Why did TPE go for three different Nova fleets?

[Bletchleyite]

Severe severe severe overcrowding to the point that hundreds of passengers were being left behind at various stations along ALL routes.

Indeed. Full and standing trains at pretty much all times of day. It had been an issue since the 3-car 158s were swapped for the much lower capacity 3-car 185s, and was getting worse. If you thought XC were bad...

 

[py_megapixel]

I don't deny that TPE was severely overcrowded, but that did not mean that this quantity of new build stuff had to be in service this quickly.

They could have done what TfW are doing, and got their hands on some cheap temporary kit (maybe some shortened HSTs or hell, even 180s, on some routes and then pairs of 185s on the others).

Or they could have taken what Hitachi could have given them there and then - possibly including the batch that was meant for sister company Hull Trains - and also kept the entire Desiro fleet until such time as Newton Aycliffe was less busy, allowing them to order as many 802s as needed.

Yes, I know this would have hurt the brand image, but so has the botched introduction of the new fleets thanks to the inadequacies of the CAF stock. In any case, they could have kept the old tainted FTPE branding until the new trains arrived, rather than attaching the shiny new North Star branding to the same poorly run, overcrowded network.

And now they are stuck with a fleet which will either be an operational hassle for many decades, or which the next franchisee will want to scrap and start again, consigning relatively modern trains to the scrapheap.

 

[Greybeard33]

Ah quite right you are, I think that's a signalling restriction? There's no physical reason why that need be the case.

Today, 4 coaches could (theoretically) mean anything from 80 to 104m given the variation in coach lengths, and in the not so distant past when we had Pacers, even 52m. So it's clearly somewhat of an outdated restriction.

I do not know the reason for the restriction. There are no mid-platform signals at the Airport and the Traksy diagram shows each platform as a single berth, so I doubt that it is signalling.

The Airport is under the control of the Manchester Piccadilly box.

 

[Wolfie]

I'm aware of that I was being sarcastic. The service agreement needs tearing up and re writing although I suspect the lawyers won't allow it unfortunately.

I'm sure, if you gave Agility enough (for which read lots!) money, they'd renegotiate.....

 

[sjpowermac]

You obviously haven’t travelled from Leeds to Manchester in the evening peak on a 3-car Class 185! Longer trains were needed around 2010, bringing the 350s in made more 185s available but resulted in the loss of the 170s. By 2018, things were at breaking point.

Spot on. Even on sections of the route, such as York to Leeds, where there were alternatives, the TPE trains were rammed throughout much of the day.

How silly though of TPE to plan on solving that problem as quickly as possible with new trains. Remiss too of TPE not to factor the possibility of a global pandemic into their franchise bid...

I’m shocked that they didn’t spot a fleet of six preserved Deltics, which together with some refurbished HST trailers would have been every bit as good

I don't deny that TPE was severely overcrowded, but that did not mean that this quantity of new build stuff had to be in service this quickly.

They could have done what TfW are doing, and got their hands on some cheap temporary kit (maybe some shortened HSTs or hell, even 180s, on some routes and then pairs of 185s on the others).

Or they could have taken what Hitachi could have given them there and then - possibly including the batch that was meant for sister company Hull Trains - and also kept the entire Desiro fleet until such time as Newton Aycliffe was less busy, allowing them to order as many 802s as needed.

Yes, I know this would have hurt the brand image, but so has the botched introduction of the new fleets thanks to the inadequacies of the CAF stock. In any case, they could have kept the old tainted FTPE branding until the new trains arrived, rather than attaching the shiny new North Star branding to the same poorly run, overcrowded network.

And now they are stuck with a fleet which will either be an operational hassle for many decades, or which the next franchisee will want to scrap and start again, consigning relatively modern trains to the scrapheap.

Regarding shortened HSTs, are you proposing that TPE should have used slam doors coaches? I think that would likely have added to dwell times and been something of a retrograde step.

FGW had the advantage of already operating HSTs so no (or very little) crew training to be done. This wouldn’t have been the case for TPE. Maintenance too was already sorted for FGW with Laira being responsible for the sets for many years and with other depots dotted around their network able to provide support.

Using Class 180s would eliminate the slam door problem but you would still be up against driver training on a new temporary fleet. Remember too that driver training isn’t easy over such a crowded network and with tight resources.

Regarding your earlier idea of using Class 91s/90s to haul stock on the WCML I’m doubtful that the engineering changes to the locos would have been cost effective in comparison with ordering new EMUs.

What do you feel has been ‘botched’ about the introduction of the new fleets? The reasons for the late introduction of the Nova 3 sets has been well documented in other threads.

The reason that more Nova 3 sets are not in daily traffic is that driver training ceased with the onset of the pandemic. The pandemic has also led to a backlog of training of staff who are new to the industry and of route learning ahead of the TransPennine Route Upgrade, all of which is somewhat out of the control of CAF.

I think a great many of the problems for the Nova 3 sets have arisen because there are not enough diagrams for them and hence they are not racking up the in service miles that they need. It’s easy to forget where the 80x fleets across the network were in the lower reaches of in service mileage.

I can only imagine what the rail forums experts would have been saying back in 1961 about the late introduction and problems of small fleet of locomotives on the ECML...

 

[Fokx]

Ah quite right you are, I think that's a signalling restriction? There's no physical reason why that need be the case.

I’m not completely sure if this is the actual answer, but thinking about the layout I strongly believe it may be to do with the position of the off indicators and TRTS points of which one is positioned for the ‘A’ and ‘B’ side of the platforms.

If a two carriage sprinter was to sit advance of a five carriage class 397, the conductor would have to walk back around two and a half carriage lengths to push the TRTS, see the off indicator and then walk the remaining length back to the train and then safely dispatch (causing delays)

 

[Clarence Yard]

I don't deny that TPE was severely overcrowded, but that did not mean that this quantity of new build stuff had to be in service this quickly.

They could have done what TfW are doing, and got their hands on some cheap temporary kit (maybe some shortened HSTs or hell, even 180s, on some routes and then pairs of 185s on the others).

Or they could have taken what Hitachi could have given them there and then - possibly including the batch that was meant for sister company Hull Trains - and also kept the entire Desiro fleet until such time as Newton Aycliffe was less busy, allowing them to order as many 802s as needed.

Yes, I know this would have hurt the brand image, but so has the botched introduction of the new fleets thanks to the inadequacies of the CAF stock. In any case, they could have kept the old tainted FTPE branding until the new trains arrived, rather than attaching the shiny new North Star branding to the same poorly run, overcrowded network.

And now they are stuck with a fleet which will either be an operational hassle for many decades, or which the next franchisee will want to scrap and start again, consigning relatively modern trains to the scrapheap.

You are forgetting the main reason why the mk 111 set never entered service - the outright refusal of the ORR to consider re-introducing slam door stock. As soon as TPE sorted out one “objection”, another one would pop up. In the end even the DfT said forget it.

Getting hold of alternative rolling stock only really works if you have the training capacity to deal with it. As the main problem with stock introduction on TPE has been getting the staff trained in time, I’m not sure pouring petrol on that particular fire would be a great idea.

The 350 units were retained for as long as they could (and that took some brokering with WM) and the purloining of the HT 802 units would have been a non starter. Nicking someone else’s trains like that gets you into hefty fine territory with the ORR, up to 10% of turnover for the relevant companies if you play fast and loose with the access and management regs or one of your TOCs licence conditions. Playing “train monopoly” isn’t an option in real life - you haven’t got that freedom.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You obviously haven’t travelled from Leeds to Manchester in the evening peak on a 3-car Class 185! Longer trains were needed around 2010, bringing the 350s in made more 185s available but resulted in the loss of the 170s. By 2018, things were at breaking point.

Longer trains were needed from day one. A 185 has a considerably lower capacity than a 3-car 158, and these were well-loaded at times. They should have been 4 or even 5-car from the start. Indeed, the 5-car 802, 397 and Mk5a formations would have been too short in very short order were it not for COVID.

You are forgetting the main reason why the mk 111 set never entered service - the outright refusal of the ORR to consider re-introducing slam door stock. As soon as TPE sorted out one “objection”, another one would pop up. In the end even the DfT said forget it.

No, it was because TPE weren't being reasonable. They wouldn't for instance offer a taxi immediately to any wheelchair user who showed up for one of the Mk3 trains, but only if the next one wasn't also accessible or somesuch. TPE botched it, not DaFT.

The 350 units were retained for as long as they could (and that took some brokering with WM) and the purloining of the HT 802 units would have been a non starter. Nicking someone else’s trains like that gets you into hefty fine territory with the ORR, up to 10% of turnover for the relevant companies if you play fast and loose with the access and management regs or one of your TOCs licence conditions. Playing “train monopoly” isn’t an option in real life - you haven’t got that freedom.

Hull Trains is an open access operator - a private business - who could withdraw all their services and sublease the units to TPE near-immediately if they so wished. Being owned by First would make this easier still.

It's nothing like a franchised operator misbehaving.

 

[DB]

Hull Trains is an open access operator - a private business - who could withdraw all their services and sublease the units to TPE near-immediately if they so wished. Being owned by First would make this easier still.

So having spent years building up the business, they could suddenly stop operating, then start again when it suited them? Not likely to do much for retention of business, is it?

(I know that has happened this year, but these haven't been normal circumstances).

 

[Bletchleyite]

So having spent years building up the business, they could suddenly stop operating, then start again when it suited them? Not likely to do much for retention of business, is it?

(I know that has happened this year, but these haven't been normal circumstances).

I'm not suggesting that FirstGroup would choose to do this, I'm simply suggesting that, provided their customers were refunded or given tickets for travel on other services, there is no rule that says they couldn't.

It appears in terms of withdrawal of open access services, there is more protection for local bus passengers than rail passengers.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Longer trains were needed from day one. A 185 has a considerably lower capacity than a 3-car 158, and these were well-loaded at times. They should have been 4 or even 5-car from the start. Indeed, the 5-car 802, 397 and Mk5a formations would have been too short in very short order were it not for COVID.



No, it was because TPE weren't being reasonable. They wouldn't for instance offer a taxi immediately to any wheelchair user who showed up for one of the Mk3 trains, but only if the next one wasn't also accessible or somesuch. TPE botched it, not DaFT.



Hull Trains is an open access operator - a private business - who could withdraw all their services and sublease the units to TPE near-immediately if they so wished. Being owned by First would make this easier still.

It's nothing like a franchised operator misbehaving.

Hull Trains were required, under the terms of their most recent track access agreement (resulting from their track access extension application) to introduce into service the Class 802 stock, to withdraw the Class 180 stock and to make a series of infrastructure upgrades necessary to operate the Class 802 stock.

The Class 802 stock introduction (and before it, the infrastructure upgrades) were to be completed before the May 2021 TT change (the principal contract change date for 2021) and the Class 180 stock had to be withdrawn by the May 2022 TT change (the principal contract change date for 2022).

The failure to introduce into service the new rolling stock would have expired the existing (as ammended) track access agreements, leaving Hull Trains out of business, possibly permanently.

You're also very, very, very badly mistaken if you think Hull Trains can withdraw all of their services with impunity. Their track access agreements include requirements on performance - they can't just decide to cancel services without good reason and acceptance from ORR. You can't just sit on paths and not use them, is the basic guiding principle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're also very, very, very badly mistaken if you think Hull Trains can withdraw all of their services with impunity. Their track access agreements include requirements on performance - they can't just decide to cancel services without good reason and acceptance from ORR. You can't just sit on paths and not use them, is the basic guiding principle.

No, but they could close the business entirely and relinquish the paths if they felt those 802s would be better off with TPE. A bit like Arriva did close WSMR and hand the stock over to Chiltern.

It's a big "if" (indeed, they probably would not choose that), but they could if they wanted to.

 

[DB]

No, but they could close the business entirely and relinquish the paths if they felt those 802s would be better off with TPE. A bit like Arriva did close WSMR and hand the stock over to Chiltern.

It's a big "if" (indeed, they probably would not choose that), but they could if they wanted to.

Different situation though, isn't it? Wrexham & Shropshire was losing money, whereas Hull Trains is profitable under normal circumstances and has been around much longer.

I can't see any reason why First would sacrifice a viable business which they own outright, for the sake of improving a short-term problem at one of their time-limited franchises.

 

[Gaz55]

So what are the chances of TPE placing an order for more new trains, probably 802's, if the 68/Mk5 combo doesn't improve over time. Like others have mentioned above, the new trains and the curveball of Covid have meant that overcrowding is less of an issue for TPE. But what will happen if numbers return over time. The 397s and Mk5s don't seem to have enough capacity long term.

 

[Richard Scott]

So what are the chances of TPE placing an order for more new trains, probably 802's, if the 68/Mk5 combo doesn't improve over time. Like others have mentioned above, the new trains and the curveball of Covid have meant that overcrowding is less of an issue for TPE. But what will happen if numbers return over time. The 397s and Mk5s don't seem to have enough capacity long term.

Suppose advantage of Mk5 sets is it'll be easier/cheapee to order and insert extra vehicles than in a DMU/EMU set, not as if 68s are lacking in power. Can also use electric locos if wire coverage allows?

 

[DB]

Suppose advantage of Mk5 sets is it'll be easier/cheapee to order and insert extra vehicles than in a DMU/EMU set, not as if 68s are lacking in power. Can also use electric locos if wire coverage allows?

Given that these are fixed-formation sets with a TMS, it may actually not be any easier in reality - they are pretty much an unpowered multiple unit.

The issue with electric locos is that the only ones likely to be easily compatible at the 88s, and there aren't enough of them even if DRS was prepared to lease the whole fleet.

 

[Fokx]

So what are the chances of TPE placing an order for more new trains, probably 802's, if the 68/Mk5 combo doesn't improve over time.

Absolutely minimal without any external funding

 

[Bletchleyite]

Different situation though, isn't it? Wrexham & Shropshire was losing money, whereas Hull Trains is profitable under normal circumstances and has been around much longer.

I can't see any reason why First would sacrifice a viable business which they own outright, for the sake of improving a short-term problem at one of their time-limited franchises.

I agree, and I don't think they would, I just think they could.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Longer trains were needed from day one. A 185 has a considerably lower capacity than a 3-car 158, and these were well-loaded at times. They should have been 4 or even 5-car from the start. Indeed, the 5-car 802, 397 and Mk5a formations would have been too short in very short order were it not for COVID.



No, it was because TPE weren't being reasonable. They wouldn't for instance offer a taxi immediately to any wheelchair user who showed up for one of the Mk3 trains, but only if the next one wasn't also accessible or somesuch. TPE botched it, not DaFT.



Hull Trains is an open access operator - a private business - who could withdraw all their services and sublease the units to TPE near-immediately if they so wished. Being owned by First would make this easier still.

It's nothing like a franchised operator misbehaving.

I’m not talking about the disabled issue with the mk 111’s - it was all the operational safety rocks that kept getting put in the way, the same style of obstructive attitude that I experienced again with the GW day coaches on the sleeper. The ORR have an anti slam door agenda and they are quite open about wanting to see an end to them on the national network. We, even at HQ level, could not shift them.

The other side of the ORR see themselves as the services champion when it comes to OA operations, as enforcement of franchised operations is effectively left to the DfT. After the W&S debacle, all OA operators were “invited” to look at the ORR’s enforcement powers and fines, if they chose to curtail services for anything other than economic reasons with the OA TOC itself.

OA operates in a Regulated environment so you just can’t cease operations in one operation so you can use the units elsewhere.If I decided to kill my profitable OA operation to sort out any franchise (or other OA) issue, the ORR could tell me not to and fine me if I did.

People think you have total economic freedom when it comes to operating an OA TOC - you don’t and that is intentional. The system was set up to curtail that kind of “Wild West” attitude to advertised OA passenger services.

 

[DunfordBridge]

Approx 1800 miles (though of course the kind of services run, i.e. Huddersfield stoppers vs Redcars cruising along the ECML, will also make a difference).

That's enough to last 2 days on almost any combination of diagrams. The issue is more with the toilets, as with typical use the water will run out and the "other" tank will be full well before that point.

Also if one engine happens to be isolated then the other two carriages' engines will have to work harder to compensate, and thus as there is no cross-carriage fuel transfer those carriages will run out of fuel sooner than the normal range.


It's not so much the length and weight - more the fact that the total fuel capacity is understandably lower with a class 68 than with a 185 or other distributed traction unit where you can have fuel tanks underneath each carriage.


Like with the pensions liability issue, this responsibility for this one can be squarely placed with a certain department.

There is the issue of when some of the three engines go into eco-mode. I am guessing this happens when the driver does not demand any power for a longish stretch. As you say, there will be no transfer of fuel between the three carriages.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

This thread does amuse me...

Not only is the answer to the question posed presumably now tattooed onto the inside of every forum members eyelids by now, but the near universal consensus is that more 802s would have been a better option. These being the same design of trains that are almost universally hated everywhere apart from TPE.

 

[sjpowermac]

This thread does amuse me...

Not only is the answer to the question posed presumably now tattooed onto the inside of every forum members eyelids by now, but the near universal consensus is that more 802s would have been a better option. These being the same design of trains that are almost universally hated everywhere apart from TPE.

If you’ve enjoyed this thread, there’s another linked below that you might like.

It starts out sensibly enough but gets into recasting the whole timetable just to eliminate the 68s!

The thread ends when someone with an engineering background arrives and starts talking sense, hence the need for this new thread. I’m sure they are started by people in the pay of Hitachi

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/could-tpe-ditch-the-mk5-sets.212361/

I’m not talking about the disabled issue with the mk 111’s - it was all the operational safety rocks that kept getting put in the way, the same style of obstructive attitude that I experienced again with the GW day coaches on the sleeper. The ORR have an anti slam door agenda and they are quite open about wanting to see an end to them on the national network. We, even at HQ level, could not shift them.

The other side of the ORR see themselves as the services champion when it comes to OA operations, as enforcement of franchised operations is effectively left to the DfT. After the W&S debacle, all OA operators were “invited” to look at the ORR’s enforcement powers and fines, if they chose to curtail services for anything other than economic reasons with the OA TOC itself.

OA operates in a Regulated environment so you just can’t cease operations in one operation so you can use the units elsewhere.If I decided to kill my profitable OA operation to sort out any franchise (or other OA) issue, the ORR could tell me not to and fine me if I did.

People think you have total economic freedom when it comes to operating an OA TOC - you don’t and that is intentional. The system was set up to curtail that kind of “Wild West” attitude to advertised OA passenger services.

Many thanks for this, a very informative read and one that puts to bed many of the wild propositions of the thread!

 

[DB]

This thread does amuse me...

Not only is the answer to the question posed presumably now tattooed onto the inside of every forum members eyelids by now, but the near universal consensus is that more 802s would have been a better option. These being the same design of trains that are almost universally hated everywhere apart from TPE.

Whether or not they are liked, it's basic business logic to have one fleet rather than three if possible. It's also business logic to go for the tried and tested one.

As regards the passenger experience, there's little to choose between any of the three fleets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As regards the passenger experience, there's little to choose between any of the three fleets.

Depends on which class, I'd say. The Mk5a 1st is truly special, but the Standard is the worst of the three due to the fairly small windows and pitiful alignment "effort". The 397 probably has the best Standard with 100% window alignment (though no blinds, if you like those). The 802 is probably in the middle on both.

 

[Liverpool 507]

Depends on which class, I'd say. The Mk5a 1st is truly special, but the Standard is the worst of the three due to the fairly small windows and pitiful alignment "effort". The 397 probably has the best Standard with 100% window alignment (though no blinds, if you like those). The 802 is probably in the middle on both.

There’s not much that can be done to adjust the Mk5A standard seating alignment. Don’t forget that these coaches were designed by CAF solely for and based around the Caledonian Sleeper. The TPE order was just a follow on, if that’s the right way of putting it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There’s not much that can be done to adjust the Mk5A standard seating alignment.

Au contraire, as the window bays are about the same size as those of the 802 and those have better alignment. It would require more airline seating and fewer tables, though.

 

[YorksLad12]

Au contraire, as the window bays are about the same size as those of the 802 and those have better alignment. It would require more airline seating and fewer tables, though.

I don't get the obsession with tables. When I commuted Leeds to Sheffield, the tables were always last to be taken. They're harder to get in to and out of as well. On purely leisure services I can understand it, you might be part of a (family) group. But even LNER's 802s only have eight tables per carriage in Standard. A whole coachful (nearly) is excessive!

 

[43 302]

I don't get the obsession with tables. When I commuted Leeds to Sheffield, the tables were always last to be taken. They're harder to get in to and out of as well. On purely leisure services I can understand it, you might be part of a (family) group. But even LNER's 802s only have eight tables per carriage in Standard. A whole coachful (nearly) is excessive!

I've never heard of someone who prefers airline seats to tables!

 

[CBlue]

I've never heard of someone who prefers airline seats to tables!

When travelling solo I tend to prefer the airline seats if they have seatback tables. Gives me somewhere to put my coffee and you don't end up getting squeezed out by travelling groups!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't get the obsession with tables. When I commuted Leeds to Sheffield, the tables were always last to be taken. They're harder to get in to and out of as well. On purely leisure services I can understand it, you might be part of a (family) group. But even LNER's 802s only have eight tables per carriage in Standard. A whole coachful (nearly) is excessive!

Generally, commuters prefer airline seats and leisure travellers tables so they can sit together (they are much more likely to be in groups e.g. families). Though this is shifting as tables ease using a laptop.

I've never heard of someone who prefers airline seats to tables!

I'd rather have a table when travelling alone if, and only if, there is no more than 1 other person at it, sitting diagonally opposite. Otherwise, provided the legroom is adequate, I'd rather airline.