimately though the real measure of any naivety on TPE's behalf will be the nature and extent of the compensation arrangements in the CAF contracts.