Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?

[RobShipway]

I do wonder if TPE will actually place an order for more Hiatchi AT300 units or be passed some AT300 units, such that both the class 397 units and the standard carriage MK5A carriages would be combined together to make 12 9 carriage trains for LNER?

The 14 driving carriages would either be scrapped for spares or sent abroad if they could be used with existing CAF coaches being used.

 

[JonathanH]

both the class 397 units and the standard carriage MK5A carriages would be combined together to make 12 9 carriage trains for LNER

I'm not convinced that works. The carriage profile of a 397 and a Mark 5A carriage isn't the same.

You could only make an 8 coach train with a 397 and the Mark 5A carriages that have gangways in any case.

 

[Energy]

I do wonder if TPE will actually place an order for more Hiatchi AT300 units or be passed some AT300 units

TPE always planned to loose some 185s, they'll be retained now instead.

If TPE ever gain more 802s I'd expect it to be some 5 car sets from GWR in a distant future.

such that both the class 397 units and the standard carriage MK5A carriages would be combined together to make 12 9 carriage trains for LNER?

Very different carriages (22m mk5a, 24m 397) and not enough power cars in the 397s to offset the added 4 trailers.

That's before we get to the lack of traction power bus in the mk5as, different ROSCOs and the flat end of the mk5a on the loco end. And that they are very likely to be incompatible.

 

[JonathanH]

Very different carriages (22m mk5a, 24m 397) and not enough power cars in the 397s to offset the added 4 trailers.

Are there any pictures of a 397 carriage and a Mark 5a carriage up against each other? I think the windows are lower set in a 397. It would be interesting to consider how the Mark 5a carriages would be distributed in this hypothetical 8-car unit. There's no symmetrical way to do it.

 

[AndrewE]

I do wonder if TPE will actually place an order for more Hiatchi AT300 units or be passed some AT300 units, such that both the class 397 units and the standard carriage MK5A carriages would be combined together to make 12 9 carriage trains for LNER?

The 14 driving carriages would either be scrapped for spares or sent abroad if they could be used with existing CAF coaches being used.

Is this a wind-up? Perfectly servicable (recently-refurbished) stock is currently being sent for scrap, regardless of overcrowding on the routes they currently serve. What makes you think that the Treasury will allow any expenditure on purchases of more?

 

[Peter Sarf]

The idea with the Nova 3 sets was that the 68s were already proven and the mk5s already ordered for Caledonian Sleeper so they should have been a fairly quick entry to service with minimal issues, especially as they could start training early on the 68s and push pull on the 68s had been proven at Chiltern.

Nova 3s were planned for Autumn 2018 and the Nova 1s Summer 2019. The Nova 3s were would have provided the needed capacity boost and many of the class 185s would have left after the Nova 1s arrived.

The first mk5a sets got delivered to Velim and the UK in March and May 2018 respectively but only achieved fault free running and handover in April 2019, as such the first service was late August 2019 only a month before the 802s in late September 2019.

The TPE tender unfortunately prohibited any 170s (or Sprinters) joining the franchise, otherwise the Scotrail 170s temporarily joining TPE before eventually moving to Northern after the 802s arrived would have been better than the mk5as.

Thanks for that. So the Mk5s were expected only 3 seasons before the 802s !. And we all know how accurate seasons can be according to one of Informed Sources' laws.

 

[Snow1964]

Is this really the case? The power output of the 93's diesel engine is similar to that of a class 27, which was certainly capable of hauling a 5 car train.

Portsmouth - Cardiff was for many years operated by a loco plus 5 coaches too. The 31s did it for few years, then 33s before the 155 sprinters came along.

For completeness pairs of 3H DEMUs also worked the service for about 4 years. Total power 1200HP for 6 vehicles, the same power as a 93 on diesel, (without any battery boost on hills and accelerating).

So if there was a dual voltage version of a 93 then no reason why mk5s couldn't be used on services like Portsmouth -Cardiff. But as there isn't currently a suitable loco then probably not going to happen.

 

[JonathanH]

For completeness pairs of 3H DEMUs also worked the service for about 4 years. Total power 1200HP for 6 vehicles, the same power as a 93 on diesel, (without any battery boost on hills and accelerating).

3H DEMUs didn't need to provide the same amount of auxiliary power to their carriages that modern passengers expect. Indeed, neither did a class 31, nor a class 33.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Is this really the case? The power output of the 93's diesel engine is similar to that of a class 27, which was certainly capable of hauling a 5 car train.

You’re comparing apples and pears. It’s not just the number of coaches that’s relevant but also the ETH index.

A 5 coach train formed of mk5s is very different to a 5 car train formed off mk1/early mk2s: one has air conditioning, electric doors, plug points etc and one doesn’t.

 

[D365]

I do wonder if TPE will actually place an order for more Hiatchi AT300 units or be passed some AT300 units, such that both the class 397 units and the standard carriage MK5A carriages would be combined together to make 12 9 carriage trains for LNER?

The 14 driving carriages would either be scrapped for spares or sent abroad if they could be used with existing CAF coaches being used.

Why don't you send in your job application to Beacon Rail while you're at it

TPE always planned to loose some 185s, they'll be retained now instead.

If TPE ever gain more 802s I'd expect it to be some 5 car sets from GWR in a distant future.

Very different carriages (22m mk5a, 24m 397) and not enough power cars in the 397s to offset the added 4 trailers.

That's before we get to the lack of traction power bus in the mk5as, different ROSCOs and the flat end of the mk5a on the loco end. And that they are very likely to be incompatible.

And people wonder why - more often than not - rolling stock reengineering turns out to be uneconomic!

 

[RobShipway]

Is this a wind-up? Perfectly servicable (recently-refurbished) stock is currently being sent for scrap, regardless of overcrowding on the routes they currently serve. What makes you think that the Treasury will allow any expenditure on purchases of more?

Well, I think through the thread we have gone through all the other ideas that you could possibly do with the MK5A carriages. Might be time that the admins locked the thread.

TPE always planned to loose some 185s, they'll be retained now instead.

If TPE ever gain more 802s I'd expect it to be some 5 car sets from GWR in a distant future.

Very different carriages (22m mk5a, 24m 397) and not enough power cars in the 397s to offset the added 4 trailers.

That's before we get to the lack of traction power bus in the mk5as, different ROSCOs and the flat end of the mk5a on the loco end. And that they are very likely to be incompatible.

I did wonder if the MK5A carriages where different to the class 397 carriages. I also know that they cannot be added to the Caledonian Sleeper fleet either, as there is differences there and not just in the speed limit between the two sets.

Why don't you send in your job application to Beacon Rail while you're at it

They wouldn't be able to afford my yearly salary.

 

[BlueLeanie]

I'm not convinced that works. The carriage profile of a 397 and a Mark 5A carriage isn't the same.

You could only make an 8 coach train with a 397 and the Mark 5A carriages that have gangways in any case.

I'd agree, the 397/5A thing doesn't make sense.

However, these are still effectively brand new rolling stock. So if a new Mk5A based 3 car EMU/DMU/HMU (DMS, MS, MS) were to be designed and built would that potentially create a microfleet of 14 eight-car 110/125mph capable units?

Not sure of how many Motor coaches you need for an eight car set. I recall that the venerable 442 just had the one motor coach in a 5 car set and could achieve 100mph.

But after that is there anywhere on the network that could make use of 14 8 coach units?

 

[Energy]

I'd agree, the 397/5A thing doesn't make sense.

However, these are still effectively brand new rolling stock. So if a new Mk5A based 3 car EMU/DMU/HMU (DMS, MS, MS) were to be designed and built would that potentially create a microfleet of 14 eight-car 110/125mph capable units?

Not sure of how many Motor coaches you need for an eight car set. I recall that the venerable 442 just had the one motor coach in a 5 car set and could achieve 100mph.

But after that is there anywhere on the network that could make use of 14 8 coach units?

Because they are coaching stock they still lack a traction bus so would be difficult to convert to anything other than a pure DMU... and the first-class end has a slab rather than a gangway.

The easiest way to turn them into 110/125mph capable stock is to stick a 110/125mph loco on the end and lengthen if needed.

Alternatively, Beacon Rail can export them to a country that wants them.

 

[JonathanH]

Because they are coaching stock they still lack a traction bus so would be difficult to convert to anything other than a pure DMU... and the first-class end has a slab rather than a gangway.

If the slab end could be rebuilt to have a gangway, arguably the 68 could be replaced by a 3-car 'tractor' unit pushing and pulling the 5 existing coaches around, a bit like a REP plus TC arrangement. However, the question is how much power could be installed in the tractor unit.

 

[43096]

Alternatively, Beacon Rail can export them to a country that wants them.

I'm amazed that someone hasn't yet suggested exporting them to Mexico to replace the HSTs!

 

[Energy]

If the slab end could be rebuilt to have a gangway, arguably the 68 could be replaced by a 3-car 'tractor' unit pushing and pulling the 5 existing coaches around, a bit like a REP plus TC arrangement. However, the question is how much power could be installed in the tractor unit.

If it was electric you could probably manage it under the sole bar, diesel and you'd have very little space for any passengers.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm not convinced that works. The carriage profile of a 397 and a Mark 5A carriage isn't the same.

Not to say that such a thing would ever actually happen of course, but it wouldn't be the first time that vehicles of different dimensions were combined in a set. See the 455/7s, the former Southern Region "Tadpole" DEMUs, the ICWC mk2 sets which had a mk3 catering car... There are many good reasons the idea is a non-starter, but the vehicles being different lengths, widths or shapes isn't the deal-breaker.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Aug 2023 ==

If the slab end could be rebuilt to have a gangway, arguably the 68 could be replaced by a 3-car 'tractor' unit pushing and pulling the 5 existing coaches around, a bit like a REP plus TC arrangement. However, the question is how much power could be installed in the tractor unit.

While we're in silly territory, you could use a 185 for that... just need to rip the cabs out and replace them with gangways!

(Just in case it wasn't obvious, I'm not being serious)

 

[JonathanH]

While we're in silly territory, you could use a 185 for that... just need to rip the cabs out and replace them with gangways!

Yes, that is an interesting idea, but not over the Pennines. No need to rip out the cabs or mess around with the slab end really, just ensure there is a suitable coupler and have no connection between the two parts of the train, much like two 185s.

 

[Mgameing123]

Why can't the Mrk5 coaches not go to Chiltern and replace the much older Mrk3 coaches or help supplement Chiltern so they can stop running 2 car trains on London to Aylesbury.

 

[craigybagel]

Why can't the Mrk5 coaches not go to Chiltern and replace the much older Mrk3 coaches or help supplement Chiltern so they can stop running 2 car trains on London to Aylesbury.

Money

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Why can't the Mrk5 coaches not go to Chiltern and replace the much older Mrk3 coaches or help supplement Chiltern so they can stop running 2 car trains on London to Aylesbury.

In theory they could... but:
That would require retraining the crews on a new type, and either adapting the Chiltern 68s or swapping them for the TPE ones which have the CAF mods. It also wouldn't appease the noise complaints which are down to the locomotives not the stock.

 

[Vectron383]

The whole scenario doesn’t seem to have a good solution (I don’t want to see new trains going to waste so I don’t see binning them off as a preferable outcome) and as others in the thread have stated, unless Wales wants them or Scotrail reckon they can use them round my neck of the woods, there just isn’t a home for these sets. However given the HST procurement decision I wouldn’t rule out TS doing something ludicrous(!)

 

[HOOVER29]

No-one has mentioned the possibility of export. The 68s are struggling to find a hunting ground in the UK, surely over-powered for Liverpool - Scarborough route ,and think of the fuel consumption!
Is there a route abroad which could make good use of the speed and bhp under the bonnet of the 68?

Cardiff-Penzance is an option surely?
More than enough poke for the banks of Devon & Cornwall.
Doesn’t go anywhere near London so no upsetting them either.

Got to be better than a rancid IET!

 

[cav1975]

Saw one of these sets for the first at York today. It sat in the platform for over an hour idling. The noise was so loud that it prevented effective conversation outside the York Tap. I wouldn't wish these on anyone.

 

[JonathanH]

there just isn’t a home for these sets.

Who says that there isn't a home for these abroad though? They really don't have to stay on the British railway network.

Saw one of these sets for the first at York today. It sat in the platform for over an hour idling. The noise was so loud that it prevented effective conversation outside the York Tap. I wouldn't wish these on anyone.

To be fair, that is only the locomotive making that noise. If they went abroad, the Mark 5A coaching sets could be hauled by something a bit quieter.

 

[Vectron383]

Who says that there isn't a home for these abroad though? They really don't have to stay on the British railway network.

I will be truly amazed if someone wants them in Europe. The combination of the restrictive loading gauge, lack of interoperability with any other coaching stock anywhere, and height compared to platforms (which would present a big problem for regiojet as some of the stations they serve have practically floor-level platforms) all make me think there is nobody who’d be willing to take them. Happy to be proven wrong though.

 

[Iskra]

Considering some of the stuff that has happened on the railway over recent years, that people said never would, or would have laughed at you it you suggested it, nothing can be ruled out. At the right price, anything could happen.

Who says that there isn't a home for these abroad though? They really don't have to stay on the British railway network.

I do think that if they can’t be made to work well in the country they were designed to, with locomotives from that same country, then service abroad would seem to present a whole host of headaches. No doubt time and money could overcome those, but it would probably end up being a similar investment just to buy something local and purpose built instead.

 

[Vectron383]

My point exactly- why would anyone in Europe take TPE’s hand-me-down rejects. I suppose this is the problem when you spec in such a specific and niche way that there is no room for the trains to be used for anything else after.

 

[Energy]

My point exactly- why would anyone in Europe take TPE’s hand-me-down rejects.

If they don't cost a lot. Flixtrain happily took old DB stock.

 

[Iskra]

If they don't cost a lot. Flixtrain happily took old DB stock.

Not quite the same level of risk though, on a number of levels.