TPE new trains

[jim.snowdon]

I saw 3Q99 this morning as I was walking to work. Very smart livery, but I'd forgotten just how noisy the Class 68s are!

 

Andy

Although I don't suppose that we would complain about the noise if was an EE type 3 providing the power.

 

Jim

[4630]

I saw 3Q99 this morning as I was walking to work. Very smart livery, but I'd forgotten just how noisy the Class 68s are!

 

Andy

 

 

And here is 3Q99, 07.55 Scarborough to Manchester International Depot, at Colne Bridge on the approach to Huddersfield - 68028 'Lord President' with Nova 3 set 01.

 

 

 

 

[2mm Andy]

Although I don't suppose that we would complain about the noise if was an EE type 3 providing the power.

 

Jim

 

Who said anything about complaining? It's not an unpleasant noise, just rather loud (and different to the class 185 units). Personally I'm looking forward to the new trains coming into service, from both the perspective of a passenger and as someone who has lived alongside the York-Scarborough line for most of the past 22 years.

 

Andy

[russ p]

I do worry TPE will want extra silencing on the 68s which would absolutely ruin their character

[4630]

I've uploaded a bit of video of 68028 working 3Q99 to my Twitter feed.  The 68 was close on the heels of a TPE 185 so was probably running on yellows.

 

https://twitter.com/RussWPhoto/status/1088783585539211269

[AMJ]

Only a 5 coach rake? I remember when we used to have 47, 45, 55 on longer trains on TPE.

[Coryton]

Only a 5 coach rake? I remember when we used to have 47, 45, 55 on longer trains on TPE.

 

I remember when there was one train an hour between Leeds and Manchester via Huddersfield.

 

How many is it now?

[springs branch]

A couple from today's Nova 3 CAF Mk5a run from Manchester to Scarborough and back.

[4630]

Fridays 3Q98 from Manchester to Scarborough and 3Q99 return using a TPE class 68 and a Nova 3 set is to be repeated on Monday 28th, although this time the routing is via Manchester Victoria and Philips Park junctions;

 

 

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K56175/2019/01/28/advanced

 

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K56174/2019/01/28/advanced

[SHMD]

I wonder if that routing is to turn the set around?

Even so, Why go via Ashburys instead of Ashton?

 

(Possibly engineering work, I guess?)

 

 

Kev.

[SHMD]

I've just noticed the return working is via the same route but at a time when there should not be any engineering going on.

 

Route learning maybe?

 

 

Kev.

[4630]

I wonder if that routing is to turn the set around?

Even so, Why go via Ashburys instead of Ashton?

 

(Possibly engineering work, I guess?)

 

 

Kev.

 

 

I would suspect that your first suggestion is the most likely and also ensures that a potential, but unusual diversion route, gets tested.

 

I guess that they will need to test the Class 68/Nova 3 combo in both directions in push/pull modes across the intended route.  Sending 3Q98 that way ensures that the combo gets turned for the outward journey and 3Q99 re-orientates it on the return.

Edited January 26, 2019 by 4630

[newbryford]

Does it actually turn the set around?

 

Say the loco leads from International towards Piccadilly then Ordsall curve to Vic and drags through to Scarborough.

The return has the driving cab leading and it returns to International via Vic/Ordsall/Pic without any mid journey reversal........

 

Or have I missed something?

 

(Noted that the original working did a reversal at Piccadilly, so that may support the test with driving cab and loco in both directions over the core route)

 

Cheers,

Mick

Edited January 26, 2019 by newbryford

[stock_2007]

No matter how much I look at it the driving car it still looks as if there is a bit missing, why will it need buffers?

Edited January 27, 2019 by stock_2007

[Ken.W]

And here is 3Q99, 07.55 Scarborough to Manchester International Depot, at Colne Bridge on the approach to Huddersfield - 68028 'Lord President' with Nova 3 set 01.

 

68028+Nova 3 set 01 3Q99 Colne Bridge 25012019 6 - RMweb.jpg

 

Looks a bit over-weight for that bridge

 

[Ken.W]

No matter how much I look at it the driving car it still looks as if there is a bit missing, why will it need buffers?

 

Looks as though the bufferbeam's just been stuck on as an after-thought

 

And, it's a loco worked set, so a failure with the driving car's controls or TDM (or whatever the MW system is) would mean the loco (which also has buffers) being run-round onto that end

(The same happens with 91s and Mk4s)

Edited January 27, 2019 by Ken.W

[russ p]

But was told by a TPE driver they aren't to uncouple !

[jim.snowdon]

Looks as though the bufferbeam's just been stuck on as an after-thought

 

And, it's a loco worked set, so a failure with the driving car's controls or TDM (or whatever the MW system is) would mean the loco (which also has buffers) being run-round onto that end

(The same happens with 91s and Mk4s)

Even Gresley's design team made a better job of combining drawgear with a streamlined front end.

 

And as for running round, assuming that a shunter could be found, much of Britain's railway network is no longer configured for locomotives to be run round trains on a regular basis. Hence, the extent to which top and tailing engineering and other trains has become normal. Freight trains escape only by virtue of running from depot to depot where the facilities exist.

 

Jim

[Wild Boar Fell]

Re the Driving Trailer's drawgear, I seem to remember the initial plan for the introduction of the Nova 3s was to have the Mk5a top and tailed with 68s until the Driving Trailers were fully commissioned. Quite possibly it may be a legacy of that? 

[25901]

New stock cant come to quickly. On Friday the 185 I was on from Manchester to Newcastle had no toilets and had to run late due to toilet breaks being given to the cattle (sorry, passengers) at Huddersfield. Was told by a mate who drives from TPe the the two trains before it only had one toilet working

[phil-b259]

But was told by a TPE driver they aren't to uncouple !

 

This may be true - but once the trains are in service, if things go wrong it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out TPE control can authorise the procedure on a case by case basis.

[newbryford]

Re uncoupling or not. If there's a loco failure, then having buffers means that the stock can be rescued from either end with another loco.

 

Having buffers at one end and something else at the other must be a logistical nightmare.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[russ p]

This may be true - but once the trains are in service, if things go wrong it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out TPE control can authorise the procedure on a case by case basis.

Not if they aren't trained you can't, and if they have done it in the past they are no longer competent!

Things like this really wind me up, never mind boil in the bag drivers. This is bloody microwaved management!

Edited January 27, 2019 by russ p

[SHMD]

"TPE control" is hated by passengers.

 

 

Kev.

[big jim]

Not if they aren't trained you can't, and if they have done it in the past they are no longer competent!

Things like this really wind me up, never mind boil in the bag drivers. This is bloody microwaved management!

Totally agree russ but it’s not ‘boil in the bag’ that winds me up it’s lazy drivers, I had it at chiltern, we were trained to couple and uncouple 67s from MK3s (by Marcus37 as it happens) and I had to do it once to get a loco for fuel in Tyseley, leaving the stock in moor st

 

next day the aslef rep phoned me to say I shouldn’t have done it ‘as i’d Set a president, so everyone would be expected to do it’ after a number of drivers heard what I’d done and complained!

 

when I pointed out we were fully trained to do it and certified on paper he didn’t know what to say other than ‘well I’m not going to do it if they ask me’