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

[Bletchleyite]

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....

Yes, 68 (and 57) replacement is precisely what they are for, I don't think there is any doubt about that. The 68s are a noise nuisance, and running diesel under the wires is increasingly untenable.

 

[MattRat]

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

Yes, 68 (and 57) replacement is precisely what they are for, I don't think there is any doubt about that. The 68s are a noise nuisance, and running diesel under the wires is increasingly untenable.

Don't forget about the cascade possibilities. 57s less so, but I imagine the 68s would be valuable to replace other older diesels.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Haven’t heard about them, I am assuming they will be in-mode as well. Realistically if GBRF order them they will be Co-Co so maybe someone is developing a bogie.

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

what is the proposed spec on those?

 

[JonathanH]

Don't forget about the cascade possibilities. 57s less so, but I imagine the 68s would be valuable to replace other older diesels.

Yes, they could remove DRS's remaining class 37s. Equally they could be useful to replace older diesels abroad or, I guess, possibly even converted to electrics.

 

[ash39]

All before Covid-19 struck…

I'll make my point a third time then. The Mk5A's entered service in August 2019, the 802's a month later in September 2019. I don't have exact dates of when 802's became fully utilised on all diagrams but it was within months.

Regardless of anything else, that shows that the 802 is a preferred option for TPE and any additional orders now would almost definitely be for more of those.

I don't see how Covid comes into it. If training was an issue on the loco hauled sets, why was it not on the 802's?

 

[MattRat]

Yes, they could remove DRS's remaining class 37s. Equally they could be useful to replace older diesels abroad or, I guess, possibly even converted to electrics.

Aren't the 37s to do with route availability? 68s are too high load, although 57s might just be light enough, even if they are still a little above load. Similar situation with 73s to 57s, which have been discussed in relation to Caledonian Sleeper. I presume you see where I'm going....

 

[JonathanH]

Regardless of anything else, that shows that the 802 is a preferred option for TPE and any additional orders now would almost definitely be for more of those.

I don't see how Covid comes into it. If training was an issue on the loco hauled sets, why was it not on the 802's?

802s had to be prioritised to run at 125mph north of York. 185s could more easily substitute for Mk5s. Clearly the right priorities for training.

The specific issue appears to have been getting York traincrew trained on 68s and Mark 5s.

 

[Peter Sarf]

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.

That is my feelng.

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

Not sure it would be obvious ?.

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 seem like they have something already designed (like the 802s) in mind.

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.
.........

That is my feeling, whatever the real reason is we can see the results.

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.

Well. If the 802s are to be pinched then maybe for Marylebone. Then DfT / GBR can put their hand on their heart saying they are doing something about pollution (noise and diesel) in that part of London. After all the local authority do seem to be putting pressure on there. Yes I know there is not even one inch of electrification there yet but I am sure the press release will boast about that being the next step. New quieter trains with electric capability coming !.

Otherwise I would stick to the simpler answer. New Bi-Modes to replace (noisy) 68s on passenger services on TPE (15) and maybe also Chiltern (+15 ?) etc.

 

[JonathanH]

Well. If the 802s are to be pinched then maybe for Marylebone. Then DfT / GBR can put their hand on their heart saying they are doing something about pollution (noise and diesel) in that part of London.

Huh? They would still be running on diesel for their entire journey. Putting bi-mode units on a service that doesn't use any electrified route doesn't fool anyone. Chiltern also has no need of a pointy nose unit. TPE need 802s to run at line speed north of York, admittedly not all 125mph.

Yes I know there is not even one inch of electrification there yet but I am sure the press release will boast about that being the next step. New quieter trains with electric capability coming !.

Too tenuous. Nowhere to maintain them.

maybe also Chiltern (+15 ?)

What would they haul? Rumours elsewhere suggest the 68s go back to DRS after the Commonwealth Games with the Mark 3s going in the bin.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

What levels of horsepower do we think this new class will need if used on the Night Riviera? Keeping in mind that the 57's are around 2750hp and the ETS load requirements for these 9Mk2's is around 455hp on it's own.

 

[Peter Sarf]

..........

What would they haul? Rumours elsewhere suggest the 68s go back to DRS after the Commonwealth Games with the Mark 3s going in the bin.

There is always the more modern version of the Mk3s - my beloved 442s .

 

[JonathanH]

There is always the more modern version of the Mk3s - my beloved 442s .

Was

 

[MattRat]

There is always the more modern version of the Mk3s - my beloved 442s .

If they were that in need, they'd order some Mk5 stock on top of any locos, surely.

 

[JonathanH]

If they were that in need, they'd order some Mk5 stock on top of any locos, surely.

Is that on the basis that it could be ordered and be placed in service sooner than other options? That didn't work last time.

 

[MattRat]

Is that on the basis that it could be ordered and be placed in service sooner than other options? That didn't work last time.

I mean if they were in the market for the bi modes, they'd buy carriages at the same time. Obviously DMUs would be the smarter option.

 

[JonathanH]

I mean if they were in the market for the bi modes, they'd buy carriages at the same time. Obviously DMUs would be the smarter option.

Well no, not really. Buying new DMUs is the last thing Chiltern should do. They need to wait and see whether the hybrid experiments on 165004 and 168329 work first.

 

[JacobWrenn]

From https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/b...by-transpennine-express-and-gwr/60775.article TPE Fleet Director lays out that this is a very early step in thinking about new locomotives.

He added that the ‘request for expressions of interest sets out to test the availability in the marketplace of bi-mode locomotives capable of running on either diesel or electricity, allowing our MkVa trains to take advantage of clean and efficient energy when operating on electrified sections of our routes. This is a very early step in a potential locomotive replacement programme, exploring what may be possible and viable, and we are very interested to hear from potential supply partners.’

 

[MattRat]

Well no, not really. Buying new DMUs is the last thing Chiltern should do. They need to wait and see whether the hybrid experiments on 165004 and 168329 work first.

Sorry, I meant bi mode multiple units.

From https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/b...by-transpennine-express-and-gwr/60775.article TPE Fleet Director lays out that this is a very early step in thinking about new locomotives.

At least this clears up that it is in fact a 68 replacement.

 

[Fokx]

I'll make my point a third time then. The Mk5A's entered service in August 2019, the 802's a month later in September 2019. I don't have exact dates of when 802's became fully utilised on all diagrams but it was within months.

Regardless of anything else, that shows that the 802 is a preferred option for TPE and any additional orders now would almost definitely be for more of those.

I don't see how Covid comes into it. If training was an issue on the loco hauled sets, why was it not on the 802's?

Because the full compliment of 802’s were deliveried in full LONG before the MK5a’s arrived.

As another poster has mentioned, the 802’s were prioritised due to training requirements and the need to run north of Newcastle on the ECML and additionally the number of depots required to sign them at the time was greater than that of the MK5a’s.

I don’t disagree with you that they will probably form the bulk of future orders due to the relationship with Hitatchi across the first rail companies, but they’re also currently some of the least popular units with passengers due to a lack of buggy and non-vertical bike space

 

[MattRat]

I don’t disagree with you that they will probably form the bulk of future orders due to the relationship with Hitatchi across the first rail companies, but they’re also currently some of the least popular units with passengers due to a lack of buggy and non-vertical bike space

Compounded by the fact they were first built (by which I mean 80x units) in 2017, when they really didn't have an excuse to lack such features.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t disagree with you that they will probably form the bulk of future orders due to the relationship with Hitatchi across the first rail companies, but they’re also currently some of the least popular units with passengers due to a lack of buggy and non-vertical bike space

If First wanted to fix that, it would be very easy, albeit at the cost of removing some seats.

 

[SuperNova]

I'll make my point a third time then. The Mk5A's entered service in August 2019, the 802's a month later in September 2019. I don't have exact dates of when 802's became fully utilised on all diagrams but it was within months.

Regardless of anything else, that shows that the 802 is a preferred option for TPE and any additional orders now would almost definitely be for more of those.

I don't see how Covid comes into it. If training was an issue on the loco hauled sets, why was it not on the 802's?

One Mk5a entered service for one day in August 2019 in a pointless exercise pushed forward by an MD that was given the boot due to the farce of the Dec 19 TT change, which pushed forward the introduction of services to Edinburgh and at 125mph north of York when not enough drivers and conductors were trained up on the 802s. This was largely caused by CAF and the poor quality of their fleet which was also very late. 802s were key to the Dec 19 TT change and were prioritised for training purposes - plus, 802's were already on the network with other TOC's in a different guise and quite easily passed their fault free running compared to the m5ka's.

Covid has left a significant backlog of training, especially on the Mk5a's as 802s and 185s offered more operational flexibility and the fact the last Mk5a rake was only accepted in April 2021, because of the shoddy build by CAF.

 

[Bald Rick]

Covid has left a significant backlog of training,

That’s putting it mildly, for TPE.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I cannot believe that anyone is suggesting replacing perfectly good brand new coaching stock only a few years into their life. Okay they aren’t that reliable and they are quite expensive to run but that doesn’t make them or LHCS in general a bad idea for other operators. To replace them now would be bonkers

 

[mike57]

That’s putting it mildly, for TPE.

What amazes me is that no one at TPE foresaw the nightmare that having 3 totally different types of units on TPE North would be in terms of training. Even before Covid they were in trouble with training, the poor service towards the end of 2019 was caused by the need to train staff. Even if you take the reliability and late delivery of the Mk5s out of the equation there must be an ongoing requirement which is multiplied everytime a new type of stock is introduced, and this continues long after the stock is introduced, as every new staff member has to undergo 3 lots of training, and knowledge has to be retained on each type of unit.

To someone outside the industry it would also seem that each type of unit is totally different as well, LHCS, Bi-Modes and traditional DMU, which must multiply the training needs.

What should of happened is TPE should have ordered just one type of unit, 802s for all services, including the WCML services. When enough units were delivered they sould have been given back the Windermere and Barrow services, solving another problem as well, long distance diesel under wires operation. Operationally this would be far more flexible, and make it easier to deliver the promised service.

 

[Bigman]

I just don't get this need for loco hauled stock. If a 68 fails, that's it, it's a fail. If 1 engine on an 802 fails, there are 2 still working that can at least get the train to the next station at the very worst.

 

[JonathanH]

every new staff member has to undergo 3 lots of training, and knowledge has to be retained on each type of unit

Traincrew at different locations have different traction knowledge so they only have to maintain 185s and whichever type of Nova stock runs on the relevant route.

What should of happened is TPE should have ordered just one type of unit, 802s for all services, including the WCML services.

Easy to say in hindsight. Hitachi were not in a position to construct 802s for all routes in the desired timescale.

When enough units were delivered they sould have been given back the Windermere and Barrow services, solving another problem as well, long distance diesel under wires operation. Operationally this would be far more flexible, and make it easier to deliver the promised service.

Northern could equally have ordered (more appropriate) bi-modes for these services. No need for TPE to get these routes back.

 

[Meerkat]

Sorry, I meant bi mode multiple units.


At least this clears up that it is in fact a 68 replacement.

Doesn't explain why they would want options for more than the 68s and 57s though. What else would First be up to, unless the possible extra 15 have been tagged on the expression of interest at the request of the DfT for somewhere else.
Is August just the deadline of "we could build this for you in a couple of years"?

 

[Speed43125]

Doesn't explain why they would want options for more than the 68s and 57s though. What else would First be up to, unless the possible extra 15 have been tagged on the expression of interest at the request of the DfT for somewhere else.
Is August just the deadline of "we could build this for you in a couple of years"?

Possibly just an extra security thing of being able to order more of the same train (however remote the chance!) without it going out to competitive tender again, which can increase lead times etc for add-on orders.

 

[Anonymous10]

Doesn't explain why they would want options for more than the 68s and 57s though. What else would First be up to, unless the possible extra 15 have been tagged on the expression of interest at the request of the DfT for somewhere else.
Is August just the deadline of "we could build this for you in a couple of years"?

lets wait and see what happens they may be planning replacement of the castle sets lets not forget