Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?

[JamesT]

Why? Because the reason the Mark 5As exist is down to Government - LHCS was specified as part of the TPE ITT when they were ordered. The decision to end their use with TPE was down to the Government's own DOR organisation. That is completely different to empty offices and retail units which were not ordered by, specified by or used by Government. Government paw prints are all over the Mark 5 decisions - so yes, there is a considerable embarrassment factor about them (much like was the case with the 707s).

Was LHCS actually specified in the ITT, or was it just an option for the bidder? I don’t see anything in https://assets.publishing.service.g...transpennine-express-invitation-to-tender.pdf saying it has to be LHCS. AIUI First bid the Mk 5a because they didn’t think they could get enough 80x in time.

 

[73128]

However, if class 68 are still used and trains are still going into London Marylebone, then you are still going to have the noise issue.

Quote from post: Plans have been drawn up to revive open access services between London, Shrewsbury and Wrexham under the WSMR brand, 13 years after a previous initiative ended.

I thought that they planned to use Euston.

 

[Energy]

Why? Because the reason the Mark 5As exist is down to Government - LHCS was specified as part of the TPE ITT when they were ordered.

Often said but not true. The TPE ITT only specified that stock had to be already with TPE, new build, the existing 442 vehicles, or any DMU that isn't 14x, 15x, or 17x and is surplus to the current operator.

Existing LHCS was allowed but the ROSCO had to assure that TPE would get preferential treatment over any Northern bidder.

First chose the MK5as as they felt (with the 68s being proven) that they could get them into service quickly.

 

[172007]

Total Route Modernisation in the era of Network South East brought DOO to the lines Chiltern then operated when the 165 fleet was introduced. That was undoubtedly part of running a more efficient railway.

Once Chiltern services started running north of Banbury, they needed guards for that operation.

It is somewhat obvious that and change to the rolling stock that required guards on more services south of Banbury would cost more money. Setting up a guard establishment at Marylebone for around 50 guards to run every Birmingham service with a guard south of Banbury would run to millions of pounds on an annual basis.

As I have pointed out before. I immagine the Mk5a's and AAR equipped C68's will end up with body side camera equipment to allow the continuation of DOO or a kind of DCO south of Banbury.

As class 172's and 350's have had this retrofitting in the last few years someone somewhere in Whitehall would authorise it.

 

[43096]

As I have pointed out before. I immagine the Mk5a's and AAR equipped C68's will end up with body side camera equipment to allow the continuation of DOO or a kind of DCO south of Banbury.

Why do they need AAR equipped 68s for the Mk 5As?

 

[Whistler40145]

Why do they need AAR equipped 68s for the Mk 5As?

Presumably because the Mk 5s and DVT are fitted with AAR multiple working through to the 68

 

[dgl]

Presumably because the Mk 5s and DVT are fitted with AAR multiple working through to the 68

As I understand it the Mk5's do not use an AAR system but a system native to the 68's and that the cab on DVT/DBSO on the Mk5's is designed to mimic the 68. With the Mk. 3's I understand the current setup is that they use an AAR light control system and as such I would assume you'd get better control of the train by using a more complex proprietary system.
I would guess that if Chiltern did have the Mk. 5's they would use the Ex. TPE locomotives to save having to transfer the kit over or modifying the Mk. 5's

 

[Whistler40145]

As I understand it the Mk5's do not use an AAR system but a system native to the 68's and that the cab on DVT/DBSO on the Mk5's is designed to mimic the 68. With the Mk. 3's I understand the current setup is that they use an AAR light control system and as such I would assume you'd get better control of the train by using a more complex proprietary system.
I would guess that if Chiltern did have the Mk. 5's they would use the Ex. TPE locomotives to save having to transfer the kit over or modifying the Mk. 5's

I would expect that if Chiltern take on the ex TPE Mk 5s and 68s, they'd simply hand back their 68s to DRS

 

[43096]

Presumably because the Mk 5s and DVT are fitted with AAR multiple working through to the 68

But they aren’t, which is the point.

There is also no “DVT” on the Mark 5 sets.

 

[12LDA28C]

As I have pointed out before. I immagine the Mk5a's and AAR equipped C68's will end up with body side camera equipment to allow the continuation of DOO or a kind of DCO south of Banbury.

How would this be done in time for training to commence this year and introduction to passenger service early next year, as specified by the tender? Especially if the stock is remaining in warm storage for the next few months before going off-lease?

 

[172007]

How would this be done in time for training to commence this year and introduction to passenger service early next year, as specified by the tender? Especially if the stock is remaining in warm storage for the next few months before going off-lease?

The leasing company has a vested interest to get the stock ready for a new lease ASAP. Transpennine as Operator of last resort I.e. the DFT are not going to say no to the work being done whilst in warm store as the lease expires. It's down to the necessary parts and software being available and slots at the installers which for all we know may all ready be ready.

Training, down to negotiation with the union as to days required which would have to be sorted for the MK5's anyway just extra tine for the camera equipment.

It's possible in the time frame required.

The other option is a class 175. Not sure how the cab door window being slimmer, further back and seemingly lower down would work with the CCTV monitors on the platforms south of Banbury. This may well cause issue.

Any 175 drivers have a view on looking at platform mounted monitors for dispatch and suitability?

 

[D365]

The other option is a class 175. Not sure how the cab door window being slimmer, further back and seemingly lower down would work with the CCTV monitors on the platforms south of Banbury. This may well cause issue.

And the not-minor issue of Enhanced TPWS needing to be fitted.

 

[43 302]

As I have pointed out before. I immagine the Mk5a's and AAR equipped C68's will end up with body side camera equipment to allow the continuation of DOO or a kind of DCO south of Banbury.

As class 172's and 350's have had this retrofitting in the last few years someone somewhere in Whitehall would authorise it.

Personally I can't see DOO being signed off for LHCS.

(Yes I know they do it in other countries, but this is England).

 

[RobShipway]

I thought that they planned to use Euston.

I am not sure if the paths are available into Euston, but as a backup I suspect that they may look at using Marylebone.

Either way they are more likely to be using class 222, than LHCS as the plan is to either convert the class 222 units to Hybrid after the units have bedded in or using the class 222 units until Hybrid units can be leased.

 

[12LDA28C]

Personally I can't see DOO being signed off for LHCS.

(Yes I know they do it in other countries, but this is England).

I quite agree. Not sure why many on here seem to think it's pretty much a certainty despite evidence pointing to the contrary.

 

[D365]

I am not sure if the paths are available into Euston, but as a backup I suspect that they may look at using Marylebone.

Either way they are more likely to be using class 222, than LHCS as the plan is to either convert the class 222 units to Hybrid after the units have bedded in or using the class 222 units until Hybrid units can be leased.

Source?

 

[RobShipway]

Source?

Plan to welcome open access back to Wrexham

UK: Plans have been drawn up to revive open access services between London, Shrewsbury and Wrexham under the WSMR brand, 13 years after a previous initiative ended. Tony Miles reports.

www.railwaygazette.com

From the above link where it says: "The proposal is predicated on using Class 22x diesel trainsets to operate the service. It refers to East Midlands Railway’s Class 222 fleet which will become available from next year as Class 810 Aurora bi-mode trains are introduced on Midland Main Line inter-city services.

WSMR suggests that it would significantly modify the Class 22x trainsets, fitting ‘intelligent engine start/stop technology and the installation of modified engines which meet Euro IIIb emissions standards’. If successful, WSMR says these modified engines would deliver a 70% reduction in NOx and an 80% reduction in particulate emissions.
The application says that WSMR will develop a business case to assess the viability of fitting the Class 22x fleet with battery traction technology ‘for short distances’. This is part of an ‘aspiration’ to introduce hybrid traction, either on the initial fleet once it has bedded in, or via a future procurement."

 

[The Planner]

I am not sure if the paths are available into Euston, but as a backup I suspect that they may look at using Marylebone.

They won't. No money in that.

 

[D365]

Plan to welcome open access back to Wrexham

UK: Plans have been drawn up to revive open access services between London, Shrewsbury and Wrexham under the WSMR brand, 13 years after a previous initiative ended. Tony Miles reports.

www.railwaygazette.com

From the above link where it says: "The proposal is predicated on using Class 22x diesel trainsets to operate the service. It refers to East Midlands Railway’s Class 222 fleet which will become available from next year as Class 810 Aurora bi-mode trains are introduced on Midland Main Line inter-city services.

WSMR suggests that it would significantly modify the Class 22x trainsets, fitting ‘intelligent engine start/stop technology and the installation of modified engines which meet Euro IIIb emissions standards’. If successful, WSMR says these modified engines would deliver a 70% reduction in NOx and an 80% reduction in particulate emissions.
The application says that WSMR will develop a business case to assess the viability of fitting the Class 22x fleet with battery traction technology ‘for short distances’. This is part of an ‘aspiration’ to introduce hybrid traction, either on the initial fleet once it has bedded in, or via a future procurement."

Given that Porterbrook's Class 165/168 re-engineering trials have seemingly not been a success - and that the Class 22x bi-mode conversion never got off the ground - I highly doubt anything beyond minor modification of the existing QSK19 engines will ever be deemed viable. But as Chiltern doesn't seem to be interested in pursuing Eversholt-owned rolling stock (Class 222 or Mk4s), that's all by-the-by.

 

[Fincra5]

Given that Porterbrook's Class 165/168 re-engineering trials have seemingly not been a success - and that the Class 22x bi-mode conversion never got off the ground - I highly doubt anything beyond minor modification of the existing QSK19 engines will ever be deemed viable. But as Chiltern doesn't seem to be interested in pursuing Eversholt-owned rolling stock (Class 222 or Mk4s), that's all by-the-by.

Off-Topic but I'd imagine the fact a 22x is a DEMU not DMU could make it easier to convert.

 

[JamesT]

Off-Topic but I'd imagine the fact a 22x is a DEMU not DMU could make it easier to convert.

Though as 22x’s don’t have power cables between carriages, traction batteries are still going to need a diesel in the same carriage. As seen in the 80x’s, an engine compliant with modern standards needs more space rather than less.

 

[WSMP]

The general feeling around the industry is that Chiltern certainly are interested in the Mk5s, dependent on the Class 68 noise reduction modifications being successful.

Class 168s (and indeed 165s) being DOO south of Banbury is nothing to do with 'saving money', it's purely down to a historical arrangement which required guards north thereof. LHCS use guards throughout.

The introduction of DOO by BR back in the day was all about saving money! Chiltern certainly financially benefited.

I did hear from an industry source that there were musings of diesel traction, switching to batteries for the last leg into and first leg out of Marylebone. Thinking more about it, I wonder if that signals Class 93 haulage with Mk5s?

 

[JamesT]

I did hear from an industry source that there were musings of diesel traction, switching to batteries for the last leg into and first leg out of Marylebone. Thinking more about it, I wonder if that signals Class 93 haulage with Mk5s?

Wouldn’t that have been likely referring to the prototype Class 168 hybrid?

 

[43096]

Thinking more about it, I wonder if that signals Class 93 haulage with Mk5s?

Here we go again... The amazing properties of the Class 93 and its Type 2 rating diesel engine.

Does no-one ever look at the basic capabilities of them before posting such "ideas"?

 

[The Planner]

The introduction of DOO by BR back in the day was all about saving money! Chiltern certainly financially benefited.

I did hear from an industry source that there were musings of diesel traction, switching to batteries for the last leg into and first leg out of Marylebone. Thinking more about it, I wonder if that signals Class 93 haulage with Mk5s?

Any electrification will certainly be on that basis.

 

[JonathanH]

Thinking more about it, I wonder if that signals Class 93 haulage with Mk5s?

With no electrified track at all between Marylebone and Birmingham Snow Hill, class 93 use with Mk5s can fairly safely be ruled out, just as any other low horsepower self-powered locomotive could be.

 

[12LDA28C]

The introduction of DOO by BR back in the day was all about saving money! Chiltern certainly financially benefited.

I did hear from an industry source that there were musings of diesel traction, switching to batteries for the last leg into and first leg out of Marylebone. Thinking more about it, I wonder if that signals Class 93 haulage with Mk5s?

Your 'industry source' was no doubt referring to the Class 168 Battery Hybrid unit which has already returned to Wolverton for conversion back to full diesel configuration. Class 93s and Mk5s? Nonsense.

 

[warwickshire]

Your 'industry source' was no doubt referring to the Class 168 Battery Hybrid unit which has already returned to Wolverton for conversion back to full diesel configuration. Class 93s and Mk5s? Nonsense.

Pity unlike the rog drags to Long Marston, know it will never happen, unless failure, which will happen if available a 37 for haulage.
37 to haul Mk5s, so train will have 100 per cent reliability, with 68 supplying train heat and power, but like a old generator van style, noise free, but if only, 37 with 68 stuck inside, proper haulage.

 

[12LDA28C]

Pity unlike the rog drags to Long Marston, know it will never happen, unless failure, which will happen if available a 37 for haulage.
37 to haul Mk5s, so train will have 100 per cent reliability, with 68 supplying train heat and power, but like a old generator van style, noise free, but if only, 37 with 68 stuck inside, proper haulage.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Anyone able to translate?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Anyone able to translate?

I think he's hoping for a 37 dragging a 68 + Mk 5 set in passenger service somewhere, but he also recognises it won't happen.