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

[47164]

Tpex and 68’’s……….Just a minor observation in respect of wider franchise awards…..why are the First Group ever let near railway operations, their track record seems very poor in general……maybe they are just the only ones continuously putting their heads above the parapet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CWJ]

3 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Correct.  The SP applies to classes 15x, 16x and 17x but not to class 185.  This is because of their additional weight and braking performance. 

Just the weight I believe. They're RA5, so the effect on any unsuspecting elderly underbridges is like a string of speeding Class 37s several times a day.

[Wheatley]

2 hours ago, 47164 said:

Tpex and 68’’s……….Just a minor observation in respect of wider franchise awards…..why are the First Group ever let near railway operations, their track record seems very poor in general……maybe they are just the only ones continuously putting their heads above the parapet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly which parts of covid and/or the DfT's bizarre/poorly drafted procurement policy are you blaming First for ? 

 

First didn't go rogue on this, new coaches were signed off by the DfT. 

[rogerzilla]

On paper, a Nova 3 is ludicrously overpowered for most routes.  However, I don't know to what extent twiddling its thumbs at part load on flatter routes would impact efficiency, compared to a typical DMU.  Some modern DMUs also have a lot of power per coach.

[rodent279]

Could the class 68 + Nova 3 sets be used on Edinburgh-Aberdeen-Inverness?

[Ian Hargrave]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Could the class 68 + Nova 3 sets be used on Edinburgh-Aberdeen-Inverness?

As has been posted elsewhere,the 170’s used on the Highland Main Line are on occasion woefully short in terms of capacity,so yes,maybe.But platform length at some intermediate stops could be an issue. The 125’s though I believe still have some time in them.The Aberdeen route is of course served by the KX LNER bi modes as is the Inverness route on one service.

[Mike_Walker]

15 hours ago, 47164 said:

Tpex and 68’’s……….Just a minor observation in respect of wider franchise awards…..why are the First Group ever let near railway operations, their track record seems very poor in general……maybe they are just the only ones continuously putting their heads above the parapet.

That comment is grossly unfair.  First have a varied record I'll grant you but in some cases, GWR for example, they are generally excellent as are their two open access operations, Hull Trains and Lumo.  In the case of TPE, and to a lesser extent Avanti and SWR,  most of the problems are directly attributable to those clueless civil servants at the DfT micromanaging those businesses and countermanding the franchise management decisions.  These civil servants think they know how to run a railway and those that do, don't whilst their ministers are even worse.  The last SoS we had that knew anything about railways was soon moved on - anyone who's watched "Yes Minister" will know how it works.

 

Like many businesses, not just on the railways, a lot depends the on local management.  GWR (or FGW as it then was) was a real basket case until late 2008 when Mark Hopwood took over as MD.  His in depth knowledge of how to really manage a railway and, equally importantly, manage and relate to his staff at all levels has seen the company turned around.  You'll now find a high level of customer satisfaction and staff morale and the company has won many prestigious industry awards including Train Operator of the Year.  Yes, things go pear-shaped more often than is desirable but it's rarely self-inflicted but more often the result of infrastructure, weather and PHBT issues plus, of course, the failure of sHitachi to deliver a daily fleet of fully operational trains preferring instead to take cover in the most obscure clauses of contracts written by the DfT - without operator involvement, naturally. 

 

After an unprecedented 15 years in the post (he's the longest serving TOC MD by a wide margin) he's now the go to person for advice.  Chris Green once told me that he thinks there isn't a senior manager in the industry that doesn't have him on speed-dial to seek advice.  Mark, remember, was seconded to SWR a couple of years ago to sort it out before handing over to his protégé Claire Mann.  They wanted him to do the same at Avanti but he resisted!

 

It also helps that Mark is one of the few managers in the industry prepared to stand up to the DfT and tell them where to go.  The DfT influence on GWR is considerably less than with other TOCs as a result.  It is noticeable that those TOCs that have been taken under the arm of DOR don't seem to suffer so greatly from DfT micromanaging.

 

Mark says when he retires he's going to write a book - it will be an explosive read I can assure you!  We jokingly say it will be called:  I Too Tried To Run A Railway.

[Mike_Walker]

15 hours ago, CWJ said:

Just the weight I believe. They're RA5, so the effect on any unsuspecting elderly underbridges is like a string of speeding Class 37s several times a day.

The braking curve of a 185 is inferior to that of the other DMUs covered by the SP restrictions due to the extra weight which is why that doesn't apply.

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

The braking curve of a 185 is inferior to that of the other DMUs covered by the SP restrictions due to the extra weight which is why that doesn't apply.

Roger Ford obviously called them Lardbutts for good reason.  

 

Jamie

[Ben86]

Class 68021 Tireless arrives at marsden station whilst working a slightly delayed 1U60 1448 Scarborough to Manchester Piccadilly. 27/10/23

 

 

[4630]

With less than two weeks left in public service now with TransPennine Express, Mark 5A set TP13 approaches Colne Bridge in steady rain on 27th November 2023 with 1U36, Scarborough to Manchester Piccadilly.

 

 

Motive power was provided by 68027 'Splendid'.

[black and decker boy]

On 26/10/2023 at 19:43, 47164 said:

Tpex and 68’’s……….Just a minor observation in respect of wider franchise awards…..why are the First Group ever let near railway operations, their track record seems very poor in general……maybe they are just the only ones continuously putting their heads above the parapet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The tender specification (ITT) for TPE written by DfT against which all bidders had to comply required 5 carriage loco hauled sets.

 

DfT wanted the then surplus 442 EMUs to be converted into hauled stock and used push-pull with class 67s.

 

the only bit First did different was proposing the 68+MK5 as a better answer to that requirement. DfT accepted that offer and the fate of the 442s became the farce that it did.

 

running 442s as LHCS over the Pennines would have been a bigger disaster and let’s also remember that the 442s would have been facing imminent withdrawal as their doors didn’t meet PRM regs and couldn’t be modified easily or cheaply 

 

First have made many mistakes but LHCS isn’t one to be laid at their door 

[Hesperus]

A few years ago I suggested on another thread on here that coach's from redundant 442s could be a cheap way of making the TfW WAG trains DDA compliant.  At the time the Mk4s seemed to have many years ahead of them on the ECML and there were very few if any other coach's with power doors available. 

 

I didn't know the 442 doors weren't compliant until I read @black and decker boy's post above. 

 

Surely someone at the DfT should have known?  Besides which, by the time that order was made we all knew there would soon be dozens of redundant Mk4s. 

 

I realise that today's railway is theoretically made up from dozens of companies competing with each other but we all know who's calling the tune.  Could the DfT try employing someone who knows what they are doing?

[jjb1970]

4 minutes ago, Hesperus said:

Could the DfT try employing someone who knows what they are doing?

 

Excellent question, the world would appreciate the answer to that one if you can figure it out.

[rodent279]

2 hours ago, Hesperus said:

Could the DfT try employing someone who knows what they are doing?

Ha ha ha haha, you're funny!😜

[adb968008]

What was wrong with the 442’s doors ?

it would seem odd SWR to be spending tens of millions refurbing a unit that couldnt be used after 2020 anyway ?

 

as it was, it was a £1 for everyone of us in the country wasted, but it would be even more silly to have done it knowingly in the first place.

[Mol_PMB]

I gather that 68031’s namesake has also been withdrawn from service this week. The disappearance of the loco-hauled services must have used up his 9th life. 

[phil-b259]

31 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

What was wrong with the 442’s doors ?

it would seem odd SWR to be spending tens of millions refurbing a unit that couldnt be used after 2020 anyway ?

 

as it was, it was a £1 for everyone of us in the country wasted, but it would be even more silly to have done it knowingly in the first place.

 

I suspect width or lack of space in the vestibules (just as some trains had to have their PIDs changed because they were a fraction to small to meet the standard)

 

As to why - SWR would have saved a fortune in leasing payments compared to leasing new build stock had their plan come to fruition (and presumably they then banked on being able to get a much better leasing deal on new stock further down the line if the Government had refused to issue a derogation from the PRM standards)

 

 

[GMKAT7]

Good afternoon folks,

 

Phil-b259 is correct, in that the PRM regulations require access IIRC for a 700mm wide reference wheelchair access route.

 

The 442 vehicle's door system did not allow this much space. To make them PRM compliant would mean removal of the vertical door pivot pole and replacement with a new, compliant width door system.

 

For the same access width reasons the 158/159 accessible toilets (UAT) were fitted with a new, compliant width door system. This was the more cost effective route to compliance, rather than fitting a brand-new UAT. It also involved removal of the existing vestibule tip-up seats to allow the correct access width to the wheelchair space in the passenger saloon.

 

The cost of this, with other access clearance, meant the mods were not deemed cost effective so the 442s were not made compliant. The subsequent SWR 442 mods fiasco is another issue.

 

Cheers, Nigel.

[4630]

This from TransPennine Express expands on the post from @Mol_PMB a little earlier.

 

https://mediacentre.tpexpress.co.uk/news/tpe-mourns-the-loss-of-its-beloved-station-cat

[Mol_PMB]

5 hours ago, 4630 said:

This from TransPennine Express expands on the post from @Mol_PMB a little earlier.

 

https://mediacentre.tpexpress.co.uk/news/tpe-mourns-the-loss-of-its-beloved-station-cat

My last pic of Felix on the prowl about 5 weeks ago, looking in vain for 68031 which had been exiled to Kent:

 

[4630]

In the last few days of operation now.  On 6th December 2023, with an overnight heavy frost evident, 68030 Black Douglas and set TP06 speeds towards Heaton Lodge East Junction with 1U39, Manchester Piccadilly to Scarborough.

 

 

 

[31A]

18 hours ago, 4630 said:

In the last few days of operation now.  On 6th December 2023, with an overnight heavy frost evident, 68030 Black Douglas and set TP06 speeds towards Heaton Lodge East Junction with 1U39, Manchester Piccadilly to Scarborough.

 

 

I caught 1U39 myself yesterday, for a valedictory run from York to Scarborough and then back on the same set as far as Leeds.  It was a lovely sunny day in Scarborough yesterday!

 

 

 

 

The coach I rode in on the way back gave a noticeably smoother ride than the one I'd gone on!

 

[4630]

1 hour ago, 31A said:

 

I caught 1U39 myself yesterday, for a valedictory run from York to Scarborough and then back on the same set as far as Leeds.  It was a lovely sunny day in Scarborough yesterday!

 

 

You picked a good day, and almost the last day, to experience the journey.

 

A quick look at Realtime trains, which I know isn't always 100% accurate as it relies on external data, shows the following situation for today;

• For the majority of the day the two class 68/Mark 5 sets currently on the east side of the Pennines (68026+TP11 and 68030+TP11) are shuttling between Scarborough and York.
• The day time service between Manchester Piccadilly and Scarborough is provided by class 185s today.  

Both 68026 and 68030 finish their diagrams today back at Longsight TMD tonight, leaving none at Scarborough or York;

 

68026+TP11 should work 1U80 19/48 Scarborough to Manchester Piccadilly (22/10), then 5H80 to Longsight.

68030+TP06 should work 1K42 20/43 Scarborough to Manchester Victoria (22/50), then 5H84 to Longsight.

 

With the ASLEF strike affecting TransPennine Express tomorrow there won't be any services.

 

Which leaves Saturday 9th.  Previous Saturdays haven't always regularly featured class 68s and Mark5As across the Pennines, so it may well be that today will be the last day for them in service with TransPennine Express. 

[woodenhead]

I did think of taking a trip Manchester to Scarborough & return when they announced the end was nigh, but I didn't like the price at the time as being worth it, plus a day off too.  Mrs W would have refused to travel after her experience with TPE and Northern last December for a simple trip to Chester.

 

Oh well, I won't be sampling the delights of a Mk5 set (just yet).