• 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.

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,989
MID-Carlisle-Bletchley-MID ran again today. Fingers crossed that’s 1000 miles out of the 4500 miles required:)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DunfordBridge

Member
Joined
13 Apr 2013
Messages
600
Location
Scarborough
Unusually, Felix is in platform 4 tonight at Scarborough station. I came in on the train from Hull which is parked permissively in front of the class 68. My train was held at the signals at Washbeck just outside the station, probably because of the permissive parking issue.
 

Attachments

  • WP_20190319_17_51_22_Pro.jpg
    WP_20190319_17_51_22_Pro.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 211

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,989
Unusually, Felix is in platform 4 tonight at Scarborough station. I came in on the train from Hull which is parked permissively in front of the class 68. My train was held at the signals at Washbeck just outside the station, probably because of the permissive parking issue.
Lovely image, I don’t think I’ve seen a picture of a 68 under the roof at Scarborough. Good that Felix is keeping warm;)
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
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.

Also, ensuring that the additional coaches will not have an undue impact on performance - either the additional train weight or the stock speed limit speed (or both) - would be a factor (mark 1s were 90 to 100 mph, mark 2s were all 100mph, mark 3s were 110 to 125 mph with the lowest applying to the whole train); and then there is the small matter of ensuring that the brakes are compatible along the train and with the loco. On the other hand, through-communication-wired stock could have top-and-tail with both locos working in tandem; the presence or absence of this in add-on stock is also a factor in deciding whether or not to extend trains.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
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.

And yet down South quite a number of operators use their fleets (mostly MU, admittedly) very flexibly - Chiltern are probably the best at this, being able to form anything from 2 to 8-car (I think), possibly 9, but most of the operators do it, some with some very elaborate splitting/joining diagrams like LNR and SWR. So the idea of matching length to demand is very much not redundant, it's just some of the IC operators[1] who ignore it as a possibility.

Even EMT has hacked around with their 222s to form 4s, 5s and 7s to allow this kind of chopping and changing.

[1] VT of course have the option of 5, 9, 10 and 11 which are used quite well in that regard too.
 

LittleAH

Member
Joined
24 Oct 2018
Messages
176
Whatever it was it must be fairly serious/embarrassing if they are threatening staff with the sack if they talk about it!

Or like any job, when you leak sensitive info - you're in breach of contract and bye bye job. If I leaked the info from confidential meetings I'd been in, I'd be given my p45 quicker than you can say David Bellamy.
 

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,989
Or like any job, when you leak sensitive info - you're in breach of contract and bye bye job. If I leaked the info from confidential meetings I'd been in, I'd be given my p45 quicker than you can say David Bellamy.
You are right, of course, in that nobody in their right mind would start leaking information on a public forum when they had been told not to. I think the point is though why that information was deemed so sensitive in the first place.

In quite a few cases the reasons for rolling stock being late into service are well documented. As an example, the Azuma trains are late because of signal interference problems north of Colton Junction. The problem and solution have been documented in the pages of ‘Modern Railways’ magazine.

With the Nova 3 it emerged that there was a braking problem below 8 mph.

I’m sure that TPE/CAF are working as hard as possible to get these trains in service as soon as possible but there doesn’t seem to be anyone holding them to account over franchise commitments (other than posters on this forum!). As I understand it (happy to be corrected), but Transport for the North have said absolutely nothing on the matter.

As always, I genuinely wish all those involved with the project the best.
 

Ben Bow

Member
Joined
20 Sep 2018
Messages
342
Indeed, they were pretty open about the brake issues last autumn, both externally and internally, and I would have thought anything to do with safety systems would be pretty 'sensitive'. But, of course, that was a manufacturer issue....
 

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,989
On the plus side, the MID-Carlisle has run this morning. Fingers crossed for another 500 miles in the bag by this evening:)
 

Ben Bow

Member
Joined
20 Sep 2018
Messages
342
Yes, that's very good news. With luck it could be done by the end of next week, I assume its the same set (TPE09) going out everyday.
 

supervc-10

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2012
Messages
701
And yet down South quite a number of operators use their fleets (mostly MU, admittedly) very flexibly - Chiltern are probably the best at this, being able to form anything from 2 to 8-car (I think), possibly 9, but most of the operators do it, some with some very elaborate splitting/joining diagrams like LNR and SWR. So the idea of matching length to demand is very much not redundant, it's just some of the IC operators[1] who ignore it as a possibility.

SWT certainly used to operate 9-car 159s from Waterloo to Salisbury, with one 3-car unit continuing to Bristol, another to Exeter, and one stopping at Salisbury. Not sure if SWR still do that, but I know they still join units at Salisbury a fair bit. Meanwhile some off-peak services are 3-car all the way from Exeter to Waterloo.

With low top speeds on the TPE routes, I did wonder if an expanded fleet of 185-style units would be better. Still, the Nova fleets are much needed! I don't think I've ever been on a TPE service which wasn't full.
 

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,989
68031 ‘Felix’ on crossing the river Ouse at York on 0B67 15:02 Scarborough to York. Worked back out on 0B68 16:00 York to Scarborough.
BF5D08BC-B871-41FD-AD2A-DA3BCC7C98FB.jpeg
 

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,989
MID-Carlisle-Bletchley-MID ran again today. Fingers crossed that’s 1500 miles out of the 4500 miles required, a third of the way there, hopefully;)
 

Sandy_Cheeks

New Member
Joined
15 Feb 2019
Messages
1
Can I ask a daft question :rolleyes: - do all the sets have to be put out all at once on day one, or can they be slowly introduced as crews and trains pass muster?

Cheers;)
 

_toommm_

Established Member
Joined
8 Jul 2017
Messages
5,843
Location
Yorkshire
Can I ask a daft question :rolleyes: - do all the sets have to be put out all at once on day one, or can they be slowly introduced as crews and trains pass muster?

Cheers;)

No question is daft - don't worry about it. The Train Operating Company (TOC) can do a phased rollout of however many sets over however long they want, or they could put a majority into service on a planned day, subject to training. In this case, it will be a planned rollout, with one or two sets going out once training and the fault-free mileage is sufficient enough.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
Just wondering, when are the 185's planned to go off lease? Is it in May time or is there a reasonable overlap to account for delays introducing the new trains?

I'm sure the leasing companies would probably be happy to offer an extension, due to the fact they won't be making any money sat round!

Otherwise I propose splitting the 185's in two and getting the driver to lean out the window when they drive in the other direction
 

gimmea50anyday

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2013
Messages
3,456
Location
Back Cab
None are being named back yet. For the moment we need every 185 we can get our hands on! Two are coming back from northern hired in contracts in May which helps a little, of course we should have had several of the N1s and N3s in traffic by now but not having had so has put paid to ECML Edinburgh for the time being. We are also missing the mk3s which has led to the 185s being flogged and this is showing in the condition of the fleet, yeah they have kept going but with numerous faults and with several improvement schemes (headlights, PIS, catering storage) behind schedule or on hold, and seemingly worsening overcrowding as trains that are booked as double units are running singly and with the tight 10 minute turnarounds at terminus stations, From my point of view delivery can't come soon enough!

If LIV-NOT goes to TPE as rumoured, the 185s are likely to be used on that route and therefore should be staying. *** Let me just clarify that this is rumour ***
 

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
And yet down South quite a number of operators use their fleets (mostly MU, admittedly) very flexibly - Chiltern are probably the best at this, being able to form anything from 2 to 8-car (I think), possibly 9, but most of the operators do it, some with some very elaborate splitting/joining diagrams like LNR and SWR. So the idea of matching length to demand is very much not redundant, it's just some of the IC operators[1] who ignore it as a possibility.

Even EMT has hacked around with their 222s to form 4s, 5s and 7s to allow this kind of chopping and changing.

[1] VT of course have the option of 5, 9, 10 and 11 which are used quite well in that regard too.

Not sure that I get the difference. Adding MU trains together is what BR did with the REP/TC solution. Reforming trains (as with the meridians) is something that can be done as a planned long term exercise with any type of rolling stock. I don't see any evidence in this country of a need for attaching/detaching odd coaches on a regular or speculative process. Unless that is needed then semi-permanent sets will always win out surely. Now I guess you could do something like detach two coaches (Eastbound) at York and switch them to an incoming train from Scarborough to maximise resources on the core route .....but I strongly suspect that the overall economics is in favour of sending the whole train to Scarborough and back - (reduce dwell time at York, reduce coupling/shunting costs etc etc).
 

BMIFlyer

Member
Joined
13 Mar 2017
Messages
723
Can I ask a daft question :rolleyes: - do all the sets have to be put out all at once on day one, or can they be slowly introduced as crews and trains pass muster?

Cheers;)

Initial plan is to train enough Airport crews on the sets (and Picc drivers) to get 2 sets into service on day 1.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Just wondering, when are the 185's planned to go off lease? Is it in May time or is there a reasonable overlap to account for delays introducing the new trains?

I'm sure the leasing companies would probably be happy to offer an extension, due to the fact they won't be making any money sat round!
The 22 surplus class 185s are scheduled to be handed back to the leasing company between 13 October 2019 and 31 March 2020.
Can I ask a daft question :rolleyes: - do all the sets have to be put out all at once on day one, or can they be slowly introduced as crews and trains pass muster?

Cheers;)
A gradual phased introduction to service is typical for all new train fleets. As noted above, the plan is to start with two mark 5 sets in traffic and build up from there.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
The 22 surplus class 185s are scheduled to be handed back to the leasing company between 13 October 2019 and 31 March 2020.
That's good to know. Plenty of time to introduce the new fleets. Hopefully we'll get some very long services before they go off lease!
 

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,989
MID-Carlisle-Bletchley-MID ran again today. Fingers crossed that’s 2000 miles out of the 4500 miles required:)
 

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
There is a strong argument that a uniform fleet of 5 car 80x would have offered ultimate flexibility.

A strong argument is putting it mildly ..... from the amateur viewpoint it looks like an obvious decision - not least because the solution of initial faults and snags would have been shared with two other much larger fleets on the Great Western and East Coast. When (If??) the new fleets are in service it will be more interesting for the enthusiast but the passenger is suffering right now.
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
A strong argument is putting it mildly ..... from the amateur viewpoint it looks like an obvious decision - not least because the solution of initial faults and snags would have been shared with two other much larger fleets on the Great Western and East Coast. When (If??) the new fleets are in service it will be more interesting for the enthusiast but the passenger is suffering right now.

If the Mark5a s are in service before the Hull Trains 802s, they will still be there sooner than the 802s would otherwise have been.
 

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.

I had a go at responding to this before but maybe I was too subjective. I'll try and list your advantages/disadvantages (basically it's just two lists ....an advantage of the one being a disadvantage of the other).

Fixed formation sets positive features.
Reduces shunting costs (mainly in depots but also admin).
For an equivalent length set should be cheaper to manufacture (simpler intra-set couplings).
For an equivalent length set should be cheaper to maintain (service the whole set at the same time).
For an equivalent length set should be cheaper to operate (lighter due to the simpler couplings).

Traditional "loose" coaching stock positive feature.
Enable variety of different formations to be constructed at short notice.

Factors that might mitigate against the advantage of "loose" coaching stock.
Fixed sets can be arranged in sub-sets so that 8 cars can easily split into 2 by 4 (much used in south of England and has been used fairly extensively by TPE with pairs of 185 units.
In today's railway where stock is ordered for a relatively narrow purpose a standard set length will probably be suitable (so all new TPE stes will be 5 cars and as Bletchleyite has argued .....might as well have been class 802).

The availability of loose coaches for strengthening implies redundancy - in practice the most economic practice has been established for 50 years now as providing a particular length of train for a route and then filling empty seats with demand pricing.
I don't see any obvious disadvantages of fixed formations in these terms .....the real issue with the Mark 5s seems to me to be that they are a small fleet and TPE are having to take all the delays consequent on their testing and introduction (shared with Caledonian Sleepers I suppose but that's another small fleet).
I'm sure that TPE have a spreadsheet somewhere which documents much of the above.
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,907
A strong argument is putting it mildly ..... from the amateur viewpoint it looks like an obvious decision - not least because the solution of initial faults and snags would have been shared with two other much larger fleets on the Great Western and East Coast. When (If??) the new fleets are in service it will be more interesting for the enthusiast but the passenger is suffering right now.

The other way of looking at it is that one fleet is a potential single point of failure if a fault is found which affects that type fleet. It’s not been unknown in the past.
 

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
If the Mark5a s are in service before the Hull Trains 802s, they will still be there sooner than the 802s would otherwise have been.
Can't disagree .....but Great Western have a substantial fleet of basically similar trains carrying passengers in revenue earning service .....somehow you would think that this fact could have been exploited. That said I am very wary of falling into the trap of arguing that every decision made by Train Operating Companies is wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top