TPE Mark 5A coaching stock progress

[Ben Bow]

What little "official" information that has been released mentions build quality issues and problems with (lack of/inadequate) documentation on maintenence procedures. I don't think it's speaking out of turn to say it has been a steep learning curve for all parties involved. CAF's continued support to get over the final few hurdles is crucial....

 

[sjpowermac]

What little "official" information that has been released mentions build quality issues and problems with (lack of/inadequate) documentation on maintenence procedures. I don't think it's speaking out of turn to say it has been a steep learning curve for all parties involved. CAF's continued support to get over the final few hurdles is crucial....

Thank you for that, interesting about the documentation. The point I was trying to get across was that new DMU/EMU/locomotives are pretty complex pieces of kit, particularly in relation to traction packages and signal interference. The bit of the Nova 3 that’s on test is unpowered coaches and a driving trailer.

 

[samuelmorris]

Thank you for that, interesting about the documentation. The point I was trying to get across was that new DMU/EMU/locomotives are pretty complex pieces of kit, particularly in relation to traction packages and signal interference. The bit of the Nova 3 that’s on test is unpowered coaches and a driving trailer.

A driving trailer that includes a cab and all the associated equipment which has to negotiate, via the other unpowered coaches, communication with a locomotive built by a different manufacturer, and meet standards in a country the manufacturer hasn't produced rolling stock for in nearly 20 years.

 

[Spartacus]

The Mk5s don't have a great deal in common with previous stock & DT formations, more like a modern version of the Southern 4TCs, like a multiple unit with power all in one vehicle, with all the additional modern complications over and beyond what's gone before, even the 68s are modified to work with them. It's now 30 years since the Mk4s were built.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Mk5s don't have a great deal in common with previous stock & DT formations, more like a modern version of the Southern 4TCs

Indeed so - they are basically an unpowered multiple unit with (unlike the 4-TC) a cab on only one end.

I'm confused, though, as to why that was seen as best - I'd have gone more traditional and had all the "special stuff" (1st, wheelchair spaces, kitchen, guard) in the driving trailer, and 4 identical TSOs, which could have been reformed if necessary. I could see it making sense in the future to form them into longer sets, which in this case could have involved coupling them into 10-car sets with a cab on both ends. Even that isn't possible because of the "flat end". It seems it's actually easier to reform Class 22x (and definitely 15x where each coach is self contained) than something that isn't meant to be a MU!

 

[Ben Bow]

The original plan, all those years ago, was that the sets would enter service top and tailed by 68's with the driving trailers being built last and replacing one 68. That is one reason why first class had to be in an intermediate vehicle.
It's not necessarily "complexity" in itself which is causing problems, it's a difference in expectations between manufactor and customer about how issues which are presenting during testing and commissioning should be dealt with. I don't think CAF were expecting to provide the level of support which the customer was expecting to receive.

 

[sjpowermac]

A driving trailer that includes a cab and all the associated equipment which has to negotiate, via the other unpowered coaches, communication with a locomotive built by a different manufacturer, and meet standards in a country the manufacturer hasn't produced rolling stock for in nearly 20 years.

You mentioned a ‘driving trailer that includes a cab’, I’m not sure I can think of an example of a driving trailer that doesn’t include a cab and control equipment.

There are many examples of locomotives working with coaches and driving trailers not built by the same manufacturer. A recent example would be the Class 68 plus the Mk3 DVT as used on Chiltern.

I’m not saying that introducing new stock is easy, but I think loco plus stock plus dvt at least doesn’t have all the problems of traction packages that EMU/DMU/new locos would have.

 

[sjpowermac]

The original plan, all those years ago, was that the sets would enter service top and tailed by 68's with the driving trailers being built last and replacing one 68. That is one reason why first class had to be in an intermediate vehicle.
It's not necessarily "complexity" in itself which is causing problems, it's a difference in expectations between manufactor and customer about how issues which are presenting during testing and commissioning should be dealt with. I don't think CAF were expecting to provide the level of support which the customer was expecting to receive.

Thank you again for that. That does make things clearer that it’s not ‘complexity’ of the rolling stock that’s a problem but rather contractual or at least customer expectations at the heart of things.

Either way round, a May timetable start begins to look a bit heroic!

 

[LOL The Irony]

68025 Superb has been down the side of the International Depot all day (It had a wheel chocked when I came back from Manchester) and a MK5 set has been sitting the otherside of Longsight as well.

 

[Erniescooper]

68025 Superb has been down the side of the International Depot all day (It had a wheel chocked when I came back from Manchester) and a MK5 set has been sitting the otherside of Longsight as well.

It’s awaiting tyre turning after picking up some flats and sorry to be the railway pedant but it is scotched not chocked as it isn’t an airplane.

 

[LOL The Irony]

sorry to be the railway pedant but it is scotched not chocked as it isn’t an airplane.

Let's call it a device that stops a vehicle from moving then and call it a day.

 

[Erniescooper]

Let's call it a device that stops a vehicle from moving then and call it a day.

It’s a bit long winded. Mk5a and 397 should both be running from Monday next week including 397001 making its debut out of MID.

 

[BMIFlyer]

Don't forget that it's not just a '68' but it's a modified 68, which has been fitted with lots of additional CAF equipment.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's not necessarily "complexity" in itself which is causing problems, it's a difference in expectations between manufactor and customer about how issues which are presenting during testing and commissioning should be dealt with. I don't think CAF were expecting to provide the level of support which the customer was expecting to receive.

The problems with CAF's 4 new UK fleets can't be helping their aspirations to supply HS2 rolling stock.
The "usual suspects" (ie Alstom, Bombardier/Hitachi and Siemens), do at least know how the UK procurement system works.
But it's new to CAF and Talgo.
(Not that Bombardier is having much more success with their 345s).

 

[sjpowermac]

Don't forget that it's not just a '68' but it's a modified 68, which has been fitted with lots of additional CAF equipment.

Do the modifications go beyond what’s needed to make the locomotive ‘talk’ to the driving trailer, plus of course the destination blinds?

All ways round, best wishes to all those trying to get the new trains in to service

 

[samuelmorris]

The problems with CAF's 4 new UK fleets can't be helping their aspirations to supply HS2 rolling stock.
The "usual suspects" (ie Alstom, Bombardier/Hitachi and Siemens), do at least know how the UK procurement system works.
But it's new to CAF and Talgo.
(Not that Bombardier is having much more success with their 345s).

Frankly, based on the UK's past experience introducing Alstom stock and their current experience introducing Bombardier/Hitachi stock, CAF are probably coming off as one of the better bidders for that, probably only behind Siemens.

You mentioned a ‘driving trailer that includes a cab’, I’m not sure I can think of an example of a driving trailer that doesn’t include a cab and control equipment.

Of course, that's not what I meant to imply - more that, a 'driving trailer' isn't as simple as it's being made out to be. Looking at the sort of faults that are rife when new trains are introduced, not that much of it is actually down to the traction gear. Train management system software issues, signalling systems integration, brakes etc., as well as methods of operation (signal sighting issues and so on) tend to be more prevalent in most cases. The DTs here will be affected much the same as full multiple units by basically all of these issues.

 

[BMIFlyer]

Do the modifications go beyond what’s needed to make the locomotive ‘talk’ to the driving trailer, plus of course the destination blinds?

All ways round, best wishes to all those trying to get the new trains in to service

Yes.

Lots of stuff including:

CAF Control (so the loco can talk to the DT)
ASDO system
Door Controls for the coaches
PIS System and destination screens
Additional TMS system for the coaches
CCTV system (front facing from the cab and also a screen for interior of the coaches)
Slightly reconfigured cab layout to fit all the new kit.

 

[sjpowermac]

Of course, that's not what I meant to imply - more that, a 'driving trailer' isn't as simple as it's being made out to be. Looking at the sort of faults that are rife when new trains are introduced, not that much of it is actually down to the traction gear. Train management system software issues, signalling systems integration, brakes etc., as well as methods of operation (signal sighting issues and so on) tend to be more prevalent in most cases. The DTs here will be affected much the same as full multiple units by basically all of these issues.

The Class 91 is a very complex piece of kit, delivered February 1988, first passenger service operated March the following year, and with a DVT from a different manufacturer.

I’m not sure that you are correct about traction gear not being a problem, the Azuma trains for LNER seem to be having a few problems with signal interference, or at least that’s my understanding of why for a time they were banned from operating on electric traction north of Colton Junction.

The Nova 3 looks like a fantastic piece of kit, and I’m sure it’s going to be a huge success for TPE. I certainly wish them the best of luck with introducing the sets in (hopefully!) the near future.

 

[samuelmorris]

The Class 91 is a very complex piece of kit, delivered February 1988, first passenger service operated March the following year, and with a DVT from a different manufacturer.

I’m not sure that you are correct about traction gear not being a problem, the Azuma trains for LNER seem to be having a few problems with signal interference, or at least that’s my understanding of why for a time they were banned from operating on electric traction north of Colton Junction.

The Nova 3 looks like a fantastic piece of kit, and I’m sure it’s going to be a huge success for TPE. I certainly wish them the best of luck with introducing the sets in (hopefully!) the near future.

Yes indeed, hence 'not that much'. I haven't actually seen any official confirmation that this particular issue has been rectified yet, but it's the only such example I can recall in recent memory.

 

[sjpowermac]

Yes.

Lots of stuff including:

CAF Control (so the loco can talk to the DT)
ASDO system
Door Controls for the coaches
PIS System and destination screens
Additional TMS system for the coaches
CCTV system (front facing from the cab and also a screen for interior of the coaches)
Slightly reconfigured cab layout to fit all the new kit.

Many thanks for the reply, greatly appreciated. Lots there to interface with the existing kit on the loco.

Are you allowed to divulge if/where there are problems? I’m guessing probably no!

Either way, as before, best of luck in getting them in service. I feel sure they will go down very well

 

[sjpowermac]

Yes indeed, hence 'not that much'. I haven't actually seen any official confirmation that this particular issue has been rectified yet, but it's the only such example I can recall in recent memory.

Class 390 had much the same problem according to Roger Ford in ‘Modern Railways’ Informed Sources.

 

[samuelmorris]

They may well have done, but that was over 15 years ago now surely?

 

[sjpowermac]

They may well have done, but that was over 15 years ago now surely?

I think we are both guilty of ‘thread drift’ now! Yes 390s would be around 15 years ago.

In conclusion, we’ve had two slightly different views from folk who seem close to the source. ‘BMI Flyer’ confirmed lots of extra CAF kit in the Class 68. ‘Benbow’ felt that the delays were down to the manufacturer being taken by surprise at the level of support expected by the customer.

All ways round, choose where the reality lies, the trains are late in being introduced on to a line where they’ve been needed for a long time. Hence my best wishes to those involved in the introduction

 

[LOL The Irony]

They may well have done, but that was over 15 years ago now surely?

Yes, it was over 15 years ago.

 

[BMIFlyer]

In response to your quiery I do know what the issues are but can’t divilge. Rest assured they are being sorted, it’s why testing is done after all.

 

[sjpowermac]

In response to your quiery I do know what the issues are but can’t divilge. Rest assured they are being sorted, it’s why testing is done after all.

Thanks

 

[anamyd]

The Mk5s don't have a great deal in common with previous stock & DT formations, more like a modern version of the Southern 4TCs, like a multiple unit with power all in one vehicle, with all the additional modern complications over and beyond what's gone before, even the 68s are modified to work with them. It's now 30 years since the Mk4s were built.

The build started in 1989 but finished in 1992.

 

[anamyd]

the UK's past experience introducing Alstom stock

which would have been a different experience had they not specified cost cut designs

 

[43096]

You mentioned a ‘driving trailer that includes a cab’, I’m not sure I can think of an example of a driving trailer that doesn’t include a cab and control equipment.

A driving trailer without a cab is just a trailer!

 

[LittleAH]

I wonder where the problems have been/are with the Mk5a stock? I’m certainly not an engineer but I’d guess the most complex part of the Nova 3 is the Class 68 and that’s already a design with thousands of miles in passenger service. I know there’s the Driving Trailer but the time taken to get a rake of coaches certified starts to look a bit excessive.

Of course, no disrespect to anyone involved in the testing process, there quite probably are factors at play that enthusiasts are not aware of.

A bad look for CAF. First the Caledonian Sleeper's, then the TPE Mk5a's. Wonder if the Northern's units will be ready for May...