Mark 5, By Accurascale

[96701]

It would be nice to see them on the Swansea to Manchesters. 

[adb968008]

13 hours ago, St. Simon said:

Hi,

 

Lets keep the prototype to the relevant threads and keep this about the models?

 

Simon

 

The outcome of the real thing affects interest in the model.

 

or put differently, why keep the thread open at all, the model has been and gone, and by the looks of it so are the real things.

 

I find it harmless, and invigorates interest in the model.

 

As for the future of the mk5’s, these kind of things tend to be shunted off to the extremeties *, my guess is an OA operator, which means several liveries and more model potential, perhaps coupled to class 93’s ?

 

 

* last example was the class 180’s.
 

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by adb968008

[nightstar.train]

14 hours ago, JohnC said:

Wonder if we could see them replace the Scotrail Inter7city HST sets??

 

Very unlikely I think. There are only 13 TPE Mk5 sets, and Scotrail have 26 HST sets. A more likely replacement would be the East Midlands Trains class 222s. There are 27 of those. Or a new build fleet. Scotrail are looking to procure new trains to gradually replace all their pure diesel trains (starting with the 156s), so the HSTs will be on the plan somewhere. 

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, nightstar.train said:

 

Very unlikely I think. There are only 13 TPE Mk5 sets, and Scotrail have 26 HST sets. A more likely replacement would be the East Midlands Trains class 222s. There are 27 of those. Or a new build fleet. Scotrail are looking to procure new trains to gradually replace all their pure diesel trains (starting with the 156s), so the HSTs will be on the plan somewhere. 

That is a shame - not that I want to see the back of the HST sets as still most comfortable for travel!

[scottrains29]

Perhaps CrossCountry could use them once they withdraw their HSTs. I think their franchise is up for renewal in a month or two so it could be part of the next agreement.

 

Anyway, I'm sure Accurascale will produce them in whatever livery they end up in. They could also produce some in 'what if' liveries like what Rapido did with their apt-e.

[McC]

3 minutes ago, scottrains29 said:

Perhaps CrossCountry could use them once they withdraw their HSTs. I think their franchise is up for renewal in a month or two so it could be part of the next agreement.

 

Anyway, I'm sure Accurascale will produce them in whatever livery they end up in. They could also produce some in 'what if' liveries like what Rapido did with their apt-e.

 

We don't do 'what if' but we've never made a model yet we have not or will not repeat :) 

[Bucoops]

Please can someone point me towards information on TPE withdrawing these? My Google-Fu has failed!

 

Thank you :)

[4630]

17 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

Please can someone point me towards information on TPE withdrawing these? My Google-Fu has failed!

 

Thank you :)

The information on TPE withdrawing the class 68s and Mk5A sets is coming from a video address that the TPE Interim Managing Director gave to staff last Friday.

 

It’s too early for this to have been picked up in the various print magazines yet, although I would guess that various online versions of the magazines will report the details over the next couple of days.
 

The substance of the MDs address was quoted on a couple of online forums last Friday. 

[The Black Hat]

On 28/08/2023 at 08:55, adb968008 said:

 

The outcome of the real thing affects interest in the model.

 

or put differently, why keep the thread open at all, the model has been and gone, and by the looks of it so are the real things.

 

I find it harmless, and invigorates interest in the model.

 

As for the future of the mk5’s, these kind of things tend to be shunted off to the extremeties *, my guess is an OA operator, which means several liveries and more model potential, perhaps coupled to class 93’s ?

 

 

* last example was the class 180’s.
 

 

 

Yes the educated guessing / speculation is harmless and it does offer up the chance for more what if's even if these are done personally... rather than Accurascale doing some. I would think that there are likely to be four options:

1. Sets are going to be parked up and the ROSCO either will really investigate what is happening with the stock to fault find, fix and then offer reliably into traffic after lots of ECS testing

2. Sets get parked up, left and wait till an operator is interested - before being tweaked and put into traffic and worked on during introduction

3. Sets are exported abroad and become someone elses problem that they then fix to some extent.

4. No one wants them and they are scrapped. 

 

Given the value they have and that they could be made to work (as the Sleeper stock has shown) I think there is the possibility of them finding a role in the UK. People moan about the class 68 but half the time thats any engine sat there with ETH working when at idle. 67s do the same, sitting in something like notch 4 ticking over, they are just not as loud. People are jumping quickly on the idea of class 93 being the saviour of the problem and while that might be an option, the diesel plant might not be strong enough for fantastic performance away from the wires. 

It could be interesting to see where they go and the next franchises might offer up a plan for them. On some routes they could be really useful but hopefully this does not kill off the idea of locomotive haulage and DVT option in the future as I have a feeling it will... 

[E100]

We should probably get a new thread started for this but for now my thoughts are:

1. To my mind they would be superb stock for the West Highland Line. There's enough sets to displace the class 156's. Plenty of room but not too long. Adds some first class that would be well used. Already run on a mk5 route and Scotrail have form with the class 68's from fife circle days. good amount of luggage space etc.
2. I think Scotrail could also be interested from the perspective of any routes with partial electrification and a class 93/99 haulage.
3. Great option for TfW to remove the mk4's depending on how wedded they are to dining option. Again it would retain the first class and increase capacity with a 'useable' DVT. The issues with training though are significant for TfW but I wouldn't be surprised. Doubly so if the ROSCO offer them at a reduced price.

I think to my mind these are most likely as they are outside of the DfT and I can't think of a better place in England for the Mk5's to be than on the TPE route for which they designed - shocking I know! I'd be surprised to see these exported or scrapped.

 

PS. A total curveball is to use a Stadler power pack type design and couple two of these together APT style with a mk5 set either side 🤣

[The Black Hat]

13 minutes ago, E100 said:

We should probably get a new thread started for this but for now my thoughts are:

1. To my mind they would be superb stock for the West Highland Line. There's enough sets to displace the class 156's. Plenty of room but not too long. Adds some first class that would be well used. Already run on a mk5 route and Scotrail have form with the class 68's from fife circle days. good amount of luggage space etc.
2. I think Scotrail could also be interested from the perspective of any routes with partial electrification and a class 93/99 haulage.
3. Great option for TfW to remove the mk4's depending on how wedded they are to dining option. Again it would retain the first class and increase capacity with a 'useable' DVT. The issues with training though are significant for TfW but I wouldn't be surprised. Doubly so if the ROSCO offer them at a reduced price.

I think to my mind these are most likely as they are outside of the DfT and I can't think of a better place in England for the Mk5's to be than on the TPE route for which they designed - shocking I know! I'd be surprised to see these exported or scrapped.

 

PS. A total curveball is to use a Stadler power pack type design and couple two of these together APT style with a mk5 set either side 🤣

Cant see the WHL being used as you cant split for the Oban / Fort William portion to then go on same train. Also there isnt enough sets to replace the HST duties so cant see that being an option. I think TfW are liking the class 67/Mk.4 combo and why spend more on stock when your plan is coming to fruition. 

I can see a few lines in England being good for them. FGW for services in the south west, as done by the current HST GTi fleet or for Liverpool - Norwich services, Northern's York to Blackpool, Cross Country for Nottingham to Gloucester/Birmingham to Cambridge and other 170 routes... 

Just will people put in the time and effort to fix them. I can't help think that a franchise with FOUR sets of traction that TPE had wasnt helpful and that something had to give. So more IEP and retain 185 so that it goes down to 3. That means though that Mk. 5 should be fix-able if you now have the time and scope to investigate properly and get them working free of the need to learn or fix another 3 fleets as well. 

[woodenhead]

3 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

Cant see the WHL being used as you cant split for the Oban / Fort William portion to then go on same train. Also there isnt enough sets to replace the HST duties so cant see that being an option. I think TfW are liking the class 67/Mk.4 combo and why spend more on stock when your plan is coming to fruition. 

I can see a few lines in England being good for them. FGW for services in the south west, as done by the current HST GTi fleet or for Liverpool - Norwich services, Northern's York to Blackpool, Cross Country for Nottingham to Gloucester/Birmingham to Cambridge and other 170 routes... 
 

Can't seem them being used in England to replace existing unit based trains, whilst Norwich to Liverpool looks good on paper, really outside of the Liverpool to Nottingham element (and mainly Liverpool to Sheffield) how busy are these trains to justify a more expensive form of traction?

 

Cross Country are probably due to refresh traction, most likely with IEP but if the DFT want to avoid spend then ex EMT 222s, why through in another complicated solution.  Northern are beginning a procurement for new trains to replace the aging ex BR units, they won't want any loco haul non standard trains I would imagine.  But above all, the DFT have found an out for the Mk5s, why would they simply put them onto another TOC and leave themselves with the issue of making them good. 

 

So that leaves Wales and Scotland, at least Scotland has experience of the Mk5 coach - that could go for or against them getting more of them.  Wales have enough to focus on with the work around Cardiff to introduce the tramtrains and it is just getting it's 197s into service, I can't imagine them wanting problem stock to fix and introduce unless they really need some additional capacity.

[The Black Hat]

7 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Cross Country are probably due to refresh traction, most likely with IEP but if the DFT want to avoid spend then ex EMT 222s, why through in another complicated solution.  Northern are beginning a procurement for new trains to replace the aging ex BR units, they won't want any loco haul non standard trains I would imagine.  But above all, the DFT have found an out for the Mk5s, why would they simply put them onto another TOC and leave themselves with the issue of making them good. 

 

Because the DFT is following the lead of the Treasury. There is new stock that can be made to work, which is a cost saving rather than buying in new stock and having this sat empty. How many times has DaFT specified traction that was unsuitable - 180s from FGW to MML, mixing the EMU electric fleets, getting behind the stupid 230 idea, dumping HST from XC only to bring them back... 

If there is new stock that can be available and that can improve an area then I expect they will find a role for this fleet and then sell it as an improvement to service and investment, when instead they are keeping the stuff they have already paid for. Cue the stuff being sent to marginal seats, like the South West and being a PR spin before an election... 

Anyway, at least this means its likely they will find a home and then Accurascale can make more models. Failing that they can always make what-ifs after all and showcase the DFT what they could have...  

[woodenhead]

@The Black Hat If the DFT hand them back to the ROSCO it costs them nothing more, if they retain them then there is a lease to pay.  They would only keep them if they had no option, if they have a get out clause then they've activated it.

 

The DFT don't own the Mk5s, so giving them back makes the problem of re-using them the ROSCO's.

 

At the moment the focus of the DFT is to spend less - reducing staffing, altering maintenance regimes and getting rid of any stock that isn't fully utilised.  A Mk5 set isn't just a lease of stock it is also the cost of the class 68, if the DFT has enough stock for the services it wants to run then why toss in a complicated loco set when it has units aplenty which are more flexible and cause less headaches.

Edited August 30, 2023 by woodenhead

[TomScrut]

44 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

Also there isnt enough sets to replace the HST duties so cant see that being an option

 

That said, supplementing them might not be a bad idea; I went from Perth to Inverness yesterday on a rammed 170 and I'd much rather it had been a 68/mk5 set! Came back on a HST which was worlds ahead of the 170 in terms of comfort and noise.

 

To add; I aren't sure if all Edinburgh/Glasgow - Inverness services are meant to be HSTs, but it's a fair schlep on a commuter DMU.

Edited August 30, 2023 by TomScrut

[E100]

19 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

That said, supplementing them might not be a bad idea; I went from Perth to Inverness yesterday on a rammed 170 and I'd much rather it had been a 68/mk5 set! Came back on a HST which was worlds ahead of the 170 in terms of comfort and noise.

 

To add; I aren't sure if all Edinburgh/Glasgow - Inverness services are meant to be HSTs, but it's a fair schlep on a commuter DMU.

 

Completely agree having been on far too many class 170's packed to the gunnels (sometimes standing) between Inverness and Edinburgh. I've also read that they are deteriorating at a faster pace than was first anticipated so won't be as love lived a stop gap as first hoped.

 

That being said I completely understand that the 68 + mk5's is contractually much less efficient that an DMU and only a modest sized fleet. This is why I suggest the WHL as a possibility where it could be effectively a captive enterprise. I believe only a couple of services are now split (though I would be sad to see that go) and I do suspect a new timetable could be foreseen in the next 5 years to bolster this increasingly popular route.

[woodenhead]

25 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

 

That said, supplementing them might not be a bad idea; I went from Perth to Inverness yesterday on a rammed 170 and I'd much rather it had been a 68/mk5 set! Came back on a HST which was worlds ahead of the 170 in terms of comfort and noise.

 

To add; I aren't sure if all Edinburgh/Glasgow - Inverness services are meant to be HSTs, but it's a fair schlep on a commuter DMU.

The HSTs are going to need to be replaced soon so Scotrail/Holyrood will have to be considering their options, they do intend to replace pure diesels with more effective solutions, they expect to begin procurement of the HST replacements in 2025/26 (not the delivery date) so maybe in the short term the Mk5s could offer something, just depends of Holyrood has the appetite for more CAF Mk5s.

 

https://www.publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=AUG455691

[The Black Hat]

4 hours ago, woodenhead said:

@The Black Hat If the DFT hand them back to the ROSCO it costs them nothing more, if they retain them then there is a lease to pay.  They would only keep them if they had no option, if they have a get out clause then they've activated it.

 

The DFT don't own the Mk5s, so giving them back makes the problem of re-using them the ROSCO's.

 

At the moment the focus of the DFT is to spend less - reducing staffing, altering maintenance regimes and getting rid of any stock that isn't fully utilised.  A Mk5 set isn't just a lease of stock it is also the cost of the class 68, if the DFT has enough stock for the services it wants to run then why toss in a complicated loco set when it has units aplenty which are more flexible and cause less headaches.

No the DFT dont own the Mk. 5 but they will be funding future franchises and if that means that they have to fund the hire leasing charges of buying in new stock when there is stock already built and available at a lower rate because its seemed the stock is not wanted to lease price lowers, then DFT will be likely to be going for it and the engine if its still cheaper than extra new stock. Question is can you then find and operation and a franchise to specify them for - which the DFT will do - so that the operators know what it is they are using and where when pitching for the franchise. 
 

[Roy Langridge]

8 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

No the DFT dont own the Mk. 5 but they will be funding future franchises and if that means that they have to fund the hire leasing charges of buying in new stock when there is stock already built and available at a lower rate because its seemed the stock is not wanted to lease price lowers, then DFT will be likely to be going for it and the engine if its still cheaper than extra new stock. Question is can you then find and operation and a franchise to specify them for - which the DFT will do - so that the operators know what it is they are using and where when pitching for the franchise. 
 

 

Indeed although franchises as we knew them are dead and won't be re-let. The DfT will be even more specific in what it wants, and don't forget a whole swathe of our railways are run by teh government through the Operator of Last Resort.

Roy

[woodenhead]

2 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

Indeed although franchises as we knew them are dead and won't be re-let. The DfT will be even more specific in what it wants, and don't forget a whole swathe of our railways are run by teh government through the Operator of Last Resort.

Roy

And Northern are currently preparing to invite people to make early noises about replacing the remaining BR Era stock it has - that will be a big order likely to also benefit other TOCs using 150s, 156s and 158s and won't be coaching stock and a loco.

 

The DFT is not interested in loco hauled trains, if it was there would not be an IEP....

[nightstar.train]

5 hours ago, The Black Hat said:

Cue the stuff being sent to marginal seats, like the South West and being a PR spin before an election... 

 

I'd love a set in GWR green, think that would look fantastic. 

[TomScrut]

41 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

DFT is not interested in loco hauled trains, if it was there would not be an IEP....

 

And to be honest, from a practicality perspective I can see their point.

 

The mk5s and 68s probably weren't an ideal choice for TPE, more an easy option in a limited list.

[Sir TophamHatt]

While Grand Central have just signed up to Voyagers, I wonder whether they would have been more interested in these sets.

 

Perhaps 14 is quite a few too many to take on though.

 

This is the issue when you have micro fleets.  No home for them.

[TTDB]

Someone mentioned export,,,,,maybe Ireland or the mk2 fleet in New Zealand is now aged although heavily rebuilt over the years,

 

personally I think Milford~Manchester is a good option with 67’s my better half has made several  Journeys on the service from Manchester to Carmarthen very recently sometimes its a 150 sometimes on a pair of 153 These units cannot keep to the schedule Okay we have done well on refunds due to late running sometimes over an hour late and terminated at Crewe  but the mark 5 and loco would be quite good also the passenger loadings are often standing only even when a unit 175

Edited August 31, 2023 by TTDB

[vanbasher]

It's an incredible shame that such modern & New rolling stock is facing the chop after only 4 years service! There's an awful lot of what it's, why's & where's to the future of the Mk5's. Personally, I would imagine that given their short use/life with TPE that they ate still under some sort of warranty with CAF. So upon withdrawal, I imagine the stocks most likely destination will be back to Spain to allow CAF to do what they want with them. 

 

I cannot realistically see any other UK TOC taking them on, TFW would be ideal however, given the money spent on getting the MK4's to work correctly with the 67's all the driver & crew training etc they are extremely unlikely to spend more money training staff again & if 67's are to continue being used they will need modifications to work with mk5's just as the 68's did.

 

Cross Country is a no go, I work for them & the only thing we are doing is withdrawing 7 coach HSTs in favour of 4 or 5 coach Voyagers! Our Voyagers are so run down internally but there's no sign of any investment to get them overhauled either so taking on more expensive LHCS is in my opinion never going to happen.

 

It'll be very interesting to see what happens next with the CAF stock & I'm sorry to see them go after such a short time, but I'll be forever thankful to Accurascale for modelling them to perfection.