Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?

[Iskra]

Given how little they are using them, it seems pretty likely.

Some Scarborough services but not all – and none on Sunday, when presumably there enough 185s that they don't need the 68s.
No services at all to Teesside.
Today one set ran into Cleethorpes and the return working was cancelled "due to an issue with the train crew", but that's one more than most days.

If they're only using the 68s as a last resort and benching them at every opportunity they get (which is what appears to be happening), that does kinda suggest that they would drop them like hot lead if they had any alternative.

A class 185 cascade to another operator may be more useful though…

 

[stevieinselby]

The 13 sets as they are wouldn't be high enough capacity for Chiltern but could be a potential option for them if the mk5a sets were reformed into fewer but longer sets. The snag would be the end coaches which don't have the corridor connection.

They need 10 sets to run a half-hourly service between Marylebone and Birmingham. Would requiring 10 sets out of 13 in use be unrealistic? Bearing in mind they will still have the pool of 168s to draw on if they do need additional cover.

Those are mostly 4-car sets now, so overall there would be an increase in capacity if they were using 5-car Mk5a sets throughout the day, albeit the small number of Mk3 journeys would see a slight reduction on those journeys – I don't know enough to know if that would be a problem or if having more space on the trains on the other half hour would balance things out.

 

[anthony263]

Can't see chiltern taking on TPEs mk5As especially when they getting people moaning about them.using noisy class 68s on the mk3 trains now at Marylebone.

If TPE get rid of them im not sure what operators would be interested. TFW probably not after all the effort getting the mk4s to settle down and work.

Reform into longer sets and put on crosscountry could be a option I suppose

 

[liamf656]

I’m going to go far fetched and add Grand Central to this bingo card

If we ignore the Voyagers they’re actually getting I think they’d be good as a 180 replacement, even if just in the short(ish) term. Do we have any bi mode locomotives that can do 125mph in this country?

 

[JonathanH]

I’m going to go far fetched and add Grand Central to this bingo card

Their paths require 125mph operation.

Do we have any bi mode locomotives that can do 125mph in this country?

No, even recognising that the diesel legs wouldn't need 125mph operation.

 

[43096]

Unfortunately the leasing company's problem is the railway's problem - because the example of the 68s and Mark 5s going off lease will cause an increase in leasing costs for other stock given the oligarchic nature of the leasing market.

You mean the leasing companies will change their view of risk and price future leases accordingly.

 

[Trainbike46]

While there aren't enough Mark 5s to replace the scotrail HSTs, the fact that they could be maintained together with the sleeper stock would be an advantage for use on scotrail, compared to other operators.

If adaptation to sleeper stock is possible, they could be used to expand the sleeper fleet.

Personally though, I think we should just leave them where they are, with TPE

What a waste. Sad.

They're not confirmed to leave TPE

 

[JonathanH]

While there aren't enough Mark 5s to replace the scotrail HSTs, the fact that they could be maintained together with the sleeper stock would be an advantage for use on scotrail, compared to other operators.

Polmadie isn't really in a convenient location for the relevant operations.

 

[Trainbike46]

Polmadie isn't really in a convenient location for the relevant operations.

It's not the worst either, particularly if you keep most of the Mk5s on the Glasgow-Aberdeen/Inverness route

Alternatively, the sleeper maintenance could move back to Inverness, together with the LHCS from TPE. Though I'm not sure that's actually much easier!

 

[JonathanH]

Alternatively, the sleeper maintenance could move back to Inverness, together with the LHCS from TPE.

Sleeper maintenance is contracted to Alstom so switching it away from Polmadie would need the contract to be broken.

Also, the half sets don't now all circulate via Inverness (as the sets with two 152xx carriages have to go to Fort William / Aberdeen) so it would be operationally difficult to get all the coaches to Inverness on a cyclic basis without reforming in London.

 

[43096]

It's not the worst either, particularly if you keep most of the Mk5s on the Glasgow-Aberdeen/Inverness route

South Glasgow isn’t a good place to maintain stock that works north of Glasgow, even assuming Polmadie has capacity.

Alternatively, the sleeper maintenance could move back to Inverness, together with the LHCS from TPE. Though I'm not sure that's actually much easier!

Fantasy RailUK trains again where Alstom’s contract for the sleeper stock is irrelevant.

 

[David Goddard]

One of the only other suitable routes would be Swansea to Manchester

 

[Peterthegreat]

Given how little they are using them, it seems pretty likely.

Some Scarborough services but not all – and none on Sunday, when presumably there enough 185s that they don't need the 68s.
No services at all to Teesside.
Today one set ran into Cleethorpes and the return working was cancelled "due to an issue with the train crew", but that's one more than most days.

If they're only using the 68s as a last resort and benching them at every opportunity they get (which is what appears to be happening), that does kinda suggest that they would drop them like hot lead if they had any alternative.

That's actually incorrect. 68027 returned with the 15.24 Cleethorpes to Liverpool as expected (I was on it!). The information on RTT was incorrect.

 

[Iskra]

One of the only other suitable routes would be Swansea to Manchester

Manchester-North Wales might make more sense to displace DMU’s onto other routes and it might mean they can still use Longsight which would be less disruptive.

 

[E27007]

No-one has mentioned the possibility of export. The 68s are struggling to find a hunting ground in the UK, surely over-powered for Liverpool - Scarborough route ,and think of the fuel consumption!
Is there a route abroad which could make good use of the speed and bhp under the bonnet of the 68?

 

[cf111]

68s are incredibly noisy. If it were me I would be complaining too. It's a bit like replacing a small industrial unit with a huge 24/7 logistics park in noise terms. They're like HST power cars with the old style turbos, like a plane taking off.

To be honest I'm amazed the railway ordered a locomotive with such a serious noise pollution issue.

Of course being LHCS a suitable, non-noise-polluting locomotive could be procured...

The first time I clapped eyes and ears on a 68 I was coming down the footbridge at Perth station (edit, it was Stirling!) as one approached from the north. For a moment I thought the station was being bombed, they are seriously loud .

Anyway, convert the mk5s to sleepers and let's finally get that Wick-Edinburgh sleeper service running

 

[Iskra]

The first time I clapped eyes and ears on a 68 I was coming down the footbridge at Perth station as one approached from the north. For a moment I thought the station was being bombed, they are seriously loud .

Anyway, convert the mk5s to sleepers and let's finally get that Wick-Edinburgh sleeper service running

Nah, they’d make better scenic stock for Leeds-Glasgow via the S&C

 

[Bantamzen]

Warning! Controversial suggest use incoming...

1. Use the 68s & Mk Vs for the routes / operator as intended.
2. When the TRU upgrade is complete, replace the 68s with a electric or Bi-mode power unit.

 

[HSTEd]

2. When the TRU upgrade is complete, replace the 68s with a electric or Bi-mode power unit.

The way the TRU is going I doubt there will be much life left in the rolling stock by the time it is complete.

Certainly not enough to justify ordering locomotives instead of more standard EMUs.

 

[Iskra]

Warning! Controversial suggest use incoming...

1. Use the 68s & Mk Vs for the routes / operator as intended.
2. When the TRU upgrade is complete, replace the 68s with a electric or Bi-mode power unit.

That doesn’t ease the current training burden, and which other surplus TP stock do you move on instead?

 

[Bantamzen]

The way the TRU is going I doubt there will be much life left in the rolling stock by the time it is complete.

Certainly not enough to justify ordering locomotives instead of more standard EMUs.

Well then plenty of time to consider the options, maybe even with a view to a larger order across other operators.

That doesn’t ease the current training burden, and which other surplus TP stock do you move on instead?

Well then the dispute needs sorting, then get down to the job.

 

[JamesT]

No-one has mentioned the possibility of export. The 68s are struggling to find a hunting ground in the UK, surely over-powered for Liverpool - Scarborough route ,and think of the fuel consumption!
Is there a route abroad which could make good use of the speed and bhp under the bonnet of the 68?

If there aren't any passenger operations available for them, wouldn't DRS try and get more freight work for them rather than trying to export? Given UK operators have been importing 66s from Europe, it doesn't sound like they're particularly short of diesel locomotives over there.

 

[HSTEd]

If there aren't any passenger operations available for them, wouldn't DRS try and get more freight work for them rather than trying to export? Given UK operators have been importing 66s from Europe, it doesn't sound like they're particularly short of diesel locomotives over there.

The reality is the 68s aren't much better freight locomotives than the 67s were.

The four axle mixed use diesel locomotive isn't really a very successful niche. 66 type locomotives are far more useful in real freight operations

 

[L+Y]

I'll throw in my usual tuppence on these threads: if TPE are to get rid of one of their train types (not on the face of it the world's daftest idea), then far better to bin off the 802s which have plenty of potential homes, rather than the mk5 rakes that have far fewer.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I'll throw in my usual tuppence on these threads: if TPE are to get rid of one of their train types (not on the face of it the world's daftest idea), then far better to bin off the 802s which have plenty of potential homes, rather than the mk5 rakes that have far fewer.

TPE getting rid of their 19 802s would be much more impactful than their 13 MK5a units.

Especially since a decent amount of that 19 run on most days, are the only TPE units to do Newcastle - Edinburgh and are even conscripted to help on the WCML Scottish services from time to time.

 

[D365]

The way the TRU is going I doubt there will be much life left in the rolling stock by the time it is complete.

To be expected for any railway infrastructure programme in the north of England.

 

[stevieinselby]

I'll throw in my usual tuppence on these threads: if TPE are to get rid of one of their train types (not on the face of it the world's daftest idea), then far better to bin off the 802s which have plenty of potential homes, rather than the mk5 rakes that have far fewer.

The plan isn't for "TPX to get rid of one of their train types" because they want to simplify their fleet ... it's for TPX to get rid of a train type that is operationally problematic.
The 802s are running just fine, and are the perfect train type for the route they are used on – bi-mode 125mph trains that can run on diesel power west of York, and on electric power at maximum linespeed north of York – there is nothing else on UK tracks that fits that bill, whereas there are plenty of other options from existing fleets or factories that would be able to replace the 68+Mk5 sets.

 

[43096]

The plan isn't for "TPX to get rid of one of their train types" because they want to simplify their fleet ... it's for TPX to get rid of a train type that is operationally problematic.

It’s only problematic because the railway makes it so. In other industries it would be called incompetence.

 

[RailWonderer]

The lease has been resigned until May 2024. This was announced in March. https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2023/W13/795738655
To be honest I am a bit surprised the DfT didn't approach them and tell them to replace all 68s and mk5s with surplus 185s and stretch that fleet to cut costs.
Beyond May 24 though and Scotrail and Chiltern seem the most likely places for them.

 

[Lloyds siding]

I've worked at a site adjacent to a station served by 68s, and they were so noisy we couldn't speak to each other in the time they were in the station, so about 75-80dB where we were standing. Other locos are not so noisy, so I'm sure this could be acoustically treated to bring the noise into the realm of other types. it just need the willingness and the money to retrofit. Given the number of complaints I've seen about 68s it's surprising it hasn't been done.