What confused me is you said "this month" and it isn`t in the October edition on either p11 or 12 !
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?
- Thread starter Iskra
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I never look at the dates, I presume as I received it in October (so would call it this month's because I read it in the month I get it, I don't leave it until the 1st of the indicated month) it's presumably the November edition. Magazines always run a month or two early. Computer Shopper used to be nearer two!
PC Pro issued a 'Summer 2023' edition between their August and September issues to try and get their dates a bit more in sync with reality. If they hadn't it would have been the December issue I would have received last week.
I understand why they get a little bit ahead, they don't want the copy on the newsstand to be referring to the previous month, as people will think it's old news and not buy it.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Dang. Youve read Novembers MR already !. I must be spending too much time on ere (apparently true !).
Compare to news websites where I see there is usually a date / days-old indication against the headlines.
They would be terrible for that purpose as they can't run at 125mph on the East Coast Main Line.
RobShipway
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 3,337
You would more likely be using the 68/MK5 on routes such as Penzance - Cardiff, where the the top speed of the line does not exceed 100mph and there are paths for such speeds even if the top speed of the line maybe 125mph.
Slight correction, there is a stretch of 110 mph south of Bristol
Chiltern seems to be a relatively sensible idea given their experience of class 68s, and the DMU cascade it would enable for EWR.
All that said, I wonder about the political optics of cascading new trains from the North to the Home Counties- who remembers the last time Chiltern pinched TPE rolling stock!
All that said, I wonder about the political optics of cascading new trains from the North to the Home Counties- who remembers the last time Chiltern pinched TPE rolling stock!
Iskra
Established Member
Chiltern are limited in the number of class 68 workings into and out of Marylebone due to noise issues, so the 68's going to Chiltern appears to be out of the question.
True the 68 can't, although it can run at 110 mph as on Chilton, and the Mk5s are 125 mph capable...but heyho it was just a thought.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Things stated in Modern Railways are almost always with basis, and not "out of the question". Modern Railways does not engage in baseless speculation, being a professional journal in nature.
That doesn't mean it will happen, but if it's in those pages then it has at least been considered by that TOC.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 16,020
Nope, 100mph max on the Chilterns
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,350
Class 68 is limited to 100mph.
sprinterguy
Established Member
It'd be possible to replace the existing mark 3 diagrams on a one for one basis - of course that wouldn't require the full fleet of thirteen mark 5 sets.
It's certainly a nice thought in this passenger and enthusiasts' opinion, and the eight diagrams required for the hourly Nottingham - Cardiff service could be comfortably covered by the thirteen mark 5 sets, but it'd be a fair increase in the number of vehicles in the XC fleet even if it resulted in the cascade of, say, 12 x 3-car class 170s.
Are the mark 5s 125mph? The data panels on them say 100mph.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Either way Chiltern could benefit, as the logical destination for those 170s would be to be converted to 168s (coupler pinout and a refresh) and moved to Chiltern, where they could either allow the 68 hauled services to end without bringing in another microfleet, or they could allow some 165s to be removed from service.
Maybe i'm thinking of the Trans Pennine 350/4s or the Chiltern 67s then.
Just going off the listing on Wiki, but i know that isn't foolproof.
Last edited:
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 16,020
No, the line speed is 100mph max, regardless of the traction.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
That limit assumes the silencing modifications do not happen.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Indeed. If they do and are successful, that might mean they are more useful.
Someone upthread suggested they could be allocated to all Oxford services. They're shorter than the 6-car Mk3 sets by some margin so wouldn't be great for Birmingham expresses which are probably better off with maxed-out 168 formations, though the seating is higher density so that may even it out a bit, so this doesn't seem an awful idea, and the acceleration is significantly better than a 168 so they may even offer a small speed-up given that the Oxford services are now semifast at best.
The need for a Train Manager on them would be a limiting factor for their use on all Oxfords. CR would have to employ loads more TMs to make it work.
The Marylebone noise restriction issue can be worked around if it meets one of the 3 points. (extra special bonus paths if you can hit all 3)
1. There is a specific need to use more. Ie. Wembley Events, closures, WCML strengthening etc.
2. The DfT are told about it before hand
3. The DfT tell them what to do. for example the extra 68 when the Nuneham Viaduct was closed.
1 and 2 will always work hand in hand, the 3rd is generally more difficult to gain.
Apparently cancelling them all on 1 weekend doesn’t give an option to ‘carry over’ to run double the following weekend.
The Marylebone noise restriction issue can be worked around if it meets one of the 3 points. (extra special bonus paths if you can hit all 3)
1. There is a specific need to use more. Ie. Wembley Events, closures, WCML strengthening etc.
2. The DfT are told about it before hand
3. The DfT tell them what to do. for example the extra 68 when the Nuneham Viaduct was closed.
1 and 2 will always work hand in hand, the 3rd is generally more difficult to gain.
Apparently cancelling them all on 1 weekend doesn’t give an option to ‘carry over’ to run double the following weekend.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Good point, I'd forgotten Chiltern is mostly DOO.
I suppose given the higher density seating than the 64 seat Mk3s could, if they converted 1st to Standard, give a similar number of seats overall to a 6 car Mk3 formation.
Mk3: 5 x 64, plus 30 I think for the buffet first = 350 seats
Mk5a: according to TPE, 291 seats, 261 Standard and 30 First. By going to 2+2 in the First Class coach you could get an extra 10, and if you squashed it up you'd get an extra row, so an additional 14 in total, giving 305 in total.
Still 45 difference, but not that bad. Could probably be handled OK by using 6-car 168 formations on the busiest services and the LHCS in the shoulder peak when 4.168 would be the norm.
You might even manage another 4-6 by removing luggage racks, Chiltern doesn't carry many people with massive luggage, and unlike the 168s the overheads are quite large.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Do the Mk5s have to be five coach sets ?. Depends what a 68 can handle I suppose. There will end up being a surplus of driving coaches, thats all !.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They are basically unpowered multiple units. It might be possible to reform them as you can things like Voyagers, but it won't be straightforward, and it would result in a surplus of non gangwayed loco end coaches AND driving coaches.
You could probably couple two sets back to back and haul from one end, but that would be too long for Chiltern.
It might not be too late to have CAF build extra vehicles to extend them to 6 or 7-car, though, TPE were, pre nationalisation, thinking of that. However I doubt any option involving significant outlay on them would be considered, particularly given than 4 or 5-car is a more normal Chiltern train length, only a few peak services are longer and could be run using 168s.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
I can imagine the maximum length would be 8 cars as that is what it is for the Mk5 sleeper stock.
Vanmanyo
Member
The current Chiltern 68 diagrams are purposely set out on busy peak and off peak time services, so you normally fill a 6 car set before Leamington/Banbury heading Southwards and usually fill them at Marylebone when heading Northbound so they would certainly need/want the same level of capacity on those diagrams. Perhaps if you converted the 1st class carriage to 2nd class there would be a similar number of seats? Chiltern desperately don't want to lose the mk3s without a replacement keeping or increasing capacity so that's the priority for them (for context most Birmingham London services could fill 6 carriages they just don't have enough stock)
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
50 fewer, approximately, I worked it out above.
If they used the Mk5s on services that are presently 4-car that'd free up 168s to run longer formations on the very busy trains.
warwickshire
On Moderation
One point of interest, if they actually did Cardiff to Edinburgh and Cardiff to Nottingham xc services, stabling wise might be quite easy down the Caf facility at Newport, all sets based there. Plus keeps Caf at Newport with some very long term work. But again very speculative.
IIRC the CAF facility at Newport isn't actually connected to the rail network.