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

[admiles]

On 17/12/2023 at 01:30, phil-b259 said:

 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.

 

 

 

Small point maybe but there are lots of double deck EMUs in Europe so plenty of room.

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

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.

 

I think maybe you forgot how we got here, this is in response to battery services nationwide, on non ohle lines…  of course upgrading the infrastructure is required… you cannot charge a battery if there is no power source… but ohle will be in the queue with charging stations as well as domestic supply upgrades and road vehicle battery charging…

 

in otherwords decades.

 

You cannot send something to a place unless it has ability to charge it, or sufficient retained power to return.. 20 mins under the wires is a kin to water troughs for steam locos, it extends the journey but not neccessarily where optimum or sufficient… whilst its noble to suggest putting knitting everywhere..it wont happen, simply because its taken 100 years to do 2.5 mainlines, and a stub of a 4th, and 10 years to do Bolton -Preston hardly sets the gold standard.

 

Remember diesels were the temporary stop gap until AC electrification in the 1960’s, I sense some form of battery loco will be required, if they are serious on giving up diesel.

 

We both know it will be the cheapest solution that will ultimately appear, not the best solution.

 

Edited December 18, 2023 by adb968008

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

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.

 

Which carriage is the catering carriage in a TPE or GWR 800 ? I’ll make a note next time to look for it.

Certainly the Pendolino doesnt have catering in the lead vehicles, its mid centre of the train. I walked through a Pendo to the cab a few years ago, its basically electrical wizardry.. presumably which wont fit underfloor.

 

I think were near dead end, the argument against locos really hangs around a myth of wear and tear, units can and do take up non-rev platform space, at stations long enough to handle them. For out of town stations locos can do what they always did.. hang off the platform end. Theres not much stopping lhcs except policy, no doubt driven by extra revenue potential from rolling stock builders making stock route bespoke and inflexible, and throwing in non standardisations like couplings.

 

Not everything the victorians did was bad, they did it for a reason, but some just cant accept that some ideas are not bad, just because they are old.

Edited December 18, 2023 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

9 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I think maybe you forgot how we got here, this is in response to battery services nationwide, on non ohle lines…  of course upgrading the infrastructure is required… you cannot charge a battery if there is no power source… but ohle will be in the queue with charging stations as well as domestic supply upgrades and road vehicle battery charging…

 

in otherwords decades.

 

You cannot send something to a place unless it has ability to charge it, or sufficient retained power to return.. 20 mins under the wires is a kin to water troughs for steam locos, it extends the journey but not neccessarily where optimum or sufficient… whilst its noble to suggest putting knitting everywhere..it wont happen, simply because its taken 100 years to do 2.5 mainlines, and a stub of a 4th, and 10 years to do Bolton -Preston hardly sets the gold standard.

 

Remember diesels were the temporary stop gap until AC electrification in the 1960’s, I sense some form of battery loco will be required, if they are serious on giving up diesel.

 

We both know it will be the cheapest solution that will ultimately appear, not the best solution.

 

 

Agreed - but you gave the example of Norwich - Liverpool and that does have OLE at both ends and (subject to all electrification plans being delivered) will have significant amounts of OLE on route.

 

Whether that is enough OLE is of course up for debate but in principle (and thats the important point here) it could be.

 

 

[adb968008]

4 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Agreed - but you gave the example of Norwich - Liverpool and that does have OLE at both ends and (subject to all electrification plans being delivered) will have significant amounts of OLE on route.

 

Whether that is enough OLE is of course up for debate but in principle (and thats the important point here) it could be.

 

 

Inverness -wick wont be :-) Penzance to Wootton Bassett is a bit of a trek too. .. I doubt a BMU will do that for a while, but a “Battery loco” as a power pack could be added in multiple, or swapped enroute easily enough.

Edited December 18, 2023 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Which carriage is the catering carriage in a TPE or GWR 800 ? I’ll make a note next time to look for it.

Certainly the Pendolino doesnt have catering in the lead vehicles, its mid centre of the train. I walked through a Pendo to the cab a few years ago, its basically electrical wizardry.. presumably which wont fit underfloor.

 

You rather forget that some years ago now the DfT decreed that a restaurant car / buffet car for ordinary people was a poor use of space and as such it got ditched!

 

Operators were expected to merely offer an at seat trolley service in standard class with the trolleys working out of a kitchen / galley area at one end of the train.

 

Therefore  catering galley  / refreshment trolley base is in the IEP is in the 1st class driving car - the bit you dismissed as 'non passenger space' earlier (and I know that from personal experience)  while the other end contains the train managers office and a small luggage / cycle store. In other words no potential passenger seating has been lost to provide it - which would not be the case if a traditional mid train restaurant car / buffet facility was provided.

 

Although the Pendalinos pre-date the IETS, my understanding (and I'm willing to be corrected if wrong) is a similar setup was provided in that the kitchen was located in the 1st class driving car taking up what would otherwise be dead space (as it couldn't be used for passenger trains which travelled grater than 125mph as per ORR rules) while standard class were given a small on board shop to sell a selection of refreshments. That 'shop' was subsequently done away with after Virgin lost the franchise and more seating installed with on train catering now basically the same as the IET setup 

[phil-b259]

7 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Inverness -wick wont be :-) Penzance to Wootton Bassett is a bit of a trek too. .. I doubt a BMU will do that for a while, but a “Battery loco” as a power pack could be added in multiple, or swapped enroute easily enough.

 

Obviously Penzance - Wooton Basset isn't doable on straight battery power - but if a Penzance station was wired and Plymouth - Taunton was also given OLE then a BMU might work.

 

You need to get rid of this closed mindset - just because something is not physically possible right now doesn't mean it always will be.

 

[adb968008]

35 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

You rather forget that some years ago now the DfT decreed that a restaurant car / buffet car for ordinary people was a poor use of space and as such it got ditched!

 

Operators were expected to merely offer an at seat trolley service in standard class with the trolleys working out of a kitchen / galley area at one end of the train.

 

Therefore  catering galley  / refreshment trolley base is in the IEP is in the 1st class driving car - the bit you dismissed as 'non passenger space' earlier (and I know that from personal experience)  while the other end contains the train managers office and a small luggage / cycle store. In other words no potential passenger seating has been lost to provide it - which would not be the case if a traditional mid train restaurant car / buffet facility was provided.

 

in the old days, this was called the BSK…and that was non rev too, and everything had an equivalent in the formation, in the old days even units too… indeed many long distance had a whole coach.. a BG in some form.

 

your still clutching around here, this isnt saving space.

Since the 2000’s loco hauled has gone, but platforms havent seemed any shorter to me, but certainly the trains do feel shorter.

 

A 6-7 coach transpenine with a 45 or a 47 was certainly not a good trade for a 3 car 158 that followed, that was even worse when swapped for a 2 or 3 car 185.

 

Bringing in a 5 car mk5 and 68 was effectively the biggest attempt at bringing TPE back to the 1900-1980’s standard, albeit still 1-2 coaches shy.

What I dont understand is why the mk5’s are so bad, when they are little more than class 397 trailers, and no one has any complaints about the class 397’s. 

spot the difference…

 

wiki url / class 397 interior


Mine/ mk5 interior

 

wiki url / 397 trailer
 

Flickr url/ not mine, mk5 trailer.

 

if locos are so sniffy, perhaps get CAF to make a power car and driving trailer and convert mk5’s to an EMU ?.. trouble is we arent short of EMUs… were scrapping them left and right.

 

35 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Although the Pendalinos pre-date the IETS, my understanding (and I'm willing to be corrected if wrong) is a similar setup was provided in that the kitchen was located in the 1st class driving car taking up what would otherwise be dead space (as it couldn't be used for passenger trains which travelled grater than 125mph as per ORR rules) while standard class were given a small on board shop to sell a selection of refreshments. That 'shop' was subsequently done away with after Virgin lost the franchise and more seating installed with on train catering now basically the same as the IET setup 

Avanti still has an onboard shop, I think its a bit smaller / laid out differently, off centre of the train. 
But to be honest, its not worth having, a drinks vending machine would suffice.

 

Edited December 18, 2023 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

 

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

A 6-7 coach transpenine with a 45 or a 47 was certainly not a good trade for a 3 car 158 that followed, that was even worse when swapped for a 2 or 3 car 185.

 

Bringing in a 5 car mk5 and 68 was effectively the biggest attempt at bringing TPE back to the 1900-1980’s standard, albeit still 1-2 coaches shy.

 

With respect that observation has sod all to do with the unit versus loco debate and everything to do with DfT anti-rail cuts / budget restrictions which demanded the slashing of train lengths in return for cash.

 

Its a bit like saying the deployment of a single 5 car Electrostar on routes in south London was a bad trade for 2X 455 units in capacity terms (which means the newer trains are now shorter than the old ones) but completely ignoring the fact that this decision was driven by DfT mandated cuts why saw the retirement of the 455 fleet with zero replacements.

 

In reality it would have been perfectly possible for BR to either build an InterCity spec 5 car 158 or even develop something akin to the 5 car IET for Trans-Pennie services thus maintaining capacity even with a unit type train had they been given the financial freedom to do so rather than being obliged to continue the ‘managed decline’ philosophy of politicians who saw only an ever shrinking passenger market.

 

 

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

What I dont understand is why the mk5’s are so bad, when they are little more than class 397 trailers, and no one has any complaints about the class 397’s. 
 

I wasn’t aware anyone (least of all me) had suggested the Mk5s themselves were inherently a bad coach.

 

The point here is not the relative merits of the Mk5s as a passenger carrying vehicle (because as you say the interiors are pretty much identical to certain units) it’s why over the decades UK operators have decided that units are preferable to loco hauled formations.

 

That, as I have tried to explain, is because units with distributed traction have certain operational advantages in the UK (admittedly some due to a lack of infrastructure investment in terms of track standards) as well as a modest potential  increase in passenger accommodation if the traction equipment is mounted underneath*

 

* which can be valuable - remember the whole reason why Voyagers had to be limited to a maximum of 5 cars is certain diagrams required the use of short bay platforms at Reading or the ability to platform share at New Street due to limited infrastructure - add a loco onto those and they no longer fit so the train has to be made even shorter and you end up with a sizeable reduction in seats!

 

Edited December 18, 2023 by phil-b259

[CWJ]

I have forgotten what this debate was originally about and don't want to prolong the argumentative aspect of it, so I'm not going to give my opinion on what is good or bad, right or wrong.

 

I would just add that loco-hauled passenger trains probably work best when the operator is in a position to reap the benefits of LHCS compared with multiple units, e.g. ability to run the loco round if the DT fails, ability to swap the loco if that fails, and ability to marshall trains of different lengths or different combinations of vehicle types to suit traffic demands.

 

Due to very few TOC people in the area having any experience of loco-hauled trains (remember 47s and Mk2s were 40 years ago, that's a whole career!), and critical infrastructure like run-round loops and Class 08s at stations all vanishing in the 1980s too, the Mk5As were effectively designed and operated like fixed-formation DMUs, giving most of the disadvantages of LHCS but few of the advantages.

 

The best-case TOC for this fleet would be one where driver training can be easily accommodated, where managers are familiar with LHCS operation, and where drivers are open to the idea that uncoupling is about to get a lot more dirty and physical than pressing a button on a DMU!  To really reap those benefits the coaches would be modified so that individual cars could be shunted in and out of sets just like HST trailers are (or were 😢), without needing a spanner or a laptop.

 

Such a shame it didn't work out for TPE as these were lovely trains to travel on, and they would have been even better with an electric or bi-mode loco after Manchester-Leeds is all wired.

 

Cheers,

 

Will

Edited December 19, 2023 by CWJ
Rambling diversion about Class 185s removed :-)

[black and decker boy]

On 18/12/2023 at 16:12, adb968008 said:

 

in the old days, this was called the BSK…and that was non rev too, and everything had an equivalent in the formation, in the old days even units too… indeed many long distance had a whole coach.. a BG in some form.

 

your still clutching around here, this isnt saving space.

Since the 2000’s loco hauled has gone, but platforms havent seemed any shorter to me, but certainly the trains do feel shorter.

 

A 6-7 coach transpenine with a 45 or a 47 was certainly not a good trade for a 3 car 158 that followed, that was even worse when swapped for a 2 or 3 car 185.

 

Bringing in a 5 car mk5 and 68 was effectively the biggest attempt at bringing TPE back to the 1900-1980’s standard, albeit still 1-2 coaches shy.

What I dont understand is why the mk5’s are so bad, when they are little more than class 397 trailers, and no one has any complaints about the class 397’s. 

spot the difference…

 

wiki url / class 397 interior


Mine/ mk5 interior

 

wiki url / 397 trailer
 

Flickr url/ not mine, mk5 trailer.

 

if locos are so sniffy, perhaps get CAF to make a power car and driving trailer and convert mk5’s to an EMU ?.. trouble is we arent short of EMUs… were scrapping them left and right.

 

Avanti still has an onboard shop, I think its a bit smaller / laid out differently, off centre of the train. 
But to be honest, its not worth having, a drinks vending machine would suffice.

 

There are no 2 car 185s. All were built and remain as 3 car sets.

 

 

[Reorte]

5 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

There are no 2 car 185s. All were built and remain as 3 car sets.

The general point was valid though. Manchester - Scotland went down to a 3 car 185 from a Voyager, which in turn was a shortening from the (presumably, can't remember the details) Mk 2s that ran before those. Improved now though with whatever the trains that currently run that way are (although I'd prefer the Mk2s).

[62613]

On 16/12/2023 at 16:57, adb968008 said:

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

They haven't, that's why. Do TPE have any 2 - cars anyway? The two I saw at Stalybridge on Saturday evening were 5 - car 802s, on the more long - distance trains admittedly, but there you go

[caradoc]

On 18/12/2023 at 16:07, phil-b259 said:

Although the Pendalinos pre-date the IETS, my understanding (and I'm willing to be corrected if wrong) is a similar setup was provided in that the kitchen was located in the 1st class driving car taking up what would otherwise be dead space (as it couldn't be used for passenger trains which travelled grater than 125mph as per ORR rules) while standard class were given a small on board shop to sell a selection of refreshments.

 

The Pendolinos are unchanged, the kitchen in the First Class driving vehicle is used for cooking food for those in First Class, the shop still operates in Standard Class coach C.

 

3 hours ago, Reorte said:

Manchester - Scotland went down to a 3 car 185 from a Voyager, which in turn was a shortening from the (presumably, can't remember the details) Mk 2s that ran before those. Improved now though with whatever the trains that currently run that way are (although I'd prefer the Mk2s).

 

Manchester/Scotland in loco hauled times was a handful of trains per day, now it is hourly, alternating in Scotland between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and has gone from 3-car 185s via 4-car 350s to 5-car 397s. 

 

[Reorte]

19 hours ago, caradoc said:

Manchester/Scotland in loco hauled times was a handful of trains per day, now it is hourly, alternating in Scotland between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and has gone from 3-car 185s via 4-car 350s to 5-car 397s.

Nevertheless the journey became considerably more unpleasant when the loco hauled trains went, and has only improved a little on the lows.

 

Think it was a little more than a "handful" of trains per day, at least around 2000 (the year that is, not saying there were 2000 trains!) At any rate there usually seemed to be one at more or less the time needed.

 

At the end of the day I'd use it quite often then. I'd only consider it now if my car was out of action.

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Reorte

[jjb1970]

The issue for rail users at the moment seems to be confidence in the service. I'm home with the family to have Christmas and New Year here and I've hired a car for the duration as after our last holiday back home where I thought it'd be better to just use public transport the general response of the four of us was 'never again'. I come back to London quite regularly and because I know central London quite well and don't have time to go on longer trips out of London I just walk but that's very different from a family holiday where we want to go places.

[phil-b259]

14 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

The issue for rail users at the moment seems to be confidence in the service.

 

Yup

 

At the end of the day 99% of rail users couldn't care less what type of train they are using! (particularly as most seem to spend their time engrossed in electronic devices when they get a seat.

 

What said rail users want from a TOC / the railway is:-

 

(1) A guarantee that their train will depart the times stated in the timetable, stop at the places its supposed to stop at and arrive at its destination on time.

 

(2) The train have enough seats so they don't have to stand.

 

(3) A timetable which provides a frequent and regular interval service (not one or two trains a day)

 

(3) If undertaking anything more than a short trip, working and clean toilets

 

Whether the train is powered by underfloor engines, has a loco on the front and even whether the seats are comfortable enough simply don't feature in peoples mindsets and that reality needs to be appreciated by folk on here regardless of their personal preference.

 

 

 

 

[Reorte]

17 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Whether the train is powered by underfloor engines, has a loco on the front and even whether the seats are comfortable enough simply don't feature in peoples mindsets and that reality needs to be appreciated by folk on here regardless of their personal preference.

Whilst most aren't likely to care about what makes it move I disagree that people don't care about things like seats being comfortable, even if it's a lower priority than actually getting a seat in the first place. If they really don't it's only because they're so used to them being uncomfortable that it doesn't occur to them that they could and should be considerably better.

 

I'd argue that saying otherwise is attempting to justify treating the travelling public poorly.

[phil-b259]

28 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Whilst most aren't likely to care about what makes it move I disagree that people don't care about things like seats being comfortable, even if it's a lower priority than actually getting a seat in the first place. If they really don't it's only because they're so used to them being uncomfortable that it doesn't occur to them that they could and should be considerably better.

 

I'd argue that saying otherwise is attempting to justify treating the travelling public poorly.

 

You can have the most luxurious seats going but if the trains are constantly cancelled delayed or too short then people are not going to get to use them in the first place.

 

As with anything in life there are 'essentials' and 'nice to haves' - in the context of a train service actually providing a reliable service in the first place is far, far more important and is the 'essentials' bit. The quality of the seating (the 'nice to have') only becomes relevant once the essentials are in place.

 

For what its worth I agree that seat comfort on trains is abysmal (and has been for a decade at least) - but in the situation the railways find themselves in today that is the least of its problems and if there is any spare cash it needs to be ploughed into getting the service running reliably in the first place.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by phil-b259

[icn]

On 16/12/2023 at 15:21, adb968008 said:

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.

...

 

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.

Your post proved my point: almost all of those loco-hauled trains are on their way out. The exceptions are:

- PKP who are still buying plenty of locos, but I did exclude Eastern Europe for a reason.

- OeBB: which I mentioned with the Railjet, and here it's one of the same locos in front of some older stock that's on its way out.

- DB with a Vectron in front of preexisting stock, and they don't appear to be buying more.

[adb968008]

So last night, the last Scottish train of the day from Euston, the 1830 Euston to Glasgow was cancelled…. 

The alternative was a train to Crewe and a bus to Glasgow.

instead of arriving at 930pm, they were scheduled to arrive 2am.

 

i’m glad I was waiting for someone arriving…rather than departing, the concourse had police supporting staff because of the annoyance it caused.

 

This is why the Scots want independence, when treated like that, forget reliable services on time. 
 

TPE is a shabby outfit, Avanti and Northern aren't far behind.

5% fare rise..

 

The tocs need to understand the levels of passenger frustration

 

 

 

 

Edited December 24, 2023 by adb968008
Edit bad choice of wording

[adb968008]

54 minutes ago, icn said:

Your post proved my point: almost all of those loco-hauled trains are on their way out. The exceptions are:

- PKP who are still buying plenty of locos, but I did exclude Eastern Europe for a reason.

- OeBB: which I mentioned with the Railjet, and here it's one of the same locos in front of some older stock that's on its way out.

- DB with a Vectron in front of preexisting stock, and they don't appear to be buying more.

 

as others said, passengers dont care if its a loco or a unit.

but theres plenty of loco hauled in Europe, you just have to stop denying it, and you will see it, much more than here.

 

Edited December 24, 2023 by adb968008

[caradoc]

1 minute ago, adb968008 said:

This is why the Scots want independence

 

Firstly, some Scots want independence, but many do not, as proved in 2014! And secondly, the failure of one train is not going to change that, plenty of people have suffered at the hands of Avanti (and other TOCs) elsewhere than Scotland. 

 

[adb968008]

34 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Firstly, some Scots want independence, but many do not, as proved in 2014! And secondly, the failure of one train is not going to change that, plenty of people have suffered at the hands of Avanti (and other TOCs) elsewhere than Scotland. 

 

No dispute on that.

 

TPE, Avanti have been a real shocker, whats shocking is its nothing new… it was shabby when the 47’s were on it and downsized to 3 car 158’s… what the experts miss, is increasing frequency increases convienience…. So 8 coaches every 2 hour hours becoming 3 every hour actually increased demand and thus over filling the train and making a failure from success.

 

The 185’s have been good, but they are too full… the 68’s and mk5’s were supposed to addresss that, but someone somewhere wasnt man enough to handle a loco up front.

 

 

 

Edited December 24, 2023 by adb968008

[woodenhead]

Scottish Independence!

 

But what a tangent though, on a thread about class 68 and Mk5 sets that never went north of the border.