• 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 Nova 3 (Class 68 + Mk5s) updates and withdrawal from service

scrapthe503

On Moderation
Joined
8 Mar 2024
Messages
46
Location
Cockshute Sidings
Not at all. What's your assessment of the situation? Given that the tender sent out asking for submissions from prospective rolling stock providers had a closing date of February 2nd, do you believe that the various options would have been considered and evaluated, a final decision made, contract signed and livery already applied to stock just five weeks later? Does that seem likely to you?
The first rule of procurement: You already know what you want before you go into a marketplace.

The second rule of procurement: Word things appropriately so that potential rival bidders are unable to meet your requirements.

Don’t forget, some of the oldest tricks in the book include “Must be compatible with existing fleet”, where a different builder therefore can’t possibly bid.

You also have to go to tender on the basis that shareholders or the public can see evidence that you are assessing options. But you already are 95% sure on something, unless magically something absolutely beyond belief comes to the fore and then you assess that.

What alternative fleets are there that fit the bill? Answer, none that would be appropriate.

What is the precise wording? Well, you want the coaches to have lower ambient noise than Mark 3 coaches. Done. You want a train that can take HVO fuel. 68s I believe all do?

There was nothing about reducing Class 68 noise. Only that you can evidence the ambient noise inside the carriage is quieter than a 68 on a Mark 3. A 68 on a Mark 5 is quieter. Indeed, a unit is almost certainly not quieter as the engine rumbles away underneath. This is very clever wording.

Look at the delivery timeframe, and the entry into service. How does one achieve full crew knowledge of a new class, potentially, before the required entry date of early 2025? A Mark 5 cab is basically a 68. Chiltern drivers already do 68s.

Finally, the deadline being gone, consider how contracts work. Do you believe nothing is done until a contract is signed? No, you have bids coming in throughout the period of the tender notice until the deadline, and you start discarding some immediately. Once the deadline is reached, you then sign a ‘letter of intent’, which allows the bidding party to start a process in the knowledge that they are not wasting many £.

So because you have not had a news article placed before you explaining in granular detail how this will all go, does not mean something isn’t happening or hasn’t already happened. Many contract signing instances as recorded on camera are solely performative - the real contract signing happened ages ago.

Finally, Stourbridge is already being measured up to be a better, proper maintenance facility for this fleet. As this all rumbles on, expect a few units to drop out of the equation along with the Mark 3s.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
3,225
Location
The back of beyond
There was nothing about reducing Class 68 noise. Only that you can evidence the ambient noise inside the carriage is quieter than a 68 on a Mark 3. A 68 on a Mark 5 is quieter. Indeed, a unit is almost certainly not quieter as the engine rumbles away underneath. This is very clever wording.

This is incorrect. If you took time to scroll through this thread and some others on this forum, you will see that reducing noise made by the Class 68s is a key factor in whether or not the ex-TPE 68s and Mk5s are redeployed on Chiltern routes. Many noise complaints have been made by local residents at Marylebone due to Class 68 noise and the issue has been raised in the House by the local MP. This is why the number of loco-hauled arrivals and departures at London Marylebone is currently restricted in order to appease local residents.

For reference, this is what the tender specified:

Deliver a reduction in ambient noise compared to the rolling stock that operates Chiltern's existing London to Birmingham services (Class 68 locomotive and MKIII coaches).

This does not refer to the sound of the locomotive heard within the trailing coaches, but the noise pollution to the surrounding area, specifically at London Marylebone.

I'm very well aware that Chiltern are interested in the ex-TPE 68s and Mk5s and of the training timescales involved but it is simply not quite as straightforward as 'they want them so they'll get them'. It may well happen but there are a few obstacles to overcome first, which have been discussed ad nauseum on this forum.
 

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
3,882
For reference, this is what the tender specified:

Deliver a reduction in ambient noise compared to the rolling stock that operates Chiltern's existing London to Birmingham services (Class 68 locomotive and MKIII coaches).

Is that literally what the tender specified? If so, its incredibly poorly worded - merely to be less than an undefined amount

Surely any sensible tender would specify acceptable noise levels?
 

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
3,225
Location
The back of beyond
Is that literally what the tender specified? If so, its incredibly poorly worded - merely to be less than an undefined amount

Surely any sensible tender would specify acceptable noise levels?

Yes. What is an acceptable noise level? It would be pointless specifying a precise Db level if Class 68s are unable to be modified to such an extent that they meet that specification, if they are the traction type that Chiltern want.
 

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
3,882
Yes. What is an acceptable noise level? It would be pointless specifying a precise Db level if Class 68s are unable to be modified to such an extent that they meet that specification, if they are the traction type that Chiltern want.

Every time I've been involved in writing tender documents, there's been every effort made to define stuff as precisely as possible, mainly so that it provides a clean audit trail, makes evaluation easier and removes any perception of subjectivity.

But yes, I'm sure there are occasions when the person writing the tender document knows who/what he wants to win, and in cases like that the definition is carefully chosen to be achievable, of course
 

warwickshire

On Moderation
Joined
6 Feb 2020
Messages
1,903
Location
leamingtonspa
Far as I know, locally from living close to Long Marston, from locals in the know around there, Long Marston are only, taking the decals of them, ie debranding them only, ie the Mk5 sets
Just like they debranded and Rebranded ex London Midlands 350 to Lnwr Livery etc.
They do have a workshop there. For this.
However Today Tuesday 12th March 2024.
Saw 5Q94 0856 Longsight T.M.D to Long Marston with TP09. Hauled by 68026,
Further moves are planned in the next few days.
However any further set location updates is much appreciated. Thank You.
 

scrapthe503

On Moderation
Joined
8 Mar 2024
Messages
46
Location
Cockshute Sidings
This is incorrect. If you took time to scroll through this thread and some others on this forum, you will see that reducing noise made by the Class 68s is a key factor in whether or not the ex-TPE 68s and Mk5s are redeployed on Chiltern routes. Many noise complaints have been made by local residents at Marylebone due to Class 68 noise and the issue has been raised in the House by the local MP. This is why the number of loco-hauled arrivals and departures at London Marylebone is currently restricted in order to appease local residents.

For reference, this is what the tender specified:

Deliver a reduction in ambient noise compared to the rolling stock that operates Chiltern's existing London to Birmingham services (Class 68 locomotive and MKIII coaches).

This does not refer to the sound of the locomotive heard within the trailing coaches, but the noise pollution to the surrounding area, specifically at London Marylebone.

I'm very well aware that Chiltern are interested in the ex-TPE 68s and Mk5s and of the training timescales involved but it is simply not quite as straightforward as 'they want them so they'll get them'. It may well happen but there are a few obstacles to overcome first, which have been discussed ad nauseum on this forum.
Can you evidence that your belief in what ambient noise is referring to in the tender is the correct understanding?
 

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
3,225
Location
The back of beyond
As you are the one claiming to know so much within Chiltern, one assumes you do?

Failing to answer the question with a question? Strange.

The issues surrounding Class 68 operation at Chiltern are well documented and well known (apart from by you, evidently) and I've explained why modifcations to the Class 68s are a key requirement before any lease is signed but it seems you know different.

Going back to your original claim, provide a photo of said stock with the Chiltern logo applied and I'll be very happy to admit I was wrong.
 

scrapthe503

On Moderation
Joined
8 Mar 2024
Messages
46
Location
Cockshute Sidings
Failing to answer the question with a deflection? Strange.

The issues surrounding Class 68 operation at Chiltern are well documented and well known (apart from by you, it seems) and I've explained why modifcations to the Class 68s are a key requirement before any lease is signed but it seems you know different.
We shall therefore wait and see, as this circular motion you are perpetuating isn’t helping.
 

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
3,225
Location
The back of beyond
We shall therefore wait and see, as this circular motion you are perpetuating isn’t helping.

No 'circular motion' here, just facts which you have failed to acknowledge. I look forward to your provision of evidence of the lease agreement having been signed, the successful development and testing of a sound reduction modification on the Class 68 and so on.
 

DanNCL

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2017
Messages
4,296
Location
County Durham
Noting that a Mark 5A set is quite a bit shorter than Chiltern’s Mark 3 sets, would this mean that the 68 would be under the roof at Marylebone?
 

EZJ

Member
Joined
20 Jun 2022
Messages
155
Location
Shoreham
@scrapthe503 I actually work for one of the companies involved and can say most of what you are claiming is currently rumour and speculative discussion. Will the Mk5's go to Chiltern? Possibly, but nothing has been agreed yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
3,225
Location
The back of beyond
Ah ok. So in that case, what length formations would the be reconfigured to and what would happen with the leftover vehicles?

Sorry if this has already been answered.

It would depend entirely on how many vehicles were leased, which has not been determined yet as far as I know. Given the lengths of platforms where LHCS are scheduled to stop, I'd suggest six trailers plus DT is most likely, giving a similar formation to the current Mk3 operation.
 
Last edited:

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,989
@scrapthe503 I actually work for one of the companies involved and can say most of what you are claiming is currently rumour and speculative discussion. Will the Mk5's go to Chiltern? Possibly, but nothing has been agreed yet.
Back in January you said:
My honest opinion is sadly these rakes will be parked up and forgotten about and may never see service again.
Are you now more positive about the Mk5A sets being used by another operator? (I’m not picking fault, just curious).
So there's Chiltern vinyl going onto Mark 5 coaches at Long Marston as we speak, is there?
I don’t work for any of the companies involved, but thank you for livening up the thread!

Beacon Rail lease rolling stock all over Europe, I would be surprised if the Mk5A sets didn’t find a new home somewhere.

I’ve never been convinced by the argument ‘the Class 68s will go back to DRS for freight’. What on Earth would DRS have for all 14 locos to do?

In addition, 68026 to 68032 were built specifically for the TPE contract. I wonder what the details are of how they were leased by Beacon to DRS? It would be surprising if DRS didn’t have the option to say ‘no thank you’ to taking those locos once the subleasing arrangement with TPE ends.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,869
Location
Yorkshire
My understanding is that it's not correct to say a contract has been signed, (yet), or that Chiltern vinyls are being applied (yet).

However if the DfT sees sense, then it will happen; Chiltern want them and are in the process of putting together a case for them.
 

EZJ

Member
Joined
20 Jun 2022
Messages
155
Location
Shoreham
Are you now more positive about the Mk5A sets being used by another operator? (I’m not picking fault, just curious)
To be honest I'm 50/50, Chiltern seems the obvious choice but the DFT are a funny lot that seem to find never ending ways to spectacularly make a right balls up of most things they are involved with. My comment in January was maybe slightly negative but as you can imagine a lot of people including myself put a lot of work in on the Mk5's for it all to be cast aside on a whim, there are many who are still very ticked off with what has happened.
 

Urobach

Member
Joined
26 Jun 2007
Messages
191
@scrapthe503 I actually work for one of the companies involved and can say most of what you are claiming is currently rumour and speculative discussion. Will the Mk5's go to Chiltern? Possibly, but nothing has been agreed yet.

I think the problem is with at least one set being debranded and looking "Chiltern-y" in base silver and grey, some people have put two and two together, rumour mill gets going and next thing you know it's already fully branded ready to start with Chiltern. Certainly there's some at my depot that think it's fact they're off there based on a photo of said unbranded set.
 

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,989
To be honest I'm 50/50, Chiltern seems the obvious choice but the DFT are a funny lot that seem to find never ending ways to spectacularly make a right balls up of most things they are involved with. My comment in January was maybe slightly negative but as you can imagine a lot of people including myself put a lot of work in on the Mk5's for it all to be cast aside on a whim, there are many who are still very ticked off with what has happened.
Many thanks for the reply, appreciated.

I can well understand your feelings. I know there were a lot of very talented people involved with the Class 68/Mk5A sets during their time at TPE, all of whom went above and beyond. Such a shame they were all let down so badly.
 

TT-ONR-NRN

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
10,490
Location
Farnham
I think the problem is with at least one set being debranded and looking "Chiltern-y" in base silver and grey, some people have put two and two together, rumour mill gets going and next thing you know it's already fully branded ready to start with Chiltern. Certainly there's some at my depot that think it's fact they're off there based on a photo of said unbranded set.
Is there a picture of it somewhere please?
 

pokemonsuper9

Established Member
Joined
20 Dec 2022
Messages
1,718
Location
Greater Manchester
Is there a picture of it somewhere please?
Link to the platform formerly known at Twitter in #2,379
Seen on twitter that one set has been unbranded and ran as the following:


 
Joined
1 Sep 2018
Messages
467
Location
Malvern to Minffordd
68026 returned debranded TP04 to Longsight today on 5Q32 Long Marston - Longsight.

Attached picture shows plain MK5A 11504 at Worcester Shrub Hill.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240313_170147_Gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_20240313_170147_Gallery.jpg
    519.5 KB · Views: 181

AJDesiro

Member
Joined
10 May 2019
Messages
646
Location
Rugby
I think the problem is with at least one set being debranded and looking "Chiltern-y" in base silver and grey, some people have put two and two together, rumour mill gets going and next thing you know it's already fully branded ready to start with Chiltern. Certainly there's some at my depot that think it's fact they're off there based on a photo of said unbranded set.
It's worth mentioning that 168003 is currently being refurbished at ATC Crewe, and as a part of that receiving a new, more blue livery. So even if the factory grey does look "Chiltern-y," it's not necessarily what the new Chiltern livery looks like.
 

coxxy

Member
Joined
16 Aug 2013
Messages
304
68026 returned debranded TP04 to Longsight today on 5Q32 Long Marston - Longsight.

Attached picture shows plain MK5A 11504 at Worcester Shrub Hill.
They really are good looking sets aren't they..

Definately share the sentiments of EZJ RE tpe screwing it up..
 

Top