• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

TPE Mark 5A coaching stock progress

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ben Bow

Member
Joined
20 Sep 2018
Messages
342
Is this the same incident report mentioned on this thread last Friday in post #2656?
Apologies if its already been mentioned, I don't have access to them so I don't know if there is more than one.
Good that the mileage accumulation runs have recommenced this morning after a break of around 4 weeks. Let's hope all the issues are now resolved and that final progress towards entering service can now be made.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
I was only joking...
The perils of reading text rather than hearing a voice.

I find people who try and crack jokes here and there, bang on about saving HSTs, say new trains are "plastic" always seem strange.
It's not about being serious all the time, just remembering that in these recent times people are being more literal especially with the above topics.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
Wasn't there a time when railway companies simply built their own stock from scratch? Were there ever any delays back then?

Yes, quite a few. Usually when attempts were made to introduce new technology, although that was done a bit less frequently in the past.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,531
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Yes, quite a few. Usually when attempts were made to introduce new technology, although that was done a bit less frequently in the past.

The 142s are probably one of the best examples - they required a completely new transmission (hydraulic replacing mechanical) and doors (two-leaf with locks replacing four-leaf without), and even then are and long have been among the least reliable units in the fleet.
 

Tynwald

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2016
Messages
175
Not to mention engines. Cummins replacing Leylands, and brakes, direct acting replacing cable worked brakes. Fair to say that this cheap train has worked out pretty expensive.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
Massive delays and issues introducing new signalling in Hong Kong, certainly not a UK specific or CAF specific issue in terms of delays in new technology.
 

DunfordBridge

Member
Joined
13 Apr 2013
Messages
600
Location
Scarborough
I hear rumours of a wrong side door failure during testing at Greenfield where the doors opened on the wrong side (away from the platform) when the driver gave door release on the correct platform side?

Some suggestion of a software or wiring issue being discovered which seems to depend on which cab from the Class 68 is leading?

Can @BMIFlyer comment?

That bothers me if that is true. The following is based on conjecture but I am guessing that the test set made several stops before Greenfield so this would point to a sporadic error with the system. I take it driver error in releasing the doors can be discounted as this would be recorded by the on-train data recorder, although human error with the guard would be less likely to happen as he would be watching the train into the station on there correct side of the carriage.

Agree, many thanks indeed to PennineSuperb for the very informative description.

Pic below of 68031 ‘Felix’ at sunny Scarborough taken this afternoon.

View attachment 60465

One hour after your post, the heavens opened up in Scarborough and I was drenched to the skin on my jog.

There's always a way around that - if they specified a bi mode CAF wouldn't have bid.

They went for LHCS because the theory was it'd be delivered quickly off the back of the CS order.

I am now wondering how odd it would seem for a Mk 4 set to be entering Scarborough station lead by a DVT with a class 68 on the back. No idea about the coupling on a Mark 4 carriage.
 

Bornin1980s

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2017
Messages
479
I am now wondering how odd it would seem for a Mk 4 set to be entering Scarborough station lead by a DVT with a class 68 on the back. No idea about the coupling on a Mark 4 carriage.
He means the Caledonian Sleeper order, the first Mk5 order.

Personally, I wonder if the TPE sets are really a compromise too far, with few of the advantages of traditional LHCS or multiple units, but some of the definite disadvantages of both.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,531
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Personally, I wonder if the TPE sets are really a compromise too far, with few of the advantages of traditional LHCS or multiple units, but some of the definite disadvantages of both.

In many ways yes. They'd have been better as a more modular solution (say two types of coaches - TSO and DBFO with wheelchair spaces) and fitting the loks with Scharfenbergs to allow different lengths to be formed as required.
 

coxxy

Member
Joined
16 Aug 2013
Messages
295
Did they have 2 out on test today??

Sure I saw a 68 and mk 5a come through MCO towards MAN today...
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
Don’t forget to throw in a couple of runs over the core route to test the route specific ASDO operation, and keep your fingers crossed at Greenfield;)

Was the Greenfield issue a Mark5a issue or a Class 68 issue? I would be surprised if an issue with the Class 68s was held against the Mark 5A s.
 

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,989
Was the Greenfield issue a Mark5a issue or a Class 68 issue? I would be surprised if an issue with the Class 68s was held against the Mark 5A s.
All seems a bit hush hush, I certainly don’t have any knowledge other than what others have posted on here. Interestingly though it came to light on the thread a few weeks back that there’s quite a bit of CAF kit now installed on the Class 68 to enable them to operate the Mk5a rakes.
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,907
Wasn't there a time when railway companies simply built their own stock from scratch? Were there ever any delays back then?

There was a hell of a lot less to go wrong in those days. Electrics on a carriage might extend no futher than a dynamo and batteries for the lights. Electrics on the loco might not exist. Computers were quite out of gauge.
Look futher on and there's BR's own marvelous APT.
 

Ben Bow

Member
Joined
20 Sep 2018
Messages
342
All seems a bit hush hush, I certainly don’t have any knowledge other than what others have posted on here. Interestingly though it came to light on the thread a few weeks back that there’s quite a bit of CAF kit now installed on the Class 68 to enable them to operate the Mk5a rakes.

Whatever it was it must be fairly serious/embarrassing if they are threatening staff with the sack if they talk about it!
 

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,989
Whatever it was it must be fairly serious/embarrassing if they are threatening staff with the sack if they talk about it!
These things often leak out but with this incident everyone is very tight lipped!
 

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
He means the Caledonian Sleeper order, the first Mk5 order.

Personally, I wonder if the TPE sets are really a compromise too far, with few of the advantages of traditional LHCS or multiple units, but some of the definite disadvantages of both.

In the 1960s when BR wanted trailer sets for the Bournemouth line they created unpowered multiple units; the ECML Mark 4 stock were envisaged and used as fixed formation rakes; even the Mark 3 sets on the West Coast were used fairly inflexibly - there was no concept of strengthening at times of high demand and this was the case even before the use of Driving Van Trailers. Even in the 1950s and early 60s when there were substantial numbers of pre-grouping coaches hanging around for months doing nothing the main express services operated with fixed rakes which were only amended when coaches needed to come out of service for some reason. I don't know the reasons or the costs but it is fairly obvious that a train as a semi-fixed unit is always the solution that wins. The idea that we can add coaches at times of high demand is surely redundant - costs of holding spare coaches, costs of having shunters to alter the sets, costs of providing longer platforms than are normally needed etc etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top