TPE Mk5/68 sets.

[alexl92]

Even then, there was a perfectly capable diesel loco that could have done that job, the class 67.

The 67s are extremely heavy on fuel and have never actually operated at 125MPH in service.

 

[MattRat]

The 67s are extremely heavy on fuel and have never actually operated at 125MPH in service.

There are trains in the UK with a design speed of 140 that have never gone that fast, but they could still do it. And 68s are heavy on fuel too.

 

[Richard Scott]

There are trains in the UK with a design speed of 140 that have never gone that fast, but they could still do it. And 68s are heavy on fuel too.

68s use around 10% less fuel than a 67.

 

[alexl92]

Out of interest, how does fuel consumption for a 68 hauling MK5 sets compare to a 6-car 185?

 

[Geeves]

I cannot answer for comparisons sakes but I do know that the class 68s on the old diagrams were needing to be refueled every day. Fuel tank capacity is 5000L or or 1100 gallons. Make of that what you will for consumption levels.

 

[Richard Scott]

I cannot answer for comparisons sakes but I do know that the class 68s on the old diagrams were needing to be refueled every day. Fuel tank capacity is 5000L or or 1100 gallons. Make of that what you will for consumption levels.

If it used 551 gallons you'd have to fuel it as it would run out the next day so just because it needs refuelling doesn't mean it's used 1100 gallons, or even close to, every day.

Out of interest, how does fuel consumption for a 68 hauling MK5 sets compare to a 6-car 185?

I wouldn't be surprised if the 68 is more fuel efficient (and be willing to bet by a considerable margin).

 

[Geeves]

The CAT C175 data sheet says that the engine running at 25% load is using 250L per hour, at 50% its using 400L and at 100% its using 800L per hour so if we go for a ball park figure of 350L an hour with gentle driving for 12 hours you are going to be pretty close to emptying your 5000L tank. Like you say you certainly wouldn't get a second day out it

 

[Snow1964]

If it used 551 gallons you'd have to fuel it as it would run out the next day so just because it needs refuelling doesn't mean it's used 1100 gallons, or even close to, every day.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 68 is more fuel efficient (and be willing to bet by a considerable margin).

Ultimately if you ran two trains (eg a 68 + mk5s and 6car 185) on same timetable, with same fuel (diesel) would be proportional to mass moved around (fuel is used to create momentum and kinetic energy etc). Braking will convert it to heat energy or regenerative stored energy.

There will be small fraction used for engine inefficiencies, and some fuel to overcome aerodynamic drag (which increases with square of speed).

So main factor is the mass (weight) of both trains, then coefficient of drag for faster runs. But obviously if one trundles about and other is thrashed at high speed then that will determine it

 

[sjpowermac]

If it used 551 gallons you'd have to fuel it as it would run out the next day so just because it needs refuelling doesn't mean it's used 1100 gallons, or even close to, every day.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 68 is more fuel efficient (and be willing to bet by a considerable margin).

There was a recent instance with 68021 where for various reasons it ended up out of diagram.

I observed the fuel tank gauge to show 7/8th of the tank had been used when the locomotive had completed 1047 miles. This would indicate a 1196 miles range on a full tank.

This assumes, of course, that the tank was filled to capacity at the start and that the gauge was reading correctly.

I saw the locomotive at York as it was about to commence an empty coaching stock move back to Longsight a distance of 111 miles, so if my figures are correct, that would have been tight!

It should be noted that the current diagrams involve quite lengthy periods where the locos are sat at either Scarborough or York with the engine running and providing electric train supply.

 

[Richard Scott]

Ultimately if you ran two trains (eg a 68 + mk5s and 6car 185) on same timetable, with same fuel (diesel) would be proportional to mass moved around (fuel is used to create momentum and kinetic energy etc). Braking will convert it to heat energy or regenerative stored energy.

There will be small fraction used for engine inefficiencies, and some fuel to overcome aerodynamic drag (which increases with square of speed).

So main factor is the mass (weight) of both trains, then coefficient of drag for faster runs. But obviously if one trundles about and other is thrashed at high speed then that will determine it

But it's not that simple, 6 smaller engines are likely to be less efficient than 1 larger one, they'll have more internal friction, all are driving auxiliaries and they may well burn more fuel at idle so just applying basic physics isn't going to give a definitive answer here.

 

[507020]

I’m confused after reading this thread. So if 68+Mk5a stock is to leave the Hope Valley route by the end of the month, then why is it that they have only begun working their first Lime Street - Cleethorpes services after years of training runs in the last few weeks?

Sadly I can see them leaving the TPE-Northern amalgam that the OLR now has to deal with (but not being scrapped) but if the full 185 fleet is insufficient to run all non-WCML services other than Newcastles, what can be done?

How many units does transferring Huddersfield stoppers and York - Scarborough shuttles save, or the more drastic permanently cutting back the Saltburn service from the airport to Victoria for example? Do Northern have anywhere near enough 195s to take on these either and if not what extra stock can they take to free some up? TfW 769s?

 

[RHolmes]

I’m confused after reading this thread. So if 68+Mk5a stock is to leave the Hope Valley route by the end of the month, then why is it that they have only begun working their first Lime Street - Cleethorpes services after years of training runs in the last few weeks?

Short answer is because the company is under new management and rest day work was agreed upon, there’s more 68 trained drivers (and guards) picking up RDW to run the services

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jul 2023 ==

How many units does transferring Huddersfield stoppers and York - Scarborough shuttles save, or the more drastic permanently cutting back the Saltburn service from the airport to Victoria for example?

Theoretically:

Huddersfield locals: 4 (2&2)
Scarborough shuttle: 3 (or 6 2x185)
Airport: 1 (or 2x185)

Minimum 8, Maximum 12

 

[37201xoIM]

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!).

Yeah, dare I say that, as @VauxhallNova says, to be honest there's a bit of an urban myth in there, really!

There wasn't such a requirement in the ITT / franchise agreement - but what you say re supposed quick availability is right (not that it proved accurate in the event, of course!). To be fair, two other key features are pertinent too: while bi-modes will always (one assumes!) be bi-modes, so inefficient and costly, with the Mark 5s there was (and is!) the option to substitute an electric loco (or bi-mode if you wish) so you immediately have something suitable for your fully electrified routes, cascading the 802s to e.g. Teesside, Hull etc.. Also the Mark 5As can be readily adapted to 125mph, unlike, obviously, the 68s themselves.

So to be fair, while the 'quick delivery' thing proved illusory and your points about microfleets are clearly well made, there was a wider rationale at the time to the Mark 5As, which even now is not wrong in terms of "future-proof-ness".

 

[3RDGEN]

I’m confused after reading this thread. So if 68+Mk5a stock is to leave the Hope Valley route by the end of the month, then why is it that they have only begun working their first Lime Street - Cleethorpes services after years of training runs in the last few weeks?

Sadly I can see them leaving the TPE-Northern amalgam that the OLR now has to deal with (but not being scrapped) but if the full 185 fleet is insufficient to run all non-WCML services other than Newcastles, what can be done?

How many units does transferring Huddersfield stoppers and York - Scarborough shuttles save, or the more drastic permanently cutting back the Saltburn service from the airport to Victoria for example? Do Northern have anywhere near enough 195s to take on these either and if not what extra stock can they take to free some up? TfW 769s?

The 185's can cover the Saltburn, Scarborough, Hull & Cleethorpes routes but not in full six car formations. Today none of the Scarborough services appear to be MKV's from the Realtime Trains allocations just single 185's and Saltburn appears to be paying the price of more 3 cars to cover.

You can lose the MKV's but it means the 185's get flogged to death and more 3 cars run, problem is if/when passenger numbers grow how do you absorb that without the MKV's? Problem with keeping the MKV's is you can only maintain them overnight at Longsight, hence the attempt to put them on the Cleethorpes route working out and back diagrams.

That's the problem TPE have to resolve and there is no simple answer, losing the MKV's "now" saves a load of hassle and cost but causes issues in the near future. Keeping a few north route diagrams running now allows you to retain knowledge and then roll out more in future if/when required.

 

[Killingworth]

The 185's can cover the Saltburn, Scarborough, Hull & Cleethorpes routes but not in full six car formations. Today none of the Scarborough services appear to be MKV's from the Realtime Trains allocations just single 185's and Saltburn appears to be paying the price of more 3 cars to cover.

You can lose the MKV's but it means the 185's get flogged to death and more 3 cars run, problem is if/when passenger numbers grow how do you absorb that without the MKV's? Problem with keeping the MKV's is you can only maintain them overnight at Longsight, hence the attempt to put them on the Cleethorpes route working out and back diagrams.

That's the problem TPE have to resolve and there is no simple answer, losing the MKV's "now" saves a load of hassle and cost but causes issues in the near future. Keeping a few north route diagrams running now allows you to retain knowledge and then roll out more in future if/when required.

Seeing this from South Pennine its a classic case of shooting ones own foot. In 2018/9 passenger numbers were growing well and we were clamouring for 6 cars. By early 2020 we'd finally got them. After Covid and the subsequent unreliability of services the market is now depressed so that 3 cars are now adequate for most services. Bring back reliable services and custom will return, but slowly.

How rolling stock is managed in these circumstances is a nightmare.

 

[xotGD]

The Mark 5 sets need to be brought back into traffic asap on Scarbados services to allow everything to be a decent 5 or 6 car length.

I've not seen any news on the progress of the checks on the coaching stock for cracks (or any remedial action required), so it would be great if any posters have any insights to share.

 

[Suraggu]

Don't expect a quick fix to return the sets into traffic.

 

[skyhigh]

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.

That's correct

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'm sorry but that is nonsense. You can easily fit a 331/1 or 4 car 158 (which is longer than a 4 car 150 formation) on 10, 13 and 17.

 

[RHolmes]

I'm sorry but that is nonsense. You can easily fit a 331/1 or 4 car 158 (which is longer than a 4 car 150 formation) on 10, 13 and 17.

If you read the original thread, the post is in relation to larger TPE vehicles using the smaller bay platforms at Leeds, specifically an 802.

Nothing larger than TPE’s 3 cars will fit into the bays of 10, 13 and 17. I wasn’t suggesting it was impossible to fit 4 carriages in the bays of various stock, just the ones that TPE actually own

 

[voyagerdude220]

Sorry to ask a question which has probably already been answered, but am I right in thinking that the Mk5 fleet has been grounded until further notice?

If so, is it a case of guesswork trying to work out when they'll be back in service?

 

[JonathanH]

am I right in thinking that the Mk5 fleet has been grounded until further notice

No. 68022 and TP08 ran in service to Cleethorpes and back today - https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G67257/2023-07-12/detailed#allox_id=0

 

[voyagerdude220]

No. 68022 and TP08 ran in service to Cleethorpes and back today - https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G67257/2023-07-12/detailed#allox_id=0

Many thanks. I've got annual leave towards the start of August so I'm hoping the Mk5s will still be in service then, as I've never been on one yet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Many thanks. I've got annual leave towards the start of August so I'm hoping the Mk5s will still be in service then, as I've never been on one yet.

If you do go first class. Standard is to be blunt pretty rubbish, but 1st is really rather good.

 

[L+Y]

I've not seen any news on the progress of the checks on the coaching stock for cracks (or any remedial action required), so it would be great if any posters have any insights to share.

I've seen it reported elsewhere that load spreaders used when Cl195s suffered cracking are being assessed as suitable for use on Mk5 coaches. If so, apparently the sets should be back quickly as there's an ample stock of these. If not, they'll take longer.

 

[py_megapixel]

If you do go first class. Standard is to be blunt pretty rubbish, but 1st is really rather good.

I don't think there's anything major wrong with Standard on the Mk5As. The window alignment is poor, but it's not like you can't find a seat with a decent view. I find it comfortable enough, and the general ambience is very good.

 

[Wyrleybart]

I don't think there's anything major wrong with Standard on the Mk5As. The window alignment is poor, but it's not like you can't find a seat with a decent view. I find it comfortable enough, and the general ambience is very good.

I have made just one journey in a Mk5A when they were fairly new, from Leeds to Lea Green. I guess the mistake I made was sitting over the bogie at one end and on reflection that was not a good idea. There was an occasional disconcerting bang from under the floor similar to that on a 220, and the ride was pretty much typical of modern rolling stock - hard.

I really don't know what it was that made me think I would be cossetted and float along like a well maintained Mk3 !!!

 

[Neptune]

I don't think there's anything major wrong with Standard on the Mk5As. The window alignment is poor, but it's not like you can't find a seat with a decent view. I find it comfortable enough, and the general ambience is very good.

I find it perfectly fine and from what most other posters say they agree but Bletchleyite doesn’t like it which is fine. The issue is that they throw out words like ‘rubbish’ which is way over the top.

You get plenty of seats with a decent view, they are comfortable enough (this poster does have an issue with the seats in them which is fine, I don’t) and the ambience is fine.

It does seem to be almost weekly that we get the old ‘I don’t like mk5 standard class’ line gets trotted out. A bit boring now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We'll have to differ. There are lots of units with windows slightly off, such as excellent ones like Class 444s, but with the Mk5a the windows are also very small which accentuates the effect. I also prefer airline seats and there are almost none of these. Overall I think the atmosphere is a bit dark and dowdy. Big overhead racks is one of the few benefits.

I indeed don't like Sophias, but even given that it was going to be those I think the 802 is massively superior in Standard in just about every way, and the 185 too albeit with better seats.

I do like the decor, but you can put dark blue seats with leather headrests and sticky backed fake wood in anything you want.

 

[Neptune]

The windows are fine to see out of. They’re not massive but then again they’re bigger than pendolino’s which I believe you like. I’ve never had an issue looking through them. I also prefer airline seats and they do exist on them in line with windows although in smaller numbers than preferable. There are far too many bays of 4.

The ambience reminds me of the original Eurostars. The wide apart defused strip lights not blinding anyone and the vents on the window sill. Not too dark but then again not too light. They aren’t as stark as the 802 interiors.

 

[D6130]

It does seem to be almost weekly that we get the old ‘I don’t like mk5 standard class’ line gets trotted out. A bit boring now.

I think they're fine....apart from the appallingly jiggly ride, which absolutely cripples my back if sitting above a bogie and makes it difficult to avoid spilling a hot drink if you put it down on the table. However, if the jiggly ride has that effect on may bad back, I wonder whether it also has an adverse effect on the permanent way?