So on the one hand you have inside knowledge of the topic and you’ve told us the seats are a different design.
The mark 5s are 125mph capable stock, they're only constrained by the capabilities of the locos powering them.
Yeah, that's something I have considered, and I suspect is possibly a large factor in why they chose the seats they did - the stock would presumably only be 100 or 110mph certified otherwise.
So on the one hand you have inside knowledge of the topic and you’ve told us the seats are a different design.
Yet we have so many later posts saying they are the same as an IET, based on looking at a picture taken through a window with an iPhone.
Hmmm, I’m going to believe you on this one, and say thanks for the info
because you get a cold draft from the station each time the doors open and the associated platform noise and racket of people getting on. Hopefully, with the doors being at each end there will be less noise and cold air coming in from the outside each time it stops! Also the total area taken up by the doors will be smaller, hopefully meaning there will be more room for seats in each carriage.
The idea was that CAF had production capacity to deliver the loco-hauled sets earlier than Hitachi could the class 802s. It also allows for easy conversion to electric haulage should the Transpennine North route be electrified, which was very much on the table for c.2023 at the time of the franchise competition.Could someone kindly please explain the reason for TPE introducing new Loco hauled stock instead of the DMU's?
I would have thought that the associated running costs etc would be more for said stock rather than the latter.
Not that I'm complaining.
Also, in BR days five coaches was regarded as the tipping point in terms of cost effectiveness of locomotive haulage. So, maintain one big diesel rather than five smaller engines and associated transmissions. I think it’s fair to say the Class 68 is a very modern locomotive. It would be interesting in time to know the relative operating costs of Nova 3 compared with Nova 1, but if the BR reasoning still applies then I suspect there might not be much in it.Could someone kindly please explain the reason for TPE introducing new Loco hauled stock instead of the DMU's?
I would have thought that the associated running costs etc would be more for said stock rather than the latter.
Not that I'm complaining.
It also helps that the 68's acceleration is far swifter than BR could have envisioned any diesel locomotive being- they can keep pace with (even outrun) the Clubman sets on Chiltern by all accounts. So that nullifies one of the traditional negatives of loco-hauled when compared to DMUs.
In Modern Railways the 68s were described as ‘like an EMU, only much more fun’!
Providing they're aligned with a window, of course!
I hope cyclists don't follow the sign to Cycle Route 65
Haha! To be fair, there are diversion signs in place! The new bridge is due for completion by the end of March, come on TPE, let’s have at least one Nova 3 in traffic by thenI hope cyclists don't follow the sign to Cycle Route 65
Haha! To be fair, there are diversion signs in place! The new bridge is due for completion by the end of March, come on TPE, let’s have at least one Nova 3 in traffic by then
