Return of Loco Hauled Trains to UK

devnull

Transpennine Express is to order 13x 5 car Coached trains to be hauled by Class 68 Locos.

They've also ordered 12x5 CAF Civity UK trains n addition

http://www.tpexpress.co.uk/news/2016/05/more-new-trains-for-the-north-and-scotland/

It was widely expected that CAF would win the order since the usual suspects, Siemens, Bombardier and Hitachi are pretty busy at the moment with very full order books and would have had issues meeting the deadline because of such and CAF had much more room

goingnowhere

Hope they like the IE Mk4, thats what they are getting...

savagethegoat

they can have ours

savagethegoat

they did say why, they can buy coaches and use existing locos and it will be simpler and cheaper than buying units.

BoatMad

cant beat a loco hauled coach stock train

savagethegoat

the trainspotters will be in ecstasy

BoatMad

savagethegoat wrote: »

the trainspotters will be in ecstasy

and the passengers riding in real comfort rather then the overgrown busses that we have

savagethegoat

real comfort in a mk4 clone?

BoatMad

savagethegoat wrote: »

real comfort in a mk4 clone?

bring back the mk3s I say , best carriage ever built

Del.Monte

BoatMad wrote: »

bring back the mk3s I say , best carriage ever built

That would be the Cravens according to some enthusiasts.

Me, I preferred the old Park Royals with wash basin in the corridor, no tables and clouds of dust from the ancient seats that would block out the sun. I won't even mention the leaking roof seams.

Losty Dublin

Del.Monte wrote: »

That would be the Cravens according to some enthusiasts.

Me, I preferred the old Park Royals with wash basin in the corridor, no tables and clouds of dust from the ancient seats that would block out the sun. I won't even mention the leaking roof seams.

Nonsense; Bredin's rule!:D

Grandeeod

Some of you, even in jest, are so full of Sh1t!:D

Seanmk1

Del.Monte wrote: »

That would be the Cravens according to some enthusiasts.

Me, I preferred the old Park Royals with wash basin in the corridor, no tables and clouds of dust from the ancient seats that would block out the sun. I won't even mention the leaking roof seams.

Ah, the clouds of dust, how I remember them well. We used to drive the Ma and Da mad banging the seats to rise them up. Sometimes in the compartment of a side corridor coach of a commuter train out of Connolly.

tabbey

savagethegoat wrote: »

real comfort in a mk4 clone?

I think TPE, or any other Commercial operator, will insist that CAF get it right before they pay for coaches.

It is scandalous how CIE / IR allowed CAF get away with supplying rubbish.

prinzeugen

tabbey wrote: »

I think TPE, or any other Commercial operator, will insist that CAF get it right before they pay for coaches.

It is scandalous how CIE / IR allowed CAF get away with supplying rubbish.

I still can't believe they didn't do what BR did when they had similar problems with the ride on their Mk4's (different I know).

Its the gangways.. On a Mk2/3 there is a friction plate that dampens the sway.

On sealed gangways there is not. A damper from the coupling to the body would perhaps sort it.

I note a Irish Mk4 is only 3cm wider than a Mk3... Might happen yet!

end of the road

tabbey wrote: »

I think TPE, or any other Commercial operator, will insist that CAF get it right before they pay for coaches.

It is scandalous how CIE / IR allowed CAF get away with supplying rubbish.

oh absolutely. no way in hell will the owning rosco tolerate a rubbish product
(just for refference the operator themselves won't actually be buying the coaches, but a rosco who will lease the coaches to the operator)

Captain Chaos

prinzeugen wrote: »

I still can't believe they didn't do what BR did when they had similar problems with the ride on their Mk4's (different I know).

Its the gangways.. On a Mk2/3 there is a friction plate that dampens the sway.

On sealed gangways there is not. A damper from the coupling to the body would perhaps sort it.

Then how come the DD Enterprise does not have the problem the Mk4s have as they have sealed gangways with an autocoupler underneath? I do note that the DD gangways sag alot more than the Mk4 gangways when you see the coaches uncoupled.

I believe the Mk4 ride comfort issues stem from the bogie and suspension design rather than the gangways and couplings.

prinzeugen

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Then how come the DD Enterprise does not have the problem the Mk4s have as they have sealed gangways with an autocoupler underneath? I do note that the DD gangways sag alot more than the Mk4 gangways when you see the coaches uncoupled.

I believe the Mk4 ride comfort issues stem from the bogie and suspension design rather than the gangways and couplings.

I'll look for pics on flikr that will show the prob in the morning.

Remember that there are 4 main types of auto coupler..

The side sway on a 29 is as bad as it can get!

devnull

To be honest the deal with CAF is a deal of convenience many believe.

CAF have the spare capacity
TPE need trains quickly.

Bombardier, Siemens and Hitachi simply couldn't build them in time.

Jamie2k9

tabbey wrote: »

I think TPE, or any other Commercial operator, will insist that CAF get it right before they pay for coaches.

It is scandalous how CIE / IR allowed CAF get away with supplying rubbish.

It has cost CAF a lot of money, while the MarkIV is a heap of scrap a sizable part of the problem is the tracks here as there are good sections and bad ones.

Captain Chaos

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

It has cost CAF a lot of money, while the MarkIV is a heap of scrap a sizable part of the problem is the tracks here as there are good sections and bad ones.

But the rolling stock can be designed to take the track into account. YOu have/had the Mk3s, the DDs an ICRs all with ride quality far superior to the Mk4s.

I don't take track as an excuse as the Mk4s were clearly not designed for our track while other manufactures designed for it.

That's why I say it's a bogie problem, hence the Mk7 test train hauled by 234 some years back.

12Phase

I have been on the 22000s and Mark 4 recently and I didn't find the MK4's bad at all. The major difference is I find the presence of a train manager on the Mk4s makes a massive improvement.

I was on the Thalys yesterday and the MK4 actually compares well in terms of kit out on board and has massively better Wi-Fi connectivity and much better and cleaner toilets. Thalys also has no trolley service at all.

The only massively problematic thing for me on the MK4 is the lack of sockets in standard class. It really is a major oversight.

They're retrofitted on a lot of older stock continental trains using wires hidden in small ducts run along trims and so on. They also typically limit the output to a 3 amps or so which at 230V is more than adequate for laptop and mobile use (690 watts). There's no need for 20 or 32 amp wiring to feed sockets for this kind of low power usage.

and Irish / uk sockets aren't any bigger. They all fit a standard round module for this kind of layout.

Only issue I've had ever seen was a woman in France who plugged in a large hair dryer and the socket tripped off due to it being over the 3amp limit.

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

To be honest the deal with CAF is a deal of convenience many believe.

CAF have the spare capacity
TPE need trains quickly.

Bombardier, Siemens and Hitachi simply couldn't build them in time.

oh absolutely. that is likely the reason.

Jamie2k9

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

It has cost CAF a lot of money, while the MarkIV is a heap of scrap a sizable part of the problem is the tracks here as there are good sections and bad ones.

But the rolling stock can be designed to take the track into account. YOu have/had the Mk3s, the DDs an ICRs all with ride quality far superior to the Mk4s.

I don't take track as an excuse as the Mk4s were clearly not designed for our track while other manufactures designed for it.

That's why I say it's a bogie problem, hence the Mk7 test train hauled by 234 some years back.

Both are at fault but the Dublin-Cork line was not and some may say even now up to scratch when they arrived.

There are lots of extremely smooth sections that have been created since heaving tracks etc have been put down.

Im sure the Mark3s were not prefect when they entered service either

Grandeeod

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Im sure the Mark3s were not prefect when they entered service either

Ride quality was great, even on jointed track. Only problem I remember were the plug doors.

Jamie2k9

Grandeeod wrote: »

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Im sure the Mark3s were not prefect when they entered service either

Ride quality was great, even on jointed track. Only problem I remember were the plug doors.

Maybe so but they would not of been running at 90/100 miles when introduced so not really to draw much from it. All I am saying is the Mark IV were designed for improved infrastructure but still a poor build on CAFs behalf.

Perhaps the fact IE decided for PP ops instead of the power cars could be partly down to some issues.

Did the Mark3 even ever get 100 mph run before withdrawal?

Grandeeod

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Maybe so but they would not of been running at 90/100 miles when introduced so not really to draw much from it. All I am saying is the Mark IV were designed for improved infrastructure but still a poor build on CAFs behalf.

Perhaps the fact IE decided for PP ops instead of the power cars could be partly down to some issues.

Did the Mark3 even ever get 100 mph run before withdrawal?

The MK3s must of got to 100mph as before their withdrawal they operated with the 201 class and there were 100 mph sections on the Cork line.

In their early days there was certainly some stretches of 90mph running and I believe that during testing they did reach over 100mph with an 071 class. Heard that from an ex inchicore lab man. It was across the curragh according to him.

GM228

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Maybe so but they would not of been running at 90/100 miles when introduced so not really to draw much from it. All I am saying is the Mark IV were designed for improved infrastructure but still a poor build on CAFs behalf.

Perhaps the fact IE decided for PP ops instead of the power cars could be partly down to some issues.

Did the Mark3 even ever get 100 mph run before withdrawal?

Grandeeod wrote: »

The MK3s must of got to 100mph as before their withdrawal they operated with the 201 class and there were 100 mph sections on the Cork line.

In their early days there was certainly some stretches of 90mph running and I believe that during testing they did reach over 100mph with an 071 class. Heard that from an ex inchicore lab man. It was across the curragh according to him.

Parts of the Cork line as far as Limerick Junction were upgraded to 90MPH in 1987 and the MkIIIs operated at that speed with 071s from that year. From 1995 100MPH was introduced on even more of the line than the original 90MPH sections.

MkIIIs regularly operated at 100MPH from 1995 until withdrawl with 201s.

Captain Chaos

The Mk3A "International" set fitted with ABB bogies rather than the BT10 bogies fitted to the rest of the Mk3s were rated out to 110mph. Don't know how they tested them to that as the 201s are electronically limited unless this is isolated for testing purposes.

tabbey

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Did the Mark3 even ever get 100 mph run before withdrawal?

Mk III was designed for 125 mph running in HSTs on BR.

tabbey

Grandeeod wrote: »

Ride quality was great, even on jointed track.

Modern coaches are not designed for jointed track.

Even the B4 bogies on Cravens were designed for CWR.

The Commonwealth bogie was best for jointed track, in my opinion. It is always a pleasure to see Commonwealth bogie stock still providing comfortable service in Australia.

Some years ago, when NIR had introduced the 4000 class railcars, and the Castle class railcars were in their final year, I travelled on the Larne line north of Whitehead, before CWR was completed. Going out on the Castle class, the ride was a little rough, but returning, the 4000 could not cope at all with jointed track, as its designers did not consider it still existed.

Unfortunately train designers now work on the basis of perfect track, which Ireland does not have.

Grandeeod

tabbey wrote: »

Modern coaches are not designed for jointed track.

Even the B4 bogies on Cravens were designed for CWR.

The Commonwealth bogie was best for jointed track, in my opinion. It is always a pleasure to see Commonwealth bogie stock still providing comfortable service in Australia.

Some years ago, when NIR had introduced the 4000 class railcars, and the Castle class railcars were in their final year, I travelled on the Larne line north of Whitehead, before CWR was completed. Going out on the Castle class, the ride was a little rough, but returning, the 4000 could not cope at all with jointed track, as its designers did not consider it still existed.

Unfortunately train designers now work on the basis of perfect track, which Ireland does not have.

I rode the network since the 70s on every piece of crap CIE had.

The MK3s were the best over all kinds of track.

I don't need a lesson, but thanks anyway.

Jamie2k9

GM228 wrote: »

Parts of the Cork line as far as Limerick Junction were upgraded to 90MPH in 1987 and the MkIIIs operated at that speed with 071s from that year. From 1995 100MPH was introduced on even more of the line than the original 90MPH sections.

MkIIIs regularly operated at 100MPH from 1995 until withdrawl with 201s.

Never really used Cork line back then, most of my travels were PP, Mark 2 or the 2600 class.