Great for bashers!
ReplacingIETsCastles on GWR?
You can't think of it as diesel or battery. The 1200hp diesel is for the balancing speed and the extra 540hp battery is for hills and to speed up getting it to that speed.
Is this really the case? The power output of the 93's diesel engine is similar to that of a class 27, which was certainly capable of hauling a 5 car train.
Whilst class 27s were endlessly entertaining, I don't think they should be the benchmark for a modern reliable train service.
DfT will need to consider if binning off stock after only a few years is a good thing to do given the potential long term ramifications for lease contracts if the risk is high for the finders.
In what sense? With the driving trailer replacing the slab ended first class coach and coupled to a class 68?
Yes, less sets, more carriages with a few slightly less capacity as the extra carriage is a driving trailer. Hypothetically of course
The slab end of the first class coach means that the extra driving trailer isn't very helpful.
This is massively confusing from the point of view of why would you do it? Could you expand on what you mean please?
Order.
loco, DT, TSO........ DT
That's where is was going but leaving the loco on the usual position and also utilising what would be redundant DT's by having some sets with a DT both ends.
If I remember correctly the First Class trailer does not have a gangway connection at the loco end also the coupling is not the same as that between each coach. So if you wanted to re-use the TFs you would have to alter them - easier than altering the Driving trailer of course. Or I suppose you could have the two TFs in the middle with no gangway connection - ending up like a pair of five car IETs !. So the 68 might as well go there in the middle.
I’m sorry but what is this a solution to and whose problem is it solving? The whole concept looks fraught with desperation to use them at any cost regardless of cost or implications of splitting up fixed formation sets.
The thing with the reliability is a bit of a chicken and egg situation: are they under-utilised because they're unreliable, or are they unreliable because they're under-utilised? Pretty much all new trains have a spell of poor reliability at the start while crews and fitters familiarise themselves. Because the ongoing issues at TPE have meant the use of the Nova3 sets has been so sporadic, they've had no chance to "bed in".
Would any operator abroad want unreliable fixed formations of coaches in the cramped British loading gauge?
Oh yes, that is the elephant in the room. Although (below)
History dealt the TPE Mk5s a bad hand. They were ordered because the Hitachi Bi-Modes (802) were on a long lead time. Trouble is the 802s were a design already in use so were less likely to have teething problems associated with a new type. The teething problems for the Mk5s lasted long enough that the 802s appeared and were in service (successfully ?) while the Mk5s were still in the early stages of the reliability and learning curve. Once the 802s were successfully introduced and Covid meant fewer trains were needed the Mk5s were at a disadvantage. A further disadvantage would then be lack of use as you say. I wonder if to an extent no-one person/body owned any problems - after all this was a set of coaches from CAF and a locomotive from Stadler. A further disadvantage COULD be that drivers were keen to learn and retain knowledge of a type of traction used by other employers - possibly true ?.
TPE couldn't reliably roster a driver and guard to work the trains.
I'd be intrigued to understand how that could happen.
That is the killer.
Wouldn't be at all difficult, loads of BR stock has gone to Ireland in the past and whole couchette trains to Spain used to be re-bogied for a different gauge every night - but I do acknowledge that the stock was a) very "old school" and thus relatively simple - no electronics etc - and b) designed with this in mind. Finding suitable traction is a different kettle of fish, however.
The Belfast to Dublin Enterprise is jointly run by Translink and IE, so there'd be even more bureaucracy to deal with.
Officially, both Irish Rail and Translink have long-term plans to increase the frequency of the enterprise service. On the NI side, I think one thing that needs to be sorted is the new Weaver's Cross station, which will increase platform capacity for turning around the Enterprise service. It is possibly also awaiting approval from the NI government, if so that certainly isn't forthcoming anytime soon.
The idea with the Nova 3 sets was that the 68s were already proven and the mk5s already ordered for Caledonian Sleeper so they should have been a fairly quick entry to service with minimal issues, especially as they could start training early on the 68s and push pull on the 68s had been proven at Chiltern.
