TPEX Class 68 & Mk5 Nova 3 fleet to be withdrawnDec 2023

[Steadfast]

30 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

AIUI, the MK5s use the Stadler MU system so can connect with 68/88/93

It's just the standard UIC multiple working system isn't it? The name escapes me at the moment, but locos all over the continent have the two connectors, usually just under the windscreen, and also present on coaching stock ends.

 

Jo

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Which is why BR worked - it was Government funded but between the Governement and the operation was a board of seasoned railway people who understood how to operate it efficiently for a given budget, as BR they'd had 50 years practice.

In some respects yes.  But the other thing was that the Depy t Of Transport ledft it to BR to run teh railway (most of the time - there were occasional exceptions) Note *.  this professionals were in charge.  And most importantly the professionals were tough enough to tell the Civil Servants to keep their noses out although in fact that wasn't necessary with the handful of people then in the Dept who dealt with the railway and had no wish to play trains.

 

The same applied in the operating company I worked for.  We were taken out of BR and turned ina GoCo (Govt Company) in 1994 as preparation for selling off.  We remained until sell off 100% under the control of someone (yes, literally one person) in the Dept of Transport and our MD met him regularly.  But there was no interference at all in the detail of running the company or in fiddling with (aka 'reviewing and revising) any part of our operation or imposing on us what would amount to 'managerial decisions';  the job was left to the professionals.

 

Note *. On on eoccasion it was decided that certain staff needed to finally b ecracked down on to do the job they were paid to do.  As they were my staff I was deputed to interview each of them as they booked on duty and ask them if they would be iundertaking a particy u;lar part of their job.  If the said they wouldn't then I refused to let them book on and sent them home.  Ot was fully understood that with me doing that the inevtable result would be an unofficial strike and that had been cleared right up to ministerial level before I started on the task I had been given.  The strike duly ensued and everybody stood firm against giving in to it - until the weak knee'd politicos  got worried and gave in and ordered us to give in (despite the fact that most trains were still running and some of the strikers were drifting back to work and doing their full job).   And that was a Govt that kept on talking about 'regaining control' and in this case the union were consistently condemning the unofficial action.

 

Back to Mk 5 s and 68s

[Covkid]

1 hour ago, Steadfast said:

It's just the standard UIC multiple working system isn't it? The name escapes me at the moment, but locos all over the continent have the two connectors, usually just under the windscreen, and also present on coaching stock ends.

 

Jo

 

Think the numbers are 558 but cannot remember the letters !!  Something like FM558

[ruggedpeak]

9 minutes ago, Covkid said:

 

Think the numbers are 558 but cannot remember the letters !!  Something like FM558

One of these? https://www.era-contact.com/en/products-solutions/uic-connectors/uic-558

 

Definitely have no idea what I'm talkng about but I think that is connector, but not the software?

[Steadfast]

1 hour ago, Covkid said:

 

Think the numbers are 558 but cannot remember the letters !!  Something like FM558

Pass! Looks about right on the link from @ruggedpeakthough. I've got Wire Train Bus in the back of my head, but can't remember if that's this or another system.

 

Jo

[hmrspaul]

6 hours ago, coronach said:

The Mark 5 vehicle CAF product is clearly flawed - a lightweight design built down to a competitive price which has resulted in structural issues and poor riding quality compared with contemporary vehicles from other suppliers.
 

It may be the case that the use of lightweight bogies combined with a stiff suspension to minimise track forces and accommodate the UK loading gauge simply transfers stress and vibration into the body shell resulting in excessive vibration and forces that cause cracking. I understand that all CAF vehicles are experiencing similar issues. 
 

The integrity of a train should be considered in the context of the infrastructure that it operates on- if the vehicle is designed without a good understanding of this then it is not surprising that things go wrong. Similarly with the Hitachi vehicles, the implications of a novel aluminium design combined with a 26m vehicle length might not have been appreciated. Of course, suppliers will supply what has been asked for. BR engineers had a better understanding of these things through research. Of course they were replaced by consultancies with a profit motive 

 

I don't know about how they are constructed but accepting they are aluminium then there is a long history of it not being suitable for rail vehicles. The most recent inappropriate use I can recollect is the 36 Yeoman PHA which looked very smart but had a life of only 5 -6 years, 1984 - 1989. https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/yeomanalumpha

 

And to the comments about 67s being noisier than 68s, really. As has been said, when one is parked in the bay at York station you cannot hear yourself think in The Tap as no one seems willing to switch them off (I understand there are operational reasons for this). And when accelerates across the Scarborough bridge at the end of York station it can be heard on Water End road bridge. OK fine for a 1960s Deltic but a modern locomotive shouldn't have this problem. 

 

Paul   https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/tpemk5

Edited September 3, 2023 by hmrspaul

[adb968008]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I can't help wondering where all this vegetable oil is going to come from?   Seems to be in the same sort of fantasy land as all the green electricity (apparently available even when the wind doesn't blow) and massively strengthened distribution network which is (according to Mr Shapps) going to do everything for us from charging our cars to working air source heat pumps, cooking our meals, and lighting our homes in every house in the land at the same time.

 

PS   A field used for many years for growing rape (a source of vegetable oil) a few miles from us has recently become a major building site for a 'village' for old people.  So that's one less source of Class 68 fuel -   and while an existing development for old people still has unsold properties 5 years after they first went on sale.

The source doesnt neccessarily imply its UK grown.

A lot of EU farmers are paid to grow nothing, and theres a lot of fallow land.

A change to veg oil isnt hard.

 

 

[black and decker boy]

44 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

The source doesnt neccessarily imply its UK grown.

A lot of EU farmers are paid to grow nothing, and theres a lot of fallow land.

A change to veg oil isnt hard.

 

 

I don’t think it matters how much veg oil  U.K.  fast food restaurants use / recycle, pretty sure there isn’t currently a U.K. based refinery making HVO (Welsh farmers cooking up a few barrels a week don’t count) . There are other “green” fuels made from recycled mineral oils and I think there is a refinery on Humber side (or coming online soon) 

 

The wider concern with HVO is that to satisfy demand, the less scrupulous will use virgin oil such as Palm Oil rather than used oil and this could lead to further deforestation or replace food crop as the new cash crop.

[Leicester Thumper]

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I think you have misidentifies what is 'endemically broken' in aiming that comment at the railway industry.   While I would agree that in certain parts of it there seems to be a considerable disconnect from understanding what the railway is for that does not amount to 'endemically broken'

 

Perhaps I have, but when you work in an industry that's trying to cut your job, you kind of feel the overall picture is endemically broken.... 

 

Quote

What is clearly 'endemically broken' (assuming that it was ever anything otherwise?) is the deep involvement and ignorance of DafT making decisions - when it does make some and they often go in the face of reality. They have repeatedly shown their inability (or lack of interest?) in conducting the franchising process in an intelligent manner (TPE is a good example of that and DafT's 'decisions' lie at the root of some of its training problems; SWR is another serious example of banal stupidity in service and detail specification when the franchise was  last put out to tender; and ECML shows a continuous misunderstanding of costs against achievability in the awarding of a franchise).

 

I resonate well with this. I think you hit the nail on the head whereby I failed. The ECML at this point is an enigma of misunderstanding and financial failing. I don't know what it is about that line, it just like to eat franchises! I digress....

 

Quote

Alas I fear - as do many other retired senior railway managers - that this will only get much worse when Grant Shapps G for 'Gor -blimey British Railways' finally rears its ugly head very much under DafT control.  The Civil Service is notorious for not letting go of anything it has got its fingers into.  Easy to identify where most of the problem lies but difficult to fix it in view of where it lies.

 

Yes, and as a current frontline staff member I can say your fears are fairly founded. I know many of the "Old School", whether management or frontline, and the general gist seems to be the same as your outlook. 

 

Originally there was some hope among my colleagues that the GBR plan might be a breath of fresh air, that GBR might be the posterial kick to get things running in order and be better for the workers. Ha... yeah perhaps not! I agree, soon as the civil service is involved it starts going downhill, that being very prevalent for my colleagues and I, considering the ongoing proposals. 

 

Back to 68s etc etc been on lates, so only just had the time to respond to Mike.

 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Leicester Thumper

[jjb1970]

On biofuels, I think Europe blundered spectacularly with some of its policies to incentivize them. Biofuels may have a lower GHG intensity than fossil oil, it may be quite marginal and in some cases it is worse. Given that there have been mature and accepted methodologies to calculate lifecycle GHG intensity for a while now it's odd that they continue to be quite blunt in how they deal with biofuels. Whilst less of a scam than offsetting I think we'll look back and ask some searching questions about regulatory approaches to biofuels.

 

On aluminium, while I prefer steel on account of ease of working and fatigue properties there's no reason aluminium can't be used to make excellent vehicles. Aerospace relies on aluminium alloys and if properly used it allows structures to be both extremely strong and lightweight.

 

 

 

[black and decker boy]

I think reference to Aluminium is a red herring.

 

all Turbos, Electrostars, Aventra units are aluminium shells - that is a lot of units 

 

CAF got some detail wrong around brackets and that’s caused cracking on the 19x family, 397s and and MK5s. new brackets & attachments have been implemented.

 

Captain Deltic has written a lot in Modern Railways about the difference in philosophy between U.K. and EU. U.K. under BR invested heavily in bogie technology to overcome rough track. EU invest in good track and rely less in bogies. Through EU wide acceptance rules, we now have inferior EU bogies running on our inferior U.K. track. Our track does seem to be getting worse though as even BR built units (with sprinter type bogies) are lurching and banging around alot more than ever before.
 

[jjb1970]

I find a few modern trains have a dreadful ride quality on French and Belgian rails too. And German rails don't seem to be as smooth as they once were. The newer Velaro Eurostar trains have a worse ride quality on all three networks I find (and feel a lot less well put together in general).

[Mike_Walker]

12 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

I think reference to Aluminium is a red herring.

 

all Turbos, Electrostars, Aventra units are aluminium shells - that is a lot of units 

 

CAF got some detail wrong around brackets and that’s caused cracking on the 19x family, 397s and and MK5s. new brackets & attachments have been implemented.

 

Captain Deltic has written a lot in Modern Railways about the difference in philosophy between U.K. and EU. U.K. under BR invested heavily in bogie technology to overcome rough track. EU invest in good track and rely less in bogies. Through EU wide acceptance rules, we now have inferior EU bogies running on our inferior U.K. track. Our track does seem to be getting worse though as even BR built units (with sprinter type bogies) are lurching and banging around alot more than ever before.
 

Correct.  It's not the use of aluminium that's the problem it's issues surrounding the design which is compounded in the case of the IETs by the use of an inappropriate grade of material - there is aluminium and aluminium, not all grades are suitable for all uses.

[Wheatley]

22 hours ago, Gatesheadgeek said:

I think part of the problem may be that NR have certain permitted development rights on their network that mean that they don’t have to consider things that normal planning applications would, such as noise. It doesn’t force them to consider what are fairly obvious issues. The money spent on the Scarborough stabling point is pretty much wasted now.  Am still surprised that no one thought about noise nuisance though. Maybe they did and assumed they could get away with it.  

 

13 hours ago, hmrspaul said:

 

And to the comments about 67s being noisier than 68s, really. 

 

Bear in mind please that I was a workplace noise assessor, not an environmental one, and its been a few years since I've done even that, so I may be talking partially out of my hat. 

 

Section 122 of the Railways Act 1993 gives the railway a defence from noise complaints but it is not an unqualified defence. 

 

Railtrack were given a brief scare in the 1990s when noise complaints from residents in Dringhouses (York) nearly resulted in the ECML being closed overnight. Dringhouses Yard had been closed and built on, but the complaints were not from the new houses. What had apparently happened was that the remediation and  building work had resulted in vibrations (not noise per se) from trains being transmitted to the older houses along Tadcaster Rd which had never been bothered by noise or vibration before. The problem was traced to diagonally braked HAAs running at certain speeds and the problem was mitigated. 

 

The 1990 Environmental Protection Act made noise an absolute nuisance with very limited defence. The Dringhouses issue and others involving train horns at crossings led to s.122 of the 1993 Act being amended (eventually) to avoid local council Environmental Protection Officers being able to bring the national network to a halt because Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells had bought a new house and failed to notice the railway line at the bottom of the garden. In effect the railway now has a statutory right to be a nuisance, but only so far as is operationally necessary. 

 

The issue with the 68s is not so much the absolute volume (sound pressure level) but the frequency. The 68 noise is at a much lower frequency -  they really rattle your diaphragm and you feel them through your boots. As Paul says, I know when there's one idling in P2 at York before my train has even stopped in P8. Its a completely different problem to a Paxman Valetta making your ears bleed as it screams out of the trainshed. 

 

The noise complaints in Scarborough were not just from Seamer Road, alongside the line (and where noise barriers were in place and most if the neighbours are retail units), they were from across the valley in Weaponess where the low bass rumble could be heard and felt a mile and more away. 

[hmrspaul]

13 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

 

The issue with the 68s is not so much the absolute volume (sound pressure level) but the frequency. The 68 noise is at a much lower frequency -  they really rattle your diaphragm and you feel them through your boots. As Paul says, I know when there's one idling in P2 at York before my train has even stopped in P8. Its a completely different problem to a Paxman Valetta making your ears bleed as it screams out of the trainshed. 

 

The noise complaints in Scarborough were not just from Seamer Road, alongside the line (and where noise barriers were in place and most if the neighbours are retail units), they were from across the valley in Weaponess where the low bass rumble could be heard and felt a mile and more away. 

Thank you. I live south of York station in the St. Paul's area (developed by the NER). Most of the time I hear nothing of the railway, but I notice when the 68s go south - and also steam locos are clearly to be heard. Even the 66s etc. which have a standing start on the York Avoider with 2 K or more tons behind them aren't usually noticed. I have been roundly criticised for criticising the apparently lovely noise a 68 makes. I just find it dreadful in the 2020s a loco is allowed to be so noisy - even if it is perception because of the frequency of the noise. The Valetta and Deltics have gone and I just think the diesel noise enthusiasts should get over it. It is like petrol heads going on about the noise some major sports car makes. Of course wind direction and strength alters what is heard at distance - we occasionally hear the station announcements. 

 

Paul

[admiles]

32 minutes ago, hmrspaul said:

Thank you. I live south of York station in the St. Paul's area (developed by the NER). Most of the time I hear nothing of the railway, but I notice when the 68s go south - and also steam locos are clearly to be heard. Even the 66s etc. which have a standing start on the York Avoider with 2 K or more tons behind them aren't usually noticed. I have been roundly criticised for criticising the apparently lovely noise a 68 makes. I just find it dreadful in the 2020s a loco is allowed to be so noisy - even if it is perception because of the frequency of the noise. The Valetta and Deltics have gone and I just think the diesel noise enthusiasts should get over it. It is like petrol heads going on about the noise some major sports car makes. Of course wind direction and strength alters what is heard at distance - we occasionally hear the station announcements. 

 

Paul

 

Just a hunch but I suspect part of the problem with the 68s is the lack of space (smaller UK loading gauge) for a decent sized silencer.  Most things built for the UK rail market are a compromise in that respect.

[woodenhead]

@hmrspaul I must admit whilst a 68 sounds very good it did strike me as odd that they would be allowed a diesel so noisy these days.

 

Are class 70s louder or quieter (not that I expect to see them operating LHCS services anytime soon)

[Guest]

I think this issue goes back to the Class 68's own inception, I remember, prior to their construction, the whole debate and criticism from certain quarters over why DRS should be ordering such a loco. The objections were of course with some simply being upset over the prospect of them replacing classic traction such as the 20s, 37s, 47s, etc. But also on the flip-side, it was argued that despite their ultra-modern appearance and tech, the fact of them being specified and promoted as a "mixed-traffic" design, would make them an anachronism where our modern railway is concerned. Whether that latter part can be considered true or not is still debatable but even back in the late-1960s, BR itself (for a variety of reasons) had decided to move away from the mixed-traffic concept (at least where diesel traction was concerned) and towards bespoke designs, with what we came to all know and love as the HST, when it came to passenger, and the Class 56, etc. when it came to heavy freight (though it can be argued that we could have done better in that latter department, but I digress.).

 

Could the Class 68 in many respects be the modern equivalent to the ill-fated "HS4000/Kestrel" design?

 

Anyway on the subject of TPE itself here, if were my way then my ideal train for their longer distance services would have been a 4-car Class 170 and retaining the 350s for electrified services. Just my two-pence!

Edited September 14, 2023 by Guest

[Reorte]

A guess here but considering how few passenger locos are required on the railway today was a mixed class locomotive simply the only plausible way of getting one useful for passenger trains at all? I sometimes wonder if similar is why things like 37s have survived, too useful for various niches to do away with and those niches are too small to justify developing something new to fill.

[ruggedpeak]

In terms of the 68's themselves although there are issues with noise, fuel consumption etc, and subject to seeing the financial details from DRS(!) I think the concept of a mixed traffic loco was a smart one. Look at the uses they have been put since arrival, they fit well into DRS' business model around mixed traffic and responding to niche demands, as well as reliably hauling nuclear waste.

 

They've worked on the top and tail Greater Anglia Wherry Lines contract, Fife Circle contract, NR trains, DRS' intermodal services, numerous passenger specials etc. Definitely work for a mixed traffic loco that allows DRS to pick up contracts that are more niche.

 

Doesn't explain the Nova 3 concept, but getting the 68's handed back just means DRS need to find more work for them. The leasing company getting the Mk5's back is a bit trickier.

 

Here in Switzerland LHCS still play a big part in the mainline passenger railway, based around the mixed traffic electric Re 460 loco, despite a lot of MU's. The entire Re 460 fleet was transferred to passengers services when SBB Cargo was created, but they and associated coaches are being refurb'd to give them a longer lifespan. Apparently SBB also earn decent money from the advertising liveries put onto the locos.

 

https://www.sbb.ch/en/station-services/during-your-journey/our-trains.html

 

 

[rodent279]

On 03/09/2023 at 19:19, ruggedpeak said:

One of these? https://www.era-contact.com/en/products-solutions/uic-connectors/uic-558

 

Definitely have no idea what I'm talkng about but I think that is connector, but not the software?

In other words, it's a hardware standard, not a software standard. So it's entirely possible to have two trains with identical coupler & MU jumpers that can physically couple, but can't talk to each other to operate in MU, or in some cases, even to brake each other.

 

A bit like the RS232 computer peripheral standard-it is a hardware standard, not a software standard, so just because two devices had RS232 ports did not mean they could always talk to each other.

[AMJ]

There seems to have been quite a lot of small fleets of stock purchased for TOC's that are incompatible/unique compared to others.  When the TOC decides they no longer need it there seems to be such a waste of money whereby many of these are scrapped well before they should be due to do so.  

I heard of instances where the only difference between classes of units were the couplings nearly as bad a us modellers for couplings!

 

Comments from users of CAF products indicate they are Cheap As which is why they break down or are not as comfortable as more expensive products.

 

Perhaps the leasing companies are making money from operators having stock for such short times.

[Mike_Walker]

10 minutes ago, AMJ said:

Perhaps the leasing companies are making money from operators having stock for such short times.

Not really, they are expensive assets which become even more expensive liabilities sitting out of use in sidings.

[adb968008]

On 03/09/2023 at 22:13, black and decker boy said:

I don’t think it matters how much veg oil  U.K.  fast food restaurants use / recycle, pretty sure there isn’t currently a U.K. based refinery making HVO (Welsh farmers cooking up a few barrels a week don’t count) . There are other “green” fuels made from recycled mineral oils and I think there is a refinery on Humber side (or coming online soon) 

 

The wider concern with HVO is that to satisfy demand, the less scrupulous will use virgin oil such as Palm Oil rather than used oil and this could lead to further deforestation or replace food crop as the new cash crop.

Doesnt mean it will be a UK supplier… it could be imported.

[adb968008]

On 06/09/2023 at 16:11, ruggedpeak said:

 

 

Doesn't explain the Nova 3 concept, but getting the 68's handed back just means DRS need to find more work for them. The leasing company getting the Mk5's back is a bit trickier.

 

It probably suits DRSs plans to get the 68’s back..

1. Its one less passenger contract

2. they can “green up” by kicking out 37’s

3. fleet standardisation.

 

its the mk5’s that become the issue.. they join 379’s, Voyagers, 769’s in having no work.

 

i’d imagine they would be a very saleable asset overseas, many countries will not pass up a bargain like these, and loco haulage is quite the norm outside Britain.

 

tbh I could image voyagers also being very saleable outside the UK too, especially Uganda or Nigeria both of which are planning standard gauge renovations and recently saw “big” Chinese money dissappear and need low cost solutions, and offer political influence

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by adb968008