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

[Mike_Walker]

However, Chiltern are only operating two daily diagrams with their 68's/Mk3s plus a single extra one-way trip on weekdays so they certainly don't need the whole Mk5 fleet.

[phil-b259]

7 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Perhaps Beacon rail can use its battery powered class 18’s to drag them out of Marylebone too.. All of them are now hanging around Wolverton growing weeds, whilst the works endorsed their support for them, by hiring another class 09 for shunting.

 

I’m not sure Chiltern will be the destination, class 68’s are political in Marylebone, bringing in more will set the journalists off…

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-11-16/debates/21111658000017/ChilternRailways

 

https://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/article/actress-fears-health-hazard-from-marylebone-diesel-trains
 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/marylebone-station-toxic-train-fuels-government-london-b964118.html

saw some funds being bunged for a trial, which presumably ended when the money ran out and the journalists were looking at other meatier things.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/disappointment-as-chiltern-railways-scraps-hybrid-train-plans-b1105834.html

only way I see this working is doubleheaded 93 and 68 in multi, 93 to get it out of the station using its 10 minute battery, before the 68 takes over… but what a waste of resource that is.

 

175’s maybe the answer, not for the residents, but for GWRs unit shortage and free up some turbostars for GWR and claim “newer” trains are more eco friendly than the Chiltern gas guzzlers, built 1 year earlier than the Regents Park milkionaire jet set are moaning about.

 

personally I think the mk5s would look better in Cornwall myself.

Wasn’t there another tri mode or batter / diesel loco in development (can’t remember who was behind it off the top of my head) which would give a much improved power output under diesel than the 93.

[nightstar.train]

4 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Wasn’t there another tri mode or batter / diesel loco in development (can’t remember who was behind it off the top of my head) which would give a much improved power output under diesel than the 93.

 

There's the class 99 bi-modes under development for GBRf.

 

https://www.modernrailways.com/article/gbrf-orders-30-stadler-class-99-bi-mode-locos

 

They have a much beefier diesel engine. However they're designed as 75mph freight engines, you'd need a redesign for passenger work. At the very least up the speed to 100mph and add ETH. 

[APOLLO]

A good looking new loco - makes a change !!

 

 

Brit15

[simon b]

The mk5 coaches would be a good way for Chiltern to modernise its fleet, I assume there is a solution for the cracking issue they suffer with? The extra driving trailers may just end up being used as spares for the fleet, or could they be stripped and their components used to fit out a few new mk5 coach body shells?

 

I can't see the 68's leaving Chiltern anytime soon, bi mode locos are a good Idea but you need alot of power to drag a train out of Marylebone. There being no easy way to fit OHLE without destroying Lords cricket ground, I doubt the small on board diesel would be up to the job.

 

In the Ideal world Marylebone could be setup for third rail out to Finchley Road, then switch to Diesel or perhaps in time overhead electrification for the onward journey. This setup seems to work quite well in New York's Grand Central Terminal, Siemens having recently supplied new tri mode "Charger" locos to run services.

 

 

 

 

[31A]

They thought it was all over; it is now!

A few pics from a day out with 68030 'Black Douglas" with Set TP06 on its last day with Trans Pennine Express, and indeed the last day of Class 68s and Mk5 coaches with Trans Pennine Express.  Sorry, they're not brilliant photos but the weather wasn't great and it wasn't always easy to travel and also take photos.  It was distinctly noticeable that there was a good turn out of enthusiasts along the route, including a good proportion of the younger generation.

 

Arriving at York from Scarborough; 0940 this morning; 1U36 0845 Scarborough-Manchester Piccadilly.

 

 

At Manchester Piccadilly, to form 1U47 Manchester Piccadilly-Scarborough:

 

 

The same train leaving Leeds:

 

 

Then at York with 1U75 1934 Leeds - Scarborough, the set being reversed due to having arrived in Leeds from York via Castleford earlier:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[APOLLO]

Lovely trains (when they run / ran), but

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/10/its-chaos-ruined-plans-lost-hours-at-uks-worst-station-for-cancelled-trains

 

And poor old Felix has gone. R.I.P.

 

 

Brit15

[Mike_Walker]

15 hours ago, simon b said:

The mk5 coaches would be a good way for Chiltern to modernise its fleet, I assume there is a solution for the cracking issue they suffer with? The extra driving trailers may just end up being used as spares for the fleet, or could they be stripped and their components used to fit out a few new mk5 coach body shells?

 

I can't see the 68's leaving Chiltern anytime soon, bi mode locos are a good Idea but you need alot of power to drag a train out of Marylebone. There being no easy way to fit OHLE without destroying Lords cricket ground, I doubt the small on board diesel would be up to the job.

 

In the Ideal world Marylebone could be setup for third rail out to Finchley Road, then switch to Diesel or perhaps in time overhead electrification for the onward journey. This setup seems to work quite well in New York's Grand Central Terminal, Siemens having recently supplied new tri mode "Charger" locos to run services.

 

 

 

 

Why would you want Chiltern to replace their Mk3s with their comfy seats and smooth riding with Mk5s which have a reputation for rough riding, ironing-board seats, structural and reliability problems.

 

As I've said before, there is no prospect of electrification in any form at Marylebone and in any case, modern regulations make the installation of new 3rd rail schemes almost impossible.  Chiltern have aspirations for a new fleet with battery capability.

[john new]

The ban on 3rd rail extensions annoys me, but Ho hum I’m just an ordinary bloke who’s lived near and used the SW main line for most of my life. A good system using proven 100mph technology.

[simon b]

2 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Why would you want Chiltern to replace their Mk3s with their comfy seats and smooth riding with Mk5s which have a reputation for rough riding, ironing-board seats, structural and reliability problems.

 

As I've said before, there is no prospect of electrification in any form at Marylebone and in any case, modern regulations make the installation of new 3rd rail schemes almost impossible.  Chiltern have aspirations for a new fleet with battery capability.

 

I don't, but I suspect that is where they will be heading to. 

 

I like the MK3 sets as do most people, but they are getting on a bit. There was quite alot of corrosion repairs done at the last major rebuild, and they will be due another at some point. I'm sure I remember the lease on them was due to expire in in May 2024 so we will just have to wait and see.

[simon b]

6 hours ago, john new said:

The ban on 3rd rail extensions annoys me, but Ho hum I’m just an ordinary bloke who’s lived near and used the SW main line for most of my life. A good system using proven 100mph technology.

 

It is silly to ban extensions to it, the third rail system isnt going to replaced anytime soon. For somewhere like Marylebone which is self contained, a compromise could be a bottom contact system like the DLR use's. 

[CWJ]

On 09/12/2023 at 16:46, APOLLO said:

 

 

You can see daylight under the boiler; very prototypical.

[rodent279]

55 minutes ago, CWJ said:

 

You can see daylight under the boiler; very prototypical.

There you go, problem solved.

 

A bi-mode steam-electric. High pressure water tube boiler driving a turbine-generator set, powering 4 traction motors. Boiler holds a reserve of steam sufficient to get it out of Marylebone and under the knitting, from where the boiler generates steam from the OHL. Boiler can be powered from a shore supply whilst in the station.

 

You don't need to thank me 😁

[icn]

On 09/12/2023 at 10:32, adb968008 said:

Funny how Europe has no problem with diesels, or even a loco hauled concept.

 

Neither is true. Outside of Eastern Europe aren't many major European cities with many diesel trains left, and locos are also increasingly on their way out - and most of those left are push-pull. For the former there are more and more hybrids/bi-modes. Notable new exceptions for the latter include the ICE-L and IC-2 (both are niche usecases inside Germany - and the more recent IC-2's are EMUs - and the ICE-L will have hybrid traction for some routes), Nightjet which is a complete exception, some Railjets (although they're getting EMUs too now), and perhaps a few more.

 

An entire diesel-only station in the middle of a big city is almost unheard of.

Edited December 16, 2023 by icn

[adb968008]

On 16/12/2023 at 13:21, icn said:

 

Neither is true. Outside of Eastern Europe aren't many major European cities with many diesel trains left, and locos are also increasingly on their way out - and most of those left are push-pull. For the former there are more and more hybrids/bi-modes. Notable new exceptions for the latter include the ICE-L and IC-2 (both are niche usecases inside Germany - and the more recent IC-2's are EMUs - and the ICE-L will have hybrid traction for some routes), Nightjet which is a complete exception, some Railjets (although they're getting EMUs too now), and perhaps a few more.

 

An entire diesel-only station in the middle of a big city is almost unheard of.

I think you mis read my post, no where did I imply Europe is a continent full of diesel loco hauled wall to wall.

 

I said..Europe has no problem with diesels, or even a loco hauled concept.

I wasn't joining the two together, my experience of Europe, shared below, has been a continent teaming with loco hauled, almost exclusively ACDC but still, loco hauled…. There are still plenty of diesels on the continent, albeit mostly freight. And I disagree with the assertion that a loco on a push pull train is somehow not loco hauled… if theres a loco in the train somewhere and providing traction.. its loco hauled.

With exception of the first picture, the rest are all in less than 12 months..

 

1. Tel Aviv, is considered Europe, politically, to many, including football and Eurovision, its main station is indeed diesel, so there is one major station which is diesel.

😀

 

 

2. Push pull, is still a loco hauled train, and I never said it had to be diesel..

apparently italy has 700 of these single cabbed pushpull locos.
 

 

3. its not just Eastern Europe either nor exclusively push pull…indeed its international too… OBB Austria, in Venice, Italy.

 

but Eastern Europe does do some diesel only loco hauled in its major cities, here is Split in Croatia.., Croatia’s second largest city.

 

But Eastern Europe does do a lot of loco hauled…

Chabowka, Poland, the loco has just run round its train…

indeed Krakow today reminds me of New Street in the 1980’s, aside of a few locals, and the warsaw express, just about everything else is loco hauled, with loco changes, run rounds and ecs moves done the old fashioned way..

 

A brand new EU160 for pkp intercity.

 

 

And Germany is also using new locos on passenger (yes electric)…

mrce leased Vectron to DB 
 

and old…

 

France also has a mix of loco hauled with and without a dvt..

uncoupled ready for release, Nov 22 Gare Du Nord, Paris

 

 

and I sometimes wonder if the Dutch will ever get rid of this hauled stock…

 

 

as my trips are mostly work related, my chances of letting loose on a freight yard for diesel traction is more limited, but ive seen loads of it..66’s are everywhere ! but jury is out on this one, as to whether its preserved or not, but it was playing on the big railway…

 

 

FS Italy are currently overhauling 1980’s rolling stock, for a new 2024 tourist network, for services at lower speed between major tourist cities aimed at a more budget audience…imagine that here.

Europe has loads of loco hauled, but to see it you do need to get off the ICE, TGV, Frecciosa etc…, but its definitely out there and fantastic to see first hand.

 

i could certainly imagine a home in Europe for our mk5 stock, they would bite your arm off for it… and thats my point, they arent against the concept like we are. They arent against diesels either, theres plenty of them. But one big difference about Europe is they dont bin brand new stock, even the Dutch Fyra ended up in Italy. They dont bin old stock easily either, some french stuff is way past its sell by date.

Edited December 17, 2023 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

16 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Europe has loads of loco hauled, but to see it you do need to get off the ICE, TGV, Frecciosa etc…, but its definitely out there and fantastic to see first hand.

 

i could certainly imagine a home in Europe for our mk5 stock, they would bite your arm off for it… and thats my point, they arent against the concept like we are.

Locos take up space which could be more usefully employed to carry passengers!

 

One thing you have completely failed to mention in your analysis is that in most of Europe stations are longer, the loading gauge in mainland Europe is greater (thus allowing doubled passenger coaches) and the infrastructure traditionally maintained to a higher standard so it doesn’t matter that there is a locomotive taking up space within the train.

 

This contrasts with the UK where our rail infrastructure limits confines us to operating short single deck passenger trains and where many lines have significant speed differentials between what locos and multiple units are permitted to travel at. 
 

Therefore in the UK, the removal of the loco in favour of distributed traction is an easy way of increasing passenger capacity while at the same time also allowing for higher speeds and short yet journey times.

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Locos take up space which could be more usefully employed to carry passengers!

 

One thing you have completely failed to mention in your analysis is that in most of Europe stations are longer, the loading gauge in mainland Europe is greater (thus allowing doubled passenger coaches) and the infrastructure traditionally maintained to a higher standard so it doesn’t matter that there is a locomotive taking up space within the train.

 

This contrasts with the UK where our rail infrastructure limits confines us to operating short single deck passenger trains and where many lines have significant speed differentials between what locos and multiple units are permitted to travel at. 
 

Therefore in the UK, the removal of the loco in favour of distributed traction is an easy way of increasing passenger capacity while at the same time also allowing for higher speeds and short yet journey times.

How do you reconcile that view with the 2 /3 car class 185 thats just replaced the 5 coach mk5’s ?

 

Have platforms suffered shrinkflation in the last few weeks too ?

 

How do units = higher speeds ?

 

Also for example.. the 390,  800 use a considerable amount of space in the lead vehicle.. it might be a unit but its still eating that vital space

 

 

3/4’s of the lead coach is non passenger space.

 

Nearly half of this at each end is consumed space.

 

Then of course its all in how you spin it… this isnt a locomotive, or a traction unit, its a power pack… occupying space in the middle of a train.

 

 

Railways have survived 200 years with locos, its a bit strange its taken that long to figure locos are bad for space, I mean units have been with us over 120 of them.
 

That feels a bit of a selective applied reason.

 

I personally think if long distance, or heavy haul battery ever comes to fruition, that a separate “battery wagon” maybe needed, like a steam loco tender, that can be attached in multiples if needed to increase load/range, and swapped at charging stations to allow the main traction unit to continue without delay waiting for a recharge… I dont see how you can replace a Norwich -Liverpool 158 with another 2 or 4 car unit, powered with its own onboard batteries alone and still do a full days diagram.

Edited December 16, 2023 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

7 hours ago, adb968008 said:

How do you reconcile that view with the 2 /3 car class 185 thats just replaced the 5 coach mk5’s ?

 

I was speaking in general terms - The IET could have easily been A loco + rake of coaches for example but it wasn’t. Ditto the Voyagers, or Pendalinos….

 

7 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

How do units = higher speeds ?

 

 

Generally speaking units with distributed traction have a lower axle loading and each vehicle is thus kinder to the track / lighter than a power car will be.

 

In many cases what this translates to is that because units usually cause less wear and tear / damage they can operate at higher speeds than loco hauled formations with differential speeds restrictions being a common sight on UK railways.

Hence a 158s 170, IET, can operate at higher speeds on many TPE routes than the Mk5 +68s can (note that because the 185s are so heavy and cause more damage / wear to the track they cannot take advantage of the higher speeds afforded to other units).

 

7 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

Also for example.. the 390,  800 use a considerable amount of space in the lead vehicle.. it might be a unit but its still eating that vital space

 

3/4’s of the lead coach is non passenger space.

 

Nearly half of this at each end is consumed space.

 

 

Firstly you only require signifficant ‘non passenger space’ in the driving cars if the train exceeds 110mph (and that’s only because the ORR / DfT effectively require a ‘crumple zone’ to protect passengers in the event of a high speed collision).  Plus if your loco is at one end but the train goes above 110mph you will still need significant ‘non passenger space’ in your driving trailer 

 

Secondly on the Pendalino and the IET, that ‘non passenger space is used for things like a kitchen / refreshment trolley supply area, train mangers office, etc. All those facilities would still need to be provided if you have a dedicated locomotive in your train so it’s not as if a loco can magically turn those areas into passenger space.

 

7 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

Then of course its all in how you spin it… this isnt a locomotive, or a traction unit, its a power pack… occupying space in the middle of a train.

 

But said power pack is considerably shorter than a locomotive would be - and is only there because they are bi-modes. The straight electric versions used on the London - Norwich run don’t have it in their unit formation.

 

Moreover the main advantage of this centralised ‘power pack’ vehicle is it allows the floors within the passenger vehicles to be lower to facilitate level boarding which is seen as increasingly important, particularly on urban or rural routes where there are less staff and potentially more passengers with pushchairs.

 

(the IET vehicles with underfloor engines have a higher floor level and slight ramps up from the vestibules to create space for engines).

 

8 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

Railways have survived 200 years with locos, its a bit strange its taken that long to figure locos are bad for space, I mean units have been with us over 120 of them.
 

That feels a bit of a selective applied reason.

 

I personally think if long distance, or heavy haul battery ever comes to fruition, that a separate “battery wagon” maybe needed, like a steam loco tender, that can be attached in multiples if needed to increase load/range, and swapped at charging stations to allow the main traction unit to continue without delay waiting for a recharge… I dont see how you can replace a Norwich -Liverpool 158 with another 2 or 4 car unit, powered with its own onboard batteries alone and still do a full days diagram.

And in that 200 years an awful lot has changed economically, politically, etc. More recently the Pandemic has radically changed travel patterns and even if today the view of those is in charge that capacity is no longer an issue rewind 10 years and you will find that increasing passenger capacity was very much on the minds of those calling the shots.
 

Also please remember all things are relative - as I pointed out earlier many railway stations in Europe are considerably longer / bigger than UK infrastructure so the continued use of locos doesn’t pose as many issues as it would do in the UK. The infrastructure in mainland Europe has also traditionally been better (hence why bogies designed with mainland Europe in mind tend to ride harshly in the UK and why British Rail doggie design for the Mk3 was specifically designed to cope with poor track) so there may well be less use of differential speeds thus leaving the playing field somewhat. Then there is the point that if you have double decker trains then you won’t have room to put all the engines / transformers / etc underneath the coaches.

 

Certainly the ‘Power pack’ concept as pioneered by the Grater Anglia units is promising - though even here the driver for its creation wasn’t a desire to recreate a loco-esque setup per say

 

As for Norwich to Liverpool - to my mind it all hinges on how much OLE is provided. 25KV should be perfectly capable of rapidly charging the batteries and providing full traction power simultaneously. Norwich and Liverpool are wired so charging can be done during the turnover, Peterborough - Grantham is wired, Nottingham - Sheffield is supposed to be wired as part of the MML electrification, Manchester - Liverpool via Warrington is supposed to be getting electrified at some point in the future….

[adb968008]

11 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Generally speaking units with distributed traction have a lower axle loading and each vehicle is thus kinder to the track / lighter than a power car will be.

 

 

net loss by freight trains operating the same rails.

 

11 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

Firstly you only require signifficant ‘non passenger space’ in the driving cars if the train exceeds 110mph (and that’s only because the ORR / DfT effectively require a ‘crumple zone’ to protect passengers in the event of a high speed collision).  Plus if your loco is at one end but the train goes above 110mph you will still need significant ‘non passenger space’ in your driving trailer 

 

 

so bureaucracy negates the saving of space by not having a loco, you don't gain anything.

 

 

11 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

But said power pack is considerably shorter than a locomotive would be - and is only there because they are bi-modes. The straight electric versions used on the London - Norwich run don’t have it in their unit formation.

 

its shorter because the driving cabs are at either end of the unit, not on the loco thats in the centre.

 

 

11 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

 

As for Norwich to Liverpool - to my mind it all hinges on how much OLE is provided. 25KV should be perfectly capable of rapidly charging the batteries and providing full traction power simultaneously. Norwich and Liverpool are wired so charging can be done during the turnover, Peterborough - Grantham is wired, Nottingham - Sheffield is supposed to be wired as part of the MML electrification, Manchester - Liverpool via Warrington is supposed to be getting electrified at some point in the future….

Charging requires a rate of power being available to charge, at the same time as powering the train, and maintaining a flow sufficient for other trains using that supply in the same area… given units in Preston stabled were told to drop pantographs to limit draw from the supply for 92 operations, thats not very promising… especially as only a few decades ago 150 AC electrics were operating the WCML every day.

 

That most AC freight has now dissapeared, helps, but of course the goal is AC for everything, then i’d imagine most existing AC wouldnt be fit for purpose to power everything plus charge it as well, based on your comments of cut backs and economies.

[Neil]

On 07/12/2023 at 22:12, john new said:

Ugly things which I won’t miss visually but I never got to ride one so no idea what they were like to travel in.

 

Comfortable, had a trip on one from York to Manchester some time back.

[adb968008]

I liked them, to ride on they are very comfortable, scandinavian lightness feel inside, large windows. They also had quite deep and wide overhead luggage space, I can get a cabin baggage sized wheelie into it.. no chance that on a pendolino.

 

They were also very quiet, which means you hear the bogies /wheels more than traditional stock where rail noise is a constant scream in the background, or the sounds of a units engine.

 

 

 

Having charging points was useful too..

 

Whenever ive been on them, they were rammed full to standing, so I can only imagine how that York shuttle looks now with a 2 car.

Edited December 17, 2023 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

Any of those is better than a 345 unit running above ground (in fact just about anything is better than a 345 but they are the best UndergrounD train in London).  Tomorrow I shall be travelling forwards the best part of two decades in design but back around six decades in terms of passenger amenity as I change train from a 165 DMU to a 345 electric.   Although I might have time to wait for a 387 not far behind the 345 and I will wait if I  have sufficient time before making a second connection into an 80X unit - which hopefully will be running on electricity as the HST it replaced was quicker than a diseel powered 80X (and rode massively better although an 80X rides better than a 345 - but both are track bashers)

 

Progress on British trains can be a very peculiar way of doing things compared with mainland Europe.

[jjb1970]

I find ride quality in general plummeted on British trains. The WCML 350s were awful. 

I also think the Class 374 is a retrograde step for ride quality (and cabin quality), it also has that harsh yaw motion, not just on the British HS1, they ride badly in France and Belgium too.

[Reorte]

The operational reasons for the shift to the sort of trains we've got now are understandable but if there's a choice I'd take a loco-hauled, non-electric train every time simply as the most pleasant way of travelling by rail (well non-traction differences notwithstanding). Engine away from where I am - an electric one in the carriage is still a little intrusive, no irritating flicker of OHLE posts out of the window (although all that means is an uninterrupted view of the prison fencing and lineside jungle).

[phil-b259]

23 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

so bureaucracy negates the saving of space by not having a loco, you don't gain anything.

 

 

 

Eh?

 

Let me put it another way... Pendalinos, IETs etc are long distance express passenger trains and passengers on those trains appreciate catering provision and a decent number of on train staff all of which require their own non passenger space regardless of whether the train is loco hauled or not! As such the existence of said non-passenger spaces is irrelevant and adding loco WILL result in less passenger accommodation being possible for a given train length.

 

Where such facilities are not required (which usually means a 100mph maximum speed and thus no need for 'crumple zones' in the driving vehicles) then adding a loco also takes up space which could otherwise be used for passenger accommodation.

 

In short adding a dedicated loco / intermediate power car will always result in there being less passenger accommodation in a given train than if a true unit with underfloor propulsion systems is used.

 

On 17/12/2023 at 12:54, adb968008 said:

 

Charging requires a rate of power being available to charge, at the same time as powering the train, and maintaining a flow sufficient for other trains using that supply in the same area… given units in Preston stabled were told to drop pantographs to limit draw from the supply for 92 operations, thats not very promising… especially as only a few decades ago 150 AC electrics were operating the WCML every day.

 

That most AC freight has now dissapeared, helps, but of course the goal is AC for everything, then i’d imagine most existing AC wouldn't be fit for purpose to power everything plus charge it as well, based on your comments of cut backs and economies.

 

Thats a rather bizarre argument to use - effectively you are suggesting we spend money on locomotives rather than investing in upgrading the OLE to provide the necessary power to trains (be it more of them, or more consumption per train due to simultaneous charging and traction).

 

If money is available then it should be plowed into better OLE not loco hauled solutions which are wasteful of the limited space found in our busiest stations.