Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?

[Neptune]

Beyond May 24 though and Scotrail and Chiltern seem the most likely places for them.

Based on what firm evidence?

 

[RailWonderer]

Based on what firm evidence?

I said 'seem' and this is a speculative thread. The point is that there is no evidence.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Beyond May 24 though and Scotrail and Chiltern seem the most likely places for them.

If the lease had been extended to May 2034, there would still be a speculative thread on where they'd go after that!

 

[E27007]

Had a run behing 68022 this adfternoon, only 4 weeks left is the platform end rumour, July 28th as the end of service date for TP Class 68 locos and sets.
Another rumours being to expect many service cuts in December

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Had a run behing 68022 this adfternoon, only 4 weeks left is the platform end rumour, July 28th as the end of service date for TP Class 68 locos and sets.
Another rumours being to expect many service cuts in December

Are they joking??? Do they really want to go back to the regular 3-car 185 days? I don't think they do.

 

[8A Rail]

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.

Regardless, it is all speculation, rumour, counter rumour, hear say etc about the 68's and Mk5's but to me the above is a very call indeed as a suitable alternative.

 

[E27007]

Regardless, it is all speculation, rumour, counter rumour, hear say etc about the 68's and Mk5's but to me the above is a very call indeed as a suitable alternative.

The source of the information has a strong track record, is acknowledged by other railway enthusiasts as being well-connected and is sought and consulted for his opinions on such matters, we will have to be patient and watch developments for the Class 68 situation.

 

[MattRat]

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.

And if we were discussing that anyway, much better to get rid of those services entirely and give them to another operator.

 

[RHolmes]

Had a run behing 68022 this adfternoon, only 4 weeks left is the platform end rumour, July 28th as the end of service date for TP Class 68 locos and sets.

It’s not a rumour but only applies to the South Route

68’s and MK5A’s will still be found on Scarboroughs

 

[Philip]

They wouldn't be a bad option for Northern on the Hope Valley and Manchester-Cumbria services if TPE eventually get rid, particularly as they could easily be maintained at Longsight for these routes. It'd release a good few 195s for strengthening Calder Valley and Nottingham-Leeds services. The power would be useful for the northern WCML and for the steep gradients between Dore and Cowburn Tunnel.

 

[JonathanH]

They wouldn't be a bad option for Northern on the Hope Valley and Manchester-Cumbria services if TPE eventually get rid, particularly as they could easily be maintained at Longsight for these routes.

They would be a terrible option for Northern as they are overspecified for their needs, would be expensive to operate, and not really suitable for the Hope Valley stopping services at all.

What makes you think that Northern would find it easier to get these trains into reliable service than TPE have found it?

It'd release a good few 195s for strengthening Calder Valley and Nottingham-Leeds services.

Nottingham to Leeds services currently have to use platform 17 at Leeds, which is a major constraint on the length of train that can be operated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s not a rumour but only applies to the South Route

68’s and MK5A’s will still be found on Scarboroughs

So they've not worked well on South?

 

[Philip]

They would be a terrible option for Northern as they are overspecified for their needs, would be expensive to operate, and not really suitable for the Hope Valley stopping services at all.

What makes you think that Northern would find it easier to get these trains into reliable service than TPE have found it?

They probably said the same about 180s and 37s going to Northern before it happened in reality. They are not overspecified for the Cumbria services as much of this route would make use of their maximum speed, or near enough. Why are they not suitable for Hope Valley stopping services?

On the latter point, I think it's accepted that TPE have had serious staffing problems which hasn't helped in this situation, Northern on the other hand have managed a lot better so every chance they'd make a better job at getting the 68s/mk5s into reliable service.

 

[D365]

So they've not worked well on South?

I wasn't aware that the Mk5s have operated any passenger services on the South Transpennine route? Only staff runs.

They probably said the same about 180s and 37s going to Northern before it happened in reality. They are not overspecified for the Cumbria services as much of this route would make use of their maximum speed, or near enough. Why are they not suitable for Hope Valley stopping services?

Both were very much last resorts, pressed into service at a time when there was a severe shortage of diesel multiple units. I'm not sure how either is a valid justification for returning loco-hauled passenger trains to the Hope Valley.

 

[JonathanH]

I wasn't aware that the Mk5s have operated any passenger services on the South Transpennine route?

One daily round trip over the last few weeks. I travelled on one between Meadowhall and Scunthorpe quite by chance a few weeks ago.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I wasn't aware that the Mk5s have operated any passenger services on the South Transpennine route? Only staff runs.

They work 1B64 (0543 Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes) and 1B85 (1524 Cleethorpes to Liverpool Lime Street) most days.

 

[D365]

Interesting, I'll have to see if I can get a run sometime.

 

[Neptune]

68/mk5a have never been mentioned for Northern. There are zero plans for them as there is a plan in place for 15x replacement (I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before).

There is no shortage of DMU’s so nothing like the situation when we hired in 180’s and 37’s as a last resort in the past.

I’m sure everyone knows (especially those that work for Northern in the west) that we’ve just taken on a boat load of 156’s from EMT.

 

[D365]

68/mk5a have never been mentioned for Northern. There are zero plans for them as there is a plan in place for 15x replacement (I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before).

There is no shortage of DMU’s so nothing like the situation when we hired in 180’s and 37’s as a last resort in the past.

I’m sure everyone knows (especially those that work for Northern in the west) that we’ve just taken on a boat load of 156’s from EMT.

Wikipedia is currently reporting a few Class 156 units as "Stored", not sure if these are the units that you're referring to. But as you say, there's no need for last resort options at this time.

 

[Neptune]

Wikipedia is currently reporting a few Class 156 units as "Stored", not sure if these are the units that you're referring to. But as you say, there's no need for last resort options at this time.

The stored 156’s mentioned on wiki (please, nobody take wiki at face value as a rule) aren’t Northern units. 470/473/497/498 are owned by Angel and were never part of the plan (ironically they are ex Northern units) 907 is a Porterbrook rust bucket and has been replaced in the plan and 478 is ex Scotrail owned by Brodies.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Wikipedia is currently reporting a few Class 156 units as "Stored", not sure if these are the units that you're referring to. But as you say, there's no need for last resort options at this time.

Take a look at

https://www.ukraillog.co.uk/150-159

Many say under Previous Operator(s) "East Midlands Railway until {month} {year}", some of which are quite recent.

Also on wikipedia

Fifteen Class 156s are to be transferred from East Midlands Railway to Northern Trains.

 

[8A Rail]

The source of the information has a strong track record, is acknowledged by other railway enthusiasts as being well-connected and is sought and consulted for his opinions on such matters, we will have to be patient and watch developments for the Class 68 situation.

Clearly you may know one of the sources but sadly I do not (before you ask I do not read every message on this thread either, sorry). Regardless with most info etc, I tend to take it with a pinch of salt until it becomes fact. Personally the Class 68's and TP stock should remain with TPT and start to use them for what they were originally intended which was Liverpool / Manchester / York / Scarborough turns, whether north or south routes.

 

[XAM2175]

Wikipedia is currently reporting a few Class 156 units as "Stored", not sure if these are the units that you're referring to. But as you say, there's no need for last resort options at this time.

The stored 156’s mentioned on wiki (please, nobody take wiki at face value as a rule) aren’t Northern units. 470/473/497/498 are owned by Angel and were never part of the plan (ironically they are ex Northern units) 907 is a Porterbrook rust bucket and has been replaced in the plan and 478 is ex Scotrail owned by Brodies.

There's almost always a delay of anything from a week or two to a month or three for this sort of stuff on Wikipedia - it has to come through the "traditional" railway press machine (ie magazines and the websites thereof) first, then somebody has to see that that's happened and update the article.

 

[RHolmes]

So they've not worked well on South?

There’s no issue with 68’s physically working the south route service, but there is a serious staff competency issue due to trying to implement a new type of traction and route extension during a period of a driver shortage, training backlog and driver rest-day sanction, whilst simultaneously taking trained staff OFF the route

 

[CAF397]

So they've not worked well on South?

Prior to the 68 introduction on the South Route, it was operated solely by Sheffield and Cleethorpes drivers and guards, with Manchester Piccadilly guards from Manchester to Sheffield using 185s.

To run to Liverpool required Liverpool drivers and guards, and Manchester Piccadilly drivers and Manchester Airport guards, to (re) learn the route via Warrington Central, and Sheffield drivers and guards to sign Manchester Piccadilly to Liverpool via Warrington Central. Liverpool and Sheffield drivers do not sign 68s, Sheffield guards do.

Introducing the 68s onto the Cleethorpes required;

Cleethorpes drivers and guards to sign the traction.
Cleethorpes drivers and guards to sign Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Oxford Rd.
Manchester Piccadilly drivers to sign Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffield.
Manchester Airport guards to sign Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffield. All would then sign 68s and would require crew changes at Manchester Oxford Road or Sheffield both ways, no one driver depot who signed the traction covering the whole route - Sheffield guards being the only depot who signed end to end.

At the same time, Manchester Piccadilly guards (who signed Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffield) lost all work to Sheffield as they don't sign the 68s.

As you can probably see, to get a 68 out on a Cleethorpes diagram, there is a whole host of drivers and guards diagrams where the person has to sign both the traction and the route. Just one member of traincrew who didn't sign something and the whole days diagram was binned.

Over 12 months of traction training and route learning is effectively thrown away at the end of July.

 

[HammerDown154]

Prior to the 68 introduction on the South Route, it was operated solely by Sheffield and Cleethorpes drivers and guards, with Manchester Piccadilly guards from Manchester to Sheffield using 185s.

To run to Liverpool required Liverpool drivers and guards, and Manchester Piccadilly drivers and Manchester Airport guards, to (re) learn the route via Warrington Central, and Sheffield drivers and guards to sign Manchester Piccadilly to Liverpool via Warrington Central. Liverpool and Sheffield drivers do not sign 68s, Sheffield guards do.

Introducing the 68s onto the Cleethorpes required;

Cleethorpes drivers and guards to sign the traction.
Cleethorpes drivers and guards to sign Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Oxford Rd.
Manchester Piccadilly drivers to sign Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffield.
Manchester Airport guards to sign Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffield. All would then sign 68s and would require crew changes at Manchester Oxford Road or Sheffield both ways, no one driver depot who signed the traction covering the whole route - Sheffield guards being the only depot who signed end to end.

At the same time, Manchester Piccadilly guards (who signed Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffield) lost all work to Sheffield as they don't sign the 68s.

As you can probably see, to get a 68 out on a Cleethorpes diagram, there is a whole host of drivers and guards diagrams where the person has to sign both the traction and the route. Just one member of traincrew who didn't sign something and the whole days diagram was binned.

Over 12 months of traction training and route learning is effectively thrown away at the end of July.

Surely for operating sense considering the time that has been invested in staff training, the sets should be most efficiently used where most time has been invested in them?

 

[Pdf]

Outside bet: the Mk5As will end up on an open access operation, possibly pulled by an electric or bimode loco. The 68s will be used for freight if they don't go with them.

 

[E27007]

Outside bet: the Mk5As will end up on an open access operation, possibly pulled by an electric or bimode loco. The 68s will be used for freight if they don't go with them.

Is it feasible to re-gauge a Class 68 from 4ft 8 inches track gauge to 5ft 5 inches?
Spanish Railway Renfe have connections with Vossloh
Stadler /Vossloh

 

[mike57]

The MK5s are always going to be a microfleet, so what ever happens to them there will be costs associated with extra staff training. Fixed 5 coach formations may be a drawback. A classic case of something being purchased/leased for a specific task with no thought of future use.

Best use would probably be to replace 68s with a bi-mode such as the class 93 and use them to reduce diesel under wires, but the knock on problems with doing anything like that probably rule it out. Windermere or Barrow services would be two good examples, no doubt there are others.

Another question: Are they 100mph or 125mph, so if suitable haulage existed could they be used over 100mph. I thought I had read that they were 125mph, but pretty sure when using them out of Scarborough they are marked 100mph.

 

[E27007]

The MK5s are always going to be a microfleet, so what ever happens to them there will be costs associated with extra staff training. Fixed 5 coach formations may be a drawback. A classic case of something being purchased/leased for a specific task with no thought of future use.

Best use would probably be to replace 68s with a bi-mode such as the class 93 and use them to reduce diesel under wires, but the knock on problems with doing anything like that probably rule it out. Windermere or Barrow services would be two good examples, no doubt there are others.

Another question: Are they 100mph or 125mph, so if suitable haulage existed could they be used over 100mph. I thought I had read that they were 125mph, but pretty sure when using them out of Scarborough they are marked 100mph.

Another slip was the 185 being only 3-car sets, a 4-car formation with the option to operate with all cars powered or selective engine switch-outs for fuel saving might have been a better match for the passenger loadings