It gets difficult when considering fleet size as less likely to get a match for most ideas/opportunities. Yes, in the case of Scot Rail it would leave them with some HSTs unless they took on something else - hopefully not a microfleet but ideally something they already use (where from). Yes, generally, need to bear in mind how long existing leases have to go (I hadn't !).
222's are strongly rumoured for Scotrail. Maybe any spares could go to Open Access. They should be freed up in the next couple of years by 810's.
Its the loco bit that seems to be the problem - the 68s are too noisy. Lots of discussion up thread about it but otherwise it seems the favourite.
Yes
The new tri-mode class 93 could be an option if its diesel mode is quiet enough. It is shocking that the class 68s, a modern diesel loco built in 2014 has to be too loud. Maybe the cheapest solution is to make quieter engines for the 68s
I guess you are suggesting the TfW 67s+Mk4s go to Chiltern enabled by TfW taking on the 68s+Mk5s. I think the Mk4s are underutilised because they are unreliable so not attractive. TfW own the Mk4s so they could not just stop using them without finding a justification. The Chiltern option comes in because Chiltern are looking for more trains then just replacing their Mk3s so I feel the Mk4s will not be enough.
Not without going through the gauge clearance process first they arent.
You will need to read back, it has been done to death. Bi-modes are nowhere near powerful enough on a 100% diesel route. Some say 68s might get modified silencers. It is not the diesel engine that is noisy it is how well the silencer works. So no need to change the engine unless a smaller engine allows more space for a bigger (better) silencer.
Putting unreliable locomotive sets onto a two-track London commuter route, would be madness. And that’s before you think about all the time and money spent on (re)-training staff.
Indeed, and neither are the Mk5s perfect to replace the Mk3s, as discussed above, regardless of whether 68s make too much noise.
Not upset in the slightest, though point scoring does get a bit tedious.
Yes, agreed, though I think XC is spectacularly unlikely on any of their routes.
Someone somewhere on here a while ago said that it's not just the 68s' inadequate silencers that are the cause of the noise issue, but that it's also due to the engine mounts or something like that, transferring too much vibration to the body, which "amplifies" the noise.
I suppose the body or at least the engine compartment could be acting as a huge sound box.
I believe that is TP01 for crack repairs, unless they've swapped the sets round in the past 3 months.
They would have to be 57/3 or 57/6 as they can do 95mph. Even then unless they can match a 68 at acceleration then it could still break the paths.
Interesting. I know it's probably too broad a question, but in general would XC's paths work if they were slowed down and the dwell times reduced to compensate, or do they actually require the 125mph dash between stations?
My own memories from being at VT in the early 2010s is that they weren't terribly reliable - and I don't think GWR are having a great time with theirs either, despite their limited workload.
In the pre COVID times with an all day half hourly Manchester service, the Bristol and Bournemouth services used to interwork at Manchester. I'm not sure how much they do now though, or indeed on other routes
Indeed, from day one they seemed the obvious candidate.
Your big dwells tend to be at Reading (reversal), New St , Bristol, Derby and York. You can't go below 90 seconds on the dwells outside the bigger stations and the bigger stations will require 2 or 3 minutes minimum as well. There isn't that much fat to trim.
My understanding is TPE assigned 68s do not use AAR connectors for multiple unit control.
I suppose either a 3rd rail or overhead wire could do it. I believe some stations in the past have had shore supplies for the HST so it is possible, whether or not it's cost effective is another thing, plus it's one more thing to worry about/go wrong.
The Mark 5s don't use AAR. It's WTB using UIC cables, with an additional CAF/Mk 5 -specific jumper as well.
The HST's used to be connected to a shore supply at the London Terminals. The cover plate on the nose of the power car swung up to reveal the coupling and also the power socket. On arrival the cover was opened and a cable run from a supply mounted behind the buffers.
You aren’t taking into account that the small 16 loco fleet is now split between at least 3 freight/charter operators who are busy using them for their own purposes.
