Why did TPE go for three different Nova fleets?

[Mikey C]

Q) Why did TPE go for three different Nova fleets?

A) Because five different Nova fleets would have been silly

 

[Richard Scott]

Wrong gauge, and nothing in Ireland loco-wise with the same multiple working system.

i.e. expensive modifications would be required.

Also only around 4 sets required.

 

[Scotrail314209]

It's quite laughable seeing how botched the introduction of these sets have been.

Even though the 385s had issues, Scotrail were able to fix them and introduce them fairly quickly, albeit late.

I wonder if all the sets will actually run in passenger service.

 

[8J]

Hitatchi struggle to maintain the 19 units that TPE currently have. There are a number of sets that have been running around with isolated GU's (engine) for weeks as well as other issues.

Doncaster and Craigentinny are the only locations where heavy maintenance can take place for TPE's. Hitatchi would need more suitable locations to carry out maintence work if TPE were to acquire additional 80x sets. Edge Hill would be an ideal location for maintence work, but Alstom own that site and don't permit 802s into the shed over the pits.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Isolated GU’s is not confined to TPE and not really related to depot capacity. The maintenance responsibility is split between Hitachi and MTU and sometimes fault finding whether it is a train side problem or an engine side problem takes time (too long, in my opinion). Material supply has also become a recent issue.

The engines are also operating a demanding duty cycle, so they go through items such as sump gaskets. If an engine is spewing out oil as a result of a leaking gasket, it will be isolated until the unit is programmed into a depot by the Hitachi CPU.

 

[sjpowermac]

Isolated GU’s is not confined to TPE and not really related to depot capacity. The maintenance responsibility is split between Hitachi and MTU and sometimes fault finding whether it is a train side problem or an engine side problem takes time (too long, in my opinion). Material supply has also become a recent issue.

The engines are also operating a demanding duty cycle, so they go through items such as sump gaskets. If an engine is spewing out oil as a result of a leaking gasket, it will be isolated until the unit is programmed into a depot by the Hitachi CPU.

That’s really interesting, so not everything is quite as rosy in the Class 802 garden as some would have us believe.

Hitatchi struggle to maintain the 19 units that TPE currently have. There are a number of sets that have been running around with isolated GU's (engine) for weeks as well as other issues.

Doncaster and Craigentinny are the only locations where heavy maintenance can take place for TPE's. Hitatchi would need more suitable locations to carry out maintence work if TPE were to acquire additional 80x sets. Edge Hill would be an ideal location for maintence work, but Alstom own that site and don't permit 802s into the shed over the pits.

I didn’t realise about the 802s just stabling at Edge Hill, thank you for that. The acceleration of the 802s on diesel isn’t exactly sparkling when everything is working, I can only imagine they are pretty pedestrian with one GU out!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The engines are also operating a demanding duty cycle, so they go through items such as sump gaskets. If an engine is spewing out oil as a result of a leaking gasket, it will be isolated until the unit is programmed into a depot by the Hitachi CPU.

They go through sump gaskets? Is that not a design fault? It's not something that is often replaced on a road vehicle, indeed you'd only really be replacing that if you replaced the sump.

 

[8J]

On 2 x GUs, under the current timetable you can (signals permitting) keep time, even over the Pennines. The only real performance issue is on a Sunday when the sets run on diesel north of York. With a GU isolated, it will lose time.

Another thing to factor in is braking. With a GU isolated, the unit loses all dynamic braking and resorts to friction only - increasing the wear on the brake pads So yes - all is far from rosy with the 802s!

 

[sjpowermac]

On 2 x GUs, under the current timetable you can (signals permitting) keep time, even over the Pennines. The only real performance issue is on a Sunday when the sets run on diesel north of York. With a GU isolated, it will lose time.

Another thing to factor in is braking. With a GU isolated, the unit loses all dynamic braking and resorts to friction only - increasing the wear on the brake pads So yes - all is far from rosy with the 802s!

Many thanks for the reply. I hadn’t realised about the increased wear on the brake pads, that’s a very interesting point.

I think something that some posters forget is that whilst the 802s are new to TPE they have had a long period of running with other operators and yet still seemingly have a variety of problems. It will certainly be interesting to see how the GUs cope over the Pennines if we get a warm summer!

Thank you again for the information, appreciated.

 

[py_megapixel]

Personally, I think that the "Not enough capacity at Hitachi so had to make do with CAF" argument is incomplete, because it fails to answer the question of why on earth they decided to go for two separate CAF fleets.

Civity is supposed to be a modular platform, is it not? So why could they not have build a fleet of 397s, but with diesel drivetrain rather than electric?
Alternatively, why could they not have ordered entirely Mk5s and just hauled them with a small fleet of electric locos on the Scotland services? There's not exactly a shortage of them, with both the IC225s and Anglia sets coming off-lease.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally, I think that the "Not enough capacity at Hitachi so had to make do with CAF" argument is incomplete, because it fails to answer the question of why on earth they decided to go for two separate CAF fleets.

Civity is supposed to be a modular platform, is it not? So why could they not have build a fleet of 397s, but with diesel drivetrain rather than electric?
Alternatively, why could they not have ordered entirely Mk5s and just hauled them with a small fleet of electric locos on the Scotland services? There's not exactly a shortage of them, with both the IC225s and Anglia sets coming off-lease.

The reason for going with Mk5s was fast delivery - they were a continuation of the Caledonian Sleeper order built on the same jigs. That's why they are 22m long and have the "posher" interior, e.g. all metal-panelled rather than the plastic of the rest of the CAF kit.

I agree that doesn't explain why they weren't used on the WCML with electric locomotives, though.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Personally, I think that the "Not enough capacity at Hitachi so had to make do with CAF" argument is incomplete, because it fails to answer the question of why on earth they decided to go for two separate CAF fleets.

Civity is supposed to be a modular platform, is it not? So why could they not have build a fleet of 397s, but with diesel drivetrain rather than electric?
Alternatively, why could they not have ordered entirely Mk5s and just hauled them with a small fleet of electric locos on the Scotland services? There's not exactly a shortage of them, with both the IC225s and Anglia sets coming off-lease.

Well, the LHCS is down to the DfT franchise specification, not First Group.

And in any case, a 5 car CAF DMU is still a third fleet - whilst the Civity is claimed to be a modular platform, there's little evidence of that on the ground with all sorts of key differences in components and parts across the Class 195 and Class 331 fleets.

 

[DB]

I agree that doesn't explain why they weren't used on the WCML with electric locomotives, though.

Probably because none were available quickly. The Class 68 production line was open at the time of the order.

DRS may also not have been keen on more 88s - the lifetime of the locos is much longer than the current lease contract, and 68s are more versatile.

 

[CBlue]

Re the suggestions of using ex IC225 or Anglia locos..


Would 90s or 91s have been suitable for working with Mk5 stock given their age and making them compatible with the control systems? They'd hardly be rapid, so good luck keeping to timings in between far quicker stock...never mind the additional question of replacement in 10 or so years time.

 

[py_megapixel]

Probably because none were available quickly.

By the time the 350s went to the West Midlands, there would surely have been some 91s available?

 

[DB]

By the time the 350s went to the West Midlands, there would surely have been some 91s available?

The whole point was that they were having a new fleet -this was a big marketing point. Why would they use locos which are over 30 years old? Would the ROSCO even have agreed to fund the stock on that basis?

Re the suggestions of using ex IC225 or Anglia locos..


Would 90s or 91s have been suitable for working with Mk5 stock given their age and making them compatible with the control systems? They'd hardly be rapid, so good luck keeping to timings in between far quicker stock...never mind the additional question of replacement in 10 or so years time.

Indeed - and the control systems aren't compatible so it would have been a case of either building new stock with an obsolete control system or trying to fit a new control system to old locos - neither of which would be a recipe for reliability!

 

[Watershed]

I agree that doesn't explain why they weren't used on the WCML with electric locomotives, though.

For one, you can double dock a 70m long 323 at Manchester Airport with a 118m long 397. You can't with a 133m long Nova 3. Platform capacity is infamously constrained there even with the current 4 platforms, so this adds considerable operational flexibility.

 

[JonathanH]

Probably because none were available quickly. The Class 68 production line was open at the time of the order.

DRS may also not have been keen on more 88s - the lifetime of the locos is much longer than the current lease contract, and 68s are more versatile.

Didn't the 68 / 88 order have something to do with First's bid for the Caledonian Sleeper and using them on TransPennine effectively was a fall back.

 

[Greybeard33]

The reason for going with Mk5s was fast delivery - they were a continuation of the Caledonian Sleeper order built on the same jigs. That's why they are 22m long and have the "posher" interior, e.g. all metal-panelled rather than the plastic of the rest of the CAF kit.

I agree that doesn't explain why they weren't used on the WCML with electric locomotives, though.

Another option might have been to order a larger fleet of 397s instead of the Mk5a's and to specify Mk5a-like interfaces to enable them to be 68-hauled over the Pennines. Then TPE would have had only two new fleets, and they would have been "electrification ready".

 

[DB]

Didn't the 68 / 88 order have something to do with First's bid for the Caledonian Sleeper and using them on TransPennine effectively was a fall back.

That was rumoured with the 88s (and might be true), but additional 68s were ordered directly as a result of the TPE contract.

 

[py_megapixel]

The whole point was that they were having a new fleet -this was a big marketing point. Why would they use locos which are over 30 years old? Would the ROSCO even have agreed to fund the stock on that basis?

From the passenger perspective, brand new carriages hauled by old high speed locomotives is still new stock...

 

[DB]

Another option might have been to order a larger fleet of 397s instead of the Mk5a's and to specify Mk5a-like interfaces to enable them to be 68-hauled over the Pennines. Then TPE would have had only two new fleets, and they would have been "electrification ready".

It would be speed again - the theory was that the Mk5a sets could be built quickly, and would be the first of the new fleets to arrive. That wouldn't have happened with extra EMUs, especially if they'd had to design some sort of multi-working system with locos (it's worth noting that it's many years since any such system has been used for new stock in this country - think the last time was SR EMUs which could work with 73s and 33s).

 

[py_megapixel]

It would be speed again - the theory was that the Mk5a sets could be built quickly, and would be the first of the new fleets to arrive. That wouldn't have happened with extra EMUs, especially if they'd had to design some sort of multi-working system with locos (it's worth noting that it's many years since any such system has been used for new stock in this country - think the last time was SR EMUs which could work with 73s and 33s).

I don't understand why speed was such a concern. After all, TPE already had a relatively modern fleet with nowhere clear for it to be cascaded to (apart from the 350s to WM, which could have hung on for a bit longer if needs had been as its only purpose was a modest capacity increase)

 

[DB]

From the passenger perspective, brand new carriages hauled by old high speed locomotives is still new stock...

The whole point was that TfN or whatever they were called at that point were pushing for new stock for the north. How do you think they (and the media) would have reacted to this? You can see the headlines - as soon as one broke down, there would be stories about LNER's cast-offs being dumped on Transpennine.

The business case for building new stock for use with 30 year old locos would also have been questionable - a multiple working system would have had to be decided on and fitted, the locos would have needed heavy overhauls. How reliable/practical would it have been to get 30 year old locos to interface with a modern TMS system? Probably not very.

None of this would have fitted well with the aim of getting them into service quickly.

 

[tpjm]

I don't understand why speed was such a concern.

You obviously haven’t travelled from Leeds to Manchester in the evening peak on a 3-car Class 185! Longer trains were needed around 2010, bringing the 350s in made more 185s available but resulted in the loss of the 170s. By 2018, things were at breaking point.

 

[DB]

I don't understand why speed was such a concern. After all, TPE already had a relatively modern fleet with nowhere clear for it to be cascaded to (apart from the 350s to WM, which could have hung on for a bit longer if needs had been as its only purpose was a modest capacity increase)

Whether or not you understand it, that was one of the main factors behind the split fleet - otherwise it would probably have been all 802s as soon as Hitachi could build them.

The reason for wanting trains quickly was that overcrowding had been getting worse and worse for years and had reached an unworkable level, and TfN were pushing hard to do something about it fast - and they had incluence in the franchise being awarded.

 

[Greybeard33]

For one, you can double dock a 70m long 323 at Manchester Airport with a 118m long 397. You can't with a 133m long Nova 3. Platform capacity is infamously constrained there even with the current 4 platforms, so this adds considerable operational flexibility.

According to the Sectional Appendix, the Local Instruction for permissive working at Manchester Airport only allows platform sharing when both trains have four or less vehicles. So a 5-car 397 must have a platform to itself.

It would be speed again - the theory was that the Mk5a sets could be built quickly, and would be the first of the new fleets to arrive. That wouldn't have happened with extra EMUs, especially if they'd had to design some sort of multi-working system with locos (it's worth noting that it's many years since any such system has been used for new stock in this country - think the last time was SR EMUs which could work with 73s and 33s).

The multi-working system would have been similar to the one that had to be developed for the Mk5a sets anyway. A Mk5a set is pretty much an unpowered MU.

 

[DB]

According to the Sectional Appendix, the Local Instruction for permissive working at Manchester Airport only allows platform sharing when both trains have four or less vehicles. So a 5-car 397 must have a platform to itself.


The multi-working system would have been similar to the one that had to be developed for the Mk5a sets anyway. A Mk5a set is pretty much an unpowered MU.

The multi-working system wasn't developed for the M5a sets - it's the standard Class 68/88 one. The TMS integration was new, hence the extra socket on the TPE 68s.

I can't really see a combination of TPM (90/91 system) for multiple working, plus trying to fit a new TMS system to locos of that age, or trying to fit them with a new multiple working system, being in any way compatible with getting them into service quickly - if it proved workable at all.

As regards new EMUs, they don't use the same multiple working systems as locos, so significant design modifications would have been needed. they would also need to be designed to take an ETS supply from the loco - i.e. they would be a bespoke design as neither of these are normal requirements, and they wouldn't have been delivered quickly.

 

[Watershed]

According to the Sectional Appendix, the Local Instruction for permissive working at Manchester Airport only allows platform sharing when both trains have four or less vehicles. So a 5-car 397 must have a platform to itself

Ah quite right you are, I think that's a signalling restriction? There's no physical reason why that need be the case.

Today, 4 coaches could (theoretically) mean anything from 80 to 104m given the variation in coach lengths, and in the not so distant past when we had Pacers, even 52m. So it's clearly somewhat of an outdated restriction.

 

[Fokx]

I don't understand why speed was such a concern. After all, TPE already had a relatively modern fleet

Severe severe severe overcrowding to the point that hundreds of passengers were being left behind at various stations along ALL routes. Public image and passenger satisfaction were terrible!