TPE Mark 5A coaching stock progress

[SuperNova]

Pros and cons really:

1. Class 442s (Mk 3 stock essentially) were proposed for the franchisee as an alternative to new rolling stock which was apparently good enough for SWR as they are using 18 out of the 24 examples ever built.
2. The Mk 5A stock has been beset with problems, die to a mixed bag of problems with a very belated introduction into service.
3. How quickly could Mark 3 stock be refurbished to include Passenger Information Screens and be compliant with disability regulations.
4. Mark 3s have near perfect alignment with the seats and windows.

I know what I would rather travel on. Maybe they should have found a manufacturer to make stock to the same specification as Mark 3 albeit updated.

Can we stop with this speculation. Mk3 and Mk4 carriages will never be used on TPE services.

The mk5a's and 397's feel and look great from an interior point of view but the ride is crap. Someone's also mentioned that TPE are only getting 3 out of 13 sets out daily, it's actually 9 and should've been 10 but the same unit keeps failing its fault free running. The product by CAF is poor and I'd be surprised if they'll be kept on past their current lease

TPE have done the "full and standing from XXX" on Sundays for a few weeks now.

As far as I am aware, this only happens if the train is reported full and standing by a conductor to control. Weekends and off-peak are the new peak after all.

 

[sjpowermac]

You’re completely on the mark here

The main issue with the Nova 3 is only 9 have been accepted, there’s communication issues between carriages and loco and all traction training has been suspended since March, and was only re-approved last week, for conductor instructors who are happy to take trainees and be regularly Covid tested. York depot also has a high number of trainees (I believe around 12?) waiting to fill vacancies which may also affect how many staff could be released for traction training and traction exams

Many thanks for confirming, greatly appreciated. Good that at least conductor training is starting again.

Can we stop with this speculation. Mk3 and Mk4 carriages will never be used on TPE services.

The mk5a's and 397's feel and look great from an interior point of view but the ride is crap. Someone's also mentioned that TPE are only getting 3 out of 13 sets out daily, it's actually 9 and should've been 10 but the same unit keeps failing its fault free running. The product by CAF is poor and I'd be surprised if they'll be kept on past their current lease



As far as I am aware, this only happens if the train is reported full and standing by a conductor to control. Weekends and off-peak are the new peak after all.

Am I correct in saying their current lease ends in 2023?

 

[SuperNova]

Many thanks for confirming, greatly appreciated. Good that at least conductor training is starting again.


Am I correct in saying their current lease ends in 2023?

I think so. I just can't see them continuing given all the issues, already 2 years late for full acceptance. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it should've just been blanket 802's - and I do understand the reasoning behind why the mk5a's were chosen.

 

[Speed43125]

I think so.

I can imagine the speculation we'll be welcomed with then.

Chiltern should have no trouble swallowing up all the Mk.5s right? It would only tripled their Loco Hauled fleet... /s

 

[LOL The Irony]

Do you have a source for that? I'd be surprised if CAF had purchased EcoFlexx bogies as opposed to something of their own development

I seem to recall them using ecoflexx's on the MU's although it could be false memory. Come to think of it, what did they use?

I've taken a good look around and CAF only go as far as advertising wheelsets (unless they class bogies under that), however, Bombardier don't mention the FlexxEco being fitted to the 195's, so they most likely did make their own bogies, but I can't be sure.

 

[sjpowermac]

I think so. I just can't see them continuing given all the issues, already 2 years late for full acceptance. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it should've just been blanket 802's - and I do understand the reasoning behind why the mk5a's were chosen.

Many thanks for that, greatly appreciated.

I’m guessing that having relatively few daily diagrams has meant that some technical issues have taken longer to crop up than if a rapid ramp up had been possible (the ‘bathtub’ reliability curve). Interesting to see that some months the Nova 3 sets have been above Nova 1 in the reliability tables.

It’s evident from reading this thread (and the dedicated FB groups) that a lot of very hard work has gone into the Nova 3 project, I hope that it does come good in the end.

 

[Seehof]

Any news or views as to when they or some of them will be back in service?

 

[43 302]

Any news or views as to when they or some of them will be back in service?

Tomorrow or the day after I would think.

 

[Seehof]

Thank you

 

[Roger B]

There are currently nine Nova 3 sets accepted by TPE. The fault free running trials of the other sets was delayed owing to the pandemic.

From the December 2019 timetable change there were four daily diagrams for the Nova 3 sets.

The reason that there are currently three daily diagrams is down to availability of train crew passed for the Nova 3 sets.

As I understand it, introduction of further diagrams would require training of York crews. This has been delayed due to social distancing not being possible in train cabs.

I hope that helps.

You’re completely on the mark here

The main issue with the Nova 3 is only 9 have been accepted, there’s communication issues between carriages and loco and all traction training has been suspended since March, and was only re-approved last week, for conductor instructors who are happy to take trainees and be regularly Covid tested. York depot also has a high number of trainees (I believe around 12?) waiting to fill vacancies which may also affect how many staff could be released for traction training and traction exams

Yes, I'm sure sjpowermac is completely on the mark, and not just concerning current availability - it's telling that he hasn't challenged comments about design, build quality, reliability and value for money of CAF trains. The consensus is that all is not well with the Nova3s - with expectation that they won't be retained by TPE post lease expiry date in 2023.

 

[DorkingMain]

The 442s would have been a terrible choice. Their time at SWR has seen them plagued by gauging issues due to problems with their suspension and other modifications made to them.

Mark 3s are ancient and are not really fit for anything other than as a stopgap. Mark 4s don't have a significantly longer projected lifespan either. New build stock was the right choice. I don't see the relevance of recent tragic events in Scotland and making this thread an argument about them is seriously taking things offtopic.

I agree with comments here suggesting 802s would have been a much better alternative. I believe the Scarborough Mk5a + 68 rakes were chosen as a trial for future loco-hauls. Given how noisy 68s are and other issues with the coaches I suspect it might not be replicated elsewhere

 

[37424]

The common sense solution would be to bin them off and keep all the 185's instead, allegedly TPE have looked at that but the lease particularly on the 68's is an issue.

 

[DunfordBridge]

Can we stop with this speculation. Mk3 and Mk4 carriages will never be used on TPE services.

Neither here or there with me what standard of rolling stock they use. After all the cancellations, it is not enough to entice me back into using the local rail service. We have had to rely on Northern promising to lay on an extra service from Scarborough to York and I have no idea what will have happened to that now. In fact, with the longer layover in Scarborough, it is a pity that Transpennine cannot run some Scarborough services down the coast to Filey. How many people remember the early morning service from Filey to York that was somehow culled?

The mk5a's and 397's feel and look great from an interior point of view but the ride is crap. Someone's also mentioned that TPE are only getting 3 out of 13 sets out daily, it's actually 9 and should've been 10 but the same unit keeps failing its fault free running. The product by CAF is poor and I'd be surprised if they'll be kept on past their current lease

So ridiculous!

The conventional outside frame has the frame around the outside, making the bogie heavier but usually providing a better ride. Inside frame bogies are lighter and cause less wear on the tracks. You could fix the issues by setting up the suspension in a particular way, which CAF clearly haven't

I shall consider myself educated, more so than visiting Instagram for sure. I am glad I took part in this thread today.

The 442s would have been a terrible choice. Their time at SWR has seen them plagued by gauging issues due to problems with their suspension and other modifications made to them.

I was not aware, I take it they were fine back in the day, before the modifications.

 

[sjpowermac]

Yes, I'm sure sjpowermac is completely on the mark, and not just concerning current availability - it's telling that he hasn't challenged comments about design, build quality, reliability and value for money of CAF trains. The consensus is that all is not well with the Nova3s - with expectation that they won't be retained by TPE post lease expiry date in 2023.

Since I don’t work for CAF, TPE or Beacon Leasing, why do you feel that ‘it’s telling’ that I didn’t respond to any of your other comments?

You made a factually incorrect statement about the availability of the Nova 3 sets. I corrected that and then someone with inside knowledge confirmed that my guess was correct.

Regarding ‘all not being well’ with the Nova 3 sets, as I understand it many of the new fleets of trains have had problems with software, I don’t believe it’s a problem unique to CAF built trains.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It’s evident from reading this thread (and the dedicated FB groups) that a lot of very hard work has gone into the Nova 3 project, I hope that it does come good in the end.

Yes, a lot of people have worked incredibly hard to try and get the CAF Mark 5a stock into service, but ultimately that work simply shouldn't have been necessary, and is a direct result of naivety, impatience and incompetence on the part of others who really should have known better.

 

[Fokx]

I agree with comments here suggesting 802s would have been a much better alternative. I believe the Scarborough Mk5a + 68 rakes were chosen as a trial for future loco-hauls. Given how noisy 68s are and other issues with the coaches I suspect it might not be replicated elsewhere

The MK5a’s and 68 combination was chosen due to a lack of availability of (reliable) long distance bi-mode intercity trains at the time. Remember, the Nova 3 sets were meant to be introduced into service two years earlier that it actually happened in reality, due to delays in production, testing, fault-free running and train crew training. If the delays were foreseen, you can almost guarantee that a full fleet of 802 would have been chosen, or a 802/397 mix

The reason for loco hauled service was the idea that if full Manchester to York electrification were to happen, you would simply ditch the class 68 loco and replace it with an electric bi-mode (such as the Class 88) rather than procure a fully diesel train and then have to replace it a few years along the line.

 

[Seehof]

Somewhat ironic and sad that increased capacity is introduced just when demand drops off a cliff and not all may ever return.

 

[HST43257]

Is there any indication as to if/when the Nova 3s will return?

 

[sjpowermac]

Yes, a lot of people have worked incredibly hard to try and get the CAF Mark 5a stock into service, but ultimately that work simply shouldn't have been necessary, and is a direct result of naivety, impatience and incompetence on the part of others who really should have known better.

Are you able to say which party you feel was naive?

I’m not in any way questioning what you’ve put, I’m just curious.

I think there’s been a degree of bad luck involved along the way. The initial testing phase and then the prioritising of crew training on Nova 1 and 2 is well documented further up the thread.

As I understand it attention was about to turn to the Nova 3 and then the pandemic hit.

Best wishes to those involved with the Nova 3 sets.

Is there any indication as to if/when the Nova 3s will return?

As I understand it early in the week.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The reason for loco hauled service was the idea that if full Manchester to York electrification were to happen, you would simply ditch the class 68 loco and replace it with an electric bi-mode (such as the Class 88) rather than procure a fully diesel train and then have to replace it a few years along the line.

This is frequently claimed, maybe even TransPennine believes this nonsense, but it is, as I've said, complete nonsense.

The Class 68 locomotives run well beyond the intended extent of future electrification (certainly in the next few years) and that will not change even if we get the authority to fully electrify York (Church Fenton) to Leeds and onto Manchester Victoria. They can't replace the Class 802s on the Newcastle/Edinburgh services because neither TransPennine nor DRS (nor any other supplier of traction) have a 125mph capable electric locomotive (and before the existence of the Class 91s is mentioned, there's a virtual certainty that there won't be enough Class 91s left when TransPennine electrification is complete, let alone any evidence of planning for their use when designing the Mark 5a stock, or how the age, reliability, overhaul needs and maintenance of a Class 91 would work).

TransPennine and First Group always knew of the likelihood of partial electrification of the TransPennine route and that bi-mode units would be best suited to runs on the Manchester to York route. They always knew that electrification would be staggered with (at the time) Manchester to Leeds likely to be completed before Leeds to York.

Why they decided to go with a loco hauled solution that would be stuck long term with a diesel locomotive is frankly down to their incompetence - there were plenty of competing solutions available. The naivety was in assuming introducing new CAF stock was going to be as easy as the introduction of the AT300 fleet (it was quite easy, but then Hitachi had a lot of experience already in the UK market, with the Class 395 units, re-engineering the Class 465 units, undertaking the HST Hayabusa project, and running their V-train way back when they first came to the UK market). There's also a bit of a difference between Hitachi who have a turnover of £70bn and CAF who, well, don't.

 

[Fokx]

This is frequently claimed, maybe even TransPennine believes this nonsense, but it is, as I've said, complete nonsense.

The Class 68 locomotives run well beyond the intended extent of future electrification (certainly in the next few years) and that will not change even if we get the authority to fully electrify York (Church Fenton) to Leeds and onto Manchester Victoria. They can't replace the Class 802s on the Newcastle/Edinburgh services because neither TransPennine nor DRS (nor any other supplier of traction) have a 125mph capable electric locomotive (and before the existence of the Class 91s is mentioned, there's a virtual certainty that there won't be enough Class 91s left when TransPennine electrification is complete, let alone any evidence of planning for their use when designing the Mark 5a stock, or how the age, reliability, overhaul needs and maintenance of a Class 91 would work).

TransPennine and First Group always knew of the likelihood of partial electrification of the TransPennine route and that bi-mode units would be best suited to runs on the Manchester to York route. They always knew that electrification would be staggered with (at the time) Manchester to Leeds likely to be completed before Leeds to York.

Why they decided to go with a loco hauled solution that would be stuck long term with a diesel locomotive is frankly down to their incompetence - there were plenty of competing solutions available.

It’s not nonsense, it might not be ideal, it might not be logical but that was (and still is) the reason for the class 68 fleet. As I stated earlier, the ideal and regretful decision would have been a full class 802 bi-mode fleet but this would have seen a two year delay in introduction with the first in service 2019. Sadly due to the incompetence of CAF that’s exactly when the Nova 3 fleet was able to enter service, two years later than planned and still awaiting full fleet acceptance.

There isn’t a plan to replace the 802, to run at 125mph on the ECML or obtain class 91 units, I have absolutely no idea where you have came to these conclusions.

 

[Halish Railway]

The Class 68 locomotives run well beyond the intended extent of future electrification (certainly in the next few years) and that will not change even if we get the authority to fully electrify York (Church Fenton) to Leeds and onto Manchester Victoria. They can't replace the Class 802s on the Newcastle/Edinburgh services because neither TransPennine nor DRS (nor any other supplier of traction) have a 125mph capable electric locomotive (and before the existence of the Class 91s is mentioned, there's a virtual certainty that there won't be enough Class 91s left when TransPennine electrification is complete, let alone any evidence of planning for their use when designing the Mark 5a stock, or how the age, reliability, overhaul needs and maintenance of a Class 91 would work).

Why can’t they just order some new 125mph capable electric locomotives? There’s hardly a shortage of well developed designs that could be adapted to the UK’s loading gauge, besides, the MK5s have been designed to run at and have been tested at 125mph.

 

[Scotrail84]

Does anyone know for certain if the bogies on the MK5 sleeper carriages are the same as these ones on the day coaches? TIA

 

[43096]

Why they decided to go with a loco hauled solution that would be stuck long term with a diesel locomotive is frankly down to their incompetence - there were plenty of competing solutions available.

It has been suggested elsewhere by a very informed poster that DfT wanted the 442s re-used and the tender was worded to encourage that (and indeed others offered that). By offering LHCS (but new), First were compliant with the tender - without it they would have submitted a non-compliant bid.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

There isn’t a plan to replace the 802, to run at 125mph on the ECML or obtain class 91 units, I have absolutely no idea where you have came to these conclusions.

That's your conclusion. You have suggested the Mark 5a stock could be converted to electric haulage. If that is to happen, they would need to be deployed on the Newcastle/Edinburgh diagrams, since there's no chance of any of the current "Nova 3" destinations will be electrified in the short to mid term.

Why can’t they just order some new 125mph capable electric locomotives? There’s hardly a shortage of well developed designs that could be adapted to the UK’s loading gauge, besides, the MK5s have been designed to run at and have been tested at 125mph.

That's certainly a possibility. I'd be enormously surprised if Stadler (ex Vossloh) can't offer a 125mph variant of the Class 88.

 

[Fokx]

That's your conclusion. You have suggested the Mark 5a stock could be converted to electric haulage. If that is to happen, they would need to be deployed on the Newcastle/Edinburgh diagrams, since there's no chance of any of the current "Nova 3" destinations will be electrified in the short to mid term.

It’s not my conclusion, it’s my employers.

As I stated they would be Bi-mode electric locomotives (like the 88) with the ability to still serve Redcar and Scarborough. Electric Liverpool (or Airport) to Leeds/York (if full electrification occurs) and then diesel to Scarborough or Redcar

 

[Bletchleyite]

Somewhat ironic and sad that increased capacity is introduced just when demand drops off a cliff and not all may ever return.

TPE had such a bad overcrowding problem (worse than even the execrable XC) and talk in here pre-COVID was that 5-car sets were a bad choice and they'll all need extending to 7.

I suspect the effect of COVID will just be that 5 will turn out to have been the right choice.

 

[Mag_seven]

Can I remind posters that this thread is for the discussion of TPE Mark 5A coaching stock progress i.e. what is actually happening.

If anyone wants to discuss anything speculative about what TPE should or should not do re their rolling stock then they are welcome to start a new thread in the speculative ideas section.

thanks

 

[Roger B]

This is frequently claimed, maybe even TransPennine believes this nonsense, but it is, as I've said, complete nonsense.

The Class 68 locomotives run well beyond the intended extent of future electrification (certainly in the next few years) and that will not change even if we get the authority to fully electrify York (Church Fenton) to Leeds and onto Manchester Victoria. They can't replace the Class 802s on the Newcastle/Edinburgh services because neither TransPennine nor DRS (nor any other supplier of traction) have a 125mph capable electric locomotive (and before the existence of the Class 91s is mentioned, there's a virtual certainty that there won't be enough Class 91s left when TransPennine electrification is complete, let alone any evidence of planning for their use when designing the Mark 5a stock, or how the age, reliability, overhaul needs and maintenance of a Class 91 would work).

TransPennine and First Group always knew of the likelihood of partial electrification of the TransPennine route and that bi-mode units would be best suited to runs on the Manchester to York route. They always knew that electrification would be staggered with (at the time) Manchester to Leeds likely to be completed before Leeds to York.

Why they decided to go with a loco hauled solution that would be stuck long term with a diesel locomotive is frankly down to their incompetence - there were plenty of competing solutions available. The naivety was in assuming introducing new CAF stock was going to be as easy as the introduction of the AT300 fleet (it was quite easy, but then Hitachi had a lot of experience already in the UK market, with the Class 395 units, re-engineering the Class 465 units, undertaking the HST Hayabusa project, and running their V-train way back when they first came to the UK market). There's also a bit of a difference between Hitachi who have a turnover of £70bn and CAF who, well, don't.

Thanks Philip, you've hit the mail on the head. One of the biggest delays to the Nova3 project was caused by challenges getting the 68s and DTs to communicate - and this issue is ongoing. It should have been clear from the outset that this was essential to the success of the Nova3 project, and to have signed contracts without assurances from the manufacturers to share proprietary information was at best naive (if such assurances weren't forthcoming when manufacturers were trying to secure orders, why would they be willing to provide them subsequently?), or worse (if this key dependency wasn't recognised and/or it was decided to press on knowing it was likely that the required assurances would not be forthcoming).

 

[43 302]

Two out of three diagrams are worked by 68s today with a DMU on F54.

Edit: Problems with 68024 / TP07 so DMU on E25 starting MCV.