Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?

[stottyuk]

For me

TPE

5 sets remain with TPE to run York - Scarborough shuttles with the odd run to Leeds via Methley. ECS to and from York depot to satisfy the Scarborough depot mob

Therefore core Scarborough and York crew knowledge only so easier to train


Chiltern


5 sets to run as now, they know the 68s so only have to train on the slight differences between the two

Full training on mark 5s



Others


3 sets in a neutral livery to run on either TOC along with the spare DT

 

[Nick Ashwell]

For me

TPE

5 sets remain with TPE to run York - Scarborough shuttles with the odd run to Leeds via Methley. ECS to and from York depot to satisfy the Scarborough depot mob

Therefore core Scarborough and York crew knowledge only so easier to train


Chiltern


5 sets to run as now, they know the 68s so only have to train on the slight differences between the two

Full training on mark 5s



Others


3 sets in a neutral livery to run on either TOC along with the spare DT

The Chiltern would require silencers that fit in gauge to be honest and that's yet to be seen.

I personally think they'll likely go somewhere like Thailand, better they be used than not.

Spot hire with freight drivers could well be an option for shortages, but if someone would take that risk is yet to be seen I guess

 

[Bletchleyite]

Chiltern can still use them, just not on more services than now.

 

[Harvey B]

For me

TPE

5 sets remain with TPE to run York - Scarborough shuttles with the odd run to Leeds via Methley. ECS to and from York depot to satisfy the Scarborough depot mob

Therefore core Scarborough and York crew knowledge only so easier to train


Chiltern


5 sets to run as now, they know the 68s so only have to train on the slight differences between the two

Full training on mark 5s



Others


3 sets in a neutral livery to run on either TOC along with the spare DT

I think it would be great if Northern could acquire a few Mark 5 sets for use on the Settle-Carlisle line. It makes more sense to run a set of Loco hauled coaches on that line rather than 158s.

 

[JonathanH]

It makes more sense to run a set of Loco hauled coaches on that line rather than 158s.

Not from a cost perspective.

Anyway, in what way does it make more sense to run a set of loco hauled coaches on the Settle & Carlisle line than 158s? Nostalgia? Nice photography opportunities at the lineside? Locomotive noise able to be heard for miles around?

 

[dgl]

The Chiltern would require silencers that fit in gauge to be honest and that's yet to be seen.

I personally think they'll likely go somewhere like Thailand, better they be used than not.

Spot hire with freight drivers could well be an option for shortages, but if someone would take that risk is yet to be seen I guess

I understand from another forum that silencers might not be the fix and the actual issue is with the body itself, I would assume resonating, and as such there's the potential of bodies being replaced with something of the same construction as the 88's which would quieten them down.

 

[Iskra]

I think it would be great if Northern could acquire a few Mark 5 sets for use on the Settle-Carlisle line. It makes more sense to run a set of Loco hauled coaches on that line rather than 158s.

To be fair that would solve some issues, particularly with 2-car DMU’s operating on the Leeds-Skipton section and getting busy there. It could also help with the Aire Valley capacity/service reductions and free up DMU’s for elsewhere.

The first class could be used and aimed at tourists and the daytrip market.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it would be great if Northern could acquire a few Mark 5 sets for use on the Settle-Carlisle line. It makes more sense to run a set of Loco hauled coaches on that line rather than 158s.

Tiny windows and poor alignment - I can think of little worse!

 

[JonathanH]

The first class could be used and aimed at tourists and the daytrip market.

How much money did the 'Staycation Express' lose doing just that?

I realise that there is an optimism bias in thinking that there are revenue sources just waiting to be tapped by more lavish provision of rolling stock, but there is equally a need for realism about the operational cost of lines such as Settle to Carlisle.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

I understand from another forum that silencers might not be the fix and the actual issue is with the body itself, I would assume resonating, and as such there's the potential of bodies being replaced with something of the same construction as the 88's which would quieten them down.

That's very interesting, I'd be intrigued if new bodies made them a seperate class as I don't know what makes a class?

 

[Iskra]

Tiny windows and poor alignment - I can think of little worse!

They aren’t that bad. You can see out of them adequately.

How much money did the 'Staycation Express' lose doing just that?

I’m not suggesting an over-priced tourist train, with silly booking policies, that doesn’t appear in journey planners and that covers only part of the route.

This would replace the existing service trains, with the primary purpose being transporting passengers between Leeds and Carlisle. The first class section exists, so it may as well be used.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How much money did the 'Staycation Express' lose doing just that?

To be fair, running a private train for profit is quite different from enhancing the existing subsidised local service to hopefully gain custom. But with their small windows and poorly aligned seat layout, the Mk5s are not what is needed. You can fix the alignment, but not the size of the windows.

Of what's out there now, 170s would be best, the windows are huge. Or secondarily 195s which could well end up on there assuming Northern's new order goes ahead and cascades them to mostly diesel only lines.

 

[Iskra]

To be fair, running a private train for profit is quite different from enhancing the existing subsidised local service to hopefully gain custom. But with their small windows and poorly aligned seat layout, the Mk5s are not what is needed. You can fix the alignment, but not the size of the windows.

Of what's out there now, 170s would be best, the windows are huge. Or secondarily 195s which could well end up on there assuming Northern's new order goes ahead and cascades them to mostly diesel only lines.

I think you’re fixating on window alignment a bit too much. People complain about 170’s on the Highland Mainline for being sluggish, having doors at 1/3rd’s at cold/windy stations, they’d be fuel inefficient due to hardly getting out of first gear on the Settle-Carlisle and they don’t have gangways when DMU’s run in multiple on the Settle-Carlisle and ticket facilities are limited- they’d cost in lost revenue too.

195’s would be a slightly better option compared to 170’s but wouldn’t enhance the line’s patronage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you’re fixating on window alignment a bit too much.

For a line that's near to 100% about the scenery, being able to see it is pretty important. The present 158s are fully aligned throughout to large windows.

 

[Iskra]

For a line that's near to 100% about the scenery, being able to see it is pretty important. The present 158s are fully aligned throughout to large windows.

It’s primarily a method of transport; decent views are a mere bonus. The primary concern of regular passengers is the ability to get a seat, not window alignment.

Anyone that bothered about window alignment and views should probably book one of the many railtours that run over the route rather than use the service train.

 

[JonathanH]

It’s primarily a method of transport; decent views are a mere bonus. The primary concern of regular passengers is the ability to get a seat, not window alignment.

If it is primarily a method of transport, a 158, or pair of 158s when necessary, is ideal for the line, as representing a fair balance between cost of operation (and therefore subsidy) and passenger facilities.

Anyone that bothered about window alignment and views should probably book one of the many railtours that run over the route rather than use the service train.

Indeed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s primarily a method of transport; decent views are a mere bonus.

The majority usage of the line, other than commuters at the southern end, is leisure. It may be primarily a mode of transport to go for a walk (though carries a lot of people just for the ride compared to other lines) but that sort of passenger likes looking at the view.

It is not a typical "head in your phone" commuter line.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

. It makes more sense to run a set of Loco hauled coaches on that line rather than 158s

Makes more sense to whom? Sounds expensive and would require a cut in services to fund the increase in cost base of operation or is there some magic money tree we have overlooked?

 

[Killingworth]

Makes more sense to whom? Sounds expensive and would require a cut in services to fund the increase in cost base of operation or is there some magic money tree we have overlooked?

Northern routinely quote that none of their routes make profit and that the average journey is subsidised by 40p a passenger mile. On many routes it will be higher than that and only a few will be significantly lower.

Settle and Carlisle must be at the higher end. However if this suggestion were economically serious why not go the whole hog and run hourly 5 car trains from Carlisle to Nottingham? They'd bring welcome capacity betwen Leeds, Sheffield and Nottingham although probably excessive through Cumbria.

 

[Iskra]

The majority usage of the line, other than commuters at the southern end, is leisure. It may be primarily a mode of transport to go for a walk (though carries a lot of people just for the ride compared to other lines) but that sort of passenger likes looking at the view.

It is not a typical "head in your phone" commuter line.

It’s not purely a leisure route, it does a decent West Yorkshire-Carlisle trade for onward connections to Glasgow and the Cumbrian Coast as well as providing a useful service for locals. I’m not disputing it carries people wanting a scenic day out and hikers, but they aren’t the main market, being far from a year-round audience. I will point out at this point that Garsdale used to be my local station, which I used to get back to Leeds for the football, so I have used the line a lot, for different reasons over the years.

Your comment about it not being a ‘head in your phone’ commuter line reminds me of a trip last year to climb Ben Nevis, on a stunning day, with a bloke on the S&C spending the entire journey watching a documentary about ants…

Northern routinely quote that none of their routes make profit and that the average journey is subsidised by 40p a passenger mile. On many routes it will be higher than that and only a few will be significantly lower.

Settle and Carlisle must be at the higher end. However if this suggestion were economically serious why not go the whole hog and run hourly 5 car trains from Carlisle to Nottingham? They'd bring welcome capacity betwen Leeds, Sheffield and Nottingham although probably excessive through Cumbria.

As soon as you add Nottingham into the equation things get complicated at Leeds station throat.

 

[Neptune]

This would replace the existing service trains, with the primary purpose being transporting passengers between Leeds and Carlisle. The first class section exists, so it may as well be used.

They are expensive to run and this would include type training for crews and maintenance staff. Also the traffic between Leeds & Carlisle for the vast majority of the year does not require 5 coach trains.

Of what's out there now, 170s would be best, the windows are huge. Or secondarily 195s which could well end up on there assuming Northern's new order goes ahead and cascades them to mostly diesel only lines.

Absolutely no way are 170’s suitable due to the max linespeed of the route being 60mph. Only the first (or last) 26 miles of this 112 mile route would enable them to get into final drive. Think of the uproar on here about their use on the 65mph Harrogate line.

Settle and Carlisle must be at the higher end. However if this suggestion were economically serious why not go the whole hog and run hourly 5 car trains from Carlisle to Nottingham? They'd bring welcome capacity betwen Leeds, Sheffield and Nottingham although probably excessive through Cumbria.

I honestly don’t get the obsession with Carlisle to Nottingham. It’s not a natural fit and this suggestion means having a train scythe across Leeds station throat twice an hour. Just because a service ran this route in the past (finishing over 40 years ago) doesn’t mean that it works now. The only service that does run this route is on a Sunday when the railway is far less busy. Nobody suggests Carlisle - Hull or York/Scarborough which even though there isn’t the capacity in east Leeds it’s still better than suggesting closing the west end of Leeds station twice an hour. Then people say that it will go down the Moorthorpe route because it was supposed to do this as Northern Connect conveniently forgetting that this was shelved in 2020.

The majority usage of the line, other than commuters at the southern end, is leisure. It may be primarily a mode of transport to go for a walk (though carries a lot of people just for the ride compared to other lines) but that sort of passenger likes looking at the view.

It is not a typical "head in your phone" commuter line.

I wouldn’t say majority. There are many passengers who simply use this route as a means of getting to either end as a destination or connecting point and there are many users who are locals travelling from village to town (Horton to Settle for instance). The walkers who use it aren’t necessarily window gazers. The majority of leisure travel is in the summer months (mainly summer Saturdays) with a very quiet service in the winter months.

As it stands combinations of 2,3 & 4 car 158’s are fine for the service and allow flexibility in formations. The mobile signal is much improved up there meaning that the trolley can now take cards (I was pleased about that the other week as I haven’t carried cash for about 10 years) and they do have the bonus of a good seating layout (a good mix of bays of 4 and airline seats to give the passengers what they want), a few end luggage stacks and a window guarantee for those who want to gaze.

 

[Killingworth]

I honestly don’t get the obsession with Carlisle to Nottingham. It’s not a natural fit and this suggestion means having a train scythe across Leeds station throat twice an hour. Just because a service ran this route in the past (finishing over 40 years ago) doesn’t mean that it works now. The only service that does run this route is on a Sunday when the railway is far less busy. Nobody suggests Carlisle - Hull or York/Scarborough which even though there isn’t the capacity in east Leeds it’s still better than suggesting closing the west end of Leeds station twice an hour. Then people say that it will go down the Moorthorpe route because it was supposed to do this as Northern Connect conveniently forgetting that this was shelved in 2020.

In quoting only part of my previous post you may have missed the underlying point. Northern make no profit. Adding extra costs like taking on TPEs expensive rejects for any route must be a total non starter. Restoring Settle and Carlisle as a serious part of the mainline network for higher speed trains is another topic.

 

[RobShipway]

As it stands combinations of 2,3 & 4 car 158’s are fine for the service and allow flexibility in formations. The mobile signal is much improved up there meaning that the trolley can now take cards (I was pleased about that the other week as I haven’t carried cash for about 10 years) and they do have the bonus of a good seating layout (a good mix of bays of 4 and airline seats to give the passengers what they want), a few end luggage stacks and a window guarantee for those who want to gaze.

I would agree that 2, 3 and 4 car units are fine for the Leeds - Carlisle service.

In quoting only part of my previous post you may have missed the underlying point. Northern make no profit. Adding extra costs like taking on TPEs expensive rejects for any route must be a total non starter. Restoring Settle and Carlisle as a serious part of the mainline network for higher speed trains is another topic.

Admittedly, it is possibly a subject for another thread if one is not out there already, but I cannot see how you would be able to be using higher speed trains than class 158 units on the Leeds - Carlisle route. I would stand corrected, but I don't believe that there is much improvement to the track speed that can be done. So on that basis, you would not want any trains doing above 90mph on the route, if that speed is possible?

As @Neptune has stated the only time when more than say more than 4 cars is possibly Spring/Summer period, but then where do you store the MK5A carriages for the Autumn/Winter period where they would not be in the way of other units?

You really need a mix of class 196 3 & 4 car units operating the route, but with the ability to be tri-mode powered or something similar from another manufacturer to be operating Leeds - Carlisle. If the route was electrified, then I would say something like the class 333 but with 2+2 sitting and tables would be ideal.

 

[Neptune]

In quoting only part of my previous post you may have missed the underlying point. Northern make no profit. Adding extra costs like taking on TPEs expensive rejects for any route must be a total non starter. Restoring Settle and Carlisle as a serious part of the mainline network for higher speed trains is another topic.

I understand entirely what you’re saying and even if another operator were to come along and use 68/mk5 sets on the S&C why on earth do you think pairing it with the Nottingham service (other than for romantic notions of the past) would be the silver bullet?

As it stands the S&C has a ceiling clientele.

1) Commuting mainly at the extremes of the route.
2) Locals travelling between intermediate stations
3) People rail-heading at either end
4) Walkers/cyclists (active travel in modernist speak)
5) Day trippers.

In the summer the trains can be rather busy (mainly on a weekend, less so through the week).

In the winter the latter 2 drop off significantly meaning 2/3 cars more than suffice.

As you say this line requires significant subsidy and yet is one of the most promoted routes in the country with people coming from all over to travel on it. So if the passenger ceiling is currently hit with the current service then how would adding it to the higher speed network increase this (if you’re looking at raising the line speed then you’re looking at even higher operating costs. Also why Nottingham as a pair?

 

[43096]

For me

TPE

5 sets remain with TPE to run York - Scarborough shuttles with the odd run to Leeds via Methley. ECS to and from York depot to satisfy the Scarborough depot mob

Therefore core Scarborough and York crew knowledge only so easier to train

Where are you maintaining them? The knowledge is at Longsight!

Chiltern


5 sets to run as now, they know the 68s so only have to train on the slight differences between the two

Full training on mark 5s



Others


3 sets in a neutral livery to run on either TOC along with the spare DT

Talk about creating microfleets! They need to be all with one operator.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely no way are 170’s suitable due to the max linespeed of the route being 60mph. Only the first (or last) 26 miles of this 112 mile route would enable them to get into final drive. Think of the uproar on here about their use on the 65mph Harrogate line.

To be fair 'Arrigut's 170s are like it would be using 170s on Merseyrail. The S&C has far longer inter-station gaps. 'Arrigut could really do with being 195s.

 

[Killingworth]

I understand entirely what you’re saying and even if another operator were to come along and use 68/mk5 sets on the S&C why on earth do you think pairing it with the Nottingham service (other than for romantic notions of the past) would be the silver bullet?

As it stands the S&C has a ceiling clientele.

1) Commuting mainly at the extremes of the route.
2) Locals travelling between intermediate stations
3) People rail-heading at either end
4) Walkers/cyclists (active travel in modernist speak)
5) Day trippers.

In the summer the trains can be rather busy (mainly on a weekend, less so through the week).

In the winter the latter 2 drop off significantly meaning 2/3 cars more than suffice.

As you say this line requires significant subsidy and yet is one of the most promoted routes in the country with people coming from all over to travel on it. So if the passenger ceiling is currently hit with the current service then how would adding it to the higher speed network increase this (if you’re looking at raising the line speed then you’re looking at even higher operating costs. Also why Nottingham as a pair?

I waa adding Nottingham onto an already hopeless case to make it even more absurd. Seems I've been taken over seriously, although improving the current 2 car 195 semi-fast from Leeds to Sheffield to a 4/5 car of anything would be great - if there was a Leeds platform and track to take it. Currently there isn't.

Back to Nova 3s.

 

[172007]

Chiltern can still use them, just not on more services than now.

Was speaking to a Chiltern Banbury drover the only yesterday. They where quite certain that a silencer design is well jnder development that will sort the noise issues and that Chiltern have put a request in for the MK5 sets. Only time will tell.

I am not convinced by yhe silencer issue tbh.

 

[12LDA28C]

That's very interesting, I'd be intrigued if new bodies made them a seperate class as I don't know what makes a class?

They would not require 'new bodies' and they will remain Class 68s.

 

[matacaster]

I would agree that 2, 3 and 4 car units are fine for the Leeds - Carlisle service.


Admittedly, it is possibly a subject for another thread if one is not out there already, but I cannot see how you would be able to be using higher speed trains than class 158 units on the Leeds - Carlisle route. I would stand corrected, but I don't believe that there is much improvement to the track speed that can be done. So on that basis, you would not want any trains doing above 90mph on the route, if that speed is possible?

As @Neptune has stated the only time when more than say more than 4 cars is possibly Spring/Summer period, but then where do you store the MK5A carriages for the Autumn/Winter period where they would not be in the way of other units?

You really need a mix of class 196 3 & 4 car units operating the route, but with the ability to be tri-mode powered or something similar from another manufacturer to be operating Leeds - Carlisle. If the route was electrified, then I would say something like the class 333 but with 2+2 sitting and tables would be ideal.

Don't think the 60mph is to do with the track, which is, I understand in good condition. It's mainly a signalling issue (spacing, axle counters etc).