Possiblility of Bi Mode Locos for TPE and Night Riviera could cause cascades of stock elsewhere

[Charlie Smythe]

Believe, from many who've used them, the ride quality and sleep comfort for the majority was better in mk3 sleepers BUT a few certainly prefer the mk5 ones. The facilities and gadget provision are better on the new stock plus some folk prefer the aesthetics. I've only used Mk3s so can't personally give experience and not as many times as I would like. They did the job nicely though, especially Inverness to Euston in the summer of 95.

Ride and sleep quality may have been better on the mk3's, but the mk3's were ageing and needed replacing. It will forever be the case that the mk3 was the peak of passenger coach design but it is what it is.

It is the TPE Mk5s that would be surplus. How do the Mk5s compare to an 802 reliability and comfort wise ?.

A rather irrelevant discussion as it doesn't matter.

The 8xx family have this cracking issue which doesn't help their case but it doesn't matter, the mk5's are already here and replacing them is just not an option.

 

[Halish Railway]

It is the TPE Mk5s that would be surplus. How do the Mk5s compare to an 802 reliability and comfort wise ?.

Ultimately their Achilles’ Heel is the gigantic window pillars that ruin the experience by resulting in very few aligned seats. Regarding the ride quality, they’re both as bad as each other.

I am a bit baffled by this revelation, I’d have thought that any new locomotive order for TPE would be purely electric to operate services originating in Edinburgh and Newcastle, with the 802s cascaded onto the Teeside, Scarborough and Hull services post-TRU. Part of me thinks that this is driven by the DfT who want some of TPE’s trains elsewhere - Possibly the 802s to run in multiple and replace the 91s or the 185s for use on EWR.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Ultimately their Achilles’ Heel is the gigantic window pillars that ruin the experience by resulting in very few aligned seats. Regarding the ride quality, they’re both as bad as each other.

I am a bit baffled by this revelation, I’d have thought that any new locomotive order for TPE would be purely electric to operate services originating in Edinburgh and Newcastle, with the 802s cascaded onto the Teeside, Scarborough and Hull services post-TRU. Part of me thinks that this is driven by the DfT who want some of TPE’s trains elsewhere - Possibly the 802s to run in multiple and replace the 91s or the 185s for use on EWR.

Maybe the DfT are looking at the flexibility that comes with having bi-mode locomotives.

Here’s hoping they loco hauled makes a return for other operators such as XC

 

[47827]

Ride and sleep quality may have been better on the mk3's, but the mk3's were ageing and needed replacing. It will forever be the case that the mk3 was the peak of passenger coach design but it is what it is.


A rather irrelevant discussion as it doesn't matter.

The 8xx family have this cracking issue which doesn't help their case but it doesn't matter, the mk5's are already here and replacing them is just not an option.

I almost agree regarding the Mk3s although would argue they had a good decade of use left in them, especially given the fact they were among the latest batches built by BR to eliminate Mk1 sleepers and the sheer quality of the product (taking aesthetics and gadgets out of it). Without political input it may have been sensible to make use if the last bit of the life in them as per what GW, who had less cash waved at them, have chosen to do. That would have allowed better use of public funds. Also worth noting that although the mileages on the Scottish beds have been higher than on GW, they were still below the average of Mk3s in general. Some built in the 70s spent over 25 years doing 800 to 1000+ miles 6 days a week, with sometimes a little less on Sundays then a good few rakes going elsewhere to do lesser mileages for the likes of Anglia and Chiltern for their final 15-20 years.

 

[Anonymous10]

Stagecoach were looking at 68+Mk5's for the West of England line if they were to have won the SW franchise again but they obviously didn't. Other than that, you're proabably right with trying it on with the Welsh.

might i ask why tfw would take the mk5s after having spent so much on mk4s then again they are now mostly trouble free and come with 68s but then theres the noise levels

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I almost agree regarding the Mk3s although would argue they had a good decade of use left in them, especially given the fact they were among the latest batches built by BR to eliminate Mk1 sleepers and the sheer quality of the product (taking aesthetics and gadgets out of it). Without political input it may have been sensible to make use if the last bit of the life in them as per what GW, who had less cash waved at them, have chosen to do. That would have allowed better use of public funds. Also worth noting that although the mileages on the Scottish beds have been higher than on GW, they were still below the average of Mk3s in general. Some built in the 70s spent over 25 years doing 800 to 1000+ miles 6 days a week, with sometimes a little less on Sundays then a good few rakes going elsewhere to do lesser mileages for the likes of Anglia and Chiltern for their final 15-20 years.

Yeah I would agree also. Even though they were showing signs of age it would have been possible to use them for another decade like GWR have opted to do with the CNR and Castle set stock.

As for mileages, the most impressive ones would those those built for the Western Region in the 70’s on Paddington to Penzance services which then got transferred to FGW on the same diagrams and now operate on the Penzance to Cardiff corridor to this day. They have literally been past Dawlish in the wind and rain thousands of times, a real testament to their build quality.

What will be interesting is watching the demise of the mk3’s over the next decade for all their operators but mostly GWR’s CNR Sleeper stock. The refurbishment was supposed to last 18 years from 2018 I believe so we have maybe 6 or so years left, will they be replaced or refurbed again? It will be very interesting to see what happens, same with the Castle Set stock.

 

[37424]

Ultimately their Achilles’ Heel is the gigantic window pillars that ruin the experience by resulting in very few aligned seats. Regarding the ride quality, they’re both as bad as each other.

I am a bit baffled by this revelation, I’d have thought that any new locomotive order for TPE would be purely electric to operate services originating in Edinburgh and Newcastle, with the 802s cascaded onto the Teeside, Scarborough and Hull services post-TRU. Part of me thinks that this is driven by the DfT who want some of TPE’s trains elsewhere - Possibly the 802s to run in multiple and replace the 91s or the 185s for use on EWR.

But how long will it actually be before we get full wires from York to Manchester? I suspect this may be a medium term solution and the 68's are not popular from a noise perspective as well any potential Environmental consideration although it remains to be seem how noisy any replacement might be.

The TRU are supposed to require more Trains/Units so the prospect of freeing up any of the 185's originally planned looks to be a while off or any alternate idea to cascade some or all the 802's elsewhere, but as the Dft are supposed to be calling the shots on rolling stock allocation I guess anything is possible.

 

[JonathanH]

What will be interesting is watching the demise of the mk3’s over the next decade for all their operators

Year, not decade, seems likely in some cases.

The refurbishment was supposed to last 18 years from 2018

18 years? Really? Is that just the sleeper stock? If it is the HST carriages, is that to get the oldest ones to 60 years?

 

[MattRat]

The 57's were rebuilt in the early 2000's for Virgin trains but the 73's were rebuilt for GBRF in 2016. The 73's are younger and (should) be more reliable, fuel efficient and of course produce less emissions.

If not 57s then what? 73s could replace 37s, so why leave them on sleeper services when nearly any diesel will do

 

[ash39]

It'll be 3 years in August since TPE mk5a's made their passenger-carrying debut, and we still haven't had a day with more than 4 diagrams running from 13 sets. You'd have to be absolutley bonkers to expect them to want to order any more sets under those circumstances. It's far more likely they want to get rid of the sets they do have and replace them with more 802's.

 

[MattRat]

It'll be 3 years in August since TPE mk5a's made their passenger-carrying debut, and we still haven't had a day with more than 4 diagrams running from 13 sets. You'd have to be absolutley bonkers to expect them to want to order any more sets under those circumstances. It's far more likely they want to get rid of the sets they do have and replace them with more 802's.

Then why haven't TPE said they are doing that?

 

[Meerkat]

That delivery schedule smacks of writing a spec for something that they have already been offered. Are the Cl93s already in build and could they be adapted quickly to meet the spec?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ultimately their Achilles’ Heel is the gigantic window pillars that ruin the experience by resulting in very few aligned seats.

And the lazy seat layout, as per 195s. It wouldn't take much tweaking to make the situation better by reconsidering the relative position of seats and luggage racks, even though you'd not manage 100%.

 

[mike57]

It'll be 3 years in August since TPE mk5a's made their passenger-carrying debut, and we still haven't had a day with more than 4 diagrams running from 13 sets. You'd have to be absolutley bonkers to expect them to want to order any more sets under those circumstances. It's far more likely they want to get rid of the sets they do have and replace them with more 802's.

As a passenger who has used the Mk5s on TPE I would make the following comments:

Reliability has been poor, for new hauled stock. No engines, it should be simple. We have been building rolling stock for close to 200 years, and during that time there have been lots of improvements, but with the Mk5 we seem to have gone backwards.

They are an improvement for longer journeys over the 185s, but they dont feel like they are going to last well. Its only a perception, but they feel 'flimsy', lots of odd creaks and rattles, and ride quality can be iffy, and certainly not up to Mk3 standards.

The 68s that haul them are noisy, and that has certainly caused problems in Scarborough. Again its a perception, but the noise seems more pentrating. To quote my wife when she has been picking me up at Seamer. "You can feel them"

Given that they are a small fleet they are probably going to become unwanted. I also understand that the DVT operation is a special, so you cant just shove any locomotive with a standard MU operation on the other end and expect it to work. Thats going to limit any redeployment.

I wonder if the answer to the problem is two Bo-Bos semi permanently coupled together, with cabs at the outer ends, a bit like two 20s nose to nose. You would then keep axle load down and would have two smaller diesels to provide the off wire horsepower, which will be less of a challenge, and could probably be a modification to an existing design.

 

[hwl]

That delivery schedule smacks of writing a spec for something that they have already been offered.

Indeed

Are the Cl93s already in build

yes

and could they be adapted quickly to meet the spec?

No, much bigger engine required which points towards 6 axles, also other pointers to 6axle e.g. fuel tank size for stated range, Stage V compliance (with SCR / DOC / DPF) with hefty silencer (unlike 68...) all adding to volume / mass being too large for a 4axle design.
93 would be a useful starting point though.
Take 68/88 bodyshell go narrower by 30mm and add 1.75-2m in length.
The extra 2 axles allows you 40-43tonnes extra in loco mass.

 

[ash39]

Then why haven't TPE said they are doing that?

They may not be doing that, but the point I was making is I'd be massively suprised to see them order more Mk5A's when they don't even fully utilise the ones they have got. They obviously aren't all needed for the current timetable, but the point remains that they opted to fully utilise the 185 and 802 fleet rather than the LHCS.

As a passenger who has used the Mk5s on TPE I would make the following comments:

Reliability has been poor, for new hauled stock. No engines, it should be simple. We have been building rolling stock for close to 200 years, and during that time there have been lots of improvements, but with the Mk5 we seem to have gone backwards.

They are an improvement for longer journeys over the 185s, but they dont feel like they are going to last well. Its only a perception, but they feel 'flimsy', lots of odd creaks and rattles, and ride quality can be iffy, and certainly not up to Mk3 standards.

The 68s that haul them are noisy, and that has certainly caused problems in Scarborough. Again its a perception, but the noise seems more pentrating. To quote my wife when she has been picking me up at Seamer. "You can feel them"

Given that they are a small fleet they are probably going to become unwanted. I also understand that the DVT operation is a special, so you cant just shove any locomotive with a standard MU operation on the other end and expect it to work. Thats going to limit any redeployment.

I wonder if the answer to the problem is two Bo-Bos semi permanently coupled together, with cabs at the outer ends, a bit like two 20s nose to nose. You would then keep axle load down and would have two smaller diesels to provide the off wire horsepower, which will be less of a challenge, and could probably be a modification to an existing design.

They are pretty terrible from a passenger point of view. Ride is inconsistent but can vary from reasonable to absolutely shocking. The window allignment is one of the worst I've come across, and the bizare design of the air vents mean you can't lean against the window without getting a draft blown on you (not to mention they are a minging crumb/dirt trap).

Yes they don't have engines underneath them, but the majority of noise on modern stock comes from the AC and onboard systems anyway. I can barely notiece much difference between an 802 on diesel and a Mk5A.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They are pretty terrible from a passenger point of view. Ride is inconsistent but can vary from reasonable to absolutely shocking. The window allignment is one of the worst I've come across, and the bizare design of the air vents mean you can't lean against the window without getting a draft blown on you (not to mention they are a minging crumb/dirt trap).

Have you tried First Class? I thought it was genuinely special. I felt like I was on one of the better European services.

I'd agree about Standard, the combination of bad seats and a thoughtless layout makes it awful. In Standard I prefer the 80x by a long way, or secondly 397s (the latter having excellent window alignment but I prefer airline seats and there are very few).

 

[ash39]

Have you tried First Class? I thought it was genuinely special. I felt like I was on one of the better European services.

I'd agree about Standard, the combination of bad seats and a thoughtless layout makes it awful. In Standard I prefer the 80x by a long way, or secondly 397s (the latter having excellent window alignment but I prefer airline seats and there are very few).

I haven't, but would like to once they get more sets working across the Pennines. Does look nice from a quick glance through the window.

 

[D6130]

Could try the welsh for the MK5's

Right....I can just see the AMLs' (*) freshly-cooked dinners flying off the table in all directions and wine stains all over their nice white shirts. Better to strip out the seats and offer them to one of the new open access parcels operators!

(* Welsh Assembly Members)

 

[MattRat]

They may not be doing that, but the point I was making is I'd be massively suprised to see them order more Mk5A's when they don't even fully utilise the ones they have got. They obviously aren't all needed for the current timetable, but the point remains that they opted to fully utilise the 185 and 802 fleet rather than the LHCS.

Even so, perhaps it's just the 68s then, as why would they be ordering new locos?

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Year, not decade, seems likely in some cases.

18 years? Really? Is that just the sleeper stock? If it is the HST carriages, is that to get the oldest ones to 60 years?

I meant 10 years from 2018, not 18 years.

If not 57s then what? 73s could replace 37s, so why leave them on sleeper services when nearly any diesel will do

What? I don't understand you're question. The Class 73's currently operate the service and, even with a small lack of power, they manage fine. What is it you're asking, Class 37's haven't been used for ages.

 

[Fokx]

It'll be 3 years in August since TPE mk5a's made their passenger-carrying debut, and we still haven't had a day with more than 4 diagrams running from 13 sets.

That is nothing to do with reliability though, it’s due to the fact that Covid 19 has had a detrimental effect on crew training and pre-pandemic the late delivery of the sets (the last of which being delivered just under a year ago now - late)

Quite simply there isn’t enough drivers or conductors signing the traction to run full services compared to other traction types.

There’s actually more than 4 sets running in service each day, except currently the others are being used for driver/conductor training with a large focus on the South route and there has been trials on the Saltburn route too. Even when May 22’ comes around 2 circuits of the South route become 68 and MK5A sets, that’s not because of reliability it’s due to training backlog, depots including my own do not sign them but sign the route.

Currently in training you have:
- 802s on WCML
- 68s on the South
- Cheshire lines route learning
- TPRU diversions (Man-York/Hull)
- Saltburn route learning/trials
- Traction training across conductor depots
- New recruits

 

[Charlie Smythe]

might i ask why tfw would take the mk5s after having spent so much on mk4s then again they are now mostly trouble free and come with 68s but then theres the noise levels

They wouldn't, but other than TPE you're getting a bit short when it comes to LHCS operators.

That delivery schedule smacks of writing a spec for something that they have already been offered. Are the Cl93s already in build and could they be adapted quickly to meet the spec?

It does indeed but no, they could not. Thats my understanding at least.

This loco is likely to be Co-Co allowing it to have the larger engine and battery which automatically means that it will take a long time (if it is at all possible) to adapt the Class 93. I would say that this is fresh design from another builder.

Are the issues with the 68+Mk5 rakes problem with the coaching stock, locos or is it driver training etc.?

Looking back at the specc, it says that 9 Mk3's require 340Kw for ETS but 7 Mk5's require 410Kw for ETS. Are Mk5's really that power hungry?

 

[ash39]

That is nothing to do with reliability though, it’s due to the fact that Covid 19 has had a detrimental effect on crew training and pre-pandemic the late delivery of the sets (the last of which being delivered just under a year ago now - late)

Quite simply there isn’t enough drivers or conductors signing the traction to run full services compared to other traction types.

There’s actually more than 4 sets running in service each day, except currently the others are being used for driver/conductor training with a large focus on the South route and there has been trials on the Saltburn route too. Even when May 22’ comes around 2 circuits of the South route become 68 and MK5A sets, that’s not because of reliability it’s due to training backlog, depots including my own do not sign them but sign the route.

Currently in training you have:
- 802s on WCML
- 68s on the South
- Cheshire lines route learning
- TPRU diversions (Man-York/Hull)
- Saltburn route learning/trials
- Traction training across conductor depots
- New recruits

I never said it was about reliability though. Drivers and guards also needed training on 802's but they managed to roll them out and get them all in service in a matter of months. There must be a benefit to the 802's over the loco hauled stock, whether it be cost, reliability or ease of training. So the point remains if TPE do take on extra stock to replace the 185's, why would they not go back to Hitachi for more 802's, particularly as the core reason they didn't opt for more of them in the first place (lead times due to Hitachi's order book) is no longer an issue?

 

[Fokx]

I never said it was about reliability though. Drivers and guards also needed training on 802's but they managed to roll them out and get them all in service in a matter of months.

All before Covid-19 struck…

 

[47827]

I never said it was about reliability though. Drivers and guards also needed training on 802's but they managed to roll them out and get them all in service in a matter of months. There must be a benefit to the 802's over the loco hauled stock, whether it be cost, reliability or ease of training. So the point remains if TPE do take on extra stock to replace the 185's, why would they not go back to Hitachi for more 802's, particularly as the core reason they didn't opt for more of them in the first place (lead times due to Hitachi's order book) is no longer an issue?

It's more logical the DFT would be eyeing up a place to pinch the 802s for (perhaps an IC TOC with some obsolete or disliked trains elsewhere) and keep 185s if it was considering expanding the mk5 fleet with bi mode traction. But logic doesn't always come into it. It's true that East West will potentially need dozens of something, probably DMU, sets to start in the coming years though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's more logical the DFT would be eyeing up a place to pinch the 802s for (perhaps an IC TOC with some obsolete or disliked trains elsewhere) and keep 185s if it was considering expanding the mk5 fleet with bi mode traction. But logic doesn't always come into it. It's true that East West will potentially need dozens of something, probably DMU, sets to start in the coming years though.

With a 100mph top speed, 185s might be useful but not 80x. It's a regional service, so Mk5s would be a very bad fit.

For now it's getting 196s from WMT.

 

[hooverboy]

They wouldn't, but other than TPE you're getting a bit short when it comes to LHCS operators.


It does indeed but no, they could not. Thats my understanding at least.

This loco is likely to be Co-Co allowing it to have the larger engine and battery which automatically means that it will take a long time (if it is at all possible) to adapt the Class 93. I would say that this is fresh design from another builder.

Are the issues with the 68+Mk5 rakes problem with the coaching stock, locos or is it driver training etc.?

Looking back at the specc, it says that 9 Mk3's require 340Kw for ETS but 7 Mk5's require 410Kw for ETS. Are Mk5's really that power hungry?

Someone on here mooted the possibility of GBRF ordering a "class 99"

what is the proposed spec on those?

 

[MattRat]

With a 100mph top speed, 185s might be useful but not 80x. It's a regional service, so Mk5s would be a very bad fit.

For now it's getting 196s from WMT.

Which does leave only one option as to why the new locos, which is as 68 replacements. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that does free up 68s for other services....

 

[JonathanH]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hat does free up 68s for other services....

Freight / nuclear transport like the other ones. DRS might have the option of returning them to their lessor.