FFFC 57
Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2019
- Messages
- 76
On the move 66 late.
On the move 66 late.
Passenger taken ill will terminate York according to journeycheck.com/tpeOn the move 66 late.
I hate to say it, but in a sense I'm relieved it was that, in the circumstances; hope the punter is OK though!Passenger taken ill will terminate York according to journeycheck.com/tpe
Early days yet. I reckon they will settle down once everybody who work with them become more familiar with them.I don't believe any of the CAF stock has really shone...yet. There seem to be design and quality problems across all of it, sadly. I'd imagine TPE are regretting not having ordered a homogeneous fleet of 80x, though I understand the reason for the split which due to the delays has not really brought benefit.
Early days yet. I reckon they will settle down once everybody who work with them become more familiar with them.
They pollute like a 31 but sound great, I know some people like peace and quiet though.Currently on 1F62 from Huddersfield to Liverpool.
Having been on a 331 earlier, the ride is similar but rather smoother and quieter.
WiFi working but is called CAF-something.
Loco pretty much inaudible once on the move.
PIS working with both doorway screens and a scrolling one-line destination/stops display.
Seats better than Northern's, seat backs a bit high compare to 185, but not as bad as EM cl 158 coffins.
Window alignment tolerable if not perfect.
Kept time nicely over the hills, but being checked now into Victoria.
Final problem - loco noise at cavernous places like Lime St.
Having quietened the station with EMUs instead of noisy DMUs, we now have a deafening roar for the half-hour turn round time of the LHCS (loco at the buffers today).
I presume the emissions are at least cleaner.
Thank you ever so much for that. Original post updatedOne update...
Thursday 29th August - 1F48 was cancelled and 1E25 started from Man Vic, ecs ex Longsight
If it's a valid comparison, where was the equivalent of the GWR rollout of mark5s for tpe to learn from?
And what was the hst reliability figure in their first months of operation?
I can see that ‘Noisegate’ is gathering some momentum so here are a few stats, all in dBA min/max
Class 91
64.4/97.5
(Stood in station/powered up)
Class 68
(engine idling/engine powered up)
82.4/93.8
Class 37
(engine idling/engine powered up)
72.9/100.4
All recordings made from the yellow line on the platform.
Yes, the 68s are loud, but far from dangerous. It takes 120 dBA to damage hearing. So, enjoy, it’s all perfectly safe. The sound as an 802 clattered into the platform was over 100dBA, the wheel/rail interface on a curve produces more noise than a Class 68 on full power.
View attachment 68722 View attachment 68723 View attachment 68724
RTT SAYS PROBLEM WITH THE BRAKES.68025 on 1E23, loco on Liverpool end. Train terminated in platform 1 at York.
CLASS 68 DOESN'T DAMAGE HEARING AT ALL, YOU SAY?RTT SAYS PROBLEM WITH THE BRAKES.
It looks like the CS has problems way beyond the stock including high turnover of too many related staff and conrractors, so I'm not sure lessons are even being learnt within CS and they seemed to be heading towards strikes.I acknowledged in my post that LNER had the advantage of GWR rollout in their favour. Having said that, the Caledonian Sleeper stock entered service before the TPE stock, surely some commonality between the two fleets should have resulted in some lessons being learnt and best practice being passed on between CAF staff?
How do you figure that?I don't know the HST reliability figures from introduction as they pre-date me by over a decade. We also don't know the actual MTIN figure for the 68/mk5a fleet, we only have the information compiled by users on here. One thing is for sure, it doesn't make for good reading. Additionally, a technical incident doesn't necessarily result in the cancellation of a train, so comparing HST MTIN figures against 68/mk5a failures in service actually favours the TPE stock...
1F60 started from York with the 68RTT SAYS PROBLEM WITH THE BRAKES.
Great news1F60 started from York with the 68
Having said that, the Caledonian Sleeper stock entered service before the TPE stock, surely some commonality between the two fleets should have resulted in some lessons being learnt and best practice being passed on between CAF staff?
I acknowledged in my post that LNER had the advantage of GWR rollout in their favour. Having said that, the Caledonian Sleeper stock entered service before the TPE stock, surely some commonality between the two fleets should have resulted in some lessons being learnt and best practice being passed on between CAF staff?
HSTs don't need buffers, they have a fixed buckeye. They also lack RCH cables too, the lighting is controlled via the 36 way.The best way of describing it is that it's a bit like loco hauled Mk3s and HST Mk3s, in that the two are so different as to be non-interworkable without substantial work being carried out on one or the other. Major differences are that the electrical supply systems are totally different and while the couplings on the Mk3s are the same, the HST stock lacks buffers.
It should've have been today but it's more likely once one of them doesn't fail on depot, hopefully some point this weekSo is there a new date for starting of the 2 x Nova 3 in passenger service?
Do we even have a date for full squadron service?
TP04:
1F48 05.55 MCV-LIV
1E25 06.56 LIV-SCA
1F62 10.41 SCA-LIV
1E39 13.56 LIV-SCA
1F76 17.44 SCA-LIV
1J53 20.56 LIV-SYB
TP09:
*Running in reverse formation*
1E23 05.56 LIV-SCA
1F60 09.41 SCA-LIV
1E37 12.56 LIV-SCA
1F74 16.44 SCA-LIV
1E51 19.56 LIV-SCA
1P98 22.46 SCA-MAN