TPE Nova 3 (Class 68 + Mk5s) updates and withdrawal from service

[D6975]

On a more practical note - does anyone know how many / which sets are out so far this week ?.

Monday was a good day, 3 out all day plus a fourth doing the evening rush hour Leeds looper. Today is very poor, only 2 out and for some reason they swapped diagrams in the morning. Recently the 1253 arrival at SCA has been turned round to do the 1248 departure, so is always a few minutes late off SCA.

UPDATE - only 2 out again on Wednesday, curiously not the same 2 as Tuesday. PS no 6 car sets out either!

 

[sjpowermac]

There's a lot of conjecture on this thread, some of which needs putting right.

It really wasn't. Questioning DOHL who'd been in charge for 100 days, and not really readied by Ministers prior to a decision taken whereby Robin Gisby was on holiday in France, on things they had no control over is a waste of time. Similarly, questioning an Interim MD who'd been in charge for less than three months and who's been tasked getting TPE back to where it was in 2016. The remit of Chris Jackson and DOHL is different to whatever was proposed in 2016.

Those questions need to be asked to who specified the franchise (DfT), those who bid for the franchise (FG) and those who accepted the franchise bid (DfT again).

In a word, no. Chris Jackson said as much at the select committee and as has already been posted elsewhere, their time on these shores seems to be nearly up.

Forgetting about the work currently going on in the background for new rolling stock at TPE. The Expression of Interests that were put out last year may have died with First Group, but there will most certainly be new rolling stock being delivered towards the back end of this decade to coincide with TRU.

Directly, not. But when managers are being asked to look for significant budget cuts, the leasing costs were a large factor.

Can I just say what a churlish statement this is. Or do you know better when it comes to percentages of staff trained? I highly suspect that you don't. The fact of the matter was, as mentioned on the select committee, when DOHL took over only 50% of drivers were fully competent on traction and routes - that's now above 60%. And to anyone who says that's nonsense - may I direct you to the Friday of the last TRU Morley block when only 41% of services ran over the Healey Mills diversionary route. The Saturday would've been worse had action short of a strike ended.

And if you can't acknowledge the significant challenges around the stabling of the sets, the significant training backlog courtesy of late delivery of trains, woeful decision making by Leo Goodwin, the enormous impact Covid had and ASLEF withdrawing RDW, then I'm not sure if you're ever going to find the answers you're looking for. Of course, you could always pop in a Freedom of Information request if we're all apparently reading from the senior management book of excuses...

Now I understand that you are an enthusiast who has an interest in these sets, but the reality of the situation is the product that was delivered by CAF was sub-standard. These sets were delivered late, consistently failed fault free running, didn't run that reliably Pre-Covid, have an awful ride quality, a shocking PIS system, they interface badly with the loco's and the loco's themselves are vastly more complicated that 185/802s. All of that together means they are unreliable, throw in very training intensive and not what an operator that is looking to simplify its operations ever needed. The only way they were ever going to thrive was on the South route, which is why Matt Golton launched what he called Project Havelok to get them on there, but that wasn't a success was it? Barely any days with more than one set on said route and binned off after seven months.

This is just recency bias. Especially when you compare 2004 to 2016. Of course, had First Group been a real private company, not bound by the Franchise requirements set out by the DfT, the Mk5a's would've never been ordered...

You were going tolerably well until you started blaming Leo Goodwin…

The Nova 3 sets were a £110 million investment in new trains for the north, yet TPE and their apologists see binning the trains off as a triumph.

I’m actually delighted that the Nova 3 sets are leaving TPE, management of them there has been beyond embarrassing.

I remember that for most of 2022 the TPE ‘management’ team were blaming ‘unusually high levels of train crew abscence’ for their appalling service. Thankfully that’s ended and they have now moved on to blaming the Nova 3 sets. I wonder what the next excuse will be?

Yes, you are correct, I’m ‘just an enthusiast’ and I wouldn’t want to interrupt further a rail professional such as yourself, so I won’t be replying further to the thread.

Good luck with thinking up the next round of excuses for the shocking service TPE has become renowned for…

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I’m actually delighted that the Nova 3 sets are leaving TPE, management of them there has been beyond embarrassing.

Same. Should teach them a lesson, that they can’t just be allowed to order a fleet of brand new trains and use a sixth of them a day, on shuttles

 

[Paul.Rosser]

I hope they'll find new homes

 

[19Gnasher69]

Same. Should teach them a lesson, that they can’t just be allowed to order a fleet of brand new trains and use a sixth of them a day, on shuttles

Except it doesn’t really teach them anything - they won’t care a jot. It simply leaves the long-suffering TPE passengers with fewer trains and, in overall terms, reduces the quality of the fleet. I had high hopes of the OLR here but ,in seeking a mythical ‘stability of services’, they’ve let down their customers in other ways.

 

[josh-j]

The original TPE franchise was specified by the government. Then it stopped being a franchise and became more of a contract to operate. Now it is run by OLR. So who exactly is the TPE that people are blaming for failings in transpennine rail services?

The only constant factors across all these years of failure are the department for transport , treasury underfunding and the frankly silly structure of the UK rail sector - all of which comes back to the government.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It seems to me that TPE have soldiered on with the above problems for the past four years.

The question should be, why after all of that pain, is this reduction in capacity being forced on TP passengers just as staff are being trained to use the sets on the Hope valley when the RDW agreement with ASLEF has been resolved ?

It does seem like just as things were improving the alternative approach has been taken. Cutbacks to a manageable service level to allow training etc. But see below.

There is a comment in the MEN today from TPE that the mk5s are being parked up to benefit customers.

As someone remarked in the comments section, they'll remember that when they climb into a single wedged 185 to stand for an hour on a service that runs less frequently than before.

I was a proponent of TPE reducing the number of services and having a less complex timetable offer... but not of reducing the stock, fewer longer trains was my plan, less drivers needed.

Have TPE reduced the number of FTE driver posts / establishment, vacant or otherwise?

My bold. This is the question. If TPEs woes come down to staffing levels then why are the same number of services being run but with shorter trains ?.

It would be more obvious if half the 185s had gone rather than a microfleet. But I feel TPE were getting there (too slowly perhaps) but too many calls to pull the plug just when progress was happening.

 

[yorksrob]

It does seem like just as things were improving the alternative approach has been taken. Cutbacks to a manageable service level to allow training etc. But see below.

My bold. This is the question. If TPEs woes come down to staffing levels then why are the same number of services being run but with shorter trains ?.

It would be more obvious if half the 185s had gone rather than a microfleet. But I feel TPE were getting there (too slowly perhaps) but too many calls to pull the plug just when progress was happening.

No one was calling for the plug to be pulled from the train service itself (except perhaps some residents in a particular Scarborough suburb), certainly not passengers or their representatives.

The only parties benefitting from this move are those wanting to cut costs.

 

[Peter Sarf]

No one was calling for the plug to be pulled from the train service itself (except perhaps some residents in a particular Scarborough suburb), certainly not passengers or their representatives.

The only parties benefitting from this move are those wanting to cut costs.

Sorry I meant all the people baying for blood from TPE (not the pulling of the services). Did it encourage DfT to get involved, probably was inevitable anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry I meant all the people baying for blood from TPE (not the pulling of the services). Did it encourage DfT to get involved, probably was inevitable anyway.

Well, people could bay for blood from TPE (which to be fair was failing anyway) but it would be wrong to lay the blame for this decision at them.

This is purely down to the DfT/Treasury/Government scenting an opportunity for cuts

 

[TSRM]

You were going tolerably well until you started blaming Leo Goodwin…

Yes, the decision to press ahead with the Dec 19 timetable change and suspend route knowledge training was moronic. Especially as Dec 19 was every bit as bad as May 18 for TPE.

The Nova 3 sets were a £110 million investment in new trains for the north, yet TPE and their apologists see binning the trains off as a triumph.

That's your view. Fact is, they're viewed as a problem. And had First Group got their way, they wouldn't have been ordered, but the franchise requirements of rolling stock by 2019 forced a different route - one which First Group had to be creative. DfT ultimately to blame.

I remember that for most of 2022 the TPE ‘management’ team were blaming ‘unusually high levels of train crew abscence’ for their appalling service. Thankfully that’s ended and they have now moved on to blaming the Nova 3 sets. I wonder what the next excuse will be?

Part of 2022. Which when Covid is still an issue (double digit absence was a regular occurrence, sometimes high teens) and lack of rest day working has an impact does cause issues. But that's ultimately not 'management' rather the Executive of Directors who put that information out there.

Yes, you are correct, I’m ‘just an enthusiast’ and I wouldn’t want to interrupt further a rail professional such as yourself, so I won’t be replying further to the thread.

Good luck with thinking up the next round of excuses for the shocking service TPE has become renowned for…

And yet another churlish statement. Just because you don't like the answers to your questions, doesn't make them excuses does it? And as I put to you before, if you don't like the answers and think you know best, then pop in a FOI request. However, when some of your claims are inaccurate, you may be getting bad information fed to you, such as:

2. Back in December 2019 the there were four daily diagrams, but intensive ones that ran up and down between Liverpool Lime Street and Scarborough all day long.

Back in December 2019 only four sets had actually been accepted. It took until June 2021 for all set to be accepted - three years late.

These sets were also procured late. Whilst Northern had procured their CAF stock within a month of signing the Franchise Agreement in 2015, it took FirstGroup 5 months. This had the effect of:

1. Delaying driver training.
2. Delaying the incurring of lease costs.
3. Delaying their introduction.

There was a contractual agreement that CAF would deliver the rolling stock by a certain date. They didn't and faced heavy financial penalties. CAF were responsible.

Exactly, indeed no trains would have been ordered. It was the DfT who specified additional capacity. If DfT doesn't specify additional capacity, a private company is incentivised only to control costs and run short trains.

Wrong again. TPE wanted more capacity in 2006 - half of the 185s should've been 4 car. DfT said no. And when the TPE franchise came round again, First Group wanted a fleet of 802s. DfT specified otherwise.

The DfT are the constant in the whole debacle.

 

[Killingworth]

The truth is a mixture of many overlapping factors producing the situation we have now.. CAF designed and built coaches leased to TPE from Beacon . DRS leased locomotives.

Then delays in construction and acceptance into service, faults, Covid delayed training, sickness. industrial relations, noisy locos, OLR, DfT., Treasury

Now Beacon and DRS get their stock back. Their task is to make best use of it. Presumably Beacon will expect CAF to rectify any faults under warranty.. No operator will even consider leasing them until fault free operation can be demonstrated. A best guess scenario is that such a position won't be reached for 6-12 months. It's then down to who wants to negotiate a leasing price, fire sale, or scrap. All will be speculation until then

 

[sjpowermac]

That's your view. Fact is, they're viewed as a problem. And had First Group got their way, they wouldn't have been ordered, but the franchise requirements of rolling stock by 2019 forced a different route - one which First Group had to be creative. DfT ultimately to blame.

This part of your post very neatly sums up so much of what is wrong with TPE and the fact that you just don’t see it speaks volumes.

A £110 million investment that you view as a ‘problem’ rather than an opportunity.

Since TPE like to promote themselves as an ‘InterCity’ operator, perhaps you would be kind enough to provide details of which other ‘InterCity’ operators are withdrawing recently introduced rolling stock in favour of 17 year old stock.

Back in December 2019 only four sets had actually been accepted. It took until June 2021 for all set to be accepted - three years late.

Factually incorrect, by the start of the December 2019 timetable there were 7 sets in service, with an additional set before Christmas, giving twice as many as you quote.

Here are the sets that were in traffic by December 2019 together with the date of their first passenger working:

TP09 24.08.2019
TP11 28.08.2019
TP04 19.09.2019
TP12 05.10.2019
TP06 12.10.2019
TP08 01.12.2019
TP13 11.12.2019
TP07 24.12.2019

I hope that you find the list helpful for correcting your records.

There was then a hiatus in new sets working in passenger service until:
TP10 13.10.2020

Perhaps you might like to have a think as to why that might have been? I’ll give you a clue, you’ve already quoted it in relation to TPE’s inability to run a reliable service in 2022…

Part of 2022. Which when Covid is still an issue (double digit absence was a regular occurrence, sometimes high teens) and lack of rest day working has an impact does cause issues. But that's ultimately not 'management' rather the Executive of Directors who put that information out there.

This is another incredibly telling insight into your mindset. Perhaps again after you’ve had a think, you might like to reply as to how you felt publicly blaming frontline staff was helpful in the company’s relationship with them?

Another interesting point to note is that not only do you put all the blame on to other organisations (e.g. CAF/DfT), but in this case you point the finger at people at a higher level within TPE.

I’ve got some really bad news for you, some of those TPE executives are still, errr, executives at TPE.

I think your posts would benefit from just an occasional modicum of self reflection. Is there anything at all that you feel TPE have got wrong in relation to the Nova 3 sets, or do you feel that the organisation hasn’t put a foot wrong?

These sets were also procured late. Whilst Northern had procured their CAF stock within a month of signing the Franchise Agreement in 2015, it took FirstGroup 5 months. This had the effect of:

1. Delaying driver training.
2. Delaying the incurring of lease costs.
3. Delaying their introduction.

Exactly, indeed no trains would have been ordered. It was the DfT who specified additional capacity. If DfT doesn't specify additional capacity, a private company is incentivised only to control costs and run short trains.

An excellent post, but I’m afraid it’s waisted on the poster you replied to, they’ve already treated us to a resounding chorus of ‘it‘s Leo’s fault’

 

[muz379]

It does seem like just as things were improving the alternative approach has been taken. Cutbacks to a manageable service level to allow training etc. But see below.

My bold. This is the question. If TPEs woes come down to staffing levels then why are the same number of services being run but with shorter trains ?.

It would be more obvious if half the 185s had gone rather than a microfleet. But I feel TPE were getting there (too slowly perhaps) but too many calls to pull the plug just when progress was happening.

Tpe's issues are not in the number of drivers , its in the deficit of traction and route knowledge . In short due to some pretty shoddy management in the past .

More drivers sign 185's than 68's/MK5's , any for those that dont sign them the 185 course is shorter than the 68/MK5 course .

With no end in sight to the ASLEF ovettime bans there is no gurantee that TPE would be able to make enough use of its RDW agreement to deliver any signigicant progress on that deficit at the current timetable level . Reducing the timetable gives some slack in rostering and frees up units for route and traction training .

 

[BoroAndy]

Tpe's issues are not in the number of drivers , its in the deficit of traction and route knowledge . In short due to some pretty shoddy management in the past .

More drivers sign 185's than 68's/MK5's , any for those that dont sign them the 185 course is shorter than the 68/MK5 course .

With no end in sight to the ASLEF ovettime bans there is no gurantee that TPE would be able to make enough use of its RDW agreement to deliver any signigicant progress on that deficit at the current timetable level . Reducing the timetable gives some slack in rostering and frees up units for route and traction training .

Hmm. So ASLEF are partially to blame for these problems

 

[North-Valiant]

Hmm. So ASLEF are partially to blame for these problems

I think you've found a new attack line Rishi

 

[muz379]

Hmm. So ASLEF are partially to blame for these problems

Guess it depends on what view you take on these things .

Do you take the view that employees should just be entitled to do their contract hours and anything that doesnt get done as a result of them not working overtime is soley at the responsibility of the operator . And indeed the operator is mismanaging itself if it is in a position that it needs to reduce its core timetable when there is no overtime available .

Or do you take the view that employees should be willing , prepared and expected to work above their contract and that the operator is the victim here for having its employees refuse to work any overtime .

Of course TPE does not operate in a vaccum either , and the wider industrial relations issues in the inudstry apply equally at TPE . Some of the proposals advanced by the RDG nationally are quite contentious , this is naturally going to reflect in goodwill in day to day operations . From various things being said by people in key positions within the industry this is all being factored in and planned for .

 

[VauxhallNova]

when the TPE franchise came round again, First Group wanted a fleet of 802s. DfT specified otherwise.

DfT did not specify that 802s could not be used. What you may be referring to is that DfT specified an increase in capacity by December 2017 and then by December 2018, as shown here https://assets.publishing.service.g...ta/file/431065/tsr-capacity-specification.pdf

It has been quoted that Hitachi was unable to meet that date due to capacity issues at Newton Aycliffe, whereas the fleet was actually built in Japan https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/first-hitachi-built-train-for-transpennine-express-arrives-in-uk#:~:text=Built in Kasado, Japan, it,Pistoia in Italy, and Kasado.

The inclusion of the Mk5 and 397s in the bid was intended to fulfil these timeframes, albeit by the time the contract was agreed 6 months later the December 2017 date had been missed. A consistent order of Mk5s and 397s would have been compliant to run express services on the whole TPE network on the basis of the requirements specified in the ITT.

The reason FirstGroup ordered the (much more expensive) 802s was because, over and above the Invitation to Tender, their bid included revenue generating paths on the East Coast Main Line; an additional train to Newcastle, and one of them extending onto Edinburgh.

The way that ORCATS revenue is allocated then meant they would get 2/5ths (rather than 1/4) of the walk-up revenue between Newcastle and York, and 1/4 of the revenue between Edinburgh and Newcastle, irrelevant of how many people actually used their trains. This is why they offered those services over and above the specification, because it made commercial sense.

In order for ORR to grant them the track access and Network Rail to grant the contingent rights (they were never awarded firm track access rights for those paths), they needed 125mph capability, rather than the 100mph offered by Class 68s.

These commercial factors are what made FirstGroup push ahead with the December 2019 timetable change even though they didn't have the drivers trained to do so. The trains were booked to run and so TPE were allocated the revenue.

The reason some parts of TPE tried to delay acceptance of the Mk5 fleet is because it cost more money without this additional revenue being generated, it was just additional cost both due to leasing the carriages and having to train the drivers.

The Nova 3s in themselves have been quoted as having good reliability statistics when there was a reasonable number of them in service. Blaming poor build quality / the cracking issues is an interesting one when you consider that the Hitachi fleet has had a similar issue.

Hitachi Class 800s withdrawn due to cracks

www.modernrailways.com

It is worth considering why FirstGroup made decisions that, on the face of it, make only commercial sense. This is because, even pre-May 2018, they were losing money on the TPE franchise and expected to lose over £100m over the life of the contract.

 

[Peter Sarf]

DfT did not specify that 802s could not be used. What you may be referring to is that DfT specified an increase in capacity by December 2017 and then by December 2018, as shown here https://assets.publishing.service.g...ta/file/431065/tsr-capacity-specification.pdf

It has been quoted that Hitachi was unable to meet that date due to capacity issues at Newton Aycliffe, whereas the fleet was actually built in Japan https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/first-hitachi-built-train-for-transpennine-express-arrives-in-uk#:~:text=Built in Kasado, Japan, it,Pistoia in Italy, and Kasado.

The inclusion of the Mk5 and 397s in the bid was intended to fulfil these timeframes, albeit by the time the contract was agreed 6 months later the December 2017 date had been missed. A consistent order of Mk5s and 397s would have been compliant to run express services on the whole TPE network on the basis of the requirements specified in the ITT.

The reason FirstGroup ordered the (much more expensive) 802s was because, over and above the Invitation to Tender, their bid included revenue generating paths on the East Coast Main Line; an additional train to Newcastle, and one of them extending onto Edinburgh.

The way that ORCATS revenue is allocated then meant they would get 2/5ths (rather than 1/4) of the walk-up revenue between Newcastle and York, and 1/4 of the revenue between Edinburgh and Newcastle, irrelevant of how many people actually used their trains. This is why they offered those services over and above the specification, because it made commercial sense.

In order for ORR to grant them the track access and Network Rail to grant the contingent rights (they were never awarded firm track access rights for those paths), they needed 125mph capability, rather than the 100mph offered by Class 68s.

These commercial factors are what made FirstGroup push ahead with the December 2019 timetable change even though they didn't have the drivers trained to do so. The trains were booked to run and so TPE were allocated the revenue.

The reason some parts of TPE tried to delay acceptance of the Mk5 fleet is because it cost more money without this additional revenue being generated, it was just additional cost both due to leasing the carriages and having to train the drivers.

The Nova 3s in themselves have been quoted as having good reliability statistics when there was a reasonable number of them in service. Blaming poor build quality / the cracking issues is an interesting one when you consider that the Hitachi fleet has had a similar issue.

Hitachi Class 800s withdrawn due to cracks​

www.modernrailways.com

It is worth considering why FirstGroup made decisions that, on the face of it, make only commercial sense. This is because, even pre-May 2018, they were losing money on the TPE franchise and expected to lose over £100m over the life of the contract.

If I understand correctly this was all before Covid was even heard of so Covid would then have taken a swipe out of First TPEs possible profits and manpower. Only then leading to a temptation to drop one of their fleets and, as you say, the 802s are indispensable due to their 125mph capability. A temptation that was avoided for so long that I am left wondering how soon they will be needed. My guess is that the looming end of the Mk5 contract (in 2024) meant DfT thought why bother.

So perhaps a lot of perseverance and determination on the behalf of parts of TPE has been cut down by the simple cost cutting regime brought in by TPE's masters (not us customers).

 

[VauxhallNova]

So perhaps a lot of perseverance and determination on the behalf of parts of TPE

This is correct. There are very much two camps within the business, one who want to use them and the other who have had other ideas shall we say.

I'm sure any internal TPE staff would vouch for this.

 

[Peter Sarf]

This is correct. There are very much two camps within the business, one who want to use them and the other who have had other ideas shall we say.

I'm sure any other internal TPE staff would vouch for this.

My bold. Indeed I have felt this for a while as reading this thread I can sense the differences of opinion and aspiration from within TPE. I have been there in non-rail jobs so its something that does not surprise me. It is a shame as I feel some quite well motivated people are getting disillusioned by higher up people who see thing differently (and are privy to different information but might not understand operational factors). It comes down to service vs commercial ideals. I fear it tears companies apart - the people who CAN get another job are not necessarily the ones who need to leave.

 

[50002Superb]

Any updates about 68s and the MK5s?

Might be worth another thread for the other stuff?

 

[Mag_seven]

Just a reminder that posts in this thread should be confined to reporting updates on withdrawals etc.

Speculation as to possible future uses can be found here:

Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?

Should TP offload their class 68 sets as has been speculated on these fora, where do you think they will end up? Replacing Scotrail HST’s would seem a reasonable fit in terms of having First Class, 5 carriages and no under floor engines as was originally specified when Scotrail chose HST’s...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Peter Sarf]

Any updates about 68s and the MK5s?

Might be worth another thread for the other stuff?

Seem to be 2 to 4 sets out per weekday. My hunch is they are particularly concentrated on the York/Scarborough shuttles. I fear this will decline as time goes by.

 

[sjpowermac]

For anyone interested in where locos/sets are, status at 12:00, info given in good faith.

68019 Crewe Gresty Bridge
68020/TP02 allocated 1548 SCA-YRK
68021 Carlisle Kingmoor
68022 Crewe Gresty Bridge
68023/TP09 en-route 1135 MAN-SCA
68024/TP06 allocated 1748 SCA-LDS
68025/TP07 Gascoigne Wood
68026/TP03 Scarborough
68027 Crewe Gresty Bridge
68028/TP12 York Exam Road
68029/TP01 Longsight*
68030/TP10 Longsight*
68031/TP05 Longsight*
68032/TP13 Longsight

Crewe South Yard
TP04
TP08
TP11

*Stopped awaiting repairs to yaw damper attachment point/dimensional irregularities of C-slot.

As I understand it, TP01/TP10 are awaiting transfer to Wolverton Works.

 

[D6975]

Seem to be 2 to 4 sets out per weekday. My hunch is they are particularly concentrated on the York/Scarborough shuttles. I fear this will decline as time goes by.

Indeed, only 2 sets out every day so far this week. On Tuesday the furthest West one got was Leeds. Today it does look like a third set will appear this afternoon.(set swap with a 185)

 

[CW2]

I was en route from Crewe to have 68023 to Scarborough and return but my ATW service terminated at Wilmslow due to 4M18 failing. I gave up and came home. Maybe try again tomorrow...

 

[Peter Sarf]

Thanks for the following.

For anyone interested in where locos/sets are, status at 12:00, info given in good faith.

68019 Crewe Gresty Bridge
68020/TP02 allocated 1548 SCA-YRK
68021 Carlisle Kingmoor
68022 Crewe Gresty Bridge
68023/TP09 en-route 1135 MAN-SCA
68024/TP06 allocated 1748 SCA-LDS
68025/TP07 Gascoigne Wood
68026/TP03 Scarborough
68027 Crewe Gresty Bridge
68028/TP12 York Exam Road
68029/TP01 Longsight*
68030/TP10 Longsight*
68031/TP05 Longsight*
68032/TP13 Longsight

Crewe South Yard
TP04
TP08
TP11

*Stopped awaiting repairs to yaw damper attachment point/dimensional irregularities of C-slot.

As I understand it, TP01/TP10 are awaiting transfer to Wolverton Works.

How long has TP07 been at Gascoigne Wood ?. Bit surprised with that - should I not be ?.

 

[JonathanH]

As I understand it, TP01/TP10 are awaiting transfer to Wolverton Works.

What is happening at Wolverton to them?

 

[CAF397]

What is happening at Wolverton to them?

Crack rectification?