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

[Peter Sarf]

Allegedly there is a "empty box" within a "hole" downstream of the 68s engine exhaust ports with enough space for some sort of silencer.

Almost sounds (excuse the pun) as if space for a silencer was left there but the device omitted for some reason ?

I could suggest a reason ??? 68s are really 'universal' locos and maybe spec'ed to give as much hp as possible. Silencing - all silencing no matter what it is - exerts a back pressure on the cylinders and reduces power output. If your power rating is 3000 hp in your spotting book, that value is /after/ the effect of silencing has been taken into account.

The only loss value I know of is with the Soviet M62 type locomotives where it costs around 50 hp on a nominal 2000 hp diesel engine. (And those things are deafening without silencers).

It might be - and I am speculating here - 68s could be fitted with some form of silencer - but at a hp cost - given that they are nominally 3750 hp to lose even 100 hp would hardly be missed on 5 coach Mk5 passenger timings. That 100 hp would be a big loss at the top end of heavy freight working, but not for this type passenger work.

The other key to this is the significant numbers of DMU that could be cascaded from Chiltern to other TOC; 168/1 168/2 168/3 might be non standard cabs Turbostars but nonetheless they are Turbostars and would be welcomed by other TOC.

Interesting.

Good point about DMUs being more use to other TOCs. Could even be 68s with Mk3s and Mk5s !.

 

[68011]

Thanks for that, do you know which set will be heading the other way (Longsight to Crewe) ?.

Mind - if its from Crewe BH then is it loco only ?. I thought the Mk5s were in Crewe South Yard (prefer them to be BH yard tbh) ?.

EDIT - 5Q32 is actually from Crewe South Yard.

68032/TP13 5Q42 13:58 Longsight to Crewe South Yard

68024 is allocated 0B32 18:17 Crewe GB to Longsight.

Believe TP03, 06, 07, 11 & 13 are stabled in Crewe South Yard

 

[Peter Sarf]

68032/TP13 5Q42 13:58 Longsight to Crewe South Yard

68024 is allocated 0B32 18:17 Crewe GB to Longsight.

Believe TP03, 06, 07, 11 & 13 are stabled in Crewe South Yard

TP03, 06, 07, 11 & 13 at Crewe South yard makes sense.

Maybe 68024 is going to Longsight to pair up with TP04 which is without loco at Longsight. Then where (service or Crewe SY) ?.

 

[68011]

TP03, 06, 07, 11 & 13 at Crewe South yard makes sense.

Maybe 68024 is going to Longsight to pair up with TP04 which is without loco at Longsight. Then where (service or Crewe SY) ?.

Well you would think it would go on to TP04 then be available for traffic but there's no guarantee that will happen. Will be a case of watch this space.

 

[43 302]

Fitting silencers really seems like something that should/would have been done years ago if it could be done easily enough and without compromising performance. I expect the class the see occasional passenger work, but nothing regular or intensive enough to warrant fitment now. It would be far easier to keep what little passenger work they do get away from 'sensitive' areas.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Fitting silencers really seems like something that should/would have been done years ago if it could be done easily enough and without compromising performance. I expect the class the see occasional passenger work, but nothing regular or intensive enough to warrant fitment now. It would be far easier to keep what little passenger work they do get away from 'sensitive' areas.

I know what you mean. That really says no more passenger work for 68s as Chiltern will be looking for trains to replace their 165s anyway.

 

[33017]

It's been there for a some other work, certainly nothing to do with exhaust noise.

For the record 025 is with set TP02 working 5Q32 Crewe BH to Longsight today.

And today it’s working LO601.

 

[H14LSB]

Thankfully 68026 (my last one) is currently hauling TP05 from Scarborough to Manchester Piccadilly. Think a trip out to Ashburys is required in order to see these!!
Once TP05 is in the bag, I'll only need TP01 to come out of Wolverton, and 12802 to re-emerge!!!!

Thanksfor all the help on here keeping track of where they all are

 

[37201xoIM]

Just spotted this in the "prospectus" (which has not, ahem, landed terribly well amongst "key stakeholders"):

These trains are nearly three and a half times more expensive to operate per vehicle mile than the average for other TPE fleets and there are several issues around stabling.

I can only assume this refers to variable track access charges. (The second point has already been ably debunked by other posters!)

My CP7 spreadsheet tells me...:

Class 68: 80.72p/mile
Mark 5a: 9.87p/mile

So that gives us 130.07p/mile, or 26.01p/mile per vehicle

Class 185/M 23.06p/mile
Class 185HB/M 18.18p/mile

So in fact very slightly more per vehicle-mile than a 185. An 802 runs between about 15p/mile and 22p/mile, again per vehicle.

What, as far as I can see, TPT appear to have done is compared the cost of a class 68 (on its own!) against the class 185/M car, which is indeed almost exactly 3.5 times per much!

There is an increasingly widely-held view in the North that TPT are doing themselves no favours with this sort of thing.

It's worth emphasising: the fate of this fleet in TPT is anything but sealed - whatever certain sources, who are far from disinterested, might be trying to suggest.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The phrase "lies, damn lies, and statistics" springs to mind...

 

[37201xoIM]

The phrase "lies, damn lies, and statistics" springs to mind...

I don't mind stats, so long as they are honest ones... I have plenty of my own up my sleeve!!!

 

[19Gnasher69]

The trouble is, just like all the other lies and misinformation that is currently being peddled about the railways, it is only really challenged on forums such as this and in the specialist press. Therefore TPE’s mendacity will become the accepted version by those who know no better and, in the case of the government, who do not wish to know better.

 

[37201xoIM]

The trouble is, just like all the other lies and misinformation that is currently being peddled about the railways, it is only really challenged on forums such as this and in the specialist press. Therefore TPE’s mendacity will become the accepted version by those who know no better and, in the case of the government, who do not wish to know better.

You're right, of course - but there are those of us who are fighting against this stuff. The words "job" and "uphill" may come to mind at this point.......

 

[Peter Sarf]

The trouble is, just like all the other lies and misinformation that is currently being peddled about the railways, it is only really challenged on forums such as this and in the specialist press. Therefore TPE’s mendacity will become the accepted version by those who know no better and, in the case of the government, who do not wish to know better.

Aye.

The government only need to do what gets them votes.

I fear the railways are not doing themselves any favours - so many problems in the news. Have to wonder - do the majority of the UK population really care about the railways they don't use ?.

You're right, of course - but there are those of us who are fighting against this stuff. The words "job" and "uphill" may come to mind at this point.......

And the railways are not top of the agenda. Look at how even the news coverage of the Ukraine invasion by Russia has all but disappeared and replaced by the boiling over of the Israeli vs Palestinian dispute.

 

[3RDGEN]

Just spotted this in the "prospectus" (which has not, ahem, landed terribly well amongst "key stakeholders"):


I can only assume this refers to variable track access charges. (The second point has already been ably debunked by other posters!)

The operating costs will include lease, maintenance, fuel and training costs for example, not just the track access charges. Given those costs are not going to be available to the public it's impossible to question what TPE have stated.

The stabling issue would refer to stabling/mtce locations which is an issue on the east side as York never happened and Scarborough was millions of pounds wasted. Even daytime use has caused complaints this year;

"https://www.thisisthecoast.co.uk/ne...mplaints-about-scarborough-train-depot-noise/"

"A Scarborough resident has complained that noise from the TransPennine Express depot near their home has “stopped the enjoyment” of their garden. In a long-running saga, TransPennine Express (TPE) has received further complaints about “noise pollution” emanating from its depot behind Seamer Road. The £7m depot has been the subject of ongoing concern raised by residents and councillors since it opened in 2019."

"https://www.thisisthecoast.co.uk/ne...pologises-over-scarborough-train-depot-noise/"

"TransPennine Express has apologised to people living near its depot in Scarborough after complaints about “unbearable” noise experienced by residents. Residents living close to Transpennine Express’ (TPE) depot in Scarborough have complained about “throbbing, thundering, and reverberating” noise emanating from the site, leading to an apology from the company."

 

[Peter Sarf]

Another thing about costs is the lease on thirteen sets plus siding space. All for the current use of only up to four of them. So that means those costs will be triple (or more) what they should be due to lack of use.

Not using any of them will cost TPE even more until they are off lease and then its just the UKs problem !.

 

[sjpowermac]

The operating costs will include lease, maintenance, fuel and training costs for example, not just the track access charges. Given those costs are not going to be available to the public it's impossible to question what TPE have stated.

The stabling issue would refer to stabling/mtce locations which is an issue on the east side as York never happened and Scarborough was millions of pounds wasted. Even daytime use has caused complaints this year;

"https://www.thisisthecoast.co.uk/ne...mplaints-about-scarborough-train-depot-noise/"

"A Scarborough resident has complained that noise from the TransPennine Express depot near their home has “stopped the enjoyment” of their garden. In a long-running saga, TransPennine Express (TPE) has received further complaints about “noise pollution” emanating from its depot behind Seamer Road. The £7m depot has been the subject of ongoing concern raised by residents and councillors since it opened in 2019."

"https://www.thisisthecoast.co.uk/ne...pologises-over-scarborough-train-depot-noise/"

"TransPennine Express has apologised to people living near its depot in Scarborough after complaints about “unbearable” noise experienced by residents. Residents living close to Transpennine Express’ (TPE) depot in Scarborough have complained about “throbbing, thundering, and reverberating” noise emanating from the site, leading to an apology from the company."

A remarkably poor piece of journalism that has involved finding a group of people who are triggered, winding them up to make a story and then stirring them until boiling.

I live much closer than 300m to a location where Class 68/Mk5A sets regularly lay over and my only complaint is that I struggle to hear them and that’s with the ETS switched on. Whilst in and around Scarborough TMD the instructions for well over a year have been to have the ETS switched off.

With the ETS switched off, the Class 68 is a remarkably quiet loco. Standing right next to the loco gives a reading of 75 dB the equivalent of ‘being inside a car’, standing about 20 metres away this reduces to 62 dB, the equivalent of a ‘quiet street’.

I’ve not actually repeated the experiment for a Class 185, but will do so and update with those results. Subjectively, I’m pretty sure the Class 185 will be worse.

Naturally, using a shore supply makes all of this pretty irrelevant.

In addition, I’m a bit nonplussed as to what stabling issues they had a Doncaster Europort, which is in the middle of an industrial estate.

 

[158841]

68026 sounded loud and bloody marvellous on the 0935 from Manchester on departure from Dewsbury this morning, no silencing at all.

 

[D6700]

I’ve not actually repeated the experiment for a Class 185, but will do so and update with those results. Subjectively, I’m pretty sure the Class 185 will be worse.

Having previously worked in a building where 185's often parked alongside, their engines would sometimes have a "hunting" characteristic, where the sound sharply goes up and down continually. This "jagged" sound was awful - far worse than any constant drone, irrespective of absolute volume - not that it was quiet, either!

I am aware of Scarborough residents complaining about the sound of idling 47's stabled with charter trains, despite them being very quiet. I'm sure some of them hear with their eyes...

 

[sjpowermac]

Having previously worked in a building where 185's often parked alongside, their engines would sometimes have a "hunting" characteristic, where the sound sharply goes up and down continually. This "jagged" sound was awful - far worse than any constant drone, irrespective of absolute volume - not that it was quiet, either!

I am aware of Scarborough residents complaining about the sound of idling 47's stabled with charter trains, despite them being very quiet. I'm sure some of them hear with their eyes...

Yes, agreed, that hunting sound on Class 185s is absolutely awful and not exactly quiet either.

 

[Citybreak1]

So where are these trains going next?

 

[Peter Sarf]

So where are these trains going next?

Whole thread for that, enjoy.

 

[DarloRich]

The thing that’s often missing in this thread is the appalling political optics of (nearly) new trains that were to be used in the North not being used there. Whilst it seems many enthusiasts are happy to just write off that aspiration, it really is poor politically.

If you watch any of the recent Transport for the North videos on YouTube, you will hear just how hacked off the Metro Mayors and northern councillors are with this decision. Talk of new trains coming by the end of the decade, ten years after the Nova fleets should have been in traffic, doesn’t really seem like a particularly good deal.

I am not sure the regional media have yet picked this point up. It is not like the Yorkshire Post to miss something!

 

[CAF397]

In the latest twist in this saga, due to a defect found on an underbridge in Leeds station, the Class 68 Nova3 fleet is currently prohibited from platforms 15 and 16.

 

[DarloRich]

In the latest twist in this saga, due to a defect found on an underbridge in Leeds station, the Class 68 Nova3 fleet is currently prohibited from platforms 15 and 16.

So is that them out of service on the York > Manchester section or diverted onto other through platforms at Leeds?

 

[68011]

In the latest twist in this saga, due to a defect found on an underbridge in Leeds station, the Class 68 Nova3 fleet is currently prohibited from platforms 15 and 16.

Prohibited Platform 12 upwards, They are hoping the restriction will be lifted for start of service next Monday.

Those services that do run through Leeds are using alternative platforms such as 1U24/1U27 which used platform 11 this morning.

Unrelated to the above there is only 1 set out 68025/TP02 on diagram LO605 today due to the unavailability of sets.

68027/TP08 5Q42 Longsight to Crewe South Yard
68030/TP11 5Q33 Crewe South Yard to Longsight

 

[37201xoIM]

So where are these trains going next?

TPE....

The operating costs will include lease, maintenance, fuel and training costs for example, not just the track access charges. Given those costs are not going to be available to the public it's impossible to question what TPE have stated.

While what you say is of course entirely pertinent regarding total opcosts, I agree, the direct per-mile costs will be fuel and VTAC - unless of course somebody is attempting to calculate an average of an average of an average (or similar!), which does take into account the fixed / quasi-fixed costs you mention, and divides them by the miles run in service.... and which of course would be wildly misleading because of the absurdly low miles run in service.

And as for fuel costs, well, the comparators are 802 and 185... need I say more?!

 

[xotGD]

Unrelated to the above there is only 1 set out 68025/TP02 on diagram LO605 today due to the unavailability of sets.

So not looking too hopeful for my planned trip on 1U28 tomorrow morning.

 

[43 302]

So not looking too hopeful for my planned trip on 1U28 tomorrow morning.

Probably 185 on 1U28 tomorrow.

 

[Peter Sarf]

So not looking too hopeful for my planned trip on 1U28 tomorrow morning.

The only one today (1U24) started from Scarborough Station and should end up at Longsight tonight. Could mean two left at the Scarborough end ?. Have not yet traced the action last night to check but 1U28 is the other starter from Scarborough station and 1U72(5U72) starts from Scarborough TMD. So two chances of unavailability there. Longsight has more, maybe five. There are seven sets supposedly available so a bit puzzling.

Probably 185 on 1U28 tomorrow.

Depends if TPE get one going as 1U28 starts from Scarborough. But then they might favour 1U24 (same as today - if they had a choice). There should be up to seven at Longsight, probably five, So rather worrying if they could not get one or two going by tomorrow morning - and why not today ?.

TPE have rotated two sets from Crewe this week so maybe they have to rotate another one - my suggestion is TP07 pleeeeze !.