TPE Nova 3 (Class 68 + Mk5s) updates and withdrawal from service

[D6130]

There only seemed to be one set left at Gas Wood when I passed through on Saturday....so presumably there are none there now.

 

[david l]

5Q33 Gascoigne Wood Sidings to Longsight TMD has run today.

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K08095/2024-01-15/detailed

68025 + TP02

 

[Jamesrob637]

68025 + TP02

I was a bit late on lunch and it was a bit early, plus I'm a 15-20min walk from the line by the most direct route so didn't see it. Less gutted though, than had it been a 37 or some other old thing pulling it.

 

[Greybeard33]

DRS has announced that it is disposing of all of its remaining six Class 37 locos. I suspect that this means that several of the ex-TPE 68s will be taking over freight duties from the 37s, so no longer available to haul Mk5a sets in future.

Direct Rail Services Announces Retirement of Class 37 Locomotives - Direct Rail Services

Direct Rail Services (DRS) is to retire its iconic Class 37 locomotives, marking the end of an era for these stalwarts of the rail industry. The decision comes as part of DRS’s commitment to the environment, fleet modernisation and adapting to evolving operational needs. Since their...

www.directrailservices.com

The decision to retire the Class 37 locomotives is driven by the need to modernise their fleet, embracing newer technologies, and meeting the environmental and operational challenges of the future. This move aligns with DRS’s commitment to providing efficient and sustainable rail services.

 

[bnsf734]

The TPE Class 68s are still on lease to TPE until later this year so are not available to DRS yet. Also according to the latest (February 2024) Modern Railways Chiltern are very interested in taking the Class 68s and Mark 5 sets on to replace their existing Mark 3 sets.

They already have a tender out for replacement stock, which seems to fit the Mark 5's. The tender mentions availability for training in 2024 and entry into service in 2025, so there is no time for any new builds.

 

[RHolmes]

The TPE Class 68s are still on lease to TPE until later this year so are not available to DRS yet.

A number are already sub-leased to DRS freight.

If DRS want to take on the remaining, There’s absolutely no reason for TPE to keep them sat in sidings at cost to themselves

Also according to the latest (February 2024) Modern Railways Chiltern are very interested in taking the Class 68s and Mark 5 sets on to replace their existing Mark 3 sets.

They already have a tender out for replacement stock, which seems to fit the Mark 5's. The tender mentions availability for training in 2024 and entry into service in 2025, so there is no time for any new builds.

 

[43096]

The TPE Class 68s are still on lease to TPE until later this year so are not available to DRS yet. Also according to the latest (February 2024) Modern Railways Chiltern are very interested in taking the Class 68s and Mark 5 sets on to replace their existing Mark 3 sets.

They already have a tender out for replacement stock, which seems to fit the Mark 5's. The tender mentions availability for training in 2024 and entry into service in 2025, so there is no time for any new builds.

The TPE 68s are leased from Beacon by DRS and then sub-leased from DRS to TPE. So the arrangement is Beacon > DRS > TPE.

A number are already sub-leased to DRS freight.

Sub-sub-leased, presumably. Beacon > DRS > TPE > DRS.

The interesting question is when does the DRS lease from Beacon end? You would hope that DRS have not committed beyond the end of the TPE sub-lease contract, but this is the organisation that ordered the Class 88s despite the contract they were ordered for being only at the bid stage (and was never won).

 

[JohnMcL7]

68022 came up to Scotland last December with the flasks so I assume DRS must be able to use at least some of them at the moment.

 

[D6975]

68022 is one of the four that were sub-sub leased back to DRS.

 

[yorksrob]

There are still far too many three carriage 185's running about on TPE's network.

When management and Government say that TPE have enough stock to run the service without mk5's, they are lying, pure and simple

 

[sjpowermac]

There are still far too many three carriage 185's running about on TPE's network.

When management and Government say that TPE have enough stock to run the service without mk5's, they are lying, pure and simple

And that’s even with the ‘small reduction in North Route services’, that in reality reduced from 4 to 3 per hour the number of services over the Pennines (with the 4 already being a reduction from the 5 pre-pandemic).

 

[yorksrob]

And that’s even with the ‘small reduction in North Route services’, that in reality reduced from 4 to 3 per hour the number of services over the Pennines (with the 4 already being a reduction from the 5 pre-pandemic).

Indeed.

 

[JonathanH]

There are still far too many three carriage 185's running about on TPE's network.

Are there far to many running with insufficient capacity, or far too many running?

When management and Government say that TPE have enough stock to run the service without mk5's, they are lying, pure and simple

The Mark 5s were a distraction, and not making it any easier to run the service

 

[D6700]

There are still far too many three carriage 185's running about on TPE's network.

When management and Government say that TPE have enough stock to run the service without mk5's, they are lying, pure and simple

Funnily enough, I travelled on the 10:20 from York to Manchester Airport on Tuesday, which was 3 vice 6, as advised by Journey Check and by the guard. From Leeds to Manchester, it was full and standing.

 

[yorksrob]

Are there far to many running with insufficient capacity, or far too many running?


The Mark 5s were a distraction, and not making it any easier to run the service

The first one.

There's no point running a timetable like clockwork if people can't get on.

Funnily enough, I travelled on the 10:20 from York to Manchester Airport on Tuesday, which was 3 vice 6, as advised by Journey Check and by the guard. From Leeds to Manchester, it was full and standing.

That doesn't surprise me !

 

[northernchris]

And that’s even with the ‘small reduction in North Route services’, that in reality reduced from 4 to 3 per hour the number of services over the Pennines (with the 4 already being a reduction from the 5 pre-pandemic).

Absolutely, I was on a 3 car 185 earlier today which was rammed from Huddersfield, and passengers were left behind at Dewsbury. Didn't help a large number of seats were reserved and luggage was blocking doorways and part of the aisle. The Nova 3s may not have provided much capacity given they spent the majority of their time out of service, but TPE need additional capacity as 3 trains per hour between Manchester and Leeds isn't enough.

 

[RHolmes]

They’ll be more capacity from December when 802’s start appearing on the Hull route releasing further 185’s but until then things will likely stay as they are.

Luckily the 185 refurbishment has been pushed back slightly is scheduled to take place in 2025 now

 

[sjpowermac]

They’ll be more capacity from December when 802’s start appearing on the Hull route releasing further 185’s but until then things will likely stay as they are.

Luckily the 185 refurbishment has been pushed back slightly is scheduled to take place in 2025 now

More jam tomorrow.

I thought that the ‘tweaked’ timetable introduced in December 2023 was so that TPE could reduce their training backlog.

The story presented by TPE was that this was to ensure drivers (and conductors) could learn the diversionary routes necessary to provide a service during TRU blockades.

How does introducing the need to traction train Hull drivers (and conductors) on Class 802 sets help with reducing the training backlog?

Absolutely, I was on a 3 car 185 earlier today which was rammed from Huddersfield, and passengers were left behind at Dewsbury. Didn't help a large number of seats were reserved and luggage was blocking doorways and part of the aisle. The Nova 3s may not have provided much capacity given they spent the majority of their time out of service, but TPE need additional capacity as 3 trains per hour between Manchester and Leeds isn't enough.

It’s beyond ridiculous.

 

[BoroAndy]

They’ll be more capacity from December when 802’s start appearing on the Hull route releasing further 185’s but until then things will likely stay as they are.

Luckily the 185 refurbishment has been pushed back slightly is scheduled to take place in 2025 now

And come spring onwards 6 cars will be needed on Scarborough lines for most of the day else complaints will go through the roof again

 

[317 forever]

They’ll be more capacity from December when 802’s start appearing on the Hull route releasing further 185’s but until then things will likely stay as they are.

Luckily the 185 refurbishment has been pushed back slightly is scheduled to take place in 2025 now

As it is, they are in quite good condition since their previous refurb anyway.

 

[RHolmes]

More jam tomorrow.

I thought that the ‘tweaked’ timetable introduced in December 2023 was so that TPE could reduce their training backlog.

The story presented by TPE was that this was to ensure drivers (and conductors) could learn the diversionary routes necessary to provide a service during TRU blockades.

How does introducing the need to traction train Hull drivers (and conductors) on Class 802 sets help with reducing the training backlog?

The training backlog is largely on its way to being solved, it’s another reason why there was minimal cancellations during the recent ASLEF rest day ban. All crews now sign a greater number of routes and diversions required by their respective links than compared to 2023.

Hull is the north routes least training intensive depot currently signing only two routes and one diversion. Liverpool and York already sign the route and traction between Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds. Guards only require a 3 day conversion course.

 

[sjpowermac]

The training backlog is largely on its way to being solved, it’s another reason why there was minimal cancellations during the recent ASLEF rest day ban. All crews now sign a greater number of routes and diversions required by their respective links than compared to 2023.

Hull is the north routes least training intensive depot currently signing only two routes and one diversion. Liverpool and York already sign the route and traction between Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds. Guards only require a 3 day conversion course.

You claim “the training backlog is largely on its way to being solved,” (and this is within two months of the reduced timetable being introduced), so can you explain why the reduced timetable is going to be in place for a further 10 months?

I would suggest to you that the reduction in the number of timetabled services on the North Route would account for much of the improvement in the proportion of services run during the ASLEF action.

In addition, it will be interesting to see how the Class 802 units are diagrammed on the Hull route. Presumably there will be at least some starting at Doncaster IEP depot and hence in addition to traction training for Hull drivers they will also need to route learn Doncaster-Hull.

In sum, the Class 802 traction and route learning for Hull drivers wasn’t one of the reasons given to Transport for the North for the reduced timetable for December 2023, so yet more smoke and mirrors from TPE.

You still haven’t answered the question as to how this reduces the training backlog, only waved your arms a bit and erroneously claimed that the training backlog is largely resolved (the situation has improved, but it most certainly is not largely resolved).

 

[RHolmes]

You claim “the training backlog is largely on its way to being solved,” (and this is within two months of the reduced timetable being introduced), so can you explain why the reduced timetable is going to be in place for a further 10 months?

It is largely on its way to being solved.

Whilst I don’t have the recent figures to hand, traincrew route and diversion knowledge has gone from 30% of drivers signing all routes and diversions in their link to 70% by December 23. That figure is much higher now

To my own knowledge, the current reduced timetable is currently delivering the most reliable service in recent years, allows for training to continue to take place on the diversions by utilising stock from peak service trains in the off-peak hours and is fairly matching the demands for most services (events such as football games excepted). I have to admit as traincrew I’m actually really surprised by how well things have improved.

If you want a more in-depth answer however, you’ll be better grilling the planning teams and directorate

I would suggest to you that the reduction in the number of timetabled services on the North Route would account for much of the improvement in the proportion of services run during the ASLEF action.

That’s incorrect, even during the action last years there was numerous drivers sat in mess rooms who could work trains but didn’t sign diversions or had their trains cancelled because services couldn’t be left at stations such as Leeds where the relieving crew didn’t have route knowledge.

In sum, the Class 802 traction and route learning for Hull drivers wasn’t one of the reasons given to Transport for the North for the reduced timetable for December 2023, so yet more smoke and mirrors from TPE.

It’s nothing to do with the reduced timetable, it’s purely down to utilising the fleet of trains more effectively than current.

The number of 802s available for service vs the number actually used in service isn’t economically sensible. The same reason 802’s are now utilised on selected Scarborough services, it’s simply trying to utilise the current fleet more effectively than current whilst also providing a capacity benefit.

You still haven’t answered the question as to how this reduces the training backlog, only waved your arms a bit and erroneously claimed that the training backlog is largely resolved (the situation has improved, but it most certainly is not largely resolved).

I haven’t said the introduction of 802s reduced/s the training backlog at any point.

If you find it erroneous that the current training backlog is largely resolved, then clearly you’re more knowledgeable than me and the information that’s being passed down from the directorate to stakeholders

 

[sjpowermac]

It is largely on its way to being solved.

Whilst I don’t have the recent figures to hand, traincrew route and diversion knowledge has gone from 30% of drivers signing all routes and diversions in their link to 70% by December 23. That figure is much higher now

To my own knowledge, the current reduced timetable is currently delivering the most reliable service in recent years, allows for training to continue to take place on the diversions by utilising stock from peak service trains in the off-peak hours and is fairly matching the demands for most services (events such as football games excepted). I have to admit as traincrew I’m actually really surprised by how well things have improved.

If you want a more in-depth answer however, you’ll be better grilling the planning teams and directorate

That’s incorrect, even during the action last years there was numerous drivers sat in mess rooms who could work trains but didn’t sign diversions or had their trains cancelled because services couldn’t be left at stations such as Leeds where the relieving crew didn’t have route knowledge.

It’s nothing to do with the reduced timetable, it’s purely down to utilising the fleet of trains more effectively than current.

The number of 802s available for service vs the number actually used in service isn’t economically sensible. The same reason 802’s are now utilised on selected Scarborough services, it’s simply trying to utilise the current fleet more effectively than current whilst also providing a capacity benefit.



I haven’t said the introduction of 802s reduced/s the training backlog at any point.

If you find it erroneous that the current training backlog is largely resolved, then clearly you’re more knowledgeable than me and the information that’s being passed down from the directorate to stakeholders

Thank you for the time you have taken to put that answer together, it’s most appreciated and very interesting.

What I’m still unfortunately failing to grasp is why if the training backlog has, in your words, largely been resolved within two months is it still necessary to continue with the reduced timetable for a further ten months.

If your assertions are true about the training backlog being ‘largely’ resolved, I do wonder why stakeholders are not pushing for an improvement in the timetable offer from June 2024 onwards.

It’s all well and good parroting the corporate line about matching capacity to demand during a quiet month like January, but I wonder if that match will really be quite as good if things pick up later in the year.

Are you seriously arguing that the December 2023 timetable is perfectly adequate and should just roll forward in perpetuity?

And come spring onwards 6 cars will be needed on Scarborough lines for most of the day else complaints will go through the roof again

From the above conversation it seems the training backlog is ‘largely’ resolved, but since capacity and demand are now so well matched there’s not really much reason to change the current timetable…

 

[RHolmes]

It’s all well and good parroting the corporate line about matching capacity to demand during a quiet month like January, but I wonder if that match will really be quite as good if things pick up later in the year.

Are you seriously arguing that the December 2023 timetable is perfectly adequate and should just roll forward in perpetuity?

No I don’t believe that, but at this exact moment the current reduced timetable is working. I can genuinely say I didn’t have much faith in it myself when it was proposed and then introduced, but have been pleasantly surprised that it has done so, and in some cases excelled my own expectations, particularly with how the Hull services are coping covering the Leeds-Huddersfield local stations despite some off-peak services being booked 3 carriages.

If passenger numbers do suddenly, sharply and rapidly climb then there will be issues but that is not the current situation at the moment in time.

 

[Geeves]

Just to back you Rholmes I can vouch that the services are 100 percent more reliable (than before) right now through Victoria and yes the services are reduced but the fact is on the old timetable you could easily go two or three hours without a single eastbound train and the ones that did run were so late they never made it their final destination all day.

Yes the reduction in capacity on paper isn't great but at least the services are reliable now and as said when you factor in all the times MK5 services didn't run I'd say the reduction isn't as bad as it looks purely down to the huge amount of cancelled trains

 

[Killingworth]

It is largely on its way to being solved.

Whilst I don’t have the recent figures to hand, traincrew route and diversion knowledge has gone from 30% of drivers signing all routes and diversions in their link to 70% by December 23. That figure is much higher now

To my own knowledge, the current reduced timetable is currently delivering the most reliable service in recent years, allows for training to continue to take place on the diversions by utilising stock from peak service trains in the off-peak hours and is fairly matching the demands for most services (events such as football games excepted). I have to admit as traincrew I’m actually really surprised by how well things have improved.

If you want a more in-depth answer however, you’ll be better grilling the planning teams and directorate

That’s incorrect, even during the action last years there was numerous drivers sat in mess rooms who could work trains but didn’t sign diversions or had their trains cancelled because services couldn’t be left at stations such as Leeds where the relieving crew didn’t have route knowledge.

It’s nothing to do with the reduced timetable, it’s purely down to utilising the fleet of trains more effectively than current.

The number of 802s available for service vs the number actually used in service isn’t economically sensible. The same reason 802’s are now utilised on selected Scarborough services, it’s simply trying to utilise the current fleet more effectively than current whilst also providing a capacity benefit.

I haven’t said the introduction of 802s reduced/s the training backlog at any point.

If you find it erroneous that the current training backlog is largely resolved, then clearly you’re more knowledgeable than me and the information that’s being passed down from the directorate to stakeholders

Having been at the recent Stakeholder Conference (and to previous years) a lot of information was given. Yes, we've heard all the platitudes before. The pain of users was certainly conveyed and and it was appreciated.

Chris Jackson was up front in accepting all the negatives in their recent performance - he was responsible for sending 6 coach Northern trains through the Hope Valley when TPE's South Pennine service fell apart in 2022 and knows the issues well. I have confidence that he will do his utmost to achieve the aims now set, although much will depend on lots of potentially conflicting issues, not least industrial relations.

Their plans for the future are intended to not over promise but to ensure they can deliver a robust timetable in 2024 ensuring that by December it is resilient enough to give a firm base for reliable delivery of the revised timetable into 2025. Impacting on rolling stock availability will be the 185 refresh programme including replacement seat covers in moquette, carpets and external vinyls. Attention is being given to achieving better availability of clean toilets throughout the day and servicing improvements should help. (The entire fleet should be getting the heavy duty moquette seat covers.)

Although the current training backlog is largely resolved there are still gaps, especially to cover diversionary routes at weekends.

 

[sjpowermac]

Although the current training backlog is largely resolved there are still gaps, especially to cover diversionary routes at weekends.

Again, something really doesn’t add up here. TPE claimed that the reductions in the December 2023 timetable were so that they could reduce their training backlog and now they claim that after two months that’s ’largely resolved.’

Were any specifics given at the conference on this topic?

I suspect it’s ’smoke and mirrors.’ When First Group lost TPE I think the figures for drivers signing all routes and traction in their link stood at something like 55%.

Since then there’s been quite a bit of low hanging fruit to boost the figures e.g. training Newcastle drivers on the York-Leeds via Castleford route, that I think only takes 3 days.

The big training need is getting more York drivers signed off on the Calder Valley route and that takes much longer per driver (16 days, I think).

So each percentage gain in the number of drivers who sign all traction and routes does not equate to the same number of days training.

Remarkable just how poorly elements within TfN hold TPE to account.

 

[Geeves]

Since the last time table change the amount of road learning trains going all over the Calder Valley has definitely increased. There's two following each other around 1000 from Vic every day and they are out up and down all day untill joining back up and forming a peak train back towards Leeds.

There's a third one that goes empty and road learns Castleford too.

 

[sjpowermac]

Since the last time table change the amount of road learning trains going all over the Calder Valley has definitely increased. There's two following each other around 1000 from Vic every day and they are out up and down all day untill joining back up and forming a peak train back towards Leeds.

There's a third one that goes empty and road learns Castleford too.

Yes indeed and this was the primary reason given for the reduction in the timetable from December 2023.

I’m not questioning if the route learning is taking place or not, because clearly it is.

What I am questioning is that two posters now have said that two months into the reduced timetable and TPE are saying that the training backlog has ‘largely’ been resolved.