New additional TPE rolling stock

[Msq71423]

On an internal Q&A memo sent to TPE staff today it says the following:

"Q: Are there any plans to add more trains to our fleet?

A: We will require additional fleet with electric traction capability to realise the benefits the Transpennine Route Upgrade. We will continue to work with Rail North Partnership, DfT and the wider industry on the best answer to this."

I've posted this on the speculation page, I wonder what "the best answer to this" may be!

 

[Pete_uk]

More of something that they already have, like 800s would be sensible or electric/bimode for the Mk5 sets.

 

[JonathanH]

...or 350/2s if bi mode capability isn't required, or these could be fitted with batteries.

 

[RailWonderer]

They will probably go with a new Aventra order unless they want to maintain them with 185s and to that end, choose a Siemens mainline product. For maintenance with the 802 fleet a 385 order would work well too. If they order new then those are the most likely outcomes.

I’d imagine surplus 185s would be offloaded to other operators replaced by EMUs but by the time the Manchester - Leeds section gets wired those spare 350s and 379s may not be spare any longer and they have no choice but to order new.

 

[JonathanH]

those spare 350s <snip> may not be spare any longer and they have no choice but to order new

Why? Where else are they going to be used? Not a lot of obvious takers for them, and lots of potential takers crossed off the list.

 

[HSTEd]

When is the Transpennine Route UPgrade actually going to produce significant electrified track?

As far as I know there is no plan for continous electrification between York and Manchester any time soon - they will have huge gaps in it.
So in reality, it seems unlikely there will be any change in the near to medium term, indeed TPE may loose stock .

 

[Energy]

When is the Transpennine Route UPgrade actually going to produce significant electrified track?

As far as I know there is no plan for continous electrification between York and Manchester any time soon - they will have huge gaps in it.
So in reality, it seems unlikely there will be any change in the near to medium term, indeed TPE may loose stock .

From what I understand Manchester to York should be fully electrified. Saltburn and Scarborough would be possible with battery stock, Hull is possible battery, oh and Cleethorpes is there.

 

[snowball]

From what I understand Manchester to York should be fully electrified.

Yes but Stalybridge to Huddersfield is a substantial number of years away.

 

[notadriver]

They will probably go with a new Aventra order unless they want to maintain them with 185s and to that end, choose a Siemens mainline product. For maintenance with the 802 fleet a 385 order would work well too. If they order new then those are the most likely outcomes.

I’d imagine surplus 185s would be offloaded to other operators replaced by EMUs but by the time the Manchester - Leeds section gets wired those spare 350s and 379s may not be spare any longer and they have no choice but to order new.

I personally think they should go with a single fleet of 802s. That way everyone can get trained up on one traction type as was the case with 185s when introduced.

I think the 68s and mkV should be offloaded to maybe a new open access operator and no more should be built as they aren’t really suited for intensive work. They are thirsty, noisy and need refuelling every day without fail.

185s are also thirsty and heavy. I could see them being got rid of overseas.

 

[JonathanH]

I personally think they should go with a single fleet of 802s. That way everyone can get trained up on one traction type as was the case with 185s when introduced.

802s are overkill for routes like Liverpool to Hull, Manchester to Redcar, and the stopping services via Huddersfield.

I think the 68s and mkV should be offloaded

Yes

to maybe a new open access operator

Not TPE's problem what happens to then afterwards.

no more should be built as they aren’t really suited for intensive work. They are thirsty, noisy and need refuelling every day without fail.

Not suitable for anything really, other than the interests of rail enthusiasts.

185s are also thirsty and heavy. I could see them being got rid of overseas.

Why would thirsty and heavy units be useful overseas?

 

[ainsworth74]

Saltburn and Scarborough would be possible with battery stock

Is it? It's a long old way off the wires! 66 mile round trip from Northallerton to Saltburn and 84 miles York to Scarborough and back. It would seem like perfect bi-mode territory to be honest (seeing as there's no chance of them getting wired, like they should be, in the next decade or two absent divine intervention).

 

[Philip]

802s are overkill for routes like Liverpool to Hull, Manchester to Redcar, and the stopping services via Huddersfield.

Why? The first two are medium to long distance services on lines which typically range from 75-100mph, so surely an 802 would be suitable.

Not suitable for anything really, other than the interests of rail enthusiasts.

Class 37-hauled rakes were moved onto North Wales Coast and the Cumbrian Coast, replacing Sprinters at the time. There was probably an element of heritage and enthusiast interest with these decisions, so it's not out of the question that some 68/mk5 sets might be retained if the interest element attracts people to using them.

 

[JonathanH]

Class 37-hauled rakes were moved onto North Wales Coast and the Cumbrian Coast, replacing Sprinters at the time. There was probably an element of heritage and enthusiast interest with these decisions

There absolutely wasn't. It was a case of desperation and trying to find anything available to fill the gap. It was an abject failure in providing the appropriate rolling stock, other than perhaps from a capacity point of view.

it's not out of the question that some 68/mk5 sets might be retained if the interest element attracts people to using them.

No. That is not a sensible motivation to use inappropriate rolling stock and traction.

Why? The first two are medium to long distance services on lines which typically range from 75-100mph, so surely an 802 would be suitable.

An 802 is specified for 125mph running complete with a pointy nose. Something more appropriate for regional traffic is required, which is a bit like an 185 but not as short, and not solely powered by diesel.

 

[HSTEd]

An 802 is specified for 125mph running complete with a pointy nose. Something more appropriate for regional traffic is required, which is a bit like an 185 but not as short, and not solely powered by diesel.

Ultimately TPE operations involve significant sections of track rated for above 100mph.

125mph trains will provide substantial operational flexibility for the railway as a whole, by allowing the fleet to make use of the full speed available at any point on the railway.

There is little to be gained in speccing for 100mph instead of 125mph, and a significant amount to lose once TPE moves to a unified fleet.

The cost of trains against speed doesn't change drastically until you get into TSI compliance territory - although I'm not sure that really applies to the UK any more.

 

[Energy]

Is it? It's a long old way off the wires! 66 mile round trip from Northallerton to Saltburn and 84 miles York to Scarborough and back. It would seem like perfect bi-mode territory to be honest (seeing as there's no chance of them getting wired, like they should be, in the next decade or two absent divine intervention).

Stadler FLIRTs are already managing 150+km (93 miles) in the real world. Over in Germany CAF are now supplying 220km (136 mile) trains so a battery 397 could cover it.

While it should be electrified 1 TPE train an hour down that line is fairly low priority.

 

[ainsworth74]

Stadler FLIRTs are already managing 150+km (93 miles) in the real world. Over in Germany CAF are now supplying 220km (136 mile) trains so a battery 397 could cover it.

Hmm interesting, what's the recharge time like on that? Would they be able to recharge on a wired run back down through the core to then go back to Saltburn/Scarborough again? It would also reduce flexibility as well for the Scarborough's as it's not unusual for them to shuttle between York and Scarborough after all.

While it should be electrified 1 TPE train an hour down that line is fairly low priority.

Well there's more traffic (certainly up here, less so for Scarborough to be fair) than just TPE! But as electrification is a low priority generally it'll be even lower for those lines...

 

[Energy]

Well there's more traffic (certainly up here, less so for Scarborough to be fair) than just TPE! But as electrification is a low priority generally it'll be even lower for those lines...

Was talking about Scarborough Saltburn is busier

Hmm interesting, what's the recharge time like on that?

10 mins after 110km is the quoted figure for CAF, a full recharge will take a little longer though should be comfortably within the time under wires.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

I agree with more 802's - the 68's and Mark 5's should go to Chiltern Railways who desperately need more 100mph stock!

 

[Blindtraveler]

Ultimately I think, much as I absolutely hate and despise them it is time that tpe got rid of all but maybe a dozen or so of the 185 which could be retained exclusively for their all stops type operations and also dispose of the caf stock and units and rang up Hitachi for another however many five coach or possibly longer 802

 

[Energy]

Ultimately I think, much as I absolutely hate and despise them it is time that tpe got rid of all but maybe a dozen or so of the 185 which could be retained exclusively for their all stops type operations

They were originally meant to loose most of the 185s, I wouldn't loose them now.

and also dispose of the caf stock

The 397s are fine, and are fairly self contained in their operation. Mk5s less so.

and rang up Hitachi for another however many five coach or possibly longer 802

Hitachi is charging quite a lot for them now and it wouldn't solve TPE's actual problem, staffing.

 

[HSTEd]

Hitachi is charging quite a lot for them now and it wouldn't solve TPE's actual problem, staffing.

An all 802 fleet would significantly reduce their training burden, which will indirectly aid staffing problems.

 

[Energy]

An all 802 fleet would significantly reduce their training burden, which will indirectly aid staffing problems.

Parking up the mk5s and going fully 185/802 would help reduce training for a lot less. 397s are fine as they are. Changing the crewing to drivers on longer stretches rather than the current many changes would help improve reliability.

 

[irish_rail]

Send some of GWRs 5 car 800s to TPE, and replace with some 9 car sets for GWR which are much needed and would cut down on the amount of 2x5 car sets running around all day on GWR with the associated crew costs etc.

 

[Snow1964]

Send some of GWRs 5 car 800s to TPE, and replace with some 9 car sets for GWR which are much needed and would cut down on the amount of 2x5 car sets running around all day on GWR with the associated crew costs etc.

Probably a very strong case for TPE and GWR swapping some stock

GWR has far too many 5car 800s as it doesn't split them mid journey as take too long to reset, so could send some to TPE, many of them need a refresh (and rebuilt seats) regardless, so reconfiguring to match TPE spec could be done.

In other direction, GWR is desperately short of vehicles for Cardiff-Penzance and Cardiff-Portsmouth, especially since the Castle HSTs are being withdrawn and 769 failure meant turbos didn't move west. A 4car or 5car 185 would have been ideal, but as they are are already 17 years old, never going to be economic to even build an intermediate trailer car. Transferring the 13 sets of mk5s would solve GWRs stock problems even if just a few workings to Portsmouth converted, in addition to Cardiff-Penzanc.

Yes it would mean type training on GWR, but not really any more than had the 769s entered service. GWR can't really get down to just 2 types (80x and 16x) anyway as not enough of them, and by restricting them to these services fewer staff would need training.

 

[JonathanH]

Probably a very strong case for TPE and GWR swapping some stock

Id imagine the contract variations involved would destroy the case immediately.

 

[Snow1964]

Id imagine the contract variations involved would destroy the case immediately.

Are you suggesting that a junior legal clerk in each company couldn't work through contract and draw up a variation schedule. Not exactly hard to read through a document and list dates and names that need changing.

I assume it was a joke, akin to saying anyone not specifically trained on using the door handle to enter a cab would never be able to drive a train.

 

[JonathanH]

Are you suggesting that a junior legal clerk in each company couldn't work through contract and draw up a variation schedule. Not exactly hard to read through a document and list dates and names that need changing.

I was thinking more about the cost of getting it agreed. The servicing arrangements would also need to be taken into account.

It seems very unlikely it is just a case of a junior legal clerk doing some find and replace work.

As for GWR doing type training on 68+Mk5s, it hasn't exactly gone very well on TPE.

 

[tbtc]

Apologies for repeating myself, but we seem to be having the same arguments on multiple threads…

If the argument is that that “TOC X is so busy that it needs 10x26m trains, not just on certain sections but permanently coupled together” then TOC X can afford a second Guard/ Trolley, whether there are corridor connections between the middle coaches or not

By all means claim that “10x26 is more efficient use of space than 2x5x26” (given the multiple cabs/ crumple zones), or even that “9x26 is cheaper than 2x5x26 whilst delivering the same capacity”… those are valid arguments.

But the idea that having to employ a serving Guard on an InterCity train busy enough to need to be over two hundred metres long (so, several hundred passengers) would be uneconomical seems a weaker argument

Personally, I can’t see TPE needing more stock any time soon (given how we are delivering promised electrification, how they struggle to run a full compliment of services anyway, and probably more importantly now that they are under the dead hand of the OLR), I can’t see much point of 125mph stock with crumple zones etc on the Cleethorpes service (which should really have a common unit/ staff/ operator as the “other” Liverpool - Sheffield train)… but I can see why firms need to sound bullish in staff communication , throw in some upbeat “jam tomorrow” aspirations etc… doesn’t mean much will change

 

[irish_rail]

Id imagine the contract variations involved would destroy the case immediately.

The 802s are under a different contract and would be easier to oust.