Ex LNER (and Grand Central) Mark 4 sets for TfW

[_toommm_]

What sticks out to me is how much higher the costs are for a Mk4 coach compared to a Mk3. Any ideas why that should be?

I suspect it’s this...

A MK3 coach is on average 33t, with a kitchen being around 38t. A MK4 is 39 to 43 tons, so the increase in weight meaning increased wear and tear on the track.

Of course a MK4 DVT is nothing more than a body shell for most of it so that will be why it’s of similar pence per mile to a fully laden MK3 coach

 

[craigybagel]

What sticks out to me is how much higher the costs are for a Mk4 coach compared to a Mk3. Any ideas why that should be?

MkIVs weigh more.

 

[CW2]

Thanks. I'd never realised the Mk 4 coaches were so much heavier than a Mk 3.

 

[43096]

Some bits are commercially sensitive and hidden away, some bits (such as the variable track access charge) aren't:

From the Track Usage price List 20-21, and supplements from June 2020, taking 195s as the closest analogue to a 172

Vehicle Type	Pence per vehicle mile
195/M	12.05
67	97.72
3 (presume normal Mk3 coach?)	10.27
4 (presume normal Mk4?)	17.70
4a (presume Mk4 DVT?)	11.73
Default Multiple Unit (motor)	45.98
Default Locomotive	101.92
Default Coach	17.70

The higher cost of the LHCS is pretty apparent!

Other way round on the Mark 4s, I suspect, as the DVTs are 43.5t weight (plus further 8t carrying capacity). I think they were reclassified as Mark 4A during the Mallard programme.

 

[DB]

Other way round on the Mark 4s, I suspect, as the DVTs are 43.5t weight (plus further 8t carrying capacity). I think they were reclassified as Mark 4A during the Mallard programme.

I assume the DVTs have ballast weights (concrete?) below the floor?

 

[43096]

I assume the DVTs have ballast weights (concrete?) below the floor?

They are ballasted; a result of the recommendations from the Polmont derailment. No idea where the ballast is located, though.

 

[Envoy]

Many thanks for the responses. So, the track access charges alone are quite a hike up for the 67 and stock compared to a DMU. No doubt the fuel costs will also be greater.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Thanks. I'd never realised the Mk 4 coaches were so much heavier than a Mk 3.

I guess they still have bits of the design of tilt mechanism fitted, even if it is a few brackets for the equipment to bolt to.

Many thanks for the responses. So, the track access charges alone are quite a hike up for the 67 and stock compared to a DMU. No doubt the fuel costs will also be greater.

Several years ago some of the editorial team at Modern Railways explained that a loco hauled train became economically more efficient after the fifth or sixth coach had been added. Can't remember which.

During the changeover from 67s to 68s at Chiltern it was always reckoned the Caterpillars would give a meagre fuel burn compared to the EMDs, but never seen any results.

 

[Merle Haggard]

As has been mentioned on other threads, the parameter of high axle load, with its track-bashing and high access charges consequences, didn't seem to be taken into account when Ed and Jim ordered the class 67s. It would be interesting to see how class 67s compare with class 68s (and even class 47s).

 

[Domh245]

It would be interesting to see how class 67s compare with class 68s (and even class 47s).

A 68 comes in at 65.07p per mile. 47s are similar to the 67s - 97.13p/mi for 47/4s and 94.43p/mi for 47/7s - at least for passenger work.
Freight is charged per kgtm (kilo gross tonne mileage) and varies by flow. For Royal Mail trains:

47(avg of /2, /4, /7): £6.47/kgtm
67: £6.96/kgtm
68: £6.10/kgtm

 

[43 302]

A 68 comes in at 65.07p per mile. 47s are similar to the 67s - 97.13p/mi for 47/4s and 94.43p/mi for 47/7s - at least for passenger work.
Freight is charged per kgtm (kilo gross tonne mileage) and varies by flow. For Royal Mail trains:

47(avg of /2, /4, /7): £6.47/kgtm
67: £6.96/kgtm
68: £6.10/kgtm

It's settled then, let's get 68s for TfW! In all seriousness, it does surprise me that 67s are more comparable to 47s on terms of price and not 68s. Although I suppose they do have the 125mph advantage.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's settled then, let's get 68s for TfW! In all seriousness, it does surprise me that 67s are more comparable to 47s on terms of price and not 68s. Although I suppose they do have the 125mph advantage.

Well, TfW have no interest in 125mph, or anything above 90mph on the route they will operate (110mph if they ever go to Manchester via Crewe).
67s probably come very cheap as they have little other work with DB Cargo, while 68s (I think) are all spoken for.
At least until TPE or Chiltern give up on their LHCS.

 

[DB]

It's settled then, let's get 68s for TfW! In all seriousness, it does surprise me that 67s are more comparable to 47s on terms of price and not 68s. Although I suppose they do have the 125mph advantage.

They were designed to have a 125mph advantage and were geared for that, but other than some initial testing (with one loco, I believe) they were never allowed above 110 due to how hard they are on the track.

Remember that although the locos are 20 years old, the 2-stroke diesel engine in them is derived from a much older design.

A 68 comes in at 65.07p per mile. 47s are similar to the 67s - 97.13p/mi for 47/4s and 94.43p/mi for 47/7s - at least for passenger work.
Freight is charged per kgtm (kilo gross tonne mileage) and varies by flow. For Royal Mail trains:

47(avg of /2, /4, /7): £6.47/kgtm
67: £6.96/kgtm
68: £6.10/kgtm

Why would 47/7s be cheaper to run that 47/4s - they are both basically the same! The ones which might be a bit cheaper are those without ETS capability (/0, /3), but I don't know how much difference it would make.

 

[43 302]

Well, TfW have no interest in 125mph, or anything above 90mph on the route they will operate (110mph if they ever go to Manchester via Crewe).
67s probably come very cheap as they have little other work with DB Cargo, while 68s (I think) are all spoken for.
At least until TPE or Chiltern give up on their LHCS.

I'm sure DRS could free up four 68s, especially now that the Fife set isn't running. And what do you mean until TPE / Chiltern give up on their LHCS! What will replace the Chiltern Mk3s? And TPE have only just got theirs! Although for the latter the 68s could always be swapped for say an 88; but that would require an order of 88s/conversion from 68s. None of that is changing anytime soon.

Thanks for the class info @DavidB. I hope we see them use 68s in the future, but that may just be wishful thinking on my part!

 

[PHILIPE]

The expense has already been forked out to modify the 67s to work with with Mark 4s.

 

[DB]

I'm sure DRS could free up four 68s, especially now that the Fife set isn't running. And what do you mean until TPE / Chiltern give up on their LHCS! What will replace the Chiltern Mk3s? And TPE have only just got theirs! Although for the latter the 68s could always be swapped for say an 88; but that would require an order of 88s/conversion from 68s. None of that is changing anytime soon.

Thanks for the class info @DavidB. I hope we see them use 68s in the future, but that may just be wishful thinking on my part!

It would probably need at least five or six in the loco pool, as they would need the same modifications as the Chiltern ones to work with the DVTs, plus some extra mods (interlock? Not sure what it is but the dedicated 67s have acquired an additional socket). DRS only have 10 of them for their own use specifically, plus whatever Chiltern and TPE aren't using, so they may well not have enough to spare. They will also probably be more expensive to lease as DRS are paying lease costs on them and will want to make a profit on top. The 67s are owned outright and fully paid-for, so are costing DB nothing in hire charges.

I would expect the Chiltern ones to go in the next franchise and be replaced by DMUs of some sort, although that might be delayed a bit now. WOuld be surprised if they last more than anther five years or so though.

TPE may well be stuck with the sets until whenever the lease ends, but I wouldn't bet on them lasting beyond that. An 88 would be of no use unless the whole of the route was wired (the diesel engine would not be powerful enough for York-Scarborough, and I would doubt if it can provide ETS on diesel in any case).

68s and 88s are quite different, so any 'conversion' of locos would be major work, if even possible. Yes, they look superficially the same as they have the same cabs and bogies, but the bodyshells are different (the 88s are longer), and no doubt the load-bearing structure will be completely different.

 

[Domh245]

Why would 47/7s be cheaper to run that 47/4s - they are both basically the same! The ones which might be a bit cheaper are those without ETS capability (/0, /3), but I don't know how much difference it would make.

I would think it's to do with the different Route Availabilities - some 47s are RA6, some are RA7 - the notation Network Rail use in the sheet doesn't have to match up to the actual subclasses or the numbering reality on the ground so long as it's clear what vehicles are being charged at.

 

[Speed43125]

TPE may well be stuck with the sets until whenever the lease ends, but I wouldn't bet on them lasting beyond that. An 88 would be of no use unless the whole of the route was wired (the diesel engine would not be powerful enough for York-Scarborough, and I would doubt if it can provide ETS on diesel in any case).

2023 I believe. Interestingly seems to coincide with Newton Aycliffe's work running dry... I wonder....

68s are to my knowledge fitted with something akin to AAR for Chiltern, which is what their Mk.3s were fitted with to work with 67s, so to get a 68 to work with Mk.4s is going to require some work yet.

Either way, for now 67s are being used for TfW.

 

[43 302]

It would probably need at least five or six in the loco pool, as they would need the same modifications as the Chiltern ones to work with the DVTs, plus some extra mods (interlock? Not sure what it is but the dedicated 67s have acquired an additional socket). DRS only have 10 of them for their own use specifically, plus whatever Chiltern and TPE aren't using, so they may well not have enough to spare. They will also probably be more expensive to lease as DRS are paying lease costs on them and will want to make a profit on top. The 67s are owned outright and fully paid-for, so are costing DB nothing in hire charges.

I would expect the Chiltern ones to go in the next franchise and be replaced by DMUs of some sort, although that might be delayed a bit now. WOuld be surprised if they last more than anther five years or so though.

TPE may well be stuck with the sets until whenever the lease ends, but I wouldn't bet on them lasting beyond that. An 88 would be of no use unless the whole of the route was wired (the diesel engine would not be powerful enough for York-Scarborough, and I would doubt if it can provide ETS on diesel in any case).

68s and 88s are quite different, so any 'conversion' of locos would be major work, if even possible. Yes, they look superficially the same as they have the same cabs and bogies, but the bodyshells are different (the 88s are longer), and no doubt the load-bearing structure will be completely different.

The conversion from 68 to 88 is something I saw mentioned in Modern Railways, saying that DRS said it was "relatively simple". As for the 88s, could they really not haul five coaches on diesel mode? Although it doesn't matter, as the plan I believe was for the 802s to take over the current Mk5 workings with them in turn working the Newcastles. I can't remember where I read that but I'm sure it was something official.

 

[DB]

68s are to my knowledge fitted with something akin to AAR for Chiltern, which is what their Mk.3s were fitted with to work with 67s, so to get a 68 to work with Mk.4s is going to require some work yet.

According to a magazine article at the time they were done (68008-15, which are the only ones which can work with the Chiltern DVTs), it's basically cut-down AAR in that it allows the locos to be controlled from the AAR-fitted DVT but doesn't allow them to work in multi with an AAR-fitted loco. They do of course retain the 68s' native system which is what is used if they work in multi with other 68s, or 88s.

THe TPE sets use the 68s' native system. plus there's an extra connection for the TMS system (this was added to the locos in the TPE fleet).

The TfW DVTs are fitted with AAR multiple working, plus there's the extra connection which I assume is door interlock.

The conversion from 68 to 88 is something I saw mentioned in Modern Railways, saying that DRS said it was "relatively simple". As for the 88s, could they really not haul five coaches on diesel mode?

The diesel engine is the equivalent of a Class 20, so not at sufficient speed - and there's also the ETS isue: I doubt if they can do it at all under diesel, and even if they could it would reduce the already-insufficient traction power.

 

[43096]

As for the 88s, could they really not haul five coaches on diesel mode?

Not unless you’re happy with them being as fast as an asthmatic ant with heavy shopping. They’re similar output to a single Class 20 - but there’s also train supply that needs to be factored in before you get traction power.

 

[Spartacus]

Not unless you’re happy with them being as fast as an asthmatic ant with heavy shopping. They’re similar output to a single Class 20 - but there’s also train supply that needs to be factored in before you get traction power.

The ETS (or equivalent) supply is the big issue. Engine-wise, while nominal output is similar to a Class 20, in practical terms the performance is far superior, but you'd really be limited to typical charter stock, rather than Mk3s, Mk4s or Mk5s.

 

[43 302]

Not unless you’re happy with them being as fast as an asthmatic ant with heavy shopping. They’re similar output to a single Class 20 - but there’s also train supply that needs to be factored in before you get traction power.

Thanks for the chuckle.

 

[47827]

The ETS (or equivalent) supply is the big issue. Engine-wise, while nominal output is similar to a Class 20, in practical terms the performance is far superior, but you'd really be limited to typical charter stock, rather than Mk3s, Mk4s or Mk5s.

On top of sedate sub 50mph speeds (probably much worse on any hills), there's the poor acceleration too. I suspect the 8F would probably look like a hst on the Spa train compared to an 88 on diesel. An 88 would be OK on a short train if there was any services with a flat, slow, route and only away from the wires for say 10 miles or less. Not all that many places that fill the bill except a few little branchlines where a 68 on mk5s would be a serious waste.

Back in the days of 73s to Gatwick, certainly overnight or early on Sunday mornings the weedy little diesel engine would occasionally power up due to power isolations. Also, on trains with slacker schedules it would happen very very occasionally for other reasons (or little reason at all), generally not over long distances. One quote I was told at the time was that was occasionally done simply to check the 73s diesel unit was properly functioning in case it was needed unexpectedly. Of dozens of weekend/overnight runs I made it did happen twice but don't recall going faster than 40mph.

Either way, 68s, 88s etc aren't going to be working between Cardiff and Holyhead with mk4 stock. 67s are the best choice to meet the WAG spec without additional costs and with minimal new training needed. I'd have thought, if modifications hadn't been needed along with a lot more training a small fleet of smaller hst sets similar to Scotrail and GW with First Class and buffet would have been a more flexible and reliable idea.

 

[Envoy]

I agree with the above. If the 67 conks out, they are done for whereas a small HST set has 2 locomotives. Neither can the 67 be rescued by a CAF DMU. Anyway, at least the coaches did not need much modification.

 

[47827]

I agree with the above. If the 67 conks out, they are done for whereas a small HST set has 2 locomotives. Neither can the 67 be rescued by a CAF DMU.

It's not generally a very common event BUT happened as recently as last week on the return trainer from Cardiff to Hereford and back. The next rescue option was the spare 67 at Canton depot so disruption was caused to other services, none of which could push it out of the way due being units.

 

[Envoy]

It's not generally a very common event BUT happened as recently as last week on the return trainer from Cardiff to Hereford and back. The next rescue option was the spare 67 at Canton depot so disruption was caused to other services, none of which could push it out of the way due being units.

Which leads one to question whether it is really worth it for the sake of having a kitchen & meals? Of course, if the CAF 197’s turn out to be terrible, I might well regret that statement and aim to travel on the 67 hauled services.

 

[DB]

Which leads one to question whether it is really worth it for the sake of having a kitchen & meals? Of course, if the CAF 197’s turn out to be terrible, I might well regret that statement and aim to travel on the 67 hauled services.

The WAG have decided it is, as part of their somewhat naive attempt to get people in North Wales to see Cardiff as their regional centre. It's ideological - whether it's actually worth it is of secondary importance...

 

[Rhydgaled]

if the CAF 197’s turn out to be terrible, I might well regret that statement and aim to travel on the 67 hauled services.

Have you not seen the class 197 topic? The 197s have already turned out to be terrible (link to said topic: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/caf-civity-for-tfw.182501/page-21#post-4714341).

I hope COVID doesn't put a stop to the mark 4 plans.

 

[adrock1976]

The WAG have decided it is, as part of their somewhat naive attempt to get people in North Wales to see Cardiff as their regional centre. It's ideological - whether it's actually worth it is of secondary importance...

It has always seemed strange that the Sensed insist on having direct trains between Holyhead and Cardiff, where it seems to be a much shorter route by road.

There have been long standing routes linking North Wales with the North West of England, the West Midlands, and London. The Cambrian and Aberystwyth linking with the West Midlands and London, and South Wales with Somerset, the West Midlands, and London.

I have never met anybody who does a daily trip between Holyhead and Cardiff via Chester, Wrexham, Shrewsbury, Hereford, and Newport.