• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

TPE Mark 5A coaching stock progress

Status
Not open for further replies.
nicolaboo

nicolaboo

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2018
Messages
285
I didn't see the 142 on Monday morning, but the other is 156421.
68028 was at that time, light nearby a rake, and 031 was connected up nearer the Picc end of the depot.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

SP Man

SP Man

Member
Joined
26 Aug 2018
Messages
146
LNW-GW Joint said:
TPE has a franchise agreement with DfT and has made public commitments for entry into service.
Sure, it may be CAF's fault underneath, but TPE signed up to the service dates, not CAF.
The ROSCO will be involved too.
I wonder if the 397s will be any better?
Click to expand...
Has one of only a hand full of people that's driven both I can say that the 397s are very good. The issues on the Mk5s are not major but more testing is needed. Why rush something in that may need pulling from service to make mods or delay introduction and get them right once and for all (well okay not once for all but for a good while!). Building of LHCS and the British market is new to CAF and working with a power source that's from a differant builder does bring some challenges. Overall with a bit of mods and resting the 68/mk5a sets will be good train. Too many other trains been rushed in and caused issues.
 
I

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,335
Bletchleyite said:
What complexity will be caused, given that they are, operationally, basically going to be DMUs that just happen to have all the engines in an extra coach at the end?
Click to expand...

Try changing ends other than at a station....
 
C

Chuggington21

Member
Joined
18 Dec 2016
Messages
190
SP Man said:
Has one of only a hand full of people that's driven both I can say that the 397s are very good. The issues on the Mk5s are not major but more testing is needed. Why rush something in that may need pulling from service to make mods or delay introduction and get them right once and for all (well okay not once for all but for a good while!). Building of LHCS and the British market is new to CAF and working with a power source that's from a differant builder does bring some challenges. Overall with a bit of mods and resting the 68/mk5a sets will be good train. Too many other trains been rushed in and caused issues.
Click to expand...
Would love to hear your thoughts on the 397. I start the tpe next year and they will prob be my main traction
 
I

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,335
Bletchleyite said:
Where does that occur, and can the timetabling be changed to remove it?
Click to expand...

Principaly Middlesbrough, and not remotely easily.

Middlesbrough has 2 through platforms (only) currently units go to various sidings to change ends and come back out for their booked departure times.

If you turn them back in the platform you have to have unacceptably short turn around times which gets us back to performance.

The alternative mooted seems to be running them through to Redcar or Saltburn, where they can turn them back in the platform, however this of course adds performance risk as late running would need the services to be part cancelled and turned around earlier en route.

Whether suitable walking routes could be provided in Middlesbrough sidings I'm not sure.
 
A

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,096
IanXC said:
Principaly Middlesbrough, and not remotely easily.

Middlesbrough has 2 through platforms (only) currently units go to various sidings to change ends and come back out for their booked departure times.

If you turn them back in the platform you have to have unacceptably short turn around times which gets us back to performance.

The alternative mooted seems to be running them through to Redcar or Saltburn, where they can turn them back in the platform, however this of course adds performance risk as late running would need the services to be part cancelled and turned around earlier en route.

Whether suitable walking routes could be provided in Middlesbrough sidings I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
This is a bit surprising, as lots of main lines have had loads of money wasted on them putting in a path all the way along the side. Can it really be impossible to put in a path the length of a train for 1 siding?
 
SP Man

SP Man

Member
Joined
26 Aug 2018
Messages
146
Chuggington21 said:
Would love to hear your thoughts on the 397. I start the tpe next year and they will prob be my main traction
Click to expand...
They are to me, a large comfortable cab with a spacious cab desk. Good acceleration and nice brakes. Couple of small issues that should be sorted before service during testing and commissioning.
 
SP Man

SP Man

Member
Joined
26 Aug 2018
Messages
146
IanXC said:
Try changing ends other than at a station....
Click to expand...
Try doing it on a worksite with a deep dig and new track and then walking along that for a few miles to either your next train or to the nearest site access (sometimes carrying your workbag and a lodge bag) - plus it's pitch black and raining. Walking 6 vehicles in a siding isn't that bad at times!
 
C

Chuggington21

Member
Joined
18 Dec 2016
Messages
190
SP Man said:
They are to me, a large comfortable cab with a spacious cab desk. Good acceleration and nice brakes. Couple of small issues that should be sorted before service during testing and commissioning.
Click to expand...
Superb
Thanks for getting back to me
 
B

Ben Bow

Member
Joined
20 Sep 2018
Messages
342
SP Man said:
Try doing it on a worksite with a deep dig and new track and then walking along that for a few miles to either your next train or to the nearest site access (sometimes carrying your workbag and a lodge bag) - plus it's pitch black and raining. Walking 6 vehicles in a siding isn't that bad at times!
Click to expand...

But you're not doing that every hour, every day, 7 days a week. At the moment drivers change ends by walking through the train (185), with 68's that won't be possible (obviously). The risk involved in changing ends has therefore increased, and in this day and age you can't simply ignore that and hope all will be OK. TPE have to show that they have assessed the risk, and taken suitable steps to lower the risk as much as possible. Changing ends at Middlesbrough is not done in a lit siding, its done between Cargo Fleet level crossing and the first signal on the Nunthorpe branch. There is a walkway for going cab to cab between two units, but it isn't in the correct place for where the 68's would stop. Its not about drivers being "soft" or "awkward", its about the company understanding the risk and taking suitable action, covering backsides perhaps, but that's the modern world.
 
pdq

pdq

Member
Joined
7 Oct 2010
Messages
803
To change ends the drivers don't have to walk all the way outside do they? Isn't the outside walk just the length of the loco, then into the carriage at the loco end and walk through to the trailer cab?
 
_toommm_

_toommm_

Established Member
Joined
8 Jul 2017
Messages
5,855
Location
Yorkshire
pdq said:
To change ends the drivers don't have to walk all the way outside do they? Isn't the outside walk just the length of the loco, then into the carriage at the loco end and walk through to the trailer cab?
Click to expand...

It's probably easier to enter and exit through the driving cab doors as to go from the 'DVT' end, you'd have to go into the passenger compartment, unlock the doors like the guard, climb down, then it may not be possible to relock them from track level as the guards panel will be open.
 
L

LittleAH

Member
Joined
24 Oct 2018
Messages
176
DarloRich said:
So, in your world, the customer has no responsibility to undertake quality checking of the manufacturing process and parts used? You must be very brave. It isnt ALL down to CAF. TPE or their agents also have a responsibility
Click to expand...

If I order something, and it doesn;t the requirements that were set out, I send it back to get fixed.

I don't stand over a joiner's shoulder when he's knocking together my window frames.

CAF are at fault. They're not the best to work with either, from what I've heard.
 
DarloRich

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,278
Location
Fenny Stratford
LittleAH said:
If I order something, and it doesn;t the requirements that were set out, I send it back to get fixed.

I don't stand over a joiner's shoulder when he's knocking together my window frames.

CAF are at fault. They're not the best to work with either, from what I've heard.
Click to expand...

I am afraid that is an overly simplistic analogy that totally misses the complexity and contractual mechanisms involved in a purchase like this.

Btw to illustrate further using your analogy are you sure your requirements are absolutely accurate? Did you tell your joiner exactly what wood to use? In what length and width? How many screws? How much glue? What brand? How do you assure yourself during the build that the particular glue was used? Bit late once your window rattles in the wind.

TO offer a slightly better analogy: Imagine you were having a house built. Are you saying you wouldn't visit site, at all, to make sure the builders were meeting your requirements?
 
Last edited:
LNW-GW Joint

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,652
Location
Mold, Clwyd
LittleAH said:
If I order something, and it doesn;t the requirements that were set out, I send it back to get fixed.
I don't stand over a joiner's shoulder when he's knocking together my window frames.
CAF are at fault. They're not the best to work with either, from what I've heard.
Click to expand...

But then you don't have your own customer (the DfT, TfN, and the great northern public/taxpayer) breathing down your neck with their own contractual demands.
CAF may well be at fault, but "Not me, guv" is not an appropriate response from the TOC.
The delay will cost TPE. They may recover some/all that from CAF.
It's just as well the 185s aren't committed elsewhere for the moment, as they'll have to soldier on.
 
SP Man

SP Man

Member
Joined
26 Aug 2018
Messages
146
Ben Bow said:
But you're not doing that every hour, every day, 7 days a week. At the moment drivers change ends by walking through the train (185), with 68's that won't be possible (obviously). The risk involved in changing ends has therefore increased, and in this day and age you can't simply ignore that and hope all will be OK. TPE have to show that they have assessed the risk, and taken suitable steps to lower the risk as much as possible. Changing ends at Middlesbrough is not done in a lit siding, its done between Cargo Fleet level crossing and the first signal on the Nunthorpe branch. There is a walkway for going cab to cab between two units, but it isn't in the correct place for where the 68's would stop. Its not about drivers being "soft" or "awkward", its about the company understanding the risk and taking suitable action, covering backsides perhaps, but that's the modern world.
Click to expand...
Okay. Freight drivers do change ends every minute of every day and normally on unlit non level ballast. I'm not saying it's correct but it's just what has happened and has happened in the 29 years I've been doing it.
 
B

Ben Bow

Member
Joined
20 Sep 2018
Messages
342
SP Man said:
Okay. Freight drivers do change ends every minute of every day and normally on unlit non level ballast. I'm not saying it's correct but it's just what has happened and has happened in the 29 years I've been doing it.
Click to expand...

It is the company's responsibility to assess risk. In the event of an accident they must be able to demonstrate that all "reasonable" steps were taken to reduce any risk, especially so where risk has been imported due to a change in working practices. Drivers do change ends, and will continue to do so, on the ballast where this has been done as an established practice for many years, for example in Holgate Loop at York, or in one-off unforseen situations due to disruption or other problems. What we're talking about is those locations where the regular changing of ends took place by walking through the train, which will no longer be possible, and where the best alternative, a platform, isn't available for whatever reason. In this day and age you simply can't make a job "less-safe" and not have a robust defence if things go wrong. By the way, I've done the freight thing, including shunting with main line locos - up, down, up, down... didn't need weights to tone up the biceps in those days....
 
mikemcniven

mikemcniven

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
381
Location
Manchester
mikemcniven said:
A NOVA 3 looks like it's due to head down to Crewe South Yard today under one of two paths
ACTIVATED: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O56873/2018/11/14/advanced
NOT YET ACTIVE: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97154/2018/11/14/advanced

This maybe freeing up room ahead of a delivery tomorrow from Portbury
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K96124/2018/11/15/advanced
Click to expand...

The second of the two runs has operated currently 72 minute early with set TP02 and 68022
 
L

LittleAH

Member
Joined
24 Oct 2018
Messages
176
LNW-GW Joint said:
But then you don't have your own customer (the DfT, TfN, and the great northern public/taxpayer) breathing down your neck with their own contractual demands.
CAF may well be at fault, but "Not me, guv" is not an appropriate response from the TOC.
The delay will cost TPE. They may recover some/all that from CAF.
It's just as well the 185s aren't committed elsewhere for the moment, as they'll have to soldier on.
Click to expand...

Then again, aren't TPE customers of Beacon Rail, what are they doing to ensure the trains they are leasing to TPE are delivered on time?

The disjointed and fragmented system we have means that often the wrong party gets the blame, when in reality, they have very little control over what happens when issues arise. TPE are at the behest of CAF here, who have supplied a product not fit for business currently.
 
DarloRich

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,278
Location
Fenny Stratford
LittleAH said:
Then again, aren't TPE customers of Beacon Rail, what are they doing to ensure the trains they are leasing to TPE are delivered on time?

The disjointed and fragmented system we have means that often the wrong party gets the blame, when in reality, they have very little control over what happens when issues arise. TPE are at the behest of CAF here, who have supplied a product not fit for business currently.
Click to expand...

it simply isnt that straightforward. TPE do not seem to have assured themselves that the supplier was supplying the right product to the right spec. You seem to think that they shouldn't be doing this. I suggest this is wrong.
 
LOL The Irony

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
LittleAH said:
From their website: Our 13 five carriage Mark 5a coaches are being built by Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF) and financed by Beacon Rail
Click to expand...
They're still being sub-leased from DRS.

From https://www.railjournal.com/rolling-stock/caf-to-supply-trains-to-transpennine-express/
The acquisition of 13 sets of five-car locomotive-hauled coaches will be financed by Beacon Rail Leasing, the owner of the class 68 diesel locomotives which will be leased to TPE by Direct Rail Services.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top