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

[warwickshire]

Tuesday 08th October 2024, observed through Barnt Green,

5Q94 0858 Longsight Tmd D to Long Marston.

68023 with set unbranded TP03 going back to Long Marston, after 8 months away from
Long Marston, due to spending most of the Summer at Crewe, after the set originally went up to Longsight in February 2024, however failed in April 2024, on its way back to Long Marston at Stafford, so sat at Crewe, for most of Late Spring and Summer, before returning to Longsight for further handback and servicing checks.

However TP03 now at Long Marston again and still in Unbranded livery

As kindly requested on the Non Tops thread from another op, with very much thanks, to update thread further :

Tuesday 15th October 2024,
5Q32 1544 Long Marston to Longsight
68023 with unbranded set TP07,
For servicing and handover checks
However unbranded set TP07, now back at Longsight.

Friday 18th October 2024

6Z31 1000 Kineton mod Gbrf to Carlisle Drs.
Saw 68024 and 68025 in unbranded deep blue top n tailed through Leamington Spa, on a nuclear working with 68024 leading and 68025 trailing, with a nuclear wagon in the middle of two Barrier wagons,

However it appears, 68024 68025 are back In Traffic with Drs, and using them, but 68019 68021, are still in store. Unaccounted for, Ie Still possibly awaiting to Return to Traffic with Drs?

Monday 28th October 2024
0858 5Q94 Longsight Tmd to Long Marston. Saw at Northfield
68023 with unbranded set TP07, taking TP07 back to Long Marston for storage again after further servicing at Longsight.

Meanwhile 68024 and 68025 in Drs unbranded blue are in regular use at least for the time being on Sandite duties around Cumbria, North East England and South West Scotland, originating from
Carlisle Kingmoor drs depot.

Tuesday 29th October 2024.
1. 5Q17 Test Train. 0906 Longsight Tmd to Longsight Tmd via Stockport, Crewe, Warrington Bank Quay, Eccles, back to Longsight Tmd again, witnessed at Eccles was 68023 with set unbranded TP04, however unbranded set TP04, returning to Longsight for now.

 

[Killingworth]

Interesting to see the activity apparently to keep these units in good condition for early redeployment. But still no specific news to suggest such deployment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting to see the activity apparently to keep these units in good condition for early redeployment. But still no specific news to suggest such deployment.

This month's Rail magazine suggests that discussions are still ongoing with the DfT on whether they can take all of them (for capacity enhancement) or just some (as a vehicle-for-vehicle replacement).

 

[HamworthyGoods]

This month's Rail magazine suggests that discussions are still ongoing with the DfT on whether they can take all of them (for capacity enhancement) or just some (as a vehicle-for-vehicle replacement).

And that I believe is where the challenge is, the ROSCO being only prepared to lease the mk5 fleet as a whole fleet.

 

[12LDA28C]

And that I believe is where the challenge is, the ROSCO being only prepared to lease the mk5 fleet as a whole fleet.

Not sure that's correct. The process for obtaining a cascaded fleet is extremely protracted, essentially you have to ask the DfT for permission to put out a request for expressions of interest in the first place and there are several stages and hoops to jump through before any kind of final decision is made on what fleet, if any you end up with (subject to DfT approval and funding of course).

 

[BucksBones]

Something just popped up on my news feed about these going to Chiltern but it was behind a paywall so couldn't read the detail. Any truth in it? Seems both logical and plausible so probably nonsense!

 

[12LDA28C]

Something just popped up on my news feed about these going to Chiltern but it was behind a paywall so couldn't read the detail. Any truth in it? Seems both logical and plausible so probably nonsense!

Nothing has been confirmed. Chiltern have indicated an interest in them and are trying to source stock to replace the Mk3s, that's about as far as the process has got so far.

 

[fgwrich]

Something just popped up on my news feed about these going to Chiltern but it was behind a paywall so couldn't read the detail. Any truth in it? Seems both logical and plausible so probably nonsense!

As expected, the final business case has been put together by Chiltern for them to take them to replace the Mk3s and create additional capacity and is currently awaiting a DfT sign off. They could still say nay, but it's heading very much in Chilterns direction at the moment and hopefully we should be seeing some positive news soon.

 

[JonathanH]

They could still say nay

I'm sure the residents of Marylebone will have something to say if the use of 68s increases, and be hoping there is a nay. How aware are they of the possibility of more class 68 use? It would be interesting to know if the noise issue is mentioned in the business case.

 

[172007]

I'm sure the residents of Marylebone will have something to say if the use of 68s increases, and be hoping there is a nay. How aware are they of the possibility of more class 68 use? It would be interesting to know if the noise issue is mentioned in the business case.

Amd that's the snag.

 

[12LDA28C]

I'm sure the residents of Marylebone will have something to say if the use of 68s increases, and be hoping there is a nay. How aware are they of the possibility of more class 68 use? It would be interesting to know if the noise issue is mentioned in the business case.

68s and Mk5s are not the only option open to Chiltern although clearly the best in terms of increasing capacity, especially if the entire fleet is taken on. At which point do the opinions of local residents become overruled by the desperate need to provide more capacity for the people that actually use the trains? I would suggest that point was reached some time ago.

 

[The exile]

68s and Mk5s are not the only option open to Chiltern although clearly the best in terms of increasing capacity, especially if the entire fleet is taken on. At which point do the opinions of local residents become overruled by the desperate need to provide more capacity for the people that actually use the trains? I would suggest that point was reached some time ago.

Presumably fitting a shore supply at Marylebone would blow the economics - but it would at least allow locos to be shut down if there for any length of time.

 

[12LDA28C]

Presumably fitting a shore supply at Marylebone would blow the economics - but it would at least allow locos to be shut down if there for any length of time.

The locos are already shut down after arrival and only restarted shortly before departure.

 

[Peter Sarf]

As expected, the final business case has been put together by Chiltern for them to take them to replace the Mk3s and create additional capacity and is currently awaiting a DfT sign off. They could still say nay, but it's heading very much in Chilterns direction at the moment and hopefully we should be seeing some positive news soon.

I can only assume (hope) that some progress has been made on quietening down the 68s. Does anyone know of any progress with that aspiration ?.

 

[12LDA28C]

I can only assume (hope) that some progress has been made on quietening down the 68s. Does anyone know of any progress with that aspiration ?.

As I understand it the modification made to the trial loco was successful but only to a very limited extent.

 

[43096]

68s and Mk5s are not the only option open to Chiltern

What other options do they have in the time available before the Mark 3s are due overhaul?

 

[12LDA28C]

What other options do they have in the time available before the Mark 3s are due overhaul?

There were two other options available, as discussed previously on this forum although evidently one of those, the 175s are now off to GWR. It should also be noted that there is a tender out for a mini-refurb planned for the Mk3s which should extend their life until a suitable replacement is found, if that is not going to be in the near future.

 

[CW2]

Out of interest, is it possible to pair two TPE sets with a single class 68? I was thinking in terms of a high capacity "blockade buster" alternative for any planned WCML closures.
Would the platforms at Marylebone be long enough for a loco + 10 Mk 5 combination?

 

[coxxy]

Out of interest, is it possible to pair two TPE sets with a single class 68? I was thinking in terms of a high capacity "blockade buster" alternative for any planned WCML closures.
Would the platforms at Marylebone be long enough for a loco + 10 Mk 5 combination?

No

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Would the platforms at Marylebone be long enough for a loco + 10 Mk 5 combination?

According to https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/stations/overview/?TLC=MYB, the platform lengths are per the table below.
Using lengths from Wikipedia:
A 68 is 20.5m long, a Mk5a set is 111.17m long
So a Mk5a+68+Mk5a set would be 242.84m long, which is just slightly too long.

Plat.​	Metres​
1​	227​
2​	242​
3​	242​
4​	128​
5​	216​
6​	216​

 

[12LDA28C]

Out of interest, is it possible to pair two TPE sets with a single class 68? I was thinking in terms of a high capacity "blockade buster" alternative for any planned WCML closures.
Would the platforms at Marylebone be long enough for a loco + 10 Mk 5 combination?

It wouldn’t matter if the platforms at Marylebone were long enough as none of the other calling points on the Chilterns would be except Banbury and Leamington.

 

[The exile]

It wouldn’t matter if the platforms at Marylebone were long enough as none of the other calling points on the Chilterns would be except Banbury and Leamington.

For extras to soak up wcml divertees that wouldn’t matter - only if it were simply strengthening existing trains.

 

[31160]

Can we assume if this does in fact go ahead they will use the old tpe locos and the current ones will go for freight, assuming the tpe ones have things specifically for the MK5s

 

[12LDA28C]

For extras to soak up wcml divertees that wouldn’t matter - only if it were simply strengthening existing trains.

Which is generally what happens when there is a block on the WCML

Can we assume if this does in fact go ahead they will use the old tpe locos and the current ones will go for freight, assuming the tpe ones have things specifically for the MK5s

The current 68s used on Chiltern services are not compatible with the Mk5 stock

 

[JonathanH]

The current 68s used on Chiltern services are not compatible with the Mk5 stock

Does that in any way mean that they couldn't be made compatible if necessary? Presumably all part of the business case?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does that in any way mean that they couldn't be made compatible if necessary? Presumably all part of the business case?

I'm sure they could, but swapping the Chiltern ones for the ones that support the Mk5s could be cheaper.

 

[12LDA28C]

Does that in any way mean that they couldn't be made compatible if necessary? Presumably all part of the business case?

No, but that wouldn't be necessary when there is already a fleet compatible with the stock.

 

[PLY2AYS]

No, but that wouldn't be necessary when there is already a fleet compatible with the stock.

But that would mean Chiltern may lose their biofuel locos, which whilst not overly important in terms of providing service, is disheartening considering the push towards green initiatives.

Additionally, has much work been done on the cracks found in the Mk5a sets? Or is that a burden that Chiltern would look to take on? Provided it hasn’t already been rectified of course… but I’ve not had a look for the answer to that question yet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that would mean Chiltern may lose their biofuel locos, which whilst not overly important in terms of providing service, is disheartening considering the push towards green initiatives.

If they did want to retain those, then that would come down to whether it's cheaper to apply the biofuel conversion to the Mk5-compatible locos or whether it's cheaper to apply the Mk5-compatible conversion to the biofuel locos.

 

[172007]

But that would mean Chiltern may lose their biofuel locos, which whilst not overly important in terms of providing service, is disheartening considering the push towards green initiatives.

Additionally, has much work been done on the cracks found in the Mk5a sets? Or is that a burden that Chiltern would look to take on? Provided it hasn’t already been rectified of course… but I’ve not had a look for the answer to that question yet.

I can't immagine bio fuels requiring too much work for conversion. The question is what's more cost effective, vinyl to Chiltern livery all the Former TPE locos or convert the current Chiltern locos to be MK5 compatible and only re-Vinyl the former TP locos that are actually required.

We're the cracks not identical to the CAF class 19X and Hitachi IET's and just require an extra plate on the T-bar where the yaw dampers and alike attach to the solebar area?