More trains for TransPennine Express

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

Agree, almost certainly hauled in one direction and pushed in the other.
Still sounds better than a DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) though.

To obtain sufficient power, AND to facilitate driving from each end, perhaps some new design could be produced with a locomotive at each end. As the locomotives would only be coupled to the train one way round, they would need only a single cab, which could have a sloping front end to reduce air resistance.
In between could be 8 or more coaches, including perhaps a kitchen and buffet situated between first and standard class.
A loco each end would also provide "get you home redundancy" in case of mechanical failures.

[Tim]

I honestly don't think it matters much.

I tend to agree.  First Group chose the trains and put together the financing package to fund it and will be servicing the debt.  It is not the ToCs' fault that they are thinly-capitalised spivs.  The government sets up the structure.  Of course it is ultimately more expensive.  If it wasn't First would voluntarily finance their buses with such an arrangement.  The fact that they don't and they just buy buses by negotiating a good price and opening their cheque book perhaps suggests that even First doesn't think that the railway set up makes sense.   

[Timmer]

To obtain sufficient power, AND to facilitate driving from each end, perhaps some new design could be produced with a locomotive at each end. As the locomotives would only be coupled to the train one way round, they would need only a single cab, which could have a sloping front end to reduce air resistance.
In between could be 8 or more coaches, including perhaps a kitchen and buffet situated between first and standard class.
A loco each end would also provide "get you home redundancy" in case of mechanical failures.

Bit like an Intercity 125 

[grahame]

To obtain sufficient power, AND to facilitate driving from each end, perhaps some new design could be produced with a locomotive at each end. As the locomotives would only be coupled to the train one way round, they would need only a single cab, which could have a sloping front end to reduce air resistance.
In between could be 8 or more coaches, including perhaps a kitchen and buffet situated between first and standard class.
A loco each end would also provide "get you home redundancy" in case of mechanical failures.

That sounds really strange.  Better to go for some sort of tilting DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit).   I suppose if that didn't work, you could come up with a temporary stopgap along the lines you're suggesting.

[broadgage]

Perhaps these proposed new trains could be called "broadgage double ended trains with restaurant" That sounds like a bit of a mouthful though, can anyone think up a shorter and more catchy name ?

It should even be possible to produce a hybrid version, with a diesel loco at one end and an electric at the other. That would of course slightly limit the performance on diesel, but that might be acceptable if the non electrified portions of the route had lower line speeds.
When the wires come down, the train could still proceed, or if the line be blocked then the diesel engine could provide ample hotel power for 12 hours or more.

[stuving]

There's more detail in Railway Gazette, including confirmation of push-pull operation for the "Mark V" stock:

The 13 sets of five-car hauled coaches will be financed by Beacon Rail Leasing, and will work in push-pull mode with Class 68 diesel locomotives owned by Beacon Rail which will be subleased from Direct Rail Services. TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) said ^most of the required Class 68 engines are already built and by buying state-of-the-art carriages to be pulled by these engines, much-needed additional capacity can be introduced quickly^.

The coaches will initially operate at up to 160 km/h, with the capability to run at 200 km/h as routes are electrified. They will enter service from spring 2018, initially operating between Liverpool and Newcastle. Later in 2018 some will begin running to and from Scarborough. Once TPE's Hitachi AT300 fleet arrives in December 2019, the coaches will then be transferred to routes from Liverpool and Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough and Scarborough.

It does look as if CAF won the order mainly on short delivery for these - and by implication that includes the remote control of the Class 68s from the far end; all done in under two years.

[JayMac]

BNM I think you are being far too pedantic in an attempt to find criticism.  And if you want to be pedantic then I think your argument falls downs on both counts. 

As has been noted, the opening line does not state that TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) is purchasing the rolling stock.  Just announcing that the purchase is happening.  So no inaccuracy there. The second statement refers to delivery of an investment, not the making of an investment.  Parcelforce delivers a package to me, it doesn't make the contents. But it enables me to benefit from the contents, in the same way that TPE enables the public to benefit from the investment in new rolling stock. So delivery* is fine.

There is absolutely no doubt that TPE is the glue between many parties which has enabled this investment in rolling stock to take place. Instead of trying to find a reason to have a cheap jibe at them, I would have hoped that you would have welcomed this significant investment in the rail industry. From my perspective the best thing about this deal is the surprise and welcome return of hauled rolling stock, offering a flexibility and ability to scale up easily if passenger numbers exceed expectations that units don't have. 

* delivery  - to hand over  (Chambers English Dictionary):  thus TPE are handing over the investment, which seems reasonable.   

And I think it is a cheap jibe to call me pedantic on this point. 

I've made it quite clear why I think TPE/First Group are being disingenuous. Deliberately done to make themselves look good. There are over half a dozen news stories that follow from the press release that all say that TPE is spending ^230million. Even the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) fail to mention who's money is being spent.

Rail franchising and financing is a complex business. I believe there is a duty to the public to provide accurate information on who is spending what.

And, if you'd bothered to read my first post on the matter you'll see I did indeed welcome the the introduction of loco hauled services and the increase in capacity. But no, the cheap jibe about pedantry instead. 

[John R]

Seems you're quite keen to dole out the criticism but less so to receive it. I'll leave others to decide whether it was a cheap jibe or a robust response to your criticism of First Group.

[ellendune]

So who is investing the money?

First TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) have entered into a leasing agreement with two leasing companies.  That commits them to making leasing payments for the duration of the contract.

Beacon Rail Leasing have placed an order with CAF as have Eversholt Rail.

But Beacon Rail have obtained finance from Pamplona Capital Management

Where have Pamplona Capital Management obtained the finance from?  Banks are not typically financing these sorts of deals these days, so somewhere behind it all there is likely to be a syndicate of investors who are the real people who have put up the money, though it is conceivable Pamplona Capital Management is that syndicate.  The syndicate investors may indeed be a pension fund who's assets are really those of hundreds or thousands of individuals.  

In this context who are the investors? - Impossible to say!

Who cause the investment to happen though.  Neither Beacon Rail nor Eversholt Rail would have done it on their own and the fact that they shared it suggests they wanted to spread the risk.  

The single player who caused this to happen was First TPE.  So how should they describe what they did?  

The department of large infrastructure companies that make things like this happen are often called Capital Delivery Departments, because that is what they do. They do not provide the money, just manage it.  So delivering an investment of this nature is what First TPE is doing.  

Note: You could not use the same description for Electrification because to my mind Network Rail is undertaking Capital Delivery there.  

[Rhydgaled]

How does the in-service date for the new TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) stock compare to the new sleeper stock for ScotRail?

To obtain sufficient power, AND to facilitate driving from each end, perhaps some new design could be produced with a locomotive at each end. As the locomotives would only be coupled to the train one way round, they would need only a single cab, which could have a sloping front end to reduce air resistance. In between could be 8 or more coaches, including perhaps a kitchen and buffet situated between first and standard class.
A loco each end would also provide "get you home redundancy" in case of mechanical failures.

We already have those. Unfortunately, FirstGroup decided to replace them with DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) for reasons unknown, but rumored to be at least partly due to the fact the desision was made before ScotRail came up with a way of reducing the cost of fitting them with modern power-doors compliant with future accessibility regulations.

To obtain sufficient power, AND to facilitate driving from each end, perhaps some new design could be produced with a locomotive at each end. As the locomotives would only be coupled to the train one way round, they would need only a single cab, which could have a sloping front end to reduce air resistance.
In between could be 8 or more coaches, including perhaps a kitchen and buffet situated between first and standard class.
A loco each end would also provide "get you home redundancy" in case of mechanical failures.

That sounds really strange.  Better to go for some sort of tilting DMU.   I suppose if that didn't work, you could come up with a temporary stopgap along the lines you're suggesting.

No, better to go for some sort of EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) (or something like an IC225), with IC125s as a temporary stop-gap. If you are refering to the Advanced Passenger Train, the prototype was an EMU and the experimental one before that was gas-turbine-powered. Were there ever plans for a diesel APT^▸ (Advanced Passenger Train)?

[ChrisB]

Assuming only one 68 per set, they'll either need DVTs^‡(resolve) or a coach in each set with remote driving capabilities at the non-68 end. Can't see any detail of that anywhere?

[IndustryInsider]

I wonder whether these coaches will be known as Mark VI coaching stock?

I quess it will depend on how closely the design matches the sleeper stock being built as Mark V's.  If they share the same bodyshell and bogie design (my guess is that they will) they'll probably also be described as Mark V's rather than Mark VI's.

To obtain sufficient power, AND to facilitate driving from each end, perhaps some new design could be produced with a locomotive at each end. As the locomotives would only be coupled to the train one way round, they would need only a single cab, which could have a sloping front end to reduce air resistance. In between could be 8 or more coaches, including perhaps a kitchen and buffet situated between first and standard class.
A loco each end would also provide "get you home redundancy" in case of mechanical failures.

We already have those. Unfortunately, FirstGroup decided to replace them with DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) for reasons unknown, but rumored to be at least partly due to the fact the desision was made before ScotRail came up with a way of reducing the cost of fitting them with modern power-doors compliant with future accessibility regulations.

Great to see such a large number of new trains being introduced on the TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) routes.

I think the decision to run short formation loco-hauled sets on TPE is based on three things.  Firstly the carriages are cheap and quick to construct, secondly the limited supply of locomotives needed are already built, and thirdly their eventual use on the Liverpool/Manchester to Middlesbrough/Scarborough route suits short formation loco-hauled trains reasonably well.  The Class 68s acceleration is pretty good at low speed with five carriages (though not as good as a modern DMU) and the linespeeds will rarely be hindered by their top speed of 99mph.

Those three reasons don't apply to the Paddington to Penzance route though.  Firstly there would be more locomotives needed which would need to be of a new 125mph design which would add considerably to the cost as you would not just need the coaches.  Secondly there would need to be at least eight, more likely nine coaches, so having a diesel engine at both ends rather than several throughout the train would hamper acceleration considerably and not deliver the journey time reductions the new trains will be able to.  Thirdly, slow accelerating diesel trains would also make pathing more difficult on what will be an extremely busy railway between Reading and Paddington when the new GMWL and Crossrail services are introduced.

Continued use of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s and Mark III's would just be a stop-gap measure and we'd need to look again in 10-15 years.  They are already 35-40 years old and Scotrail will use them far less intensely and therefore will get more life out of them on shorter formations at less than 100mph than if they continued to hammer up and down at 125mph as 2+8 sets.

[ChrisB]

I wonder whether these coaches will be known as Mark VI coaching stock?

I quess it will depend on how closely the design matches the sleeper stock being built as Mark V's.  If they share the same bodyshell and bogie design (my guess is that they will) they'll probably also be described as Mark V's rather than Mark VI's.

One of the technical mags report that they're being built to a current design of Mark Vs.

[stuving]

Assuming only one 68 per set, they'll either need DVTs^‡(resolve) or a coach in each set with remote driving capabilities at the non-68 end. Can't see any detail of that anywhere?

That's what I was getting at in referring to the remote control of the 68s - it does need a DVT cab end for their carriage; designed, tested and built in under two years. That does sound a bit of a challenge.

[ChrisB]

Unless there are DVTs^‡(resolve) lying around? Chiltern obviously found some.