Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?

[L+Y]

The Northern routes I'd suggest are theoretically better than the S&C are the Airport - Barrow and Windermere routes, plus Blackpool - York, to cascade 195s.

But appreciate it ain't at all likely!

 

[The Planner]

Don't think the 60mph is to do with the track, which is, I understand in good condition. It's mainly a signalling issue (spacing, axle counters etc).

Spacing is fine for higher speeds. Its structures, formation etc.

 

[Philip]

The Northern routes I'd suggest are theoretically better than the S&C are the Airport - Barrow and Windermere routes, plus Blackpool - York, to cascade 195s.

But appreciate it ain't at all likely!

I think that's a good suggestion, because 6 sets (and a couple more for spare/maintenance) would cover all Cumbria diagrams and you'd free up at least 8 195s as some of them run in multiple. They could be maintained within the route at Longsight and 5 coaches per service would provide enough capacity, whilst not restricting guards/passengers from walking through the full train. Perhaps Northern could even look at hiring some electric locos as part of the lease, to drag the 68/mk5 along the electric part of the route?

 

[matacaster]

Spacing is fine for higher speeds. Its structures, formation etc.

Thanks, wasn't aware of that.

 

[Philip]

The Northern routes I'd suggest are theoretically better than the S&C are the Airport - Barrow and Windermere routes, plus Blackpool - York, to cascade 195s.

But appreciate it ain't at all likely!

I think that's a good suggestion, because 6 sets (and a couple more for spare/maintenance) would cover all Cumbria diagrams and you'd free up at least 8 195s, as some of them run in multiple. They could be maintained within the route at Longsight and 5 coaches per service would provide enough capacity, whilst not restricting guards/passengers from walking through the full train. Perhaps Northern could even look at hiring some electric locos as part of the lease, to drag the 68/mk5 along the electric part of the route?

I think there is an aversion here to replacing DMUs with anything loco-hauled because it is something an enthusuast would usually suggest for nostalgic reasons, but if Northern can sort out the reliability problems then I think they'd be better for the Cumbria services than the 195s are.

 

[JonathanH]

I think there is an aversion here to replacing DMUs with anything loco-hauled because it is something an enthusuast would usually suggest for nostalgic reasons, but if Northern can sort out the reliability problems then I think they'd be better for the Cumbria services than the 195s are.

The aversion is because it is expensive to operate and totally inappropriate for the routes suggested, nothing to do with enthusiasm. If they don't work for TPE, the idea of putting them on less lucrative routes, with loads of traincrew to train in locomotive handling is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Philip]

The aversion is because it is expensive to operate and totally inappropriate for the routes suggested, nothing to do with enthusiasm. If they don't work for TPE, the idea of putting them on less lucrative routes, with loads of traincrew to train in locomotive handling is absolutely ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous to put them on less lucrative routes such as this one? The important factors are whether the train more-or-less matches the linespeed, whether the train provides the required capacity, comfort and reliability. Apart from the last point, a 68/mk5 ticks those boxes. First class provision isn't an issue, this could be converted to standard to provide extra standard capacity. The noise issue seems to me to be a lot of fuss about little. I have heard them in stations both idling and in acceleration and really it's hardly deafening.

Crew training would need to happen at the majority of new potential operators, possibly all except Chiltern?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Why is it ridiculous to put them on less lucrative routes such as this one? The important factors are whether the train more-or-less matches the linespeed, whether the train provides the required capacity, comfort and reliability. Apart from the last point, a 68/mk5 ticks those boxes. First class provision isn't an issue, this could be converted to standard to provide extra standard capacity. The noise issue seems to me to be a lot of fuss about little. I have heard them in stations both idling and in acceleration and really it's hardly deafening.

Crew training would need to happen at the majority of new potential operators, possibly all except Chiltern?

Sadly they cost more to run - where is the money coming from ?.

And the 68s are too noisy for the residents near the line. A particular problem at Scarborough Depot which has restricted operations to daytime only. At Marylebone the local council has weighed in on the noise issue so Chiltern will not be keeping their 68s unless the sound levels can be improved on. It is not about the noise being painful it is about it disturbing people in their homes and the complaints they have made.

 

[Killingworth]

The aversion is because it is expensive to operate and totally inappropriate for the routes suggested, nothing to do with enthusiasm. If they don't work for TPE, the idea of putting them on less lucrative routes, with loads of traincrew to train in locomotive handling is absolutely ridiculous.

Northern say every passenger mile costs 40p in subsidy, averaged across all routes and times. Taking on an additional training need to operate and service known unreliable and expensive units for any route must be a total non starter.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Northern say every passenger mile costs 40p in subsidy, averaged across all routes and times. Taking on an additional training need to operate and service known unreliable and expensive units for any route must be a total non starter.

Its the case that even if the Mk5s were more reliable (possible inevitably) and economical to run they would still be a micro fleet which brings its own problems. It was a challenge on TPE to crew them once the 802s were coming on stream.

 

[Philip]

How much extra per mile would a 68-mk5 set cost to run, compared with a 6-car 195 set?

 

[Iskra]

Northern say every passenger mile costs 40p in subsidy, averaged across all routes and times. Taking on an additional training need to operate and service known unreliable and expensive units for any route must be a total non starter.

Most of our railways need subsidy, should we close them all down and just run the few profit making lines?

Perhaps, if you put 68’s on a line regular passengers that don’t care about seat design and perfect window alignment might flock to it and reduce the subsidy despite the extra costs incurred? It’s possible.

Arguing against doing anything that requires investment because there’s already a subsidy is simply guaranteeing a vicious cycle of decline and not very progressive.

 

[JonathanH]

Most of our railways need subsidy, should we close them all down and just run the few profit making lines?

No, not at all, but running efficient rolling stock, rather than rolling stock that is expensive to operate, is important in keeping the subsidy level at a point which is affordable.

Arguing against doing anything that requires investment because there’s already a subsidy is simply guaranteeing a vicious cycle of decline and not very progressive.

The Cumbria routes from Manchester Airport were the first to see the 195s when they were introduced. No one argued against that investment.

 

[Peter Sarf]

No, not at all, but running efficient rolling stock, rather than rolling stock that is expensive to operate, is important in keeping the subsidy level at a point which is affordable.


The Cumbria routes from Manchester Airport were the first to see the 195s when they were introduced. No one argued against that investment.

As you say, routes like the Cumbria and Manchester airport have already been invested in with 195s.

The ex-TPE Mk5s need to go to a route where they provide a benefit. That benefit has to be to a market that is bigger and more demanding than something a 195 satisfies. Otherwise the additional running costs of a locomotive and five coaches cannot be supported. The challenge is finding such a route.

This is not a problem for the railways but a problem for the company that owns the rolling stock. Sadly I see the 68s quite quickly going to other duties - freight. That then leaves the Mk5s not only without a route but without motive power !. The opportunity might be to use the ex-TPE Mk5s with a Bi-Mode locomotive - class 93 ?.
But where ?.
If more of the trans Pennine route was electrified then a 93 plus 5 might do - but the 802s are there already as a 125mph Bi-Modes.

Being a micro-fleet I can see the ex-TPE Mk5s' best chance being to replace an existing micro-fleet rather than lumbering a TOC with an extra micro-fleet. Alternative is as peak busters or covering unit shortages like 37s+Mk2s did in the South Wales valleys or Cumbrian coast.

But I doubt a TOC wants to train anybody unless very desperate. Especially now as a TOC is more focused on saving the DfTs money rather than providing the service level that was in their contract.

Goalposts have moved. It might have encouraged TPE to shed a micro-fleet regardless of the effect on service.

 

[JonathanH]

The opportunity might be to use the ex-TPE Mk5s with a Bi-Mode locomotive - class 93 ?. But where ?.

Personally I'd like to see them go back to Newport and be rebuilt in some form to work as more conventional unit, which would require rebuilding at the slab end. I suspect there isn't a lot of room under them for traction equipment so some extra coaches may need to be built.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Personally I'd like to see them go back to Newport and be rebuilt in some form to work as more conventional unit, which would require rebuilding at the slab end. I suspect there isn't a lot of room under them for traction equipment so some extra coaches may need to be built.

Indeed they could be re-purposed. Like you I wonder what the underfloor space is like - we are leading ourselves to a multiple unit and if an extra coach is required then it will have a cab, panto-graph, transformer and traction motors !. I think Newport beckons and more likely an export "opportunity".

I arrive at the conclusion that a conversion to sleeper coaches for Great Western beckons as they would then remain loco hauled so just (ha !) an internal re-fit required ?.

As for the driving trailers - perhaps 8 car push pull sleepers ?. No I think the driving trailers will join 12802 each hidden under their own tarpaulin at Newport.

Of course the fact that Newport is not rail connected means that they are more likely to go somewhere else more convenient. Thus if the Mk5s do make it back to Newport it would be a positive indication that CAF feel there is a use for them. But are they CAFs problem ?. I don't think CAF own them do they ?. So if CAF took them to Newport that would indicate CAF have plans for them.

 

[RailWonderer]

Of course the fact that Newport is not rail connected means that they are more likely to go somewhere else more convenient. Thus if the Mk5s do make it back to Newport it would be a positive indication that CAF feel there is a use for them. But are they CAFs problem ?. I don't think CAF own them do they ?. So if CAF took them to Newport that would indicate CAF have plans for them.

Are there some software issues prohibiting them from attaching to Chiltern's Mk3s? The local council in Marylebone didn't want the noise but without a suitable alternative Chiltern will have to keep them anyway and nothing the council can do about that.

 

[JonathanH]

Of course the fact that Newport is not rail connected means that they are more likely to go somewhere else more convenient. Thus if the Mk5s do make it back to Newport it would be a positive indication that CAF feel there is a use for them. But are they CAFs problem ?. I don't think CAF own them do they ?. So if CAF took them to Newport that would indicate CAF have plans for them.

They are the responsibility of their leasing company, Beacon Rail, not CAF, but the leasing company can only really go to CAF to try to get them used for something more suitable. That said, with only 66 vehicles, it is a bit of a niche piece of work and could well be a waste of money.

They weren't built at Newport in any case, but in Spain.

Are there some software issues prohibiting them from attaching to Chiltern's Mk3s?

Chiltern have their own allocation of class 68s already. The Mark 3s can't couple to Mark 5s.

 

[xotGD]

Nottingham - Leeds - Carlisle
York - Blackpool
York - Scarborough Northern shuttle (or combine with the above)

Reroute the first of these via Wakefield Westgate so that it can reverse in one of the bay platforms at Leeds.

Would suit me, anyway.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

Sadly they cost more to run - where is the money coming from ?.

And the 68s are too noisy for the residents near the line. A particular problem at Scarborough Depot which has restricted operations to daytime only. At Marylebone the local council has weighed in on the noise issue so Chiltern will not be keeping their 68s unless the sound levels can be improved on. It is not about the noise being painful it is about it disturbing people in their homes and the complaints they have made.

Who'd have thunk it eh, you choose to live in a property close to the railway and you can hear trains !

 

[Peter Sarf]

Are there some software issues prohibiting them from attaching to Chiltern's Mk3s? The local council in Marylebone didn't want the noise but without a suitable alternative Chiltern will have to keep them anyway and nothing the council can do about that.

The Mk3s and Mk5s probably are not mechanically compatible. They are certainly not compatible software wise (to work with a locomotive). Only way Chiltern would use the Mk5s is as a complete replacements for their Mk3s. Would have to swap the 68s over as well for software compatibility. But big issue for Chiltern is the noise of the 68s. The 68s need to be made quieter.

I expect the Chiltern Mk3s can still work with 67s....

 

[Philip]

As I said the Cumbria services already have a number of diagrams booked for 6-car operation. The 68-mk5 sets would be a suitable alternative capacity-wise.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Who'd have thunk it eh, you choose to live in a property close to the railway and you can hear trains !

The problem is the noise from the 68s is significantly more intrusive than other current trains. Left ticking over at night keeping coaches warm I think was the worst of it. Where the depot at Scarborough is there are not many houses that near - that is how bad it must be.

Really those ordering the 68s should have thought about it.

EDIT
I ought to add that people have higher expectations these days and feel they have more rights. So noise is more likely to be objected to. To then come along with a locomotive that makes a very good noise in my opinion is asking for trouble. I think even HSTs, 47s and 55s were quieter. Possibly the whistle of an English Electric (class 40) at tick-over might have been more annoying but not sure the sound carried so far - they did not have to provide ETH of course so less engine power required.

 

[Neptune]

As I said the Cumbria services already have a number of diagrams booked for 6-car operation. The 68-mk5 sets would be a suitable alternative capacity-wise.

6 car 195 has 368 seats.
Mk 5 rake has 286 seats.

Anyway it’s all academic as the mk5’s aren’t coming to Northern.

 

[deltic08]

Absolutely no way are 170’s suitable due to the max linespeed of the route being 60mph. Only the first (or last) 26 miles of this 112 mile route would enable them to get into final drive. Think of the uproar on here about their use on the 65mph Harrogate line.

Not even 65mph. The hilly part between Leeds and Knaresborough is only 60mph and gearboxes are suffering even more. 158s are more suitable than 170s due to more rapid acceleration from station stops with reduced journey times.

 

[gingertom]

I reckon the Windermere-Manchester Airport run would be a good fit for the mk5s with a 93 hauling/propelling.

 

[deltic08]

I would agree that 2, 3 and 4 car units are fine for the Leeds - Carlisle service.


Admittedly, it is possibly a subject for another thread if one is not out there already, but I cannot see how you would be able to be using higher speed trains than class 158 units on the Leeds - Carlisle route. I would stand corrected, but I don't believe that there is much improvement to the track speed that can be done. So on that basis, you would not want any trains doing above 90mph on the route, if that speed is possible?

The Settle-Carlisle was a 90mph railway in steam days especially during electrification north of Preston. Diverted double headed class 50s regularly maintained this speed north of Kirkby Stephen and even exceeded this on straighter parts of the route.
Apart from installation of intermediate block signals to accommodate the increase in coal traffic, signal braking distances have not not been reduced since steam finished. Hot axle box detectors are few and far between on this route as shown by the seized axle box on the cement train from Clitheroe derailed at Petterill Bridge Junction in Carlisle having travelled 80 miles from Clitheroe with the handbrake partly on.
I was told by a NR track worker that linespeed could easily be raised to 75 or even 80mph without difficulty as it is a paper exercise but the request would have to come from Northern and pay for the paperwork. He didn't say if it was DMU speed limit or overall.

 

[Neptune]

Not even 65mph. The hilly part between Leeds and Knaresborough is only 60mph and gearboxes are suffering even more. 158s are more suitable than 170s due to more rapid acceleration from station stops with reduced journey times.

They aren’t suffering too badly because they spend more of their working life on the Sheffield - Scarborough services.

However the ideal unit would be 195’s for the line. Much quicker than 158’s and with a door layout to suit a commuter route. There aren’t many people doing much more than 45 minutes on these services.

I reckon the Windermere-Manchester Airport run would be a good fit for the mk5s with a 93 hauling/propelling.

End door stock is terrible for the Castlefield corridor. Yes there is some running through there but it should be reduced, not increased. Also as I mentioned above, they are a significant reduction in capacity over a 6 car 195.

 

[deltic08]

They aren’t suffering too badly because they spend more of their working life on the Sheffield - Scarborough services.

However the ideal unit would be 195’s for the line. Much quicker than 158’s and with a door layout to suit a commuter route. There aren’t many people doing much more than 45 minutes on these services.

End door stock is terrible for the Castlefield corridor. Yes there is some running through there but it should be reduced, not increased. Also as I mentioned above, they are a significant reduction in capacity over a 6 car 195.

Yes, I would like to see 195s on the Harrogate Loop too for their superior acceleration but are wasted on a 60mph railway.
I would like to see the Loop electrified to eliminate a diesel island as both ends at York and Leeds are already wired. There would be a big enough pool of EMUs if all 26 323s are cascaded from Birmingham to Northern to move 9 more 3-car 331s over to Leeds. Unfortunately DfT has said a definite no or a gobbledy gook reply to that effect.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, I would like to see 195s on the Harrogate Loop too for their superior acceleration but are wasted on a 60mph railway.
I would like to see the Loop electrified to eliminate a diesel island as both ends at York and Leeds are already wired. There would be a big enough pool of EMUs if all 26 323s are cascaded from Birmingham to Northern to move 9 more 3-car 331s over to Leeds. Unfortunately DfT has said a definite no or a gobbledy gook reply to that effect.

It's something approaching 100km single track kilometres, which is unfortunately about £400m worth of electrification at current 25kV prices.