Class 68 Progress, what's the latest?

[BRX]

I think they ran last week as well?

Yes it looks like you are right. I was on holiday last week so wasn't aware!

 

[47802]

I was perhaps being a little nostalgic for the days of locomotives in my youth. I'm not that keyed up with today's railways, I lost interest in 1984, and just wondered if there'd be more locomotives built like I used to enjoy in my earlier days.

I think I'm guilty of comparing from the days of batches of locomotives from the early BR diesel years. 500 Brush 4, 1000 08 shunters, 300 Class 37s, 200 Class 40 s, 50 50s, and all the WCML electrics etc.

It's good to still be able to see locomotives, though not as many as yesterday

Well if you think loads of Loco Hauled passenger trains are going to make a comeback I would think again, I believe that the decision that TPE made to choose Loco Hauled trains was very marginal and was driven by an earlier into service date than anything else available, and I expect the TPE will be looking very closely as to how these trains perform.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

TPE have been looking at Loco Hauled for a number of years. Nick Donovan was talking to me about using locos back in 2015 during the 3 peaks. He told me that they had looked at Loco Hauled several times but there wasn't the stock available.

 

[ash39]

Well if you think loads of Loco Hauled passenger trains are going to make a comeback I would think again, I believe that the decision that TPE made to choose Loco Hauled trains was very marginal and was driven by an earlier into service date than anything else available, and I expect the TPE will be looking very closely as to how these trains perform.

Looking very closely on how they perform? What's the alternative if they don't?

I think you're wrong, lots of LHCS going off lease in the next couple of years. Shortage of diesel trains. Plenty of spare 67's knocking about (also strong rumours of further 68's beijg ordered) - I'd be very surprised if we don't see more 'new' loco hauled trains than just the TPE ones.

 

[47802]

TPE have been looking at Loco Hauled for a number of years. Nick Donovan was talking to me about using locos back in 2015 during the 3 peaks. He told me that they had looked at Loco Hauled several times but there wasn't the stock available.

Yes the key wording there is 'there wasn't the stock available', in other words they were looking at from the point of view as a quick fix for extra capacity but not nessesarly the most desired option for new trains.

Anybody who thinks there will be a real loco hauled resurgence I think are frankly deluded, and in the next TPE franchise I expect the loco hauled trains will be binned off unless there is a lease on them beyond the existing franchise or the route still isn't electrified.

 

[BRX]

One of the advantages of multiple units is supposed to be that you can easily split trains on route, or in between workings to give flexibility on train length. But I feel like I notice two trends recently.

One is a move toward fixed-length multiple units, like on the 700s, where there's a short version and a long version and no intention to couple together. I guess this is largely driven by an aim to maximise capacity (not use up valuable seating space with redundant driving cabs)

Another is that many multiple units, where they are intended to be coupled together in service, don't bother to provide a gangway at the cab ends, so passengers and staff can't pass between the two sections of train. Voyagers for example.

Given the above, it's tempting to ask what a loco-hauled set, with DVT and modern coaching stock, can't offer that a DMU can, aside from the redundancy advantage of multiple engines, especially if they can offer better passenger comfort.

 

[47802]

One of the advantages of multiple units is supposed to be that you can easily split trains on route, or in between workings to give flexibility on train length. But I feel like I notice two trends recently.

One is a move toward fixed-length multiple units, like on the 700s, where there's a short version and a long version and no intention to couple together. I guess this is largely driven by an aim to maximise capacity (not use up valuable seating space with redundant driving cabs)

Another is that many multiple units, where they are intended to be coupled together in service, don't bother to provide a gangway at the cab ends, so passengers and staff can't pass between the two sections of train. Voyagers for example.

Given the above, it's tempting to ask what a loco-hauled set, with DVT and modern coaching stock, can't offer that a DMU can, aside from the redundancy advantage of multiple engines, especially if they can offer better passenger comfort.

The move may be towards fixed formation on the heaviest routes like thameslink but its not really the case in general. Loco Hauled Electric trains are largely irrelevant which leaves diesel which maybe viable in longer train lengths, but I'm there is other things to consider such single point of failure, and the ability of many multiple units to easily work singularly or in multiple as required.

 

[47802]

Looking very closely on how they perform? What's the alternative if they don't?

I think you're wrong, lots of LHCS going off lease in the next couple of years. Shortage of diesel trains. Plenty of spare 67's knocking about (also strong rumours of further 68's beijg ordered) - I'd be very surprised if we don't see more 'new' loco hauled trains than just the TPE ones.

I think we will see on that one, carn't afford to have Loco hauled breaking down all over the place on todays busy railway, yes OK the new TPE trains are not the clapped out old garbage that's on the Cumbrian Coast so we shouldn't hopefully see the same sort of shambles that we see there but it should be a warning to any other TOC's with regard to older Loco Hauled trains at least, added to which shorter length Loco Hauled is regarded as expensive to operate.

If you asked Arriva Wales if they would prefer another dmu to the Loco Hauled 67 on the Manchester turn I think we would know the answer to that one, while the WAG train is just expensive nonsense from the Welsh Government and Chiltern seemed a lot more keen to have TPE 170's than more Loco Hauled and of course I bet Northern would love loads more Loco Hauled Trains

 

[Mollman]

If you asked Arriva Wales if they would prefer another dmu to the Loco Hauled 67 on the Manchester turn I think we would know the answer to that one, while the WAG train is just expensive nonsense from the Welsh Government and Chiltern seemed a lot more keen to have TPE 170's than more Loco Hauled and of course I bet Northern would love loads more Loco Hauled Trains

Actually Chiltern went for loco-hauled as it was prefered over multiple DMUs joined together. The TPE 170s were for the Oxford route which doesn't operate the same train lengths as Birmingham (and there is a peak loco turn).

 

[ScottDarg]

I think we will see on that one, carn't afford to have Loco hauled breaking down all over the place on todays busy railwayl

Both of this evening's 68 LHCS services on the Fife Circle were cancelled due to a fault with the locos.

First ECS from Motherwell only made it as far as Gartsherrie, just north of Coatbridge. The second didn't even leave Motherwell.

1st ECS: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G85745/2017/09/20/advanced

2nd ECS: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G86123/2017/09/20/advanced

EDIT: Just 68006 that failed, 007 used as a rescue loco. Thanks to user 68011 for clarifying.

 

[47802]

Actually Chiltern went for loco-hauled as it was prefered over multiple DMUs joined together. The TPE 170s were for the Oxford route which doesn't operate the same train lengths as Birmingham (and there is a peak loco turn).

On the D train thread there's a link to a lecture by Shooter and what he actually says is when Bombardier had stopped making their clubman train they looked at other options and found that a limited number of Loco Hauled trains using existing coaches in longer lengths could be made to work financially, that's not exactly the same as giving whole hearted approval of Loco Hauled trains or buying new Loco Hauled trains.

 

[68011]

Both of this evening's 68 LHCS services on the Fife Circle were cancelled due to a fault with the locos.

First ECS from Motherwell only made it as far as Gartsherrie, just north of Coatbridge. The second didn't even leave Motherwell.

1st ECS: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G85745/2017/09/20/advanced

2nd ECS: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G86123/2017/09/20/advanced

68006 was failed on 5G13, 68007 was taken off 5L69 and sent 1Z99 to collect 006 and set and return them to Motherwell, nothing wrong with 007 at all.

 

[Sunbird24]

DRS has issued a tender notice for 10 more mixed traffic diesel locomotives. As is the case these days it has to go it has to go to all manufacturers as it is a new order as opposed to an option for an existing order. Tender closes October 20th so it's wait and see until after then.

 

[ScottDarg]

68006 was failed on 5G13, 68007 was taken off 5L69 and sent 1Z99 to collect 006 and set and return them to Motherwell, nothing wrong with 007 at all.

Ah ok, apologies. Place I'd seen it reported made it sound like both locos had failed.

 

[jopsuk]

with Chiltern, it helped that the stock from WSMR more or less fell into their lap.

 

[squizzler]

DRS has issued a tender notice for 10 more mixed traffic diesel locomotives. As is the case these days it has to go it has to go to all manufacturers as it is a new order as opposed to an option for an existing order. Tender closes October 20th so it's wait and see until after then.

Also I understand the 68 is not current emissions compliant so it would be a "new" sub-series or loco design. If emissions compliant engines need to be bigger or heavier then it might require Stadler to propose Co Co platform. So if the loco has to be different it is only fair to give all manufacturers a shot at it. But Stadler will still be on the inside track because their product is proven and there is benefit for having all your kit from one supplier.

 

[BRX]

Would be nice if they could design a new version of the 68 with a front end that looks like a proper railway loco instead of a bloated people carrier.

 

[Emblematic]

Also I understand the 68 is not current emissions compliant so it would be a "new" sub-series or loco design. If emissions compliant engines need to be bigger or heavier then it might require Stadler to propose Co Co platform. So if the loco has to be different it is only fair to give all manufacturers a shot at it. But Stadler will still be on the inside track because their product is proven and there is benefit for having all your kit from one supplier.

Cat have stated before that they can get the IIIB version of the C175-16 engine into the existing UKLight package. It may not even warrant a sub-class. But they haven't won the order yet, so we may get a surprise.

Would be nice if they could design a new version of the 68 with a front end that looks like a proper railway loco instead of a bloated people carrier.

Having got one design through all the necessary testing and approvals, I doubt anything will change without a good reason. Aesthetic changes are way down the priority list, especially as many think it's rather good looking. Myself included.

 

[Sunbird24]

Several years ago when it was still Vossloh they stated that to fit the additional filters into the same bodyshell would need a major internal redesign to get everything in and maintain the required weight and balace figures for the finished product. It is likely that in the intervening years that work has been done, along with IIIB design improvements by Cat. The same teams now work for or with Stadler so an upgraded 68 is likely to be their offering. The next round of tendering will include much more specific technical details from DRS as regards their actual requirements.
They have been doing things with the Eurolight prototype 284 001-5 for a long time, perhaps it is a IIIB test bed now. Still a UIC bodyshell externally but who knows what is inside now.

 

[Photohunter71]

DRS placed a tender for 10 new mixed traffic diesel loco's? I wonder what the exact specifications were? Co-Co or Bo-Bo wheelset formation? Ok as stated earlier, we will find out a bit more come October 20th.
This essentially could become a new class altogether or a 68/1 series, but I'm just speculating and that is all. Interesting times forthcoming!

 

[Sunbird24]

DRS placed a tender for 10 new mixed traffic diesel loco's? I wonder what the exact specifications were? Co-Co or Bo-Bo wheelset formation? Ok as stated earlier, we will find out a bit more come October 20th.
This essentially could become a new class altogether or a 68/1 series, but I'm just speculating and that is all. Interesting times forthcoming!

No detailed specifications were in the tender notice, the full document can be studied here: https://www.sell2wales.gov.wales/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=SEP215134&catID=
Further details will only be supplied to serious bidders under the usual conditions.
Anything else you read from other sources is likely to be pure speculation.

 

[59CosG95]

This essentially could become a new class altogether or a 68/1 series, but I'm just speculating and that is all. Interesting times forthcoming!

68/1s: Range taken by Class 450s for trailer vehicles (450001-450099, including 450543-450570).
68/2s: Range taken by Class 377/3s for their driving vehicles; 68200 is a TSO in SWR no. 450100.
68/3s: Range taken by Class 325s for every vehicle.
68/4s: Range taken by Class 377/3s for their driving vehicles.
68/5s: Range taken by Class 360/1s for their driving vehicles.
68/6s: Range taken by Class 357/2s and 357/3s for their driving vehicles.
68/7s: Range taken by Class 357/2s and 357/3s for their driving vehicles.
68/8s: Range taken by Class 390s (/0s and /1s) for trailer vehicles.
68/9s: Range taken by Class 390/1s for motor vehicles.

A new class altogether seems more plausible.

 

[Emblematic]

68/1s: Range taken by Class 450s for trailer vehicles (450001-450099, including 450543-450570).
68/2s: Range taken by Class 377/3s for their driving vehicles; 68200 is a TSO in SWR no. 450100.
68/3s: Range taken by Class 325s for every vehicle.
68/4s: Range taken by Class 377/3s for their driving vehicles.
68/5s: Range taken by Class 360/1s for their driving vehicles.
68/6s: Range taken by Class 357/2s and 357/3s for their driving vehicles.
68/7s: Range taken by Class 357/2s and 357/3s for their driving vehicles.
68/8s: Range taken by Class 390s (/0s and /1s) for trailer vehicles.
68/9s: Range taken by Class 390/1s for motor vehicles.

A new class altogether seems more plausible.

If we're assuming that an updated 68 is bid successfully, then why would even a subclass be necessary? The differences would be limited to the details of the engine management and exhaust treatment, but from a driving and operational perspective they should be entirely interchangeable. Changes which only affect maintenance are unlikely to justify a subclass - we've had types in the same subclass with completely different engines before.

 

[43096]

68/1s: Range taken by Class 450s for trailer vehicles (450001-450099, including 450543-450570).
68/2s: Range taken by Class 377/3s for their driving vehicles; 68200 is a TSO in SWR no. 450100.
68/3s: Range taken by Class 325s for every vehicle.
68/4s: Range taken by Class 377/3s for their driving vehicles.
68/5s: Range taken by Class 360/1s for their driving vehicles.
68/6s: Range taken by Class 357/2s and 357/3s for their driving vehicles.
68/7s: Range taken by Class 357/2s and 357/3s for their driving vehicles.
68/8s: Range taken by Class 390s (/0s and /1s) for trailer vehicles.
68/9s: Range taken by Class 390/1s for motor vehicles.

A new class altogether seems more plausible.

I'm not sure why a new class would be necessary - Freightliner and GBRf have a mixture of 66 sub-types in the 665xx and 667xx number series.

What this does expose is the folly of using the same number ranges for different types of vehicles.

 

[Rhydgaled]

we've had types in the same subclass with completely different engines before.

Yes, like the class 158 and class 159 DMUs for example. The class/subclass arrangments for those fleets have seemingly no (or very little) logic to them at all. Some of the 17x 350hp Cummins 3-car class 158s are now 159s, but the others are still 158s in the same subclass as 2-car units both with Cummins engines (350hp and 400hp versions) and Perkins ones. There's also the 158/9 subclass which on Great Western denotes a 3-car hybrid but on Northern I think I read somewhere it is a missing toilet.

Also, in a number of cases, the TOC that runs a unit seems to have more impact on numbering than technical differences.

 

[sprinterguy]

There's also the 158/9 subclass which on Great Western denotes a 3-car hybrid but on Northern I think I read somewhere it is a missing toilet.

Well, the Northern 158/9s are numbered that way because they were originally ordered for West Yorkshire PTE (with a slightly different interior specification as you suggest), and the pre-existing class 158 number series, including the 159/0 vehicles pre-conversion, went up to 894. Similar story with the class 155s as built.

Quite right that numbers in the higher echelons of the 158/9 series have subsequently been used for 3-car hybrid units used by Central Trains, Wessex Trains, Transpennine Express and FGW.

 

[Sunbird24]

Just to make the numbering even more confusing some of the new class 385 units have the same coach numbers as the older 444 class units starting at 444001 and 444 001 respectively. There are similar issues in Europe where locomotives from different countries can have the same numbers including check digits and they still have differing systems for calculating check digits. Stadler are still getting them wrong on some new builds.

 

[43096]

Just to make the numbering even more confusing some of the new class 385 units have the same coach numbers as the older 444 class units starting at 444001 and 444 001 respectively. There are similar issues in Europe where locomotives from different countries can have the same numbers including check digits and they still have differing systems for calculating check digits. Stadler are still getting them wrong on some new builds.

Europe is far more standardised than here. Although locos may have the same "short" number, their full EVN will be different. The way check digits are calculated is the same for the EVN whatever country the vehicle comes from.

Is it actually Stadler getting it wrong, or the railway specifying the wrong number to the builder? Can you give us some examples?

 

[Sunbird24]

Europe is far more standardised than here. Although locos may have the same "short" number, their full EVN will be different. The way check digits are calculated is the same for the EVN whatever country the vehicle comes from.

Is it actually Stadler getting it wrong, or the railway specifying the wrong number to the builder? Can you give us some examples?

UIC recently changed from using 7 digits to calculate the check digit to using 11 to 13, thereby including country code and details. A lot of people are still using the 7 digit calculator which results in the check digit being incorrect.
It is mostly only the newer units in Spain which carry full UIC numbers. All the old stuff still has its old numbers using the old calculation. Some of the new Alpha trains Euro 4000s started out with the wrong check digits but they were rebranded before final delivery. I did not see what numbers they carry now but the originals were either painted over or covered over. I've seen several 253s and 333s with wrong check digits and some have since been corrected. I've also not seen any full numbers on the 252s which run in France, nor on any French locos either, except new ones.
Probably the main reason Spain and the Spanish do not care is because most of their stuff will never run outside its borders anyway. The 252s only run up to Perpignan using the new high-speed line, but as yet they cannot use any of the Spanish BG system except the Mediterranean corridor which is now dual gauge as far as Valencia, but only on a single track.

 

[43096]

UIC recently changed from using 7 digits to calculate the check digit to using 11 to 13, thereby including country code and details. A lot of people are still using the 7 digit calculator which results in the check digit being incorrect.

The EVN (UIC if you prefer) has been calculated the same way for years - the current system was implemented in 2007.