Why did TPE go for three different Nova fleets?

[Mogz]

As it says on the tin, really.

Can anyone explain why TPE went for three different types of new rolling stock fleet when the Nova 1 (Hitachi bi-mode Class 802) would have fulfilled all their needs?

 

[Darandio]

I'm sure others will go into more depth but one simple explanation from the time was that a complete Hitachi order couldn't be fulfilled in an acceptable timescale.

 

[samrammstein]

Don't know the exact details but I believe the CAF Mk5As were chosen as they were expected to be available much sooner than an equivalent new-build DMU would have been - due to them only being coaches with a driving trailer to be used with an already proven locomotive type.

 

[Pumbaa]

As it turns out, was a false economy and completely pointless. The business is now saddled with four different fleets and the associated complexities and costs, and I’d wager few of the expected benefits will ever be seen.

 

[507 001]

As it turns out, was a false economy and completely pointless. The business is now saddled with four different fleets and the associated complexities and costs, and I’d wager few of the expected benefits will ever be seen.

Indeed, especially when considering how long it’s actually taken to get the Mk5s in service. Still only three sets in service I believe? Obviously COVID hasn’t helped, but it must easily be the most drawn out introduction of a new fleet?

 

[Bald Rick]

This now wins the Railforums “Most Asked Question” award 2020.

 

[43096]

This now wins the Railforums “Most Asked Question” award 2020.

I see that and raise you the "Why can't Northern use the 332s?" question.

 

[Bald Rick]

I see that and raise you the "Why can't Northern use the 332s?" question.

Hmm.

I’m going all in on “l made a genuine error and bought a ticket for use with a railcard when I don’t have one, and got caught, what should I do?”

 

[YorksLad12]

Hmm.

I’m going all in on “l made a genuine error and bought a ticket for use with a railcard when I don’t have one, and got caught, what should I do?”

I'm betting my house on it being around cascaded CrossCountry stock.

 

[AMD]

You're forgetting what is more of a statement than a question - Northern should keep pacers running

 

[Mollman]

See also previous threads:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/why-did-tpe-opt-for-loco-hauled-for-nova-3.200803/

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...a-2-instead-of-more-80x-series-trains.194316/

 

[DB]

You're forgetting what is more of a statement than a question - Northern should keep pacers running

What about '101 uses for a 442'? Obviously involving push-pull with a variety of locos, Bionic Duckweed conversion, etc?

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the TPE bids did I believe propose LH 442s.

 

[AirRail]

TPE themselves openly admitted, that if the original lead time for the Class 802s weren't planned to be so long, it would have been a larger order of those and no need to order the earlier promised MkV sets. In reality, ordering the MkVs never materialised into service any sooner than the Class 802s did anyway. But hindsight is a wonderful thing ofcourse. I'm sure a more standardised fleet would have huge cost savings, not to mention logistically and operationally for day to day running. With that in mind, does anyone think that now the majority of the Intercity fleet deliveries having been completed by Hitachi, a further order by TPE of 802s could be possible? The MkVs could be suitable for the likes of TFW or Chiltern for "upgrading" their loco hauled services.

 

[Bald Rick]

With that in mind, does anyone think that now the majority of the Intercity fleet deliveries having been completed by Hitachi, a further order by TPE of 802s could be possible?

I’d have a few quid on the next order for ‘Inter City’ Standard trains in this country being for HS2.

 

[DB]

TPE themselves openly admitted, that if the original lead time for the Class 802s weren't planned to be so long, it would have been a larger order of those and no need to order the earlier promised MkV sets. In reality, ordering the MkVs never materialised into service any sooner than the Class 802s did anyway. But hindsight is a wonderful thing ofcourse. I'm sure a more standardised fleet would have huge cost savings, not to mention logistically and operationally for day to day running. With that in mind, does anyone think that now the majority of the Intercity fleet deliveries having been completed by Hitachi, a further order by TPE of 802s could be possible? The MkVs could be suitable for the likes of TFW or Chiltern for "upgrading" their loco hauled services.

No logical reason why Chiltern would want them - they have a small number of loco-hauled sets (4, plus a slam-door set used as a crowd buster twice a day in normal times) because that was what was available at a time of severe stock shortage. They are clearly not keen on the concept, as they abandoned plans for more MK3s when they had the opportunity to snap up some 170s instead.

TfW only have three sets for their premium service, and have plenty of new trains on order already. The drivers for those trains are also trained on 67s, but not 68s.

The reality is that LHCS is non-standard these days, and it wouldn't be a better fit with any other TOC than it is with TPE - and would remain a small sub-fleet because no TOC operates with just 14 5-car units / sets of stock.

However, I understand that the lease is only until 2023, so at that point there would be nothing to stop TPE ordering some other trains. WHat happened to the loco-hauled sets would then be the problem of their owner. But given the likely economic situation over the next few years, it's quite likely that there won't be any new stock orders for a while.

 

[MML]

Loco hauled coaching sets aren't economic when used in such short 5 car formations. But reformed into 7 or 8 coach length express trains to serve Chilterns value inter city service between Marylebone and Birmingham Moor St would provide an alternative to the premium West Coast and HS2 route.
Freeing up DMU for Chiltern commuter services and East West rail.
TPE with an order for more 802 could improve efficiency and interoperability with only 3 fleets instead of 4.
And the inhabitants of Scarborough could avoid the noise of those 68's.

 

[DenmarkRail]

Reformed into 7 or 8 coach length express trains to serve Chilterns value inter city service between Marylebone and Birmingham Moor St would provide an alternative to the premium West Coast and HS2 route.

I don't doubt that a standard fleet across TPE would save costs and reduce operational issues, but would these cost savings be worth it against the backdrop of more 802s costing significant amounts of cash? Furthermore, would TPE / the Government want to spend this money in a type of COVID and uncertainty? Right now they have a fleet in place, and it doesn't make much sense to replace this. Whether or not they should have purchased something standard in the first place is a different (and the original) question!

I do perhaps agree that the MK5s are a long term option for Chiltern, but I would think that older Intercity stock to eventually end up running Chiltern's MK3 services... Voyagers, 222s, or something already replaced elsewhere... That is essentially what the Chiltern's Intercity service is... A way to use old stock that no one wants!

Time will tell... I am often wrong!

 

[DB]

I don't doubt that a standard fleet across TPE would save costs and reduce operational issues, but would these cost savings be worth it against the backdrop of more 802s costing significant amounts of cash? Furthermore, would TPE / the Government want to spend this money in a type of COVID and uncertainty? Right now they have a fleet in place, and it doesn't make much sense to replace this. Whether or not they should have purchased something standard in the first place is a different (and the original) question!

I do perhaps agree that the MK5s are a long term option for Chiltern, but I would think that older Intercity stock to eventually end up running Chiltern's MK3 services... Voyagers, 222s, or something already replaced elsewhere... That is essentially what the Chiltern's Intercity service is... A way to use old stock that no one wants!

Time will tell... I am often wrong!

Have to say I find it rather mystifying why people seem to regard Chiltern as the ideal home for loco hauled stock, just because they have a small amount taken on when nothing else was available, and later modified with wide external power doors and no vestibule doors to speed up load times (the mk5s do have vestibule doors).

Chiltern is primarily a commuter operation - units like the 168/170 are far more suitable for this. Apart from the five sets of mk3s, they don't have any 'old stock that no one wants', nor have they ever had since BR days.

 

[swt_passenger]

One of the TPE bids did I believe propose LH 442s.

It was more of a DfT suggestion at ITT time...

 

[JonathanH]

It seems unlikely that TPE would have ordered three fleets with the intention on releasing one in 2023.

 

[Philip]

From a marketing perspective it probably helps to have a different 'Nova' for each of the three separate routes. It also prevents the use of one of the train types being used over different routes, which could lead to a more unreliable operation; if a 397 was diagrammed to work to Newcastle in the morning and then booked to work to Edinburgh via Carlisle in the afternoon, it'd be no good if disruption on the ECML delays the unit and ends up having a knock-on effect on its journey along the WCML later that day (and potentially spreading disruption over to the WCML too). The units being confined to one route only improves reliability.

 

[JonathanH]

The units being confined to one route only improves reliability.

There isn't a need to have three fleets to do keep units on one route on any day. Indeed, the usual approach to diagramming does keep units on one route even if there is a single fleet - the exception being where journey times mean there is a need to interwork- however, even then the pattern usually repeats.

From a marketing perspective it probably helps to have a different 'Nova' for each of the three separate routes.

I'm not sure it does help with marketing. Quite tenuous anyway. LNER have four types of 80x unit but are able to brand them as Azuma because they all look the same.

 

[Philip]

There isn't a need to have three fleets to do keep units on one route on any day. Indeed, the usual approach to diagramming does keep units on one route even if there is a single fleet - the exception being where journey times mean there is a need to interwork- however, even then the pattern usually repeats.


I'm not sure it does help with marketing. Quite tenuous anyway. LNER have four types of 80x unit but are able to brand them as Azuma because they all look the same.

TPE used to interwork the Class 185s between North, South and North West/Scotland diagrams quite a lot.

 

[xotGD]

An alternative answer to the question: Due to the lack of suitable bimode locomotives they had to settle for bimode multiple units instead of more sets of Mark 5as.

 

[DB]

I'm not sure it does help with marketing. Quite tenuous anyway. LNER have four types of 80x unit but are able to brand them as Azuma because they all look the same.

Indeed. The three new fleets are actually remarkably similar from the passenger perspective, including having the same seats.

An alternative answer to the question: Due to the lack of suitable bimode locomotives they had to settle for bimode multiple units instead of more sets of Mark 5as.

That's not really an alternative answer - it's pretty clear from what TPE have said themselves to the railway press, etc, that 802s would be the preferred option - after all, why wouldn't they be? They are tried and tested, and the number of them around the country means that parts and repair expertise isn't likely to be in short supply. In contrast, the Mk5a sets are a one-off fleet, nobody had any previously (which might have avoided the issues with getting the TPE ones into service), plus loco-hauled is generally non-standard now.

 

[tbtc]

Have to say I find it rather mystifying why people seem to regard Chiltern as the ideal home for loco hauled stock, just because they have a small amount taken on when nothing else was available, and later modified with wide external power doors and no vestibule doors to speed up load times (the mk5s do have vestibule doors).

Chiltern is primarily a commuter operation - units like the 168/170 are far more suitable for this. Apart from the five sets of mk3s, they don't have any 'old stock that no one wants', nor have they ever had since BR days.

I think that Chiltern are probably the "least worst" TOC for the loco-hauled to go to (rather than "perfect")

Fourteen (?) rakes from TPE plus the existing Chiltern ones would allow all of the Birmingham services to be hauled by them (half hourly, roughly four and a half hour round trip) and Oxford services too (half hourly, roughly two and a half hour round trip) when you include a few "spares" for maintenance/ peak extra etc

That would then allow Chiltern to release the 168s to TOCs that already run Turbostars, which would standardise things (165s to remain at Chiltern for Aylesbury services).

For example, a four coach 168 would be good for the Nottingham - Birmingham - Cardiff - Birmingham - Nottingham - Birmingham - Nottingham diagrams that XC operate.

 

[DB]

I think that Chiltern are probably the "least worst" TOC for the loco-hauled to go to (rather than "perfect")

Fourteen (?) rakes from TPE plus the existing Chiltern ones would allow all of the Birmingham services to be hauled by them (half hourly, roughly four and a half hour round trip) and Oxford services too (half hourly, roughly two and a half hour round trip) when you include a few "spares" for maintenance/ peak extra etc

That would then allow Chiltern to release the 168s to TOCs that already run Turbostars, which would standardise things (165s to remain at Chiltern for Aylesbury services).

For example, a four coach 168 would be good for the Nottingham - Birmingham - Cardiff - Birmingham - Nottingham - Birmingham - Nottingham diagrams that XC operate.

That would be a reduction in capacity compared to the existing rakes (6 Mk3s), and a complete loss of flexibility againsts the 168s, which can obviously be run in multiples.

It would also be a significant overall reduction in vehicles - there are 70 Mk5 vehicles (ignoring the spare driving trailer), versus 92 Class 168 vehicles and 31 Mk3s (ignoring spare Mk3s).

And on the busiest parts of the route (i.e. the London end) it would also lead to increased station dwell times as against the 168s due to single-leaf end doors plus vestibule doors on the Mk5s, versus double-leaf doors at 1/2 and 2/3 without vestibules on the 168s.

Sorry, afraid I really can't see why this would in any way be a good idea.

 

[JonathanH]

Fourteen (?) rakes from TPE

there are 70 Mk5 vehicles

65 Mk 5 vehicles in 13 sets plus the spare driving car.

 

[CBlue]

That would be a reduction in capacity compared to the existing rakes (6 Mk3s), and a complete loss of flexibility againsts the 168s, which can obviously be run in multiples.

It would also be a significant overall reduction in vehicles - there are 70 Mk5 vehicles (ignoring the spare driving trailer), versus 92 Class 168 vehicles and 31 Mk3s (ignoring spare Mk3s).

And on the busiest parts of the route (i.e. the London end) it would also lead to increased station dwell times as against the 168s due to single-leaf end doors plus vestibule doors on the Mk5s, versus double-leaf doors at 1/2 and 2/3 without vestibules on the 168s.

Sorry, afraid I really can't see why this would in any way be a good idea.

I think it has also been suggested on this thread and others that Chiltern don't want any more LHCS, and took on more DMU's rather than another Mk3 set.

Just because they would be "least worst" doesn't mean they're going to take them up, either - if the fleet ends up sitting about unwanted and out of use then so be it. No TOC has an obligation to pick up the lease.