TPE Mk5/68 sets.

[Philip]

How would introducing a totally new fleet, resolve issues of training staff on an existing fleet? That would make it worse, not better.

The idea would be to help ease the rolling stock and capacity shortage which will exist if all the LHCS sets leave TPE. They could be maintained at Longsight with other depots possibly at Newton Heath and Allerton/Widnes

 

[Iskra]

The idea would be to help ease the rolling stock and capacity shortage which will exist if all the LHCS sets leave TPE.

It wouldn't, there'd be even more cancellations due to route/traction learning! They may as well keep the 68's where at least some training has been done, than introduce another entire new fleet to the Hope Valley. The sensible solution is to move the 68's to the Redcar route, with 185's moving to the Hope Valley in return. That solves the training issue, while maintaining and even uplifting current capacity on all routes.

 

[Philip]

It wouldn't, there'd be even more cancellations due to route/traction learning! They may as well keep the 68's where at least some training has been done, than introduce another entire new fleet to the Hope Valley. The sensible solution is to move the 68's to the Redcar route, with 185's moving to the Hope Valley in return. That solves the training issue, while maintaining and even uplifting current capacity on all routes.

But the post I quoted was stating in the event of the LHCS being abandoned altogether, in which case it would make sense to introduce 175s to the fleet. Providing a full timetable and the correct level of capacity is more important than the expense of training costs. I'm saying that there would be no need to have to rely solely on 185s to cover both sets of diagrams if they ditch the LHCS, when there is a fleet of 100mph DMUs soon to be up for grabs.

 

[Iskra]

But the post I quoted was stating in the event of the LHCS being abandoned altogether, in which case it would make sense to introduce 175s to the fleet. Providing a full timetable and the correct level of capacity is more important than the expense of training costs. I'm saying that there would be no need to have to rely solely on 185s to cover both sets of diagrams, when there is a fleet of 100mph DMUs soon to be up for grabs.

As a resident of Sheffield (the epicentre of the North's most shambolic rail offering for the last two years) I'd rather have 3 carriages that run reliably, than go through another two years of constant cancellations to introduce another new fleet that might not work out. At least EMR and Northern are increasingly in a position to offer adequate capacity on their own Hope Valley services to pick up the slack for 3-car 185's if that's what it has to be.

The answer for TPE South has to be 185's or 68's. Anything else is just adding fuel to the fire. I don't particularly have much faith in 175's as a fleet either.

 

[CAF397]

So why aren’t they just put on Saltburn’s then?

They were going to be deployed on that route, and then someone decided to send them to the South route!

Noise was mentioned as a factor at Redcar/Saltburn, but compromise was reached at Scarborough, and I'm sure compromise could've been reached on the Saltburn route.

But that doesn't take anything away from my point that there are already fully traction trained staff who are able to drive and guard the entire Manchester Airport-Saltburn route with no additional route or traction training.

 

[MattRat]

Given the additional costs, the only reason Class 802s were chosen over CAF stock was the 125mph capability, designed to secure the additional paths on the East Coast Main Line. These extra paths were not specified in the franchise ITT, but were supposed to generate the additional revenue on which the winning bid was based. There was no need to have 125mph stock to run the service as specified by DfT.

Even then, there was a perfectly capable diesel loco that could have done that job, the class 67.

 

[driverd]

The answer for TPE South has to be 185's or 68's. Anything else is just adding fuel to the fire. I don't particularly have much faith in 175's as a fleet either.

Absolutely on the point. No need to complicate things with the seemingly eternal desire to find homes for surplus stock.

Longer term solutions can be sought, but right now, just get the trains running reliably. Once that's dealt with, a grand plan can be implemented. To my mind, if more stock is required it can only be 80x or 195 (or similar compatible civity), ensuring regional compatibility into the future (and likely easing traincrew issues as amalgamation of crew seems inevitable long term, be it through the break up of TPE or eventual set up of GBR).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely on the point. No need to complicate things with the seemingly eternal desire to find homes for surplus stock.

Longer term solutions can be sought, but right now, just get the trains running reliably. Once that's dealt with, a grand plan can be implemented. To my mind, if more stock is required it can only be 80x or 195 (or similar compatible civity), ensuring regional compatibility into the future (and likely easing traincrew issues as amalgamation of crew seems inevitable long term, be it through the break up of TPE or eventual set up of GBR).

It may also make sense to look at the planned Northern 15x replacement fleet - this could potentially be enlarged and used on a joint basis in some way.

 

[MattRat]

It may also make sense to look at the planned Northern 15x replacement fleet - this could potentially be enlarged and used on a joint basis in some way.

The problem with that is, Northern's order will likely involve 2 and 3 car units, which is the last thing we need for TPE. Especially since they'll be a downgrade in quality compared to 185s.

 

[RHolmes]

The Nova3s could be introduced tomorrow onto the Saltburn-Manchester Airport route. The crews that sign the route already sign the traction (York and Scarborough depots sign York-Saltburn, Manchester and York depots sign York-Manchester Airport)

Piccadilly guards and a Liverpool crews would lose the route from their cards if this was the decision made in the future

You’d then only end up with Airport and York crews signing Vic-Airport via Ordsall Chord so further competency lost

 

[CAF397]

Piccadilly guards and a Liverpool crews would lose the route from their cards if this was the decision made in the future

You’d then only end up with Airport and York crews signing Vic-Airport via Ordsall Chord so further competency lost

There would not be enough Nova3s to replace all the diagrams, so still a mix of Mk5s/185 as per the current Manchester-Scarborough route.

Piccadilly guards could still work the 185 diagrams, and any Airport 185 work be worked by any depot that needs it. Although, as its only one train per hour now to Manchester Airport from the north East, it's really more of a branch than core route!

 

[3RDGEN]

They were going to be deployed on that route, and then someone decided to send them to the South route!

Noise was mentioned as a factor at Redcar/Saltburn, but compromise was reached at Scarborough, and I'm sure compromise could've been reached on the Saltburn route.

But that doesn't take anything away from my point that there are already fully traction trained staff who are able to drive and guard the entire Manchester Airport-Saltburn route with no additional route or traction training.

The Saltburn sets overnight at York Siemens currently so if that was to continue for the MKV's I assume TPE would have complaints from York residents as they did in Scarborough? There are three sets in a morning from York to Saltburn so alternatively you need to find a location locally for servicing which isn't residential.

Wasn't the reason for trying to use them on the South route so they could start / finish in Longsight hence getting around the night time noise issues?

 

[CAF397]

Scarborough depot could be used for daytime maintenance (as now) and sets put out into traffic in the evening and shut down at York, or the Nova3s run the overnight services back to Manchester (which obviously needs diversion route knowledge).

For getting trains to/from depots that is a schedule change, and options available.

As mentioned in an earlier post, there wouldn't be enough diagrams for every Saltburn service to be changed to Mk5s, so you could still keep 185s on that route (and use York TMD), and just be clever diagramming the Mk5s to finish in Manchester, or get fresh sets out in the evening and shut down in York overnight ready for the first morning services.

Operate an early/late Scarborough-Saltburn service or vv, and use a set ex-Manxhester to balance the sets at York in the morning.

 

[modernrail]

The idea would be to help ease the rolling stock and capacity shortage which will exist if all the LHCS sets leave TPE.

Scarborough depot could be used for daytime maintenance (as now) and sets put out into traffic in the evening and shut down at York, or the Nova3s run the overnight services back to Manchester (which obviously needs diversion route knowledge).

For getting trains to/from depots that is a schedule change, and options available.

As mentioned in an earlier post, there wouldn't be enough diagrams for every Saltburn service to be changed to Mk5s, so you could still keep 185s on that route (and use York TMD), and just be clever diagramming the Mk5s to finish in Manchester, or get fresh sets out in the evening and shut down in York overnight ready for the first morning services.

Operate an early/late Scarborough-Saltburn service or vv, and use a set ex-Manxhester to balance the sets at York in the morning.

This whole thread and many other TPE thread makes me think, I a forensic expert was to come in and really dig into the detail, what percentage of TPE’s considerable woes would that expert put down to:

- implementation of the just in time crew policy, or whatever it is called, with loads of crew change overs.

- the operation of a very mixed fleet with a number of micro-fleets (and so probably the worst operator in the country to try the just never on time thing with?)

- the industrial relations debacle

- Covid and related passenger numbers drop and then recovery

Or to put it another way, if numbers continue to recover and industrial relations improve, does continued operation of the first 2 items doom TPE yet further.

Or to put it another way, which of these do you sort first to achieve the single biggest impact in bringing about improved performance?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or to put it another way, which of these do you sort first to achieve the single biggest impact in bringing about improved performance?

As I've said before and I'll say again, a simplified emergency timetable. Simple shuttle services, maximum train lengths (i.e. 802 or 2x185). Total withdrawal from Manchester Airport as it's a waste of diagrams due to duplication.

Then start sorting things out ready for restoration of service.

 

[D365]

Absolutely on the point. No need to complicate things with the seemingly eternal desire to find homes for surplus stock.

Agreed; thank goodness we have the Speculative subforum for these flights of fancy!

 

[modernrail]

I find the idea of temp withdrawal from Man Airport fascinating and enticing.

The station there has become a mess in general and is a terrible welcome to the region. It is really chaotic. I think I would much prefer walking down to a dedicated Manchester Airport - Picc shuttle platform with any other remaining services using the other platforms. Could that shuttle then go around the chord to Victoria? Even better if so as you then get really good connectivity between airport and north TPE services and between Picc and Victoria which also seems to be lacking now meaning you are screwed if you end up dumped at Vic and your next move is from Piccadilly, as has happened to me every single time I have been through Manchester in the last 6 months.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

So why aren’t they just put on Saltburn’s then?

Because there is nowhere to stable them, the Saltburns stable overnight at the Siemens Depot at York. This is no good for CAF rolling stock. TPE have no stabling/crew in the Middlesborough / Saltburn areas.

The Nova3s could be introduced tomorrow onto the Saltburn-Manchester Airport route. The crews that sign the route already sign the traction (York and Scarborough depots sign York-Saltburn, Manchester and York depots sign York-Manchester Airport)

No they couldn’t as that route has nowhere to stable them at the East end. Sidings don’t grow overnight for a tomorrow introduction - you are simply looking at thinks from a traincrew situation, there’s far more to operating a railway than that.

 

[CAF397]

LNER stable (or did) two trains overnight at York, the last two arrivals from London become the first two departures to London.

I'm not looking at it purely from a traincrew situation. I'm fully aware of the lack of suitable stabling at the east end of of the TPE network. Hence my comments about overnight stabling at York, or diagramming them onto the overnight York-Manchester services to get them back to Longsight. No Sidings required.

 

[3RDGEN]

When there are engineering blocks Leeds - Manc the Saltburns divert and terminate at Manc Vic, do the crews doing the diversions sign the MKV's and are the sets cleared for the diversion routes?

Given the issues with stabling, noise and training these sets become more trouble than their worth to TPE which is why I see them going. Problem is if TPE turns a corner in the next couple of years and the passengers return you need to reinstate capacity and then the 185's and 80x's will not be enough and your back in a hole again. Keeping a few MKV's in service a day to Scarborough keeps traction and maintenance knowledge so you can expand usage if required longer term perhaps.

 

[modernrail]

When there are engineering blocks Leeds - Manc the Saltburns divert and terminate at Manc Vic, do the crews doing the diversions sign the MKV's and are the sets cleared for the diversion routes?

Given the issues with stabling, noise and training these sets become more trouble than their worth to TPE which is why I see them going. Problem is if TPE turns a corner in the next couple of years and the passengers return you need to reinstate capacity and then the 185's and 80x's will not be enough and your back in a hole again. Keeping a few MKV's in service a day to Scarborough keeps traction and maintenance knowledge so you can expand usage if required longer term perhaps.

Any idea that passengers won’t return when the service stabilises is crazy and so I sure hope they are not going to plan for that now on top of all the other immense list of cock-ups!

TPE enjoys a massively diverse set of flows in every category and direction : commuter, intercity business, leisure, student, tourists, airport passengers. The only thing that has ever held TPE passenger numbers back is the continuously shocking state of TPE in terms of train capacity and quality of service.

They should be planning for numbers to easily reach 120% of pre-Covid numbers very quickly as soon as service levels are stable. My guess is that if properly done - the lines could easily sustain 200% of current capacity. Its competition is a permanently congested M62, a non-existent high capacity road link to Sheffield and an urban road system that is as slow as anything. It has been for 20 plus years.

It beggars belief that the debacle continues in its never ending state. You need serious stamina to try and rely on inter-city train travel in the north. I have been at it for 30 years and it is isn’t coming anytime soon.

 

[CAF397]

When there are engineering blocks Leeds - Manc the Saltburns divert and terminate at Manc Vic, do the crews doing the diversions sign the MKV's and are the sets cleared for the diversion routes?

Yes, the Mk5s are cleared - and do frequently run - on the diversionary routes between Manchester and Leeds (and York). The crew that sign the Mk5s also should sign the diversions, but not all do (part of the long term issues with TPE). Other depots and links also sign the diversions, and maybe used to work the 185s, like 802 qualified crew.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It may also make sense to look at the planned Northern 15x replacement fleet - this could potentially be enlarged and used on a joint basis in some way.

Adds to my thought that with (my bold) -

When there are engineering blocks Leeds - Manc the Saltburns divert and terminate at Manc Vic, do the crews doing the diversions sign the MKV's and are the sets cleared for the diversion routes?

Given the issues with stabling, noise and training these sets become more trouble than their worth to TPE which is why I see them going. Problem is if TPE turns a corner in the next couple of years and the passengers return you need to reinstate capacity and then the 185's and 80x's will not be enough and your back in a hole again. Keeping a few MKV's in service a day to Scarborough keeps traction and maintenance knowledge so you can expand usage if required longer term perhaps.

I can see the aspiration being to simplify the fleet by getting rid of the stock with the most issues (crewing, technical and emvironmental). If the 185s cannot plug the gap fully then I bet TPE are already looking at what services could be handed over to Northern (or EMR).

Summing up :-
From observation the use of the Mk5s by TPE seems to be in the "reluctant" category.
They have cracks.
They are the smallest part of a mixed fleet.
The crewing issues.
The noise issues.
I seem to recall the lease on the TPE Mk5s expires soon.
Doomed.

And I think that is a shame as they could be good.

 

[RHolmes]

There would not be enough Nova3s to replace all the diagrams, so still a mix of Mk5s/185 as per the current Manchester-Scarborough route.

Piccadilly guards could still work the 185 diagrams, and any Airport 185 work be worked by any depot that needs it. Although, as its only one train per hour now to Manchester Airport from the north East, it's really more of a branch than core route!

Whilst that is true, it limits the usefulness of the crew that only sign 185’s when it comes to things such as engineering works, spare turns and depot cross-cover. Effectively making train crew less efficient when things do go wrong.

You also end up in situations where only one diagram will cover the section for route retention and if you’re on leave, or the link changes, you end up completely missing the route retention turn and then competency lapses.

As I've said before and I'll say again, a simplified emergency timetable. Simple shuttle services, maximum train lengths (i.e. 802 or 2x185). Total withdrawal from Manchester Airport as it's a waste of diagrams due to duplication.
Then start sorting things out ready for restoration of service.

I’ll also repeat what I’ve said before in that emergency timetables do nothing for passenger experience. The trains might run reliably but it seriously annoys passengers having to change trains 3 times (eg Hull to Leeds, Leeds to Piccadilly, Piccadilly to Airport), particularly when you’re running those trains with large almost hourly gaps between connections

They also lead to horrendous overcrowding even with the trains at maximum length. In the previous amended timetable I’ve had to leave passengers behind from the first station due to dangerous overcrowding particularly whenever there was a major event happening such as a concert or football match. All you end up doing is p*ssing off your existing passengers, and leaving them with stupidly long waits for the next service and multiple connections.

Cutting off the Airport depot would also be a complete waste of staffing hours for the large number of guards based there. It also doesn’t save much traincrew as it’s one guard and one driver an hour roughly between MAN and MIA (not including the Anglo-Scots) and that’s largely due to the just short of 30 minute turnarounds which are used for servicing the 185 fleet CET tanks.

 

[Nym]

The 185s are really nice trains. The only issue is their capacity. Should have been ordered as 4 car minimum or permanently have them coupled up as 6 car. Though the latter obviously has its limitations, as explained above.

View attachment 138480

Sorry but how dirty are them ventilation dampers?

 

[xotGD]

Let me see...

1. Worse seats
2. Worse window alignment
3. Worse ride
4. Small windows

First Class is pretty special I'll give you, but Standard is the utter pits.

None of this matters.

There's a 68 on the front.

 

[VauxhallNova]

Because there is nowhere to stable them, the Saltburns stable overnight at the Siemens Depot at York. This is no good for CAF rolling stock. TPE have no stabling/crew in the Middlesborough / Saltburn areas.

No they couldn’t as that route has nowhere to stable them at the East end. Sidings don’t grow overnight for a tomorrow introduction - you are simply looking at thinks from a traincrew situation, there’s far more to operating a railway than that.

"47. Investment in Stabling, Servicing, Fuelling and CET Facilities at York Dringhouses

The Franchisee shall by no later than 30 November 2017 procure the provision of new stabling, servicing, fuelling and CET facilities in order to facilitate the fuelling, servicing and stabling of rolling stock comprised in the Train Fleet which will be stabled at York Dringhouses overnight. The Franchisee shall incur capital expenditure not less than *** in delivering this obligation."

Taken from page 216 of https://assets.publishing.service.g..._data/file/767851/tpe-franchise-agreement.pdf

 

[skyhigh]

I absolutely do blame the game. However, was it commercial issues or a lack of strategic thinking? The whole thing seems to have become confused by a bid that went beyond the min requirements which sounds on the face of it like a good thing. However, it is not a good thing if the strategic thinking hasn’t been done to make sure a fairly commercial plan can be executed.

First bid a complex stock position which relied on an uncertain track access position. Then there have been some silly own goals like not realising ordering stock that requires massive thundering engines to be started next to residential areas in Scarborough might not go down well.

It shouldn’t have taken a genius at the DfT end to see that it all might not work out. It hasn’t and the whole thing seems to be stuck in a never ending cycle of confusion that nobody involved seems to be able to pause, take proper breath on and reset.

Makes for good forum column inches but doesn’t provide the north with the proper, reliable high quality Inter-city service which seems as elusive as ever, despite roughly the right type of stock and an over supply of stock being available.

Meanwhile LNER has implemented a new class and runs with order not chaos through half of the same territory.

Don't forget the way the tender was written was suggesting DfT wanted to see converted 442s at TPE... That would possibly have been even worse than the current fleet situation

 

[HamworthyGoods]

"47. Investment in Stabling, Servicing, Fuelling and CET Facilities at York Dringhouses

The Franchisee shall by no later than 30 November 2017 procure the provision of new stabling, servicing, fuelling and CET facilities in order to facilitate the fuelling, servicing and stabling of rolling stock comprised in the Train Fleet which will be stabled at York Dringhouses overnight. The Franchisee shall incur capital expenditure not less than *** in delivering this obligation."

Taken from page 216 of https://assets.publishing.service.g..._data/file/767851/tpe-franchise-agreement.pdf

That franchise (along with its commitments) has long been terminated.

 

[VauxhallNova]

That franchise (along with its commitments) has long been terminated.

OK mate. The lack of depot explains why there's no depot.