Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?

[Peter Sarf]

There was suggestion some pages back (correcting an assumption by myself) that the Mk5A controls can only work with 68s - can anybody confirm if 88s can work with Mk5As without modification?

Indeed. I am dying to know whether the 88s, 93s ond/or 99s can work with the Mk5s. It would make speculation so much easier .

 

[Energy]

Indeed. I am dying to know whether the 88s, 93s ond/or 99s can work with the Mk5s. It would make speculation so much easier .

68s and 88s not without modification, the TPE 68s have connector, screen and wiring installed.

 

[sjpowermac]

Indeed. I am dying to know whether the 88s, 93s ond/or 99s can work with the Mk5s. It would make speculation so much easier .

At present the only locomotives that can work with the Mk5A stock and have full functionality are the Class 68s in the number range 68019-68034.

There are two elements to the control system.

In the picture below, the two thinner wires at the top are for the ‘Wire Train Bus’ system that essentially allows the loco to be driven from the Driving Trailer (DT). This is different from the AAR system used by the Chiltern Class 68s, but similar in operation and a straightforward modification.

The second element of the system is carried via the ‘CAF’ cable which is the thicker cable at the bottom in the images. This cable carries information for the ‘Train Management System’ (TMS) and includes features such as being able to operate the coach doors from the locomotive and various safety systems (such as Hot Axel Box Detection).

In addition to the cables, 68019-68034 are fitted with additional equipment in the cabs, including coach door controls and an additional screen for the TMS.

Regarding the question of whether other classes of loco could be made compatible with the Mk5A stock, I believe the answer would be ‘yes’, but the locos would require modifications similar to those described above.

I would image that the Stadler built locos (Class 88 and Class 93) would potentially be easier, since their software and control systems share similarities with the Class 68s.

Getting the loco/stock interface working well was a big challenge with the Class 68/Mk5A sets, though it was pretty much there post Wolverton mods in 2022, so starting out with new locos might be something that would give engineers pause for thought.

Never say never, but I would discount the Class 67s. Of the classes mentioned, I think the Class 93 would be the most likely candidate for operation over electrified lines.

The Class 68s in the range 68019-34 (in reality 68019-32 since 68033/34 are owned directly by DRS) would be the only realistic candidates if the Chiltern contract did go to the Mk5A sets.

 

[leighsw2]

Call me biased, but I still think that TPE, particularly the South Route Liverpool to Cleethorpes is the best use for the stock, but sadly that ship has well and truly sailed!

I can only dream!

 

[sjpowermac]

I can only dream!

I think it’s a huge shame that driver training was abandoned on the Liverpool-Manchester-Cleethorpes route, especially with over two-thirds of the training done and with a driver rest day working agreement in place. I think having four diagrams up and running by December 2023 would have been entirely realistic.

 

[Peter Sarf]

At present the only locomotives that can work with the Mk5A stock and have full functionality are the Class 68s in the number range 68019-68034.

There are two elements to the control system.

In the picture below, the two thinner wires at the top are for the ‘Wire Train Bus’ system that essentially allows the loco to be driven from the Driving Trailer (DT). This is different from the AAR system used by the Chiltern Class 68s, but similar in operation and a straightforward modification.

The second element of the system is carried via the ‘CAF’ cable which is the thicker cable at the bottom in the images. This cable carries information for the ‘Train Management System’ (TMS) and includes features such as being able to operate the coach doors from the locomotive and various safety systems (such as Hot Axel Box Detection).

In addition to the cables, 68019-68034 are fitted with additional equipment in the cabs, including coach door controls and an additional screen for the TMS.

Regarding the question of whether other classes of loco could be made compatible with the Mk5A stock, I believe the answer would be ‘yes’, but the locos would require modifications similar to those described above.

I would image that the Stadler built locos (Class 88 and Class 93) would potentially be easier, since their software and control systems share similarities with the Class 68s.

Getting the loco/stock interface working well was a big challenge with the Class 68/Mk5A sets, though it was pretty much there post Wolverton mods in 2022, so starting out with new locos might be something that would give engineers pause for thought.

Never say never, but I would discount the Class 67s. Of the classes mentioned, I think the Class 93 would be the most likely candidate for operation over electrified lines.

The Class 68s in the range 68019-34 (in reality 68019-32 since 68033/34 are owned directly by DRS) would be the only realistic candidates if the Chiltern contract did go to the Mk5A sets.

Thanks for your information. So 93s would be the best candidate if going down the Bi-Mode route to run the Mk5s. I would imagine *IF* the same engineers are involved then adapting the 93s would be easier than starting the learning curve that those dealing with the 68s had to climb up.

 

[D365]

At present the only locomotives that can work with the Mk5A stock and have full functionality are the Class 68s in the number range 68019-68034.

Thanks for your detailed post.

The Class 68s in the range 68019-34 (in reality 68019-32 since 68033/34 are owned directly by DRS) would be the only realistic candidates if the Chiltern contract did go to the Mk5A sets.

How did it end up being that DRS own 033, 034 when Beacon Rail own most/all the rest of the 68s?

 

[gingertom]

No, but should be fairly clear within couple of hours, if they have a clear winner, when one compliant bid is miles ahead on price and/or quality (or is only bid).

If 2 or more bids are quite close, then will take more evaluating, and of course if a bid is not quite meeting spec, need to decide if it is close enough.

If they had tender funding pre approved and within budget it is quick DfT rubber stamping exercise. On other hand if only just starting negotiations about funding approval, it could be months.

Chiltern isn't obliged to accept any of the tender offerings if they don't like what they see. It would leave them in a difficult place but do nothing is always an option.

I think any Bi-Mode locomotive (88, 93 or 99), for the Mk5s, would really be relevant for something like the Euston to Stirling open access operation suggested up thread. Certainly no use for the Chiltern route unless a lot of it got electrified but that would be a long way off.

Bi modes aren't needed for Stirling-Euston. Wiring is continuous between the 2 (except for neutral sections of course).

 

[D365]

Bi modes aren't needed for Stirling-Euston. Wiring is continuous between the 2 (except for neutral sections of course).

But if an open access operator wants to lease Mk5As, a Stadler locomotive is needed.

 

[zwk500]

But if an open access operator wants to lease Mk5As, a Stadler locomotive is needed.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...ondon-stirling-amended-application-form-p.pdf. Grand Union's Application to the ORR says 91 + MK4, so unless they've submitted a revised application since, GU won't be going for the Mk5s on that route.

 

[D365]

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...ondon-stirling-amended-application-form-p.pdf. Grand Union's Application to the ORR says 91 + MK4, so unless they've submitted a revised application since, GU won't be going for the Mk5s on that route.

I'd be surprised if a Class 91 is ever seen in regular WCML service, but that's by-the-by.

 

[gingertom]

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...ondon-stirling-amended-application-form-p.pdf. Grand Union's Application to the ORR says 91 + MK4, so unless they've submitted a revised application since, GU won't be going for the Mk5s on that route.

not many of either of those left are there?

 

[JonathanH]

not many of either of those left are there?

The remaining ones are due to be given up by LNER at some point in 2025 though.

 

[zwk500]

not many of either of those left are there?

Obviously GU have identified enough. And they'll have applied for paths on the basis of Class 91 timings, so any alternative stock would need to be able to meet those paths, which means 110mph electric power.

 

[The Planner]

Obviously GU have identified enough. And they'll have applied for paths on the basis of Class 91 timings, so any alternative stock would need to be able to meet those paths, which means 110mph electric power.

They are looking at 221s as well now.

 

[Peter Sarf]

..........................

Bi modes aren't needed for Stirling-Euston. Wiring is continuous between the 2 (except for neutral sections of course).

But

But if an open access operator wants to lease Mk5As, a Stadler locomotive is needed.

Indeed.

So my assumption is that if a quieter locomotive is required and capable of 110mph. The electric part of the Stadler offered Bi-Modes might be the easiest - 88, 93 (favourite) or 99. There are no straight electric locomotives as suitable (for compatibility with the Mk5s) as those three plus having a diesel engine means they can get by with diversions (small or maybe longer) or other perturbations.

 

[43096]

But

Indeed.

So my assumption is that if a quieter locomotive is required and capable of 110mph. The electric part of the Stadler offered Bi-Modes might be the easiest - 88, 93 (favourite) or 99. There are no straight electric locomotives as suitable (for compatibility with the Mk5s) as those three plus having a diesel engine means they can get by with diversions (small or maybe longer) or other perturbations.

I'm not sure why people keep talking about the 99 in the context of Mark 5s. At least the initial batch are 75mph freight machines. There may be a case for developing it into a passenger machine, but that is likely to be a 100mph beast and is only "vapourware" currently.

 

[aem7ac]

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...ondon-stirling-amended-application-form-p.pdf. Grand Union's Application to the ORR says 91 + MK4, so unless they've submitted a revised application since, GU won't be going for the Mk5s on that route.

The application was modified in October 2023 to completely drop the 91+Mk4 plan - it became apparent that it would not work thanks to the scrapping of the withdrawn LNER IC225 sets during the pandemic. The application now only mentions 22xs according to the October issue of Modern Railways.

 

[sjpowermac]

Thanks for your detailed post.

How did it end up being that DRS own 033, 034 when Beacon Rail own most/all the rest of the 68s?

You are most welcome, I’m glad it helped.

68033/34 were ordered so that if more of the dedicated TPE locos were out of traffic than expected there would be modified locos to cover them.

I’m not sure why they were ordered and owned directly by DRS rather than going through Beacon as with the rest of the fleet. Perhaps it was a late decision and direct ownership was the quickest route?

Thanks for your information. So 93s would be the best candidate if going down the Bi-Mode route to run the Mk5s. I would imagine *IF* the same engineers are involved then adapting the 93s would be easier than starting the learning curve that those dealing with the 68s had to climb up.

Yes, as I understand it, that’s correct. That said, I think it’s still quite a big engineering task. First Group did put out an ‘expressions of interest’ for up to 30 bi-modes for TPE and GWR.

As far as I’m aware though there was never a formal evaluation of the costs of modifying a Class 93 to work with the Mk5A stock.

 

[CJ]

Call me biased, but I still think that TPE, particularly the South Route Liverpool to Cleethorpes is the best use for the stock, but sadly that ship has well and truly sailed!

I agree, I think the Liverpool - Cleethorpes (South TPE) would have been a good route for the whole (or majority of) the fleet to be dedicated to, as they would remain self contained and would be able to access Longsight still.

If they still had enough, they could probably have kept them on the York - Scarborough shuttles too (and extend to Manchester on early morning/late night routes and further extend on Summer timetables).

 

[sjpowermac]

I agree, I think the Liverpool - Cleethorpes (South TPE) would have been a good route for the whole (or majority of) the fleet to be dedicated to, as they would remain self contained and would be able to access Longsight still.

If they still had enough, they could probably have kept them on the York - Scarborough shuttles too (and extend to Manchester on early morning/late night routes and further extend on Summer timetables).

The South Route had the added advantage that TPE set up a servicing point at Doncaster Railport, well away from any residential areas, so the noise ‘problem’ would not have applied there.

 

[LUYMun]

Very pie in the sky: could the 68+Mk5s go over to Cross Country to bolster train capacity?

 

[sjpowermac]

Very pie in the sky: could the 68+Mk5s go over to Cross Country to bolster train capacity?

I think most (all?) of the trains on Cross Country that are operated by the Class 220 units are timed at 125 mph.

The trains operated by Class 170s, Cardiff to Nottingham and Birmingham New Street to Stansted Airport, would be more likely.

 

[The Planner]

I think most (all?) of the trains on Cross Country that are operated by the Class 220 units are timed at 125 mph.

The trains operated by Class 170s, Cardiff to Nottingham and Birmingham New Street to Stansted Airport, would be more likely.

Doubt it, they would bust all the dwell times.

 

[Trainbike46]

I think most (all?) of the trains on Cross Country that are operated by the Class 220 units are timed at 125 mph.

The trains operated by Class 170s, Cardiff to Nottingham and Birmingham New Street to Stansted Airport, would be more likely.

and on stansted airport they would be a lot slower as they cannot use sprinter differentials, so would run at a much lower speed

 

[sjpowermac]

Doubt it, they would bust all the dwell times.

That’s as maybe, but I did say ‘more likely’ rather than ‘I propose they use the Mk5A sets on that route’.

Posts like this remind me why I have largely stopped contributing to this forum.

 

[craigybagel]

That’s as maybe, but I did say ‘more likely’ rather than ‘I propose they use the Mk5A sets on that route’.

Posts like this remind me why I have largely stopped contributing to this forum.

Posts like this remind me why staff often get frustrated with this forum. I'm not sure what you're getting upset about but you were pretty politely told why it's not necessarily more likely for them to go on the 170 routes and not the Voyager routes at XC.

Given how much padding is in the timetables of the Voyager routes, and how apart from along the Birmingham - Edinburgh corridor there isn't all that much running above 100mph, they might not actually cope too badly with the timings.

 

[Peter Sarf]

That’s as maybe, but I did say ‘more likely’ rather than ‘I propose they use the Mk5A sets on that route’.

Posts like this remind me why I have largely stopped contributing to this forum.

Its a speculative thread so your entitled to throw any ideas you have into the ring. Otherwise there would be no potential uses discussed. Of course then have to be brave and see what the feedback is.

I wonder which is more likely - something like bolstering XC 220s or XC 170s ?. I could see from a passenger ambience point of view Mk5s would fit better with routes served by 220s but that might be knackered by Avanti 220s/221s coming off lease being available. Then again using Mk5s would probably be seen by passengers using 170s as an upgrade. Then there are the practical issues !. But are they serious enough.

I find myself wondering Scotrail replacing their HSTs (how dare they !) would seem the place the Mk5s would fit.

 

[43096]

Its a speculative thread so your entitled to throw any ideas you have into the ring. Otherwise there would be no potential uses discussed. Of course then have to be brave and see what the feedback is.

I wonder which is more likely - something like bolstering XC 220s or XC 170s ?. I could see from a passenger ambience point of view Mk5s would fit better with routes served by 220s but that might be knackered by Avanti 220s/221s coming off lease being available. Then again using Mk5s would probably be seen by passengers using 170s as an upgrade. Then there are the practical issues !. But are they serious enough.

Actually, one idea that was gaining ground within DfT was to use them on the Nottingham-Cardiff service. It's not just about that service, but also frees up 170s for use elsewhere.

Scotrail replacing their HSTs (how dare they !) would seem the place the Mk5s would fit.

If you think a total fleet of 13 trains can replace 16 in traffic trains, sure. And would like to pay for two lots of trains at the same time.

 

[The Planner]

Given how much padding is in the timetables of the Voyager routes, and how apart from along the Birmingham - Edinburgh corridor there isn't all that much running above 100mph, they might not actually cope too badly with the timings.

Yes and no. XC like to get between A and B as rapidly as possible with longer dwells at the bigger stations to soak up any delays. They don't like being given paths where they get pathed out (not that they have much choice on lines such as the cross city south)