Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?

[Bletchleyite]

not according to your post 7 days ago...''No chance of that. Chiltern are already severely restricted with the number of loco-hauled trains they can run each day and can't run any more''

The reason for the restriction is noise. If that noise issue can be resolved by modifying the locomotives they'll probably be allowed to run as many as they like.

5x22m is probably a bit short for the mainline (the Mk3 sets are 6 car) but the suggestion to use them for the Oxford services does sound feasible as they're not as busy as the mainline. Though if they reseated first to standard and changed to a layout with more airline seats (Mk5s are presently almost all tables) they could probably get the seated capacity to more or less the same. And as the Sophia is still on sale it'd not require a massive spend on replacing all the seats to do so, just the purchase of a few extras.

 

[Speed43125]

not according to your post 7 days ago...''No chance of that. Chiltern are already severely restricted with the number of loco-hauled trains they can run each day and can't run any more''

The whole idea of retrofitting better silencers would be to get around that limitation!

 

[172007]

Class 68 Mods. Well, A) how much room do the sileceners require which leads into B) What's the gauge clearance potential from MYB to BSW. Ayno to BMO I believe is all HiCube container ok. Is MYB to Anyo able to take High Cube containers in convention wagons. If that's possible then squaring up 68 roof line might be possible plus a little extra width. LMS to Crewe etc is all High Cube ok too. Would have to stable the Mk3's at BMO though.

I know this is very pie in the sky and I am not an engineer but an improved silencer may only requite a few centremeters and was too much for a go nearly anywhere gauged loco.

 

[12LDA28C]

not according to your post 7 days ago...''No chance of that. Chiltern are already severely restricted with the number of loco-hauled trains they can run each day and can't run any more''

How that would affect for example simply swapping the Mark 3 sets for Mark 5s and running the same number of loco-hauled trains.... plus the aforementioned investigations into reducing noise pollution by modifying the locos in some way, if that can be done could allow for an increase in number of LHCS services.

 

[AndrewE]

Class 68 Mods. Well, A) how much room do the sileceners require which leads into B) What's the gauge clearance potential from MYB to BSW. Ayno to BMO I believe is all HiCube container ok. Is MYB to Anyo able to take High Cube containers in convention wagons. If that's possible then squaring up 68 roof line might be possible plus a little extra width. LMS to Crewe etc is all High Cube ok too. Would have to stable the Mk3's at BMO though.

I know this is very pie in the sky and I am not an engineer but an improved silencer may only requite a few centremeters and was too much for a go nearly anywhere gauged loco.

I think there is a BIG difference between a wagon which is allowed to carry a high container only on certain highly-restricted routes (but can otherwise go anywhere) and a loco which cannot ever be allowed to move off those routes...

 

[172007]

I think there is a BIG difference between a wagon which is allowed to carry a high container only on certain highly-restricted routes (but can otherwise go anywhere) and a loco which cannot ever be allowed to move off those routes...

The Chiltern 68's only need to work on the specific routes and to and from DRS's maintenance facilities. I am sure Mods can be reversed once they finish with Chiltern.

Think of the Chiltern 68's being a class 33 slim Jim but the opposite in that they are slightly bigger than regular 68's.

 

[The Planner]

Class 68 Mods. Well, A) how much room do the sileceners require which leads into B) What's the gauge clearance potential from MYB to BSW. Ayno to BMO I believe is all HiCube container ok. Is MYB to Anyo able to take High Cube containers in convention wagons. If that's possible then squaring up 68 roof line might be possible plus a little extra width. LMS to Crewe etc is all High Cube ok too. Would have to stable the Mk3's at BMO though.

I know this is very pie in the sky and I am not an engineer but an improved silencer may only requite a few centremeters and was too much for a go nearly anywhere gauged loco.

Marylebone to Neasden is W6a, the rest is W7. Its not high cube.

 

[sjpowermac]

You’ve completely missed the point that the reason the mk5 sets go in December is TPE has a huge backlog of training and the loco hauled sets are the most intensive of all their stock for training.

The current cycle of not enough crew has to be broken and that will only be achieved by reducing the amount of outstanding training.

Great use of alternative facts there.

How many more times is this myth of ‘not enough crew’ going to be repeated?

Scarborough: all drivers trained
York: all Class 68/Mk5A link trained
Piccadilly: all Class 68/Mk5A link trained

This gives a total of over 130 drivers trained on Class 68/Mk5A stock and is in excess of the numbers originally envisaged to run 12 diagrams a day.

Absolutely shocking that this nonsense is still being repeated and was said to the Transport for the North meeting.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Common sense in me says TPE would want to have fewer train types. The Mk5s were the weakest case (not saying they are bad) and it is obvious the Mk5s are not a total washout but the lease is up soon and cutbacks loom. TPE probably are making the facts suit what they see as the inevitable. TPE could end up hiring more 802s eventually - lets face it what is the advantage of Mk5s over 802s ?. Bear with me - that is why I fear no one else might want Mk5s. Chiltern and others might prefer 80Xs ?. A waste but we are talking about what seems to happen.

 

[warwickshire]

Great use of alternative facts there.

How many more times is this myth of ‘not enough crew’ going to be repeated?

Scarborough: all drivers trained
York: all Class 68/Mk5A link trained
Piccadilly: all Class 68/Mk5A link trained

This gives a total of over 130 drivers trained on Class 68/Mk5A stock and is in excess of the numbers originally envisaged to run 12 diagrams a day.

Absolutely shocking that this nonsense is still being repeated and was said to the Transport for the North meeting.

However past history does repeat itself, Dft strikes again, look at Southern and 455.
Various other tocs, same situation.
Same can be said for Northern and 319s, lease not renewed and should have stayed another year, causing shortforms on service 6 down to 4. Dft have done for example Same to Northern, plenty of people trained, but Sent 319 off lease a year early. However with 68 and mk5 , off lease, dft are very much to blame for this decision to save money. To be honest, they should have stayed and hs2 not built a waste of money.

 

[Bartsimho]

Common sense in me says TPE would want to have fewer train types. The Mk5s were the weakest case (not saying they are bad) and it is obvious the Mk5s are not a total washout but the lease is up soon and cutbacks loom. TPE probably are making the facts suit what they see as the inevitable. TPE could end up hiring more 802s eventually - lets face it what is the advantage of Mk5s over 802s ?. Bear with me - that is why I fear no one else might want Mk5s. Chiltern and others might prefer 80Xs ?. A waste but we are talking about what seems to happen.

I think Chiltern might prefer them a bit more due to no electrification currently so having Bi-mode stock is undesirable and all 8XX's are either Bi-mode or Electric currently. Probably easier to replace locos than the entire set although the unique nature of the MK5A's might cause issues with that.

 

[Trainbike46]

Why on earth would Chiltern want 80x? They'd be completely unsuitable for the route. What chiltern needs is something like the GA or TfW FLIRTs. Or better yet, electrification followed by suburban EMUs

There's no issue with using bimodes on a diesel-only route - they just don't offer much of an improvent over diesel-only trains

The 68s plus mk5 sets could be used to make up for the excessive DfT cuts in the near future. I'd like to see them used to strengthen/expand the cally sleeper fleet, but that might be over-enthusiastic on my part

 

[3RDGEN]

I'd like to see them used to strengthen/expand the cally sleeper fleet

If the ROSCO allowed a set to be broken up the coaches could be converted to "Sleeper Mk5's" and added to the Fort William - Edinburgh Cally Sleeper portion, marketed as an additional early/late daytime WHL service from Edinburgh/Glasgow to Fort William. Perhaps one coach in winter and two in summer depending on the sleeper loadings, you could do similar on the Inverness portion in summer perhaps.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

If the ROSCO allowed a set to be broken up the coaches could be converted to "Sleeper Mk5's" and added to the Fort William - Edinburgh Cally Sleeper portion, marketed as an additional early/late daytime WHL service from Edinburgh/Glasgow to Fort William. Perhaps one coach in winter and two in summer depending on the sleeper loadings, you could do similar on the Inverness portion in summer perhaps.

Sorry to demolish this idea but no it couldn’t. The WHL sleeper in the summer runs at the maximum loop length on the line - 4 sleepers and 2 seated along with loco(s).

Similar problem they’ve found to trying to use the 153s many of the trains are maximum loop length (6 car 156).

I see your logic but sadly there’s infrastructure constraints.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the ROSCO allowed a set to be broken up the coaches could be converted to "Sleeper Mk5's" and added to the Fort William - Edinburgh Cally Sleeper portion, marketed as an additional early/late daytime WHL service from Edinburgh/Glasgow to Fort William. Perhaps one coach in winter and two in summer depending on the sleeper loadings, you could do similar on the Inverness portion in summer perhaps.

You already can use the existing seated coach for that purpose. Demand isn't massive, and because the passengers have to be accommodated in the Aberdeen coach south of Edinburgh it can only be reserved to about half full anyway.

 

[3RDGEN]

Sorry to demolish this idea but no it couldn’t. The WHL sleeper in the summer runs at the maximum loop length on the line - 4 sleepers and 2 seated along with loco(s).

Similar problem they’ve found to trying to use the 153s many of the trains are maximum loop length (6 car 156).

I see your logic but sadly there’s infrastructure constraints.

The Royal Scotsman runs 10 + 2 which is way past the WHL loop length as do most charters, so not a real issue just operationally limiting. Do the Sleeper Mk5's have SDO? if so a couple off at the back can lock out, plenty of staff on board to advise passengers accordingly.

LSL appear to have run a nine up there today,

Realtime Trains | Departures from Rannoch all day on 29/09/2023

Train information at Rannoch all day on 29/09/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

You already can use the existing seated coach for that purpose. Demand isn't massive, and because the passengers have to be accommodated in the Aberdeen coach south of Edinburgh it can only be reserved to about half full anyway.

This would only be north of Edinburgh/Glasgow and given the crowding on the WHL summer services an extra early/late service would help out.

Not going to happen due to costs but would increase capacity on the WHL without need for an extra service running.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

The Royal Scotsman runs 10 + 2 which is way past the WHL loop length as do most charters, so not a real issue just operationally limiting. Do the Sleeper Mk5's have SDO? if so a couple off at the back can lock out, plenty of staff on board to advise passengers accordingly.

LSL appear to have run a nine up there today,

Yes it’s only run under special arrangements not for daily scheduled trains.


You can plan an over-length train running under special arrangements provided everything else fits in the loops. This is how the charters you have mentioned operate.

A daily over-length train which potentially has to cross these charters becomes impossible and a performance nightmare. How would an over-length sleeper cross a charter?

 

[Bletchleyite]

A daily over-length train which potentially has to cross these charters becomes impossible and a performance nightmare. How would an over-length sleeper cross a charter?

One would assume scheduled passenger and freight trains would take precedence over charters, which can slot into whatever is spare.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

One would assume scheduled passenger and freight trains would take precedence over charters, which can slot into whatever is spare.

The Royal Scotsman is a scheduled charter with its own slots and runs as an over-length train in accordance with its access rights. It’s in the WTT so there’s no way an over-length sleeper would be able to cross this.

 

[xotGD]

Let's strap some engines from a bunch of old Transit vans under the Mark 5s to turn them into DMUs and then the anti-proper trains crowd will be happy.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Let's strap some engines from a bunch of old Transit vans under the Mark 5s to turn them into DMUs and then the anti-proper trains crowd will be happy.

What’s a proper train?

Trains come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes, some with a separate form of traction, some with distributed traction.

 

[sjpowermac]

Let's strap some engines from a bunch of old Transit vans under the Mark 5s to turn them into DMUs and then the anti-proper trains crowd will be happy.

Please don’t give them ideas.

What’s a proper train?

Trains come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes, some with a separate form of traction, some with distributed traction.

Cuts both ways: the fact the Class 68s are compliant with Euro 3a emissions regulations and the Class 185s are, er, not seems completely lost on whoever was informing Robin Gisby this week.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could the 68+Mk 5s go to XC with several 221s moving to Grand Central to replace the 180s?

This month's Modern Railways (bottom of page 11 I think) contains another interesting rumour of the possibility of them going to XC to release 170s, presumably to Chiltern, but they think direct to Chiltern is still more likely.

Can't quote as I've recycled it as I've finished reading it, but it was only one sentence at the end of the article.

 

[Russel]

This month's Modern Railways (bottom of page 11 I think) contains another interesting rumour of the possibility of them going to XC to release 170s, presumably to Chiltern, but they think direct to Chiltern is still more likely.

Can't quote as I've recycled it as I've finished reading it, but it was only one sentence at the end of the article.

That would be a huge improvement to either of the XC 170 routes, not sure which they would suite best though, both need them, or anything else that would boost capacity for that matter...

 

[Trainbike46]

That would be a huge improvement to either of the XC 170 routes, not sure which they would suite best though, both need them, or anything else that would boost capacity for that matter...

As always, no it would not for the Stansted Airport route, as a train that cannot use sprinter differentials (and these units cannot) would face severe speed restrictions so would not even be able to come close to matching the current timetable. Being much slower on Peterborough-ely (and other sections) would make the service much worse, not better

 

[Bletchleyite]

As always, no it would not for the Stansted Airport route, as a train that cannot use sprinter differentials (and these units cannot) would face severe speed restrictions so would not even be able to come close to matching the current timetable. Being much slower on Peterborough-ely (and other sections) would make the service much worse, not better

I seem to recall the suggestion was that it would be Cardiff to Nottingham, though goodness only knows why they wouldn't be allowed to just take more ex Avanti Voyagers for that purpose instead.

 

[warwickshire]

I seem to recall the suggestion was that it would be Cardiff to Nottingham, though goodness only knows why they wouldn't be allowed to just take more ex Avanti Voyagers for that purpose instead.

Wouldn't a better option be, have them say Manchester to Bristol to Reading corridors, Voyagers on above services, but what I am thinking of is also from a maintenance point of view. If they was to be used on the Manchesters, Longsight can still stable and maintain them, as Longsight has the knowledge for this anyway.

 

[Royston Vasey]

As always, no it would not for the Stansted Airport route, as a train that cannot use sprinter differentials (and these units cannot) would face severe speed restrictions so would not even be able to come close to matching the current timetable. Being much slower on Peterborough-ely (and other sections) would make the service much worse, not better

It would also limit the formation to Loco + 1 coach + DVT as they can only use P2 at Stansted Airport!

P1 and P3 can only just handle the Stansted Expresses, and even then need to stack a 745/double 720 on top of the hourly 755 to Norwich.

 

[class26]

This month's Modern Railways (bottom of page 11 I think) contains another interesting rumour of the possibility of them going to XC to release 170s, presumably to Chiltern, but they think direct to Chiltern is still more likely.

Can't quote as I've recycled it as I've finished reading it, but it was only one sentence at the end of the article.

It`s not page 11 and i have read through all likely articles in this months Modern Railways and can see nowhere any mention of the Mk 5`s being conisdered for XC. It does say they MIGHT go to Chiltern but nowhere is XC mentioned

 

[Bletchleyite]

It`s not page 11 and i have read through all likely articles in this months Modern Railways and can see nowhere any mention of the Mk 5`s being conisdered for XC. It does say they MIGHT go to Chiltern but nowhere is XC mentioned

Dug it out of the bin (I don't keep magazines once read) and it's the bottom of Page 12.

"While it is thought a move to Chiltern Railways is currently the favoured option, replacing the Mk 3 loco-hauled coaches there, it is understood CrossCountry is considering taking on the fleet, which could be deployed on Nottingham to Cardiff services to provide an enhanced intercity-style offering on this important route"

(Photo of extract attached)