TPE fleet - are the Mk5s the right choice?

[Ben Bow]

Moderator Note: Posts #1 - #20 originally in this thread:

TPE Mark 5A coaching stock progress

An image of the first Mark 5A bodyshell to be completed for Transpennine Express have been released by CAF. Given the porthole window where the gangway connection would usually be, I wonder whether it's an end vehicle. RTM have fluffed the report a bit by claiming that the mark 5 carriages will...

www.railforums.co.uk

It is true to say that there was a lack of engineering oversight on the part of TPE during the build process, which is now causing problems. TPE's only experience of procuring new trains was from Siemens. Could I politely suggest that CAF are not in the same league in terms of quality. TPE were very focused on getting a high quality passenger experience, which, in terms of interior layout, seat comfort compared to o other recent new trains, and general ambience, has largely been achieved. Unfortunately, the engineering side is dire. If the Nova 3's were replacing old, worn out, unreliable stock then you could probably reluctantly accept that, but the 185's are a very good train, multiple Golden Spanners winners and although they are not without some issues, in general a very pleasant train to travel in. Its difficult to justify spending thousands, perhaps millions on rectifying the Nova 3's and further staff training to replace the 185's with a clearly inferior product.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TPE were very focused on getting a high quality passenger experience, which, in terms of interior layout, seat comfort compared to o other recent new trains, and general ambience, has largely been achieved.

Excuse me while I have a fit of laughter. Fainsa Sophia seating does not provide "a high quality passenger experience", nor do Standard Class vehicles with small windows and poor alignment. So if someone said that they need to be looking for a new job.

I agree the 185s are superior - better seats and near-full alignment. They're just too short, but running them in pairs solves that.

The Mk5a First Class is a masterpiece, but Standard really is dross bar the colour scheme.

 

[Ben Bow]

If you're expecting large plush seats with acres of legroom on a new build these days you're going to be disappointed. In comparison to other modern designs, the interior layout of the TPE mk.5's is one of the better ones, I can think of much, much worse. Comparing them with designs from 50 or 60 years ago is pointless, we are where we are today.

The vital element is getting any engineering expertise the TOC may have, engaged in the design and build process at suitable key opportunities. But that is also dependent on how any such engineering function is valued within the TOC itself.....

Reliability figures are poor, but consider that many "failures" are not being recorded as they do not lead to delay or cancellation because they are occurring on depot before entering traffic, so a 185 can be substituted, as today for example. I thought there was a misprint in Roger Ford's new trains reliability table in the latest 'Modern Railways' for the number of techincal incidents which the Nova 3's had recorded per 100k miles (72.9) for the period he was reviewing. And that's with a very low level of availability required - 3 out of 9 sets per day is it? 33%.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you're expecting large plush seats with acres of legroom on a new build these days you're going to be disappointed.

I'm expecting two things:
1. A seat where the user can't feel the frame through it;
2. Seats at least vaguely aligned to the windows

A number of new designs have achieved this, so anything else is an excuse.

In comparison to other modern designs, the interior layout of the TPE mk.5's is one of the better ones, I can think of much, much worse.

Like what?

Comparing them with designs from 50 or 60 years ago is pointless, we are where we are today.

I'm comparing them to Class 185s, which are better in the way of:-
1. Near-full window alignment
2. Better seats
3. Better build quality

The 185 only loses on noise from underfloor engines, but it's not that bad.

You can't expect to replace something with something markedly inferior and not get called out on it. The same is likely to happen on the south WCML - we like our Desiros, you know.

 

[Roger B]

I wonder if this post is as accurate as your first, and the subsequent ones that Philip has made?

Have you had sight of the contracts? I haven’t and hence prefer to stick with information that’s firstly in the public domain and secondly not written with the benefit of hindsight.

It’s easy to forget the situation TPE had been in for several years, passenger demand far outstripped capacity and as I understand it the company acted to try and increase that capacity as quickly as possible.

That things didn’t work out that way is well documented both in this thread and elsewhere. Perhaps you would be kind enough to say why you feel the need to go back over things that have already been covered many times over? Do you have some inside information to share?

I’m sorry if there are inaccuracies in my post. Could you could be more specific – I’m always up for being corrected, if I get things wrong. Re-reading Philp's comments (and his subsequent ones), we appear to be pretty much on the same page.

No, I’ve not had sight of the contracts, nor do I have access to inside information. But I have read in several places that Stadler / CAF have been unwilling to share proprietary data re communication between 68s and DTs, which is unlikely to have happened had relevant undertakings been incorporated within legally enforceable contracts.

Perhaps they were in the contracts, but then it’s difficult to understand why TPE has not sought redress through the courts (or perhaps it has, but this is not in the public domain?). Isn’t it more likely that they weren’t in the contracts, than TPE has chosen not to seek enforcement (given the costs TPE has incurred)? But I could be wrong – it would be interesting to know definitively one way or the other – can anyone enlighten me/us?

Yes, I do remember TPE’s predicament, but it seems that TPE took a gamble on the 68s/Mk5s that hasn’t come off, and further, that they should have known it wouldn’t come off without assurances about communication between 68s and DTs. That said, I am aware that many people have been working extremely hard to rectify the situation, and it’s a credit to them that the problems are now largely resolved. And I genuinely want to see the Nova3 project succeed (and not just for loco haulage!).

Unfortunately, the situation concerning TPE’s 68s and DTs may not be a ‘one off’. For Crossrail, Siemens’ signalling solution was chosen for the central section, the plan being to buy Siemens’ trains. And then it was decided to switch to Bombardier trains. I’ve read that trying to get Siemens’ signalling solution and Bombardier’s trains to communicate properly is giving Crossrail’s engineers similar headaches to those experienced by TPE, and is a significant contributing factor to the ongoing Crossrail delays.

Which leads to my main motivation, which is to see the railway acknowledging and learning from (ie not repeating) costly mistakes that damage the railway’s reputation. I’m no advocate for the legal profession generally, but the increasing prevalence of critical dependencies between different suppliers heightens the need to ensure contracts anticipate and include all factors necessary for successful implementation and operation over expected service life. Prevention is nearly always less costly than cure.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Excuse me while I have a fit of laughter. Fainsa Sophia seating does not provide "a high quality passenger experience", nor do Standard Class vehicles with small windows and poor alignment. So if someone said that they need to be looking for a new job.

I agree the 185s are superior - better seats and near-full alignment. They're just too short, but running them in pairs solves that.

The Mk5a First Class is a masterpiece, but Standard really is dross bar the colour scheme.

Double 185s is the perfect solution. A 185 but built 6-car from the off would have been amazing. In the same way that a Metrolink tram built double-length from the off would've been amazing too.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Double 185s is the perfect solution. A 185 but built 6-car from the off would have been amazing. In the same way that a Metrolink tram built double-length from the off would've been amazing too.

It was always said at the time it was a shame they didn't opt for a diesel version of the Class 444.

 

[Jamesrob637]

It was always said at the time it was a shame they didn't opt for a diesel version of the Class 444.

I'd love to have seen that but the end doors might have posed an issue with Leeds and Manchester commuters. 444s are not good on Guildford to London semi-fasts which double up as commuter services. Obviously less of an issue in these strange times.

 

[Nymanic]

It was always said at the time it was a shame they didn't opt for a diesel version of the Class 444.

I'm struggling to find it online, but an original artist's impression of the Class 185 did feature end doors, and a rather striking front end design, but no corridor connections. The final design was quite a contrast.

 

[37201xoIM]

I'm seeing a few old-chestnut urban myths being re-hashed here... Worth perhaps pointing out that:
1. The Nova 3 fleet is not furiously reliable, of course, but is regularly the best - OK, the least unreliable - of the three new TPE fleets in MTIN terms and is comparable generally with 185 levels (granted because the latter has dipped in recent years!).
2. It was indeed specified that Mark 5As should be able to run with an electric loco, with 68s being an interim option (have a look in the franchise agreement if you're bored). The idea was that these would take over the fully electric routes (Edinburgh/ Newcastle - MIA / Liverpool) after TRU, with 802s swapping to Middlesbrough / Redcar / Scarborough and potentially Hull. The Mark 5As were, of course, specified and designed to be 125mph-capable.
3. It follows from 2 that an all-802 fleet for the North TP route would hardly have been very sensible, as you would, post-electrification, have an inappropriate unit on the ECML - MIA / LIV services; in other words, you'd be looking for a new fleet after TRU.
4. If, conversely, you'd been designing a fleet on the assumption that (gods forbid!) the Diggle line would never be electrified, it does not seem easy to argue that an 802 would have been the best choice, given its lacklustre performance in diesel mode.

 

[43 302]

I'm seeing a few old-chestnut urban myths being re-hashed here... Worth perhaps pointing out that:
1. The Nova 3 fleet is not furiously reliable, of course, but is regularly the best - OK, the least unreliable - of the three new TPE fleets in MTIN terms and is comparable generally with 185 levels (granted because the latter has dipped in recent years!).
2. It was indeed specified that Mark 5As should be able to run with an electric loco, with 68s being an interim option (have a look in the franchise agreement if you're bored). The idea was that these would take over the fully electric routes (Edinburgh/ Newcastle - MIA / Liverpool) after TRU, with 802s swapping to Middlesbrough / Redcar / Scarborough and potentially Hull. The Mark 5As were, of course, specified and designed to be 125mph-capable.
3. It follows from 2 that an all-802 fleet for the North TP route would hardly have been very sensible, as you would, post-electrification, have an inappropriate unit on the ECML - MIA / LIV services; in other words, you'd be looking for a new fleet after TRU.
4. If, conversely, you'd been designing a fleet on the assumption that (gods forbid!) the Diggle line would never be electrified, it does not seem easy to argue that an 802 would have been the best choice, given its lacklustre performance in diesel mode.

According to DRS the conversion from class 68 to 88 isn't hard or costly so we may even see that instead of complete replacement with electric locos.

 

[Richard Scott]

The 185 only loses on noise from underfloor engines, but it's not that bad.

What about fuel consumption? This surely has to be taken into account? Would've thought 6 Cummins engines consume considerably more fuel than the one CAT engine in the 68? Happy to be proved wrong, would be interested in the figures.

 

[SuperNova]

I'm seeing a few old-chestnut urban myths being re-hashed here... Worth perhaps pointing out that:
1. The Nova 3 fleet is not furiously reliable, of course, but is regularly the best - OK, the least unreliable - of the three new TPE fleets in MTIN terms and is comparable generally with 185 levels (granted because the latter has dipped in recent years!).
2. It was indeed specified that Mark 5As should be able to run with an electric loco, with 68s being an interim option (have a look in the franchise agreement if you're bored). The idea was that these would take over the fully electric routes (Edinburgh/ Newcastle - MIA / Liverpool) after TRU, with 802s swapping to Middlesbrough / Redcar / Scarborough and potentially Hull. The Mark 5As were, of course, specified and designed to be 125mph-capable.
3. It follows from 2 that an all-802 fleet for the North TP route would hardly have been very sensible, as you would, post-electrification, have an inappropriate unit on the ECML - MIA / LIV services; in other words, you'd be looking for a new fleet after TRU.
4. If, conversely, you'd been designing a fleet on the assumption that (gods forbid!) the Diggle line would never be electrified, it does not seem easy to argue that an 802 would have been the best choice, given its lacklustre performance in diesel mode.

On point 3 - I believe that in the case of the 802's, that two of the engines can be taken out by Hitachi.
On point 4 - The 802's I think lose a few minutes between Huddersfield and Man Vic. That's why the Nova 3's are good - got the power with the 68's, love the noise through Standedge and I'd not even regard myself as an enthusiast.

However, as you point out in point 1, Nova 3's have been a lot more reliable that the other two fleets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, as you point out in point 1, Nova 3's have been a lot more reliable that the other two fleets.

I think that sums it up nicely. 80x are boring but solid and reliable. The other kit is more interesting but is poorly engineered and built.

 

[SuperNova]

I think that sums it up nicely. 80x are boring but solid and reliable. The other kit is more interesting but is poorly engineered and built.

Actually, that's not the case. There's been a fair few issues with the Nova 1's (802s).

 

[BeHereNow]

However, as you point out in point 1, Nova 3's have been a lot more reliable that the other two fleets.

That's really interesting. So I wonder why all sets haven't been accepted then?

 

[sjpowermac]

That's really interesting. So I wonder why all sets haven't been accepted then?

As I understand it, each set undergoes a period of fault free running (FFR) prior to being accepted by TPE.

The FFR trains are operated by Freightliner and the acceptance involves TPE and CAF staff. The trains were suspended between March and (I think) August due to the pandemic.

Hope that helps.

 

[Ben Bow]

However, as you point out in point 1, Nova 3's have been a lot more reliable that the other two fleets.

Period 5 reliability figures:

NOVA 1 - 20,000
NOVA 2 - 9,000
NOVA 3 - 5,500

 

[43 302]

Period 5 reliability figures:

NOVA 1 - 20,000
NOVA 2 - 9,000
NOVA 3 - 5,500

I assume those statistics are MTIN - Miles per technical incident?

 

[37201xoIM]

Period 5 reliability figures:

NOVA 1 - 20,000
NOVA 2 - 9,000
NOVA 3 - 5,500

Interesting, that's a reversal of the previous situation: a dip in Nova 3 and something of a surge in both of the others (especially the hitherto dire Nova 2 numbers!). That can of course happen in one period when you have such a small fleet: don't need a lot of individual incidents in the Mark 5A fleet to make this happen in a single period. However, if this persists, then my statement above will of course become wrong!

I think that sums it up nicely. 80x are boring but solid and reliable. The other kit is more interesting but is poorly engineered and built.

To clarify: Nova 3 = Mark 5A. In TPE-speak, 802 is Nova 1. So actually the moving annual average MTINs I was referring to illustrate the reverse! 80x are not exactly a simple train... Mark 5A ought to be a simple train but of course have not proven so, for reasons rehearsed here.

 

[Purple Orange]

What could realistically happen with the Nova 3 units? It seems odd to get rid of them, but if they were deemed to be redundant by TPE, what could be done with them? Also TPE would need 26 185s to cover the loss of 13 Nova 3 units - would they have that available to them and keep the south TP route doubled up too?

If they were to be binned off, would it not make sense to rearrange the services? I.e. all 802s on Liverpool routes, with all services going to Necastle or Edinburgh and the 185s on the Airport services to navigate the castlefield corridor heading to Middlesbrough and Scarborough.

 

[SuperNova]

Period 5 reliability figures:

NOVA 1 - 20,000
NOVA 2 - 9,000
NOVA 3 - 5,500

Ah Septembers figures. Nova 1 was awful before the pandemic struck.

 

[JonathanH]

Also TPE would need 26 185s to cover the loss of 13 Nova 3 units

Not quite true as they only intended to diagram 12 Nova 3 units and there would be shared maintenance cover from a larger fleet of 185s - so only 24 units needed and even then you could have splitting at York on the Middlesbrough route.

If they were to be binned off, would it not make sense to rearrange the services? I.e. all 802s on Liverpool routes, with all services going to Necastle or Edinburgh and the 185s on the Airport services to navigate the castlefield corridor heading to Middlesbrough and Scarborough.

I think the desire was for Newcastle to have links to both the Airport and Liverpool rather than two trains an hour to Liverpool.

Of course, in the new era it might be feasible to cut back to one Newcastle an hour freeing up 802s.

What could realistically happen with the Nova 3 units?

The list doesn't need to include other UK use.

 

[Meerkat]

Is there an easy way of remembering which Nova is which?

 

[YorksLad12]

I remember it by thinking that the Mk5s are most likely to go, which is why they're Nova 3. Last in, first out

 

[Purple Orange]

I could see a further add on order for 802s taking place - I am assuming there is production capacity of course.

 

[JonathanH]

I could see a further add on order for 802s taking place - I am assuming there is production capacity of course.

Why? Who is going to pay for it when there are suitable spare units and potentially less demand going forward. The point is that Mk 5s can be eliminated with existing rolling stock.

 

[Purple Orange]

Why? Who is going to pay for it when there are suitable spare units and potentially less demand going forward. The point is that Mk 5s can be eliminated with existing rolling stock.

I don’t know. I’ll say the DfT. But on demand, we can’t be under any illusion here that the current drop-off will be a long-term trend. If there is also suitable rolling stock now, why were the Mk5a units procured in the first instance?

 

[Meerkat]

I assume the Mk5a aren’t so bad they can be returned for a refund?

 

[DB]

In retrospect, three fleets was a bad decision and in the case of the Mk5a sets was on the basis that they would be delivered quickly - which didn't happen.

They'd have been better going for a single fleet, in reality - and 802 would have made most sense.

I don't like 80x units, but the Mk5a sets aren't great either.