sprinterguy
Established Member
Yeah, it's a road-linked production facility, rather than a rail-linked maintenance facility.
Last edited:
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?
- Thread starter Iskra
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Correct, it was planned but later found to have a substantial gas main in the way.
Vanmanyo
Member
That is a valid point. But I believe the reason the 68s do the services they do is due to 2 sets being stored at Stourbridge the night before meaning you'd have to find a place for the 68s to be stored whilst you swap the 168s over (I doubt the 68s can be stored at Birmingham or Banbury sidings for example). Also I believe the 68s also run peak services due to their noise levels so they only run like 4 times a day out of MYB
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
At present, but work is being done to see if a silencer can be fitted.
Vanmanyo
Member
Seems like a good thing definitely. I believe 68010 is weirdly far quieter than the rest for some reaosn so perhaps replicating whatever 68010 has would work? (It might be another CH 68 but one of them is mushc quieter than the rest)
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Could 68 010 ( or whichever one it is ) have been test fitted with this silencer modification thingy? Or has that not progressed beyond the drawing board yet?
Vanmanyo
Member
No, I believe it's just generally always been quieter for whatever reason. I don't believe any of the silencer modifications have been implemented yet
I doubt it's 010, most Class 68 cranks who do mileage behind the class especially those on Chiltern will tell you 010 is the loudest of the Chiltern fleet if not the entire fleet.
009 & 011 are fairly decent too.
008 & 015 are probably the quietest of the Chiltern bunch although 008 didn't sound that bad a couple of weeks ago.
trainbow
Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2019
- Messages
- 20
The sleeper is 16 coaches of Mk5 stock when it leaves Euston. The only technical limitation further up the routes on diesels are the ETS index of the locos.
Strictly, there is a limitation that the seated coach must be part of the formation including the guards office. As you say, all 16 coaches can be managed from one seated coach. The TMS doesn't look like it is configured to handle more than 16 coaches.
Not really sure how that feeds through to the TPE coaches. The TMS on those is presumably configured for the current mode of operation, not some method not currently in use.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
There must be one TMS coach for every 7 (8 including TMS) coaches. So there are two in the case of the WCML sleepers. That would equate to needing an extra driving coach (iirc thats where the brain is) for anything over 8 coaches upto 16 coaches. Eight coaches should be plenty of load for a 68 though.
jagardner1984
Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2008
- Messages
- 676
surely there is world of difference in the ETS requirements of sleeper stock (showers, water pumps etc) and the TPE day stock ? Not that I’d imagine any proposed 68 hauled usage would be longer than 8 coach.
matacaster
On Moderation
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,603
How about using them on Nottingham to Glasgow via Sheffield, Leeds, Keighley, Skipton, Settle, Carlisle?
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 6,091
Yes please. Would make my commute a lot more interesting.
I think a limited stop on the Leeds to Carlisle section would be very popular with tourists and cranks.
Has anyone thought about the possibility of these sets, or at least their partnered 68s, going to TfW for the Premier Service? I've been reading (not sure if it is wibble) that TfW may just be giving up with the Mk4s and 67s. Other things I've read about the issues with the current stock comes down to the 67s - which are said to be unreliable in working with the Mk4s.
Vanmanyo
Member
I haven't heard of TFW giving up on Mk4s? I thought they're still in the process putting them up to 5 carriages? It would be a strange move considering drivers and staff would have to be retrained and lead to instability - something tfw really don't want more of atm with the not so smooth introduction of new rolling stock occurring ATM. For me it would seem a rather clueless move but perhaps it's an option if TFW are giving up on the mk4s.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm still betting on Chiltern, assuming the silencer installation work is successful.
This was quite literally exactly my thoughts when I first heard that. Thought it was worth mentioning at least - definitely could be a possibility.
No, it has been debunked before - TfW own the Mark 4s - see https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...d-the-mk-5s-to-tfw.246005/page-2#post-6145527 Paying twice to use Mark 5s would be unlikely.
Railway operations are expensive enough without having to pay concurrently for two sets of rolling stock.
Did not see this before - thank you. So if anything it would probably only be the 68s without the coaching stock, I'd guess. Chiltern seems like the most viable option overall.
Vanmanyo
Member
I heard somewhere that xc perhaps wanted to use them between Cardiff and Nottingham or wherever it is they terminate. Can't see this happening though. Chiltern would also be my main guess but I've spoken to quite a few staff members (living on the CML I've got to know quite a few of them now!) And they are expecting the mark 3s to remain for another few years, with it being the general expectation that they get renewed for another year in May (which has been the case for the past few years).
Prestige15
On Moderation
Or a Holyhead - Chester - Crewe - Derby - Nottingham - Skegness/Cleethorpes.
We can do with more East-West express service.
I think it is generally agreed that Chester-Crewe-Nottingham is crying out for a better (through, semi-fast) service, but fitting it in across the layout at Crewe makes it impossible.
Bartsimho
Member
Most suggestions suggest routing it Derby-Crewe-Manchester rather than Chester due to less traffic and crossing Crewe
That's as maybe, and might be a second-best use of them, but the Chester-Stoke-Nottingham axis really does need a service.
Bartsimho
Member
What sort of traffic flow would Chester-Stoke have as I doubt Nottingham or Derby to Chester has a large flow?
And I'd think keeping services that have to cross Crewe as short end to end journeys would be better as to not import delays onto the WCML
There are a lot of students at all the cities along the route, lots of whom nowadays find commuting easier and cheaper than living away from home.
Yes, that is the killer, but someone was proposing it and I pointed out that it wasn't do-able at present. However getting rid of the Crewe-Chester shuttle and making it into a more useful service that went on to somewhere else instead would be good. The downside is that it then doesn't just work by itself like a pendulum - but the Crewe to Salop local trains are equally self-contained but suffer more from cancellations for some reason.
Bartsimho
Member
I wonder if Chester to Shrewsbury via Crewe would work. Although it would be in competition with the Borderlands line for end to end.
Killingworth
Established Member
Assuming it were a practical route to operate how many passengers would be needed to fill enough seats to make employing a 5 coach train anywhere near financially viable? The more frequent the service the worse it would get. Add unreliable trains and.........oh dear!