TPE Mark 5A coaching stock progress

[Domh245]

First rake has been seen in transit by rail to Velim in Germany. At least I'm told the photo I have been sent was taken in Germany.

The OLE certainly looks german (assuming the photo is the same - taken from Richard Clinnick's twitter)

 

[Jonny]

IMO where the 185s score is in terns of leg room and the sound of the engine. In terms of sheer comfort, the seat on the 158 is quite unrivalled. I would even think of having one in my lounge. Fact is, I drive a Rover 75 and the seats on the 185 are not enough to tempt me out of my car full-time. Have you ever sat in the driver's seat on a 185, that is like a revelation, best seat on the train?

On a separate issue, is it really so necessary for the 185s to be so bright inside? You can se them half a mile off, so much light pollution.

Anyway, better shut up before the moderators start desecrating the thread in bold red ink, just that I have my own ideas on how the new stock should look.

I have found the 185s seats to be surprisingly good for long (by TPE standards) journeys. I've done plenty over the years; yes they are rather hard but they are a "Goldilocks" just-right formulation. The light is bright, yes, but firstly some journeys are short and even longer travellers may wish to read (the more light, the better).

 

[bastien]

Oh goody another seating thread.

 

[Rail Blues]

First rake has been seen in transit by rail to Velim in Germany. At least I'm told the photo I have been sent was taken in Germany.

Velim is in the Czech Republic.

 

[edwin_m]

Interesting that the non-driving end coach of this stock appears to have structural members where the gangway would otherwise go, and is therefore structurally different from the intermediate coaches. This is unlike the Mk4s where the end coach is the same bodyshell as the others, just with a sort of cover over the hole where the gangway would be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting that the non-driving end coach of this stock appears to have structural members where the gangway would otherwise go, and is therefore structurally different from the intermediate coaches. This is unlike the Mk4s where the end coach is the same bodyshell as the others, just with a sort of cover over the hole where the gangway would be.

Yeah, I noticed that. They seem to have anti-climb equipment bolted on quite high up as well, I guess that corresponds with its location on the 68. They do look very European with their completely flat ends rather than the UK usual of tapering them in (Pendolinos excepted).

 

[xc170]

Interesting that the non-driving end coach of this stock appears to have structural members where the gangway would otherwise go, and is therefore structurally different from the intermediate coaches. This is unlike the Mk4s where the end coach is the same bodyshell as the others, just with a sort of cover over the hole where the gangway would be.

I'm not sure I understand the non gangwayed coach end, what would the reason be?

Wouldn't it be better to have the non driving coaches all a standard construction, even if just for operational flexibility?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure I understand the non gangwayed coach end, what would the reason be?

Wouldn't it be better to have the non driving coaches all a standard construction, even if just for operational flexibility?

They are more like single-ended 5-coach 4-TCs (some kind of unpowered MU) than LHCS - I believe they are bar coupled within?

I do agree they would have been better going for buckeyes throughout, buffers and gangways. I also was of the opinion that the sets should be 4 x TSO (each with one regular toilet) plus 1 x DBFO with wheelchair spaces and accessible toilet, allowing a lot more future flexibility in formations and keeping it to two types of coach.

 

[Domh245]

They seem to have anti-climb equipment bolted on quite high up as well, I guess that corresponds with its location on the 68

I don't think it's anticlimb, it doesn't look nearly structural enough if you look at this picture. It's looks like it is just a corrugated cover for something - although what exactly I don't know

 

[Bornin1980s]

I'm not sure I understand the non gangwayed coach end, what would the reason be?

Wouldn't it be better to have the non driving coaches all a standard construction, even if just for operational flexibility?

Because operational flexibility is so steam age!

 

[47802]

I'm not sure I understand the non gangwayed coach end, what would the reason be?

Wouldn't it be better to have the non driving coaches all a standard construction, even if just for operational flexibility?

Why they are fixed formation sets which are not likely to change, the end coach being the buffet 1st is somewhat non standard anyway, in fact I think that is catering end probably with no passenger access, If the sets were lengthened at some point they would no doubt insert additional carriages as required, I mean good grief its the 21st century not 1950's Loco Hauled.

 

[driver_m]

Having looked at the cables in that last coach, it certainly gives the impression that you couldn't knock a coach out in the same way that you once could with a mark 3 if it had dragging brakes. One of the TPE drivers was telling me that that the coaches will have full interaction via a TMS like current modern units so it does sound like they'll be staying together like a unit would.

 

[jopsuk]

hardly the first stock in britain to have a dedicated "end coach". Then there's the RailJet sets in Austria and Czechia

 

[Pete_uk]

Always nice to see new stock

 

[edwin_m]

the end coach being the buffet 1st is somewhat non standard anyway, in fact I think that is catering end probably with no passenger access

That's a possiblity, however the doors immediately adjacent have contrasting colour like the other doors in the train. Other trains with staff-only doors in the catering area have them in non-contrasting colour, so passengers are less likely to try to use them, and this may even be a requirement of accessibility regulations. So while it might make good sense to put the catering here with no passengers walking through, I don't think that is what they have done.

 

[47802]

That's a possiblity, however the doors immediately adjacent have contrasting colour like the other doors in the train. Other trains with staff-only doors in the catering area have them in non-contrasting colour, so passengers are less likely to try to use them, and this may even be a requirement of accessibility regulations. So while it might make good sense to put the catering here with no passengers walking through, I don't think that is what they have done.

That could of course be an error/unfinished paint scheme which is changed at a later date, from the video of the galley area which is earlier in the thread it looks unlikely to me that passengers would be allowed in that area or be able to walk through it.

 

[whhistle]

So hold on a moment, this train in the photo is just the MK5 coaches with a fancy driving trailer on the end?
That they plan to put a 68 on the other end?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So hold on a moment, this train in the photo is just the MK5 coaches with a fancy driving trailer on the end?
That they plan to put a 68 on the other end?

Yes, a 68 will go on the blunt end.

 

[whhistle]

So an unpowered Class 397...
Right.
I guess flexibility / speed of introduction but seems strange they didn't just order a diesel version of a 397...

 

[YorkshireBear]

So an unpowered Class 397...
Right.
I guess flexibility / speed of introduction but seems strange they didn't just order a diesel version of a 397...

Might not have been as technically easy and as quick to procure.

I have seen notes that France have refused the class 68s and TPE mkIV sets transition through their network (after this working). This will lead to a short delay in testing as the 68 won't make it to the czech republic in time. Also mean they may have to be roaded back to the UK.

 

[driver9000]

Velim is in the Czech Republic.

I know it is. I meant the photograph was taken in Germany.

 

[driver9000]

That's a possiblity, however the doors immediately adjacent have contrasting colour like the other doors in the train. Other trains with staff-only doors in the catering area have them in non-contrasting colour, so passengers are less likely to try to use them, and this may even be a requirement of accessibility regulations. So while it might make good sense to put the catering here with no passengers walking through, I don't think that is what they have done.

That is what they have done though. The non gangway end of the coach is where the small galley kitchen and Guards area is located. It's a small area so passengers won't be allowed to access it.

 

[59CosG95]

I have seen notes that France have refused the class 68s and TPE mkIV sets transition through their network (after this working). This will lead to a short delay in testing as the 68 won't make it to the czech republic in time. Also mean they may have to be roaded back to the UK.

They seem fairly reluctant to allow stock built by any company without French influence through their signals.
Just look at the furore Alstom made when the Class 374 order went to Siemens... coincidentally, France is one of the few countries in Europe which hasn't certified any of Siemens' EuroSprinter & Vectron locomotives for nationwide use. Bombardier's TRAXX platform seems to get away with it - though I'm not sure if the Bombardier plant at Crespin (nr Valenciennes) has anything to do with it...

(I'm sure there's a more logical reason that SNCF and the French Gov't haven't certified Siemens loks on their network, but partial rail-based nationalism seems to be the obvious one )

It is strange that they've refused the UKLights through by rail though, as EURO4000s (the bigger, Euro version of the 68 but with a 66's engine) run happily around, all over France.

 

[MisterT]

Might not have been as technically easy and as quick to procure.

I have seen notes that France have refused the class 68s and TPE mkIV sets transition through their network (after this working). This will lead to a short delay in testing as the 68 won't make it to the czech republic in time. Also mean they may have to be roaded back to the UK.

France is a nightmare for transferring trains. For our new Dutch SNG trains, there was even talk that all 118 sets had to be transported by road or boat because the French didn't want to allow the transfer over their network. So much for one European train network, even though CAF sorted it in the end, I believe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Might not have been as technically easy and as quick to procure.

I have seen notes that France have refused the class 68s and TPE mkIV sets transition through their network (after this working). This will lead to a short delay in testing as the 68 won't make it to the czech republic in time. Also mean they may have to be roaded back to the UK.

Do you know why this is?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I guess flexibility / speed of introduction but seems strange they didn't just order a diesel version of a 397...

One sensible reason, at the time of ordering, was that electrification was still progressing, and the idea that the Class 68 might be replaced in the next 20-30 years or so with an electric locomotive was not far-fetched (remember trains typically have a 30-50 year lifespan in frontline service). It still isn't far-fetched that it might be replaced with some other means of self-power than diesel.

But I believe the main reason was speed of delivery.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is what they have done though. The non gangway end of the coach is where the small galley kitchen and Guards area is located. It's a small area so passengers won't be allowed to access it.

Bit of a poor design feature having a destination display (that's what the long box above the window line is) at that end of the coach then!

 

[rebmcr]

Having looked at the cables in that last coach, it certainly gives the impression that you couldn't knock a coach out in the same way that you once could with a mark 3 if it had dragging brakes. One of the TPE drivers was telling me that that the coaches will have full interaction via a TMS like current modern units so it does sound like they'll be staying together like a unit would.

So it's a TMU? Trailer Multiple Unit!

(Alternately LHMU?)

 

[Bletchleyite]

So it's a TMU? Trailer Multiple Unit!

(Alternately LHMU?)

Sort of, yes. As mentioned it's a bit like a modern-day 4-TC but only having a cab on one end.

 

[47802]

So an unpowered Class 397...
Right.
I guess flexibility / speed of introduction but seems strange they didn't just order a diesel version of a 397...

A diesel powered 397 is whole different ball game which may not exist, additional 802's would have been more likely but the key issue as already stated was the delivery schedule and quickly they could got into service.