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

[melmerby]

38 minutes ago, Railpassion said:

The entire TPE franchise has been so badly run that the brand's hard won reputation is now in the dirt.

That's why DfT took it over 9 months ago and it has got worse.

Edited February 16 by melmerby

[black and decker boy]

13 hours ago, Railpassion said:

It's shameful.

Millions of pounds of rolling stock investment, specifically for the North,  has been withdrawn. It's an affront to northerners and a kick in the teeth. 

34 five car trains are reduced to just 19 in order to save money. They will not return  and nor will replacement stock arrive before 2028. 

The entire TPE franchise has been so badly run that the brand's hard won reputation is now in the dirt.

Passenger numbers are way down and inter-city style rolling stock for journeys up to three hours long has been dispensed with. 

I know all the ins and outs of the past few years, and the coming together of so many poor decisions, on top of huge technical challenges, has created chaos.

 

One day the papers and TV will have a field day, as new northern rolling stock eventually begins to benefit people in the South. 

 

TPE has dropped services that were planned, eg ECML north of Newcastle and post covid and with TRU ongoing, reduced frequency across the core.

 

they have however retained all class 185s. The franchise was bid on the basis of a large number going off lease.

 

TPE has several years of blockades, possessions and other line limitations to contend with and the management (with Rail North and DfT agreement) considered the current fleet mix the best for that period.

 

Be thankful perhaps that DfT hasn’t reallocated the 802s Elsewhere too.

 

Down south sees other issues:

brand new 710s in long term store straight from factory

brand new 720s in long term store straight from factory

huge delays getting 701s into service so most are in store

GWR short forming long distance services from London to provide IETs for S West use (alongside Sprinters) after HSTs were withdrawn. Last week a 166 returned to Paddington in place of an IET

TfW using 150 & 153s on S Wales to Manchester & Holyhead due to non availability of new 197s

 

infrastructure reliability is bombing as maintenance is cut

 

the whole network is a mess and it’s likely to get worse as more cuts get imposed by HM Treasury.

 

Edited February 17 by black and decker boy
Atrocious spelling

[AMJ]

A possible, musical chair, is that the TPE 68 & Mk5s go to Chiltern.  The Chiltern 68's replace 67's on the TfW services.

[simon b]

3 hours ago, AMJ said:

A possible, musical chair, is that the TPE 68 & Mk5s go to Chiltern.  The Chiltern 68's replace 67's on the TfW services.

 

Very possible, they should need no modification to work with mk4's.  Another possibility is the new incarnation of the Wrexham and Shropshire services, if they choose to go with loco hauled stock they could take the mk3's for a complete package.

[phil-b259]

On 16/02/2024 at 23:01, Railpassion said:

 

One day the papers and TV will have a field day, as new northern rolling stock eventually begins to benefit people in the South. 

 

But given it’s obvious the Tories have pretty much given up looking after their ex-red wall seats and are more concerned about shoring up support in their traditional heartlands do you honestly thing anyone in Government will care?

[Mike_Walker]

The proposal for a new WSMR is being written around something like the 222s.  Loco operation is unlikely.

[simon b]

5 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

The proposal for a new WSMR is being written around something like the 222s.  Loco operation is unlikely.

 

Thanks, since the idea was first mentioned I hadn't heard anymore about it. Interesting they want to use Euston rather than Marylebone, it's debatable which has any free capacity. Getting rid of the third roof span and it's platforms at Marylebone was a bit short sighted, in view of the lack of platform space it now has.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, simon b said:

 

Thanks, since the idea was first mentioned I hadn't heard anymore about it. Interesting they want to use Euston rather than Marylebone, it's debatable which has any free capacity. Getting rid of the third roof span and it's platforms at Marylebone was a bit short sighted, in view of the lack of platform space it now has.

Point of order - Marylebone station only EVER had 4 platforms to start with! Yes the GCR, LNER and BR only ever had 4 platforms to play with.

 

Up until the 1990s Chiltern line modernisation by British Rail the span covering what is now platforms 2 & 3 merely covered the cab road (which is why platforms 2 & 3 line up with the large archway at the front of the station building).

 

As such the 1990s changes did NOT reduce station capacity - though obviously what they did do by getting rid of the cab Road and demolishing the 3rd bay of the train shed was restrict any easy expansion (although the decision to install carriage sidings on part of the land formerly occupied by the removed train shed did at least give Chiltern the option of building 2 new platforms a couple of decades later).

 

 

 

Edited February 19 by phil-b259

[simon b]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

Point of order - Marylebone station only EVER had 4 platforms to start with! Yes the GCR, LNER and BR only ever had 4 platforms to play with.

 

Up until the 1990s Chiltern line modernisation by British Rail the span covering what is now platforms 2 & 3 merely covered the cab road (which is why platforms 2 & 3 line up with the large archway at the front of the station building).

 

As such the 1990s changes did NOT reduce station capacity - though obviously what they did do by getting rid of the cab Road and demolishing the 3rd bay of the train shed was restrict any easy expansion (although the decision to install carriage sidings on part of the land formerly occupied by the removed train shed did at least give Chiltern the option of building 2 new platforms a couple of decades later).

 

 

 

 

That's what I was getting at, we could of had 6 full length platforms instead of the awkward arrangement Marylebone is now. A very short sighted move, must of been good money selling the land off where they stood.

 

And yet they left the turntable in place the other side of the bridge.

Edited February 19 by simon b

[90136]

On 17/02/2024 at 09:11, black and decker boy said:

 

huge delays getting 701s into service

SWR’s rolling stock problem has resulted in 455’s running regularly to Reading. 

[black and decker boy]

7 hours ago, simon b said:

 

Very possible, they should need no modification to work with mk4's.  Another possibility is the new incarnation of the Wrexham and Shropshire services, if they choose to go with loco hauled stock they could take the mk3's for a complete package.

The OAO application is based on 22x.

 

the Chiltern MK3s aren’t in good condition and very soon need heavy overhaul (expensive).

 

It’s around 10years now since they were fitted with power doors.

 

There are plenty of 125mph DMUs coming into the rental market in the next year or so which should soak up any demand out there. The MK3s can have a nice retirement in Newport (or Mexico / Nigeria).

[Hesperus]

12 hours ago, AMJ said:

A possible, musical chair, is that the TPE 68 & Mk5s go to Chiltern.  The Chiltern 68's replace 67's on the TfW services.

 

And there was me wondering if the Chiltern 68s might be replaced by 67s if the quieter exhaust modification didn't work.

[Mike_Walker]

8 hours ago, Hesperus said:

 

And there was me wondering if the Chiltern 68s might be replaced by 67s if the quieter exhaust modification didn't work.

What I don't understand about all this noise kerfuffle is that Chiltern used to get regular complaints from those living around Stourbridge Jct LMD about the noise levels of the 67s so before finalising the switch to 68s, 68002 was taken there and left running all night getting the thumbs up as a great improvement from the locals and, as far as I know, they haven't changed that view since.  So why all the fuss?  It seems to have originated with the good folk of Scarborough.

 

You can't really take too seriously the views of those who live in the flats overlooking looking the Marylebone throat.  When they first moved in they were aghast to find a working railway outside their windows and threatened legal action to attempt to get it closed.  Dear old Adrian Shooter famously pointed out to them that Marylebone had been there since 1899 and if they hadn't spotted it when purchasing their posh new flats then tough.  Never heard anymore from them - until recently!

[Mike_Walker]

14 hours ago, simon b said:

 

Thanks, since the idea was first mentioned I hadn't heard anymore about it. Interesting they want to use Euston rather than Marylebone, it's debatable which has any free capacity. Getting rid of the third roof span and it's platforms at Marylebone was a bit short sighted, in view of the lack of platform space it now has.

Euston is a far more logical London terminal than Marylebone for a Wrexham service allowing a much shorter overall journey time and better connections.  The first incarnation of W&S was forced to use Marylebone not because of its association with Chiltern but because of the unique clauses in Virgin's West Coast franchise contract that protected them from any open access competition being allowed on the WCML,  W&S weren't even allowed to pick up or set down at Wolverhampton in the London direction.  It was the resulting tortuous routing and extended journey times that played a major role in discouraging patronage leading to its failure.

[31A]

45 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

What I don't understand about all this noise kerfuffle is that Chiltern used to get regular complaints from those living around Stourbridge Jct LMD about the noise levels of the 67s so before finalising the switch to 68s, 68002 was taken there and left running all night getting the thumbs up as a great improvement from the locals and, as far as I know, they haven't changed that view since.  So why all the fuss?  It seems to have originated with the good folk of Scarborough.

 

 

Is the difference that the 68s when coupled to the Mk5 coaches need to be left running, to provide power to the coaches, and can't be shut down?  That was the case with the way Trans Pennine used them; it has been explained that there was a technical reason why they couldn't be shut down but I can't remember the details at the moment.  The noise certainly was deafening if you were on the platform at Scarborough and a 68 was under the train shed roof, or when one was standing in Platform 2 at York station; it was impossible to hold a conversation over a pint in The Tap pub on the station!  I shouldn't think they'd have been very popular in the station hotel either.  I'm not very familiar with 67s, but doubt they would be as loud as 68s.

[Mike_Walker]

37 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

Is the difference that the 68s when coupled to the Mk5 coaches need to be left running, to provide power to the coaches, and can't be shut down?  That was the case with the way Trans Pennine used them; it has been explained that there was a technical reason why they couldn't be shut down but I can't remember the details at the moment.  The noise certainly was deafening if you were on the platform at Scarborough and a 68 was under the train shed roof, or when one was standing in Platform 2 at York station; it was impossible to hold a conversation over a pint in The Tap pub on the station!  I shouldn't think they'd have been very popular in the station hotel either.  I'm not very familiar with 67s, but doubt they would be as loud as 68s.

Oh but they are!  One issue with EMD locos fitted with what they call HEP (Head End Power) is that the prime mover has to run at practically full power to supply the train.  Both classes need to be kept running overnight to keep the trains' a/c and lighting working unless a suitable shore supply can be arranged.

[31A]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

Oh but they are!  One issue with EMD locos fitted with what they call HEP (Head End Power) is that the prime mover has to run at practically full power to supply the train.  Both classes need to be kept running overnight to keep the trains' a/c and lighting working unless a suitable shore supply can be arranged.

Hopefully for the residents of Matylebone then, perhaps Chiltern might be able to arrange a shore supply in the station so that the locos can be shut down, but TPE never seemed to be able to do it.  I always think a risk of shore supplies in situations like that (terminal passenger stations) is that sooner or later someone will start the train without disconnecting the supply first....!

[spamcan61]

1 minute ago, 31A said:

Hopefully for the residents of Matylebone then, perhaps Chiltern might be able to arrange a shore supply in the station so that the locos can be shut down, but TPE never seemed to be able to do it.  I always think a risk of shore supplies in situations like that (terminal passenger stations) is that sooner or later someone will start the train without disconnecting the supply first....!

Shouldn't be too tricky to arrange a non latching connector type that would do the job. The idea these locos have to consume fuel and cause pollution (not to mention potential issues with the engine from  idling long term) 24/7 just to power the coaches is plain bonkers. I'm intrigued to know the engineering reasons behind that requirement.

[KeithHC]

Ah the simple answer. Why not bring back the steam engine. Overnight the fire is clamped down with the kettle just gurgling in the background. The same happened at Tunbridge Wells west. Once steam was replaced with the DEMUs noise complaints went up. Mind you the sound of 10 to 15 thumpers ticking over heaven to me but not to the great unwashed………

 

Keith

ps. One just wonders how noisy the replacement supermarket carpark is at night.

[simon b]

1 hour ago, spamcan61 said:

Shouldn't be too tricky to arrange a non latching connector type that would do the job. The idea these locos have to consume fuel and cause pollution (not to mention potential issues with the engine from  idling long term) 24/7 just to power the coaches is plain bonkers. I'm intrigued to know the engineering reasons behind that requirement.

 

I seem to remember such a system was in use somewhere on the network, it was advised to let it disconnect itself rather than unplug it.

 

Chiltern DVT were fitted with an ETH generator supply at one point, seems strange they don't use those still.

Edited February 20 by simon b

[simon b]

3 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Oh but they are!  One issue with EMD locos fitted with what they call HEP (Head End Power) is that the prime mover has to run at practically full power to supply the train.  Both classes need to be kept running overnight to keep the trains' a/c and lighting working unless a suitable shore supply can be arranged.

 

Quite a few had a separate engine entirely for powering the train supply, in the case of the rebuilds of the E8/9 that meant 3 separate engines in the one body. 

 

The worst for it was the GE u34ch, they used to run at a constant 950rpm with the HEP switched on. Noisey !

 

Perhaps a separate ETH generator in the train is the way forward if the 68 silencer mods are not successful?

[Reorte]

Something's not clicked with me - why does everything need to be powered up all the time? I'm getting the impression this isn't just between departure and arrival, it's sitting in the same place for hours.

[hmrspaul]

39 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Something's not clicked with me - why does everything need to be powered up all the time? I'm getting the impression this isn't just between departure and arrival, it's sitting in the same place for hours.

That has been explained at some stage in all of this. Some complex technical issues. Similarly why the 68s cannot be muffled/silenced

 

BUT it is the reason the North East finally got shut of them. Waking people at 4 O'clock in the mornings at new stabling points in Scarborough and York (and probably elsewhere) - so no good arguing locals knew what they were getting when they purchased nearby properties. Or, our very important wagon chat group 😇 couldn't hear ourselves think when sat soberly ! in The Tap on York station. 

 

Paul 

 

 

[Artless Bodger]

9 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Oh but they are!  One issue with EMD locos fitted with what they call HEP (Head End Power) is that the prime mover has to run at practically full power to supply the train. 

Interesting, I remember the locos on the Enterprise in Belfast Central station making a similar racket  - I think they were a version of EMD loco (similar to a 59?) - you couldn't hear the station announcements and even the Thumpers couldn't compete.

[Artless Bodger]

6 hours ago, KeithHC said:

ps. One just wonders how noisy the replacement supermarket carpark is at night.

Depends if the car moders use it for meets like some of our local supermarket carparks, can hear the squeal of tyres and reving engines even where we live at least 2 miles away.