TPE Mk5/68 sets.

[HamworthyGoods]

OK mate. The lack of depot explains why there's no depot.

Which explains why the mk5s can’t be put on the Saltburn runs!

 

[driverd]

Which explains why the mk5s can’t be put on the Saltburn runs!

In fairness, there are stabling options. It's one of the less restrictive elements (crew being far moreso).

There were real plans to stable some sets at Neville Hill - using freed up depot space since the withdrawl of EMR HST sets. Several trial runs occurred.

It certainly makes more sense than training several depots from scratch and introducing them on new routes did. But who are we to criticise the wisdom of the ex-MD?

 

[Grumpy]

Scarborough depot could be used for daytime maintenance (as now) and sets put out into traffic in the evening and shut down at York, or the Nova3s run the overnight services back to Manchester (which obviously needs diversion route knowledge).

After the last TPE arrivals at Scarborough, why not simply turn them off the station? Start them up there for the first departures the following morning

 

[Peter Sarf]

After the last TPE arrivals at Scarborough, why not simply turn them off the station? Start them up there for the first departures the following morning

I think that was what they were originally doing back about six months ago. Two stabled overnight in Scarborough station platforms and two stabled overnight for servicing in Scarborough depot. The station is already "full" and cannot service the trains (empty toilet tanks etc) there anyway. It was the new Scarborough depot and need to service the Mk5s there whilst seemingly keeping them running for periods (not sure why) that was the objection.

Any new depot has to be away from residential areas otherwise there will be the same objections to noise. The 68s are quite throaty !.

 

[Iskra]

I think that was what they were originally doing back about six months ago. Two stabled overnight in Scarborough station platforms and two stabled overnight for servicing in Scarborough depot. The station is already "full" and cnnot service the trains (empty toilet tanks etc). It was the new Scarborough depot and need to service the Mk5s there whilst seemingly keeping them running for periods (not sure why) that was the objection.

Any new depot has to be away from residential areas otherwise there will be the same objections to noise.

Wouldn’t a quieter shunter sort the problem?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wouldn’t a quieter shunter sort the problem?

You'd think a shore supply would. The UK has a thing about keeping engines running. By contrast, whether DMU or loco, Deutsche Bahn starts them only a few minutes before departure and has done for years. They also stop them immediately on arrival at the terminus.

It may well be that keeping them running extends life by reducing cooling/heating cycles, but quite rightly Germany sees pollution (both emissions and noise) to be much more important.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Wouldn’t a quieter shunter sort the problem?

I suppose it depends whether the 68 needs to be running to supply ETS while the servicing (cleaning) is happening or time taken for the 68s to be warmed up. Perhaps a shore supply. Better a quieter loco that can supply ETS - even to move the set to a remote siding where the 68 can be warmed up. Maybe one of the new Class 17s anyone ?. All extra Faff !.

Surely a short section of third rail for my beloved 442s would have been good enough .

 

[VauxhallNova]

You'd think a shore supply would.

For that you would need to install a shore supply, which TPE did not do.

The resulting reaction from stakeholders very much fitted with plans to ditch the Class 68s and have DfT fund lots more 802s.

 

[Peter Sarf]

For that you would need to install a shore supply, which TPE did not do.

The resulting reaction from stakeholders very much fitted with plans to ditch the Class 68s and have DfT fund lots more 802s.

Your reply would be a fitting reply to my ideas of a class 17 shunter - Faff.

Conclusion (very sadly) - get rid of a microfleet and order more 802s from the governments' pet train factory in the UK.

Lesson to learn - be patient and wait for the right stock. But it wont (cannot) be learnt.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The resulting reaction from stakeholders very much fitted with plans to ditch the Class 68s and have DfT fund lots more 802s.

Certainly a less complex fleet of just (give or take the WCML) 185s and 802s would make more sense in just about every way. Or even just of 802s - though the 185s have no obvious alternative destination, oh for them having been 170s instead in which case Chiltern, ScotRail and Northern would be clamouring for them!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Certainly a less complex fleet of just (give or take the WCML) 185s and 802s would make more sense in just about every way. Or even just of 802s - though the 185s have no obvious alternative destination, oh for them having been 170s instead in which case Chiltern, ScotRail and Northern would be clamouring for them!

Good luck fitting an 802 in the bay platforms at Huddersfield and Leeds on the stopper...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good luck fitting an 802 in the bay platforms at Huddersfield and Leeds on the stopper...

The stopper really needs to be a 195-operated Northern service. It's a bad fit for TPE, and a bad fit for 185s due to the First Class.

 

[Grumpy]

I think that was what they were originally doing back about six months ago. Two stabled overnight in Scarborough station platforms and two stabled overnight for servicing in Scarborough depot. The station is already "full" and cannot service the trains (empty toilet tanks etc) there anyway. It was the new Scarborough depot and need to service the Mk5s there whilst seemingly keeping them running for periods (not sure why) that was the objection.

Any new depot has to be away from residential areas otherwise there will be the same objections to noise. The 68s are quite throaty !.

My understanding is that there are 5 platforms at Scarborough. The first Northern Arrival isn't until after the first TP departure so they should be able to park up 4-5 sets in the platforms. I accept they can't refuel/empty toilets etc so what is needed other than a quick walk through on arrival (or before first departures) picking up litter? Do the servicing elsewhere/during the day.
They may be noisy and should never have been acquired but they're adequate to travel in. If the York/Scarborough staff are already trained then use them. Better a Mk5 than a cancelled train.
There have been issues with noise pollution affecting residential areas for years and whoever was responsible for the depot project should have known this. With a normal planning application my recollection is that the Local Authority Planning Officer has to consult with the Environmental Health Officer to ensure the proposed development wont be an issue. So the question is was the EHO consulted before the depot was built?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The stopper really needs to be a 195-operated Northern service. It's a bad fit for TPE, and a bad fit for 185s due to the First Class.

I agree, but as long as it's a TPE service it has to be a single 185 so going all 802 as you suggested simply won't work.

 

[modernrail]

I agree, but as long as it's a TPE service it has to be a single 185 so going all 802 as you suggested simply won't work.

Is the stock for that stopper interworking on other TPE services?

Good luck fitting an 802 in the bay platforms at Huddersfield and Leeds on the stopper...

Is the problem for Scotrail that they are too heavy?

 

[D6975]

Good luck fitting an 802 in the bay platforms at Huddersfield and Leeds on the stopper...

The little bay platforms at Huddersfield are not long for this world. After the rebuild, terminating 5 car trains will not be a problem.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Is the stock for that stopper interworking on other TPE services?

No, the stoppers are currently diagrammed separately from the faster/longer-distance services. Though a unit that's been on stoppers one day might well be on fasts the next. Though my point was that the platforms used at either end for the Leeds stopper are too short for anything else in the TPE fleet to use. P13 at Leeds might just fit an 802 (I haven't checked the Sectional Appendix) but is double-occupied at times.

Is the problem for Scotrail that they are too heavy?

Not sure what Scotrail has to do with the topic at hand, sorry. You'll have to explain your thought process here.

The little bay platforms at Huddersfield are not long for this world. After the rebuild, terminating 5 car trains will not be a problem.

I know. But Bletcheyite suggested that an all-802 fleet would have been better for TPE, which obviously is not the case until the Huddersfield remodelling is complete- and that remodelling is still a couple of years away at least. I'm sure I'm not the only regular user of these services that would be a bit miffed to be relegated to buses (particularly the 3+2 seated bags of spanners that have been cropping up on TPE RRBs of recent times) for the next few years.

 

[RHolmes]

P13 at Leeds might just fit an 802 (I haven't checked the Sectional Appendix) but is double-occupied at times.

Like 10 and 17 you’d struggle to get more than 3 full sized carriages in the bays. A 4x 150 might just manage it but a 802 certainly won’t

 

[modernrail]

Not sure what Scotrail has to do with the topic at hand, sorry. You'll have to explain your thought process here.

Sorry, it is a bit of an aside. As the 185’s are engineered specifically to get over the Pennines I would have thought they could be ideal up in Scotland on hilly diesel routes, but I recall they are heavy beasts and so perhaps subject to unhelpful speed restrictions if they were to be deployed in Scotland?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Sorry, it is a bit of an aside. As the 185’s are engineered specifically to get over the Pennines I would have thought they could be ideal up in Scotland on hilly diesel routes, but I recall they are heavy beasts and so perhaps subject to unhelpful speed restrictions if they were to be deployed in Scotland?

It's off-topic for this thread, but over the recent years there's been a few speculative threads about where the 185s (either the whole fleet of 51, or the 22 that were originally planned to be handed back to TPE) might end up. I'm not familiar with which routes in Scotland have significant stretches of SP or DMU differential speeds which the 185s can't use.

Like 10 and 17 you’d struggle to get more than 3 full sized carriages in the bays. A 4x 150 might just manage it but a 802 certainly won’t

I'd have thought 2x150 would fit, as back when it was numbered Platform 10 it used to take the 321s on the Doncaster stopper. Pretty sure I've seen a 4-car 158 pair in there more recently, that's certainly been a formation used on the Northern Leeds to Wigan service which also uses that platform much of the time. I may well be mistaken about double-occupancy though.

 

[Richard Scott]

You'd think a shore supply would. The UK has a thing about keeping engines running. By contrast, whether DMU or loco, Deutsche Bahn starts them only a few minutes before departure and has done for years. They also stop them immediately on arrival at the terminus.

It may well be that keeping them running extends life by reducing cooling/heating cycles, but quite rightly Germany sees pollution (both emissions and noise) to be much more important.

No they don't shut them down any more due to train supply. Never see a 612 unit shut down or locos on air conditioned stock.

 

[CAF397]

Which explains why the mk5s can’t be put on the Saltburn runs!

You're focusing on a depot as in maintenance depot.

I was referring to stabling in York station. That doesn't need a depot. LNER use a platform or two for their trains, TPE should be able to use a platform to stable, which might require a shunt.

A set comes off Longsight or Scarborough (which as you know are servicing depots), goes onto a Saltburn circuit. Then that night is shut down on arrival into York. In the early hours of the morning it is then Mobilised and enters service again onto a Saltburn diagram, ending the night at either Longsight or Scarborough.

You don't need a depot to stable at York.

You would need time in the traincrew diagram for a Mobilise and shunt, but these are everyday items that appear on diagrams and no issue.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

You're focusing on a depot as in maintenance depot.

I was referring to stabling in York station. That doesn't need a depot. LNER use a platform or two for their trains, TPE should be able to use a platform to stable, which might require a shunt.

A set comes off Longsight or Scarborough (which as you know are servicing depots), goes onto a Saltburn circuit. Then that night is shut down on arrival into York. In the early hours of the morning it is then Mobilised and enters service again onto a Saltburn diagram, ending the night at either Longsight or Scarborough.

You don't need a depot to stable at York.

You would need time in the traincrew diagram for a Mobilise and shunt, but these are everyday items that appear on diagrams and no issue.

There are noise issues with ‘prepping’ class 68s in York station for early morning departures. The 68s sadly come with a lot of operational difficulties to plan for.

 

[VauxhallNova]

Certainly a less complex fleet of just (give or take the WCML) 185s and 802s would make more sense in just about every way. Or even just of 802s - though the 185s have no obvious alternative destination, oh for them having been 170s instead in which case Chiltern, ScotRail and Northern would be clamouring for them!

But not financially (you might say unfortunately).

 

[Bletchleyite]

But not financially (you might say unfortunately).

Not in terms of capex. But ask easyJet and Ryanair - a single fleet on which all crews are trained is cheaper than a hotch potch of second hand stuff.

 

[VauxhallNova]

Agreed. 802s are just much more expensive than Mk5s. If it wasn't for the need for 125mph running it would likely have been a whole fleet of Mk5s for the North route, rather than any 802s being ordered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. 802s are just much more expensive than Mk5s. If it wasn't for the need for 125mph running it would likely have been a whole fleet of Mk5s for the North route, rather than any 802s being ordered.

I doubt it, bi-modes were chosen specifically to take advantage of the progressive electrification. You might have got a 100mph end doored Civity bi-mode or something though - basically a less pointy 397 with diesel generators added. But not Mk5s. Mk5s were ordered for two reasons - the slightly bizarre inclusion of a requirement for LHCS in the franchise agreement (which was it seems based around wanting to make use of 442s rather than ordering new) and them supposedly being available quickly to meet deadlines for capacity expansion (ha!).

 

[DanNCL]

There were real plans to stable some sets at Neville Hill - using freed up depot space since the withdrawl of EMR HST sets. Several trial runs occurred.

LNER took that space at Neville Hill when they reallocated the 91+Mark 4 sets there from Bounds Green.

I was referring to stabling in York station. That doesn't need a depot. LNER use a platform or two for their trains, TPE should be able to use a platform to stable, which might require a shunt.

LNER use one platform and where possible they allocate a Mark 4 set to that diagram because of the lack of servicing facilities there - 80xs have a stricter limit on time permitted to spend away from depot.

 

[VauxhallNova]

I doubt it, bi-modes were chosen specifically to take advantage of the progressive electrification. You might have got a 100mph end doored Civity bi-mode or something though - basically a less pointy 397 with diesel generators added. But not Mk5s. Mk5s were ordered for two reasons - the slightly bizarre inclusion of a requirement for LHCS in the franchise agreement (which was it seems based around wanting to make use of 442s rather than ordering new) and them supposedly being available quickly to meet deadlines for capacity expansion (ha!).

There was no stipulation of LHCS in the franchise ITT, but it was listed as an option.

"Only the following rolling stock may be proposed by Bidders for inclusion within the TPE Train Fleet:

i. The class 185 and class 350 multiple units that are currently comprised within the TPE Train Fleet (subject to the requirement to sub-lease Class 185 units to the Northern Franchise for an initial period until December 2017); 12 “Currently” in this section means “as at the date of issue of this ITT” and “relevant operator” means any person who operates rail passenger services within England, Scotland or Wales under contract to a public authority (or any successor operator to that person. 93

ii. Diesel multiple units that are not Class 14x, Class 15x or Class 17x and that are currently leased by a relevant operator other than the current TPE and Northern franchisees, but that will be demonstrably surplus to the requirements of that operator, either because new rolling stock is being procured to replace it, or because it is diesel stock that will be displaced by committed electrification schemes, or because other rolling stock is due to be cascaded in to replace it;

iii. Up to four 2-car diesel multiple units of similar characteristics to TPE’s Class 170 units must be assumed for bid purposes to be leased until December 2017, as a proxy for the arrangements that the Department envisages will be put in place with the incumbent operator to mitigate the transfer of these units to the Chiltern Franchise with effect from February 2016;

iv. Vehicles of Class 442 following their release from the TSGN franchise; and

v. Any new-build rolling stock that the Bidder commits to procure."

Taken from https://assets.publishing.service.g...transpennine-express-invitation-to-tender.pdf

 

[L+Y]

Is there an expectation of when at least some sets will be back in service?