Drove past this a couple of weeks ago. Couldn’t see anything because it was pouring with rain and I was driving. Thanks for this video. Never been that way before so wasn’t aware it was there.
Those TPE Mk5 coaches were wonderful inside, the first class was the best on the UK network. However, those 68’s were noisy I could hear them from my flat.
Cross country could use some of these units, it’s standing room only on their 4 car units from Edinburgh to Plymouth service since they got rid of the HST’s obviously they don’t like passengers and the passengers that were on the train last week told the crew
Haven't/aren't they taking on the majority of 221s when avanti finally get rid of them? If that's the case, then they should have enough stock to make things 8-10 cars long like they did during covid for pretty much every service so they would have no need for these. Also, mk5s and 68s probably don't have the required performance.
100 mph limit so theyd be limited as to which parts of the XC network they can operate on and theyre not route cleard on those parts. so itd be more trouble than its worth with avanti 221s coming off lease
@@class313 the mark 5s having the worst availability rate in the country when TP was using them is probably a bigger issue than them being a microfleet
Absolutely, because of totally waste of new trains increases money! Just those new trains are very ridiculously it is... Now THESE, what the hell purpose!! 😣
They are all quite new but they also have serious cracks in them so can’t be used. Too easy the get the Spanish manufacturer to repair them when the TOCs never paid for them in the first place. Not a problem that would have occurred if BREL built them in the first place. Foreign ones are cheaper for a reason.
Ay, good old brel, 158's with cracked yaw damper mounts, all had to be modified. Good old 158's, engine mounting rafts all cracking and all had to be replaced with heavier duty rafts. Yeh good old brel 158's. Oh by the way, did I tell you the prop shafts all started falling off soon after delivery and all had to be modified. The best one was the one that fell off at Newbridge and came up through the floor. Don't forget the drivers windows that rattled so loud, you couldn't hear the dsd bleeper so the brakes kept coming on, especialy going through Queen St tunnel, so all had to get new mounts. Didn't make that much difference so had to get solid steel bars on them where the 2 sides came together. Don't forget the fish pond you had in the cab every time it rained, and the draught when it didn't, but hey, made by BREL so they were good. Nope they were shit
@@mybeasty3560 very obviously made up/exaggerated as you failed to mention the teething issues the 158s were actually known for when they entered service. Even if what youre saying was true then it's a one off, most of what BREL made entered service with few teething issues. The 158s have gone on to be extremely reliable for decades which the mark 5s won't do. Lastly to say they were 'made by BREL' is a bit disingenuous considering how much work BREL was contracting out by that time
@@Trainman10715 more shite from you. The yaw damper problem came to light when drivers reported the rough riding, the engine raft problem came to light when Haymarket started swapping the engines on routine maintenance,(which is why they were mounted on rafts), the prop shaft problem came to light after several fell off, BREL engineers took over the old coach shed at Cowlairs to carry out checks on them all. Ferried many set up there to be checked. The window problem came to light after being in service for a while and the slides were wearing faster than anticipated. The only person lying is you. Worked these from the day we got them, including the Aberdeens, also did running out tests with the inspectors after one couldn't stop at Linlithgow in freezing weather. This resulted in the special running brake test for inboard disc brakes. I've forgot more about 158's than you'll ever know..
68’s and mk5 sets would be brilliant for interstate services in Australia. Sydney-Melbourne, Melbourne-Adelaide, Sydney-Brisbane to replace the old xpt stock (based on the class 43)
@@dazshewring4358 "modifications" is a lot easier said than done kid. if it was as simple as typing "modifications" then TPE would have done it rather than getting rid of them. fundamental design flaws and poor build quality cant simply be rectified with "modifications" either. and idk what you mean by it being cheapter than ordering new stock as new locos would have to be ordered to run with the mark 5s anyway. would be much cheaper and easier to order new IETs as everyone else is doing and it would be much smarter to order tilting trains so they can run at full speed on the WCML where the majority of their route runs
Now the 325s are virtually gone, what about this ? Convert the Mk5s into freight/parcels carriers, reform them with 68s and a DVT and you have the perfect replacement for the 325s to run mail trains UK wide
This is the confused state of the rail industry of today. Locomotives made for purpose, but without a purpose to fulfil. Where are the traffic flows for these machines? Keeping them in long term storage for an upturn in business, in open air storage, less than ideal. As far as freight goes, seems they would prefer to send it all by road with all the inherent congestion and additional environmental issues it causes. Rail was made to compliment the poor quality roads of earlier years, often swiftly carrying bulk loads with ease, and keeping the roads clear for all else.
Loved the flyovers, I think they'd really suit the GBRf livery, would be great on intermodal services like the DRS ones, unfortunately this probably won't happen with their new 99s on the way. Hopefully they get used somewhere and don't have the same fate as the 60s at Toton 👍
@@morph- Yes I did know they were subleased by DRS to Transpennie express. But now all 14 have been returned to their owner Beacon rail by DRS, as when they officially come off their lease in May DRS have no work for them, and don't want to sublease them anymore. As a result Beacon Rail is looking for a new operator for the 68s 68019-032. I think they're hoping to lease them to an operator with the ex Tpe Mk5 stock, I doubt this will happen though. At this point it really will be interesting to see which operator takes these 68s next
@TrainsAtTrimley-eastSuffolk Interesting that DRS won't have any work for them by then, id rather they replace some of their older stock like the 66s, would have thought it would be better to have a nice matching fleet of stadlers. The Welsh could take them to replace the unreliable 67s?
i hope that they'd get the reliability issues sorted before they would go there. They were never fully accepted into service with TPE and suffer with the same type of cracking that the CAF 195 & 331 units suffered with.
Its easy for management to say they are unreliable, but how do we know whether they received adequate maintenance? The level of manintenance may have been decided by bean counters not engineers?
they are unreliable, you know they recieved adiquate maintainence cos the 68s are maintained by the manufacturer and they have an incentive to make their stuff look good
It is an absolute shame that some of the best modern generation diesels are languishing with no hope for the future, and then there's the debacle of the MK5 sets that are nearly new and they are doing nothing. What a waste of money and resources when there are long distance TOC's using inadequate rolling stock. I was futunate enough to try the 68's when they were doing the Fife Circle commuter trains. The sound was amazing and the acceleration was phenomenal.
@@DavidPeacock1972 thats from an enthusiast standpoint and to that i agree. from on operational standpoint however, 66s trump 68s in every way on freight and no passenger operators want loco hauled trains anymore, so the 68s are good for nothing
@@Trainman10715 Unfortunately I do have to agree with you there. Three-axled bogies are always going to be far more superior than two-axled bogies. There's a reason why Freightliner uses two 90's paired together.
@@DavidPeacock1972 yeah, gearing and weight too, which the class 90s dont have going for them either but theyre powerful enough to cope as long as theyre double headed, 68s arent. anything a double headed 68 can do, a single 66 can do better. the class 90s are at least electric and have better performance on intermodals at higher speeds
GB Railfreight, DB Cargo or Freightliner could use the class 68s. GWR the class 458s maybe on metrowest but that'll probably mean conversion to third rail
If that is so, why get rid of the 455's? Face it the 701's are JUNK, ALREADY 4 years behind schedule. Come to think of it WHY get rid of the VEPs and CIGs their seats were miles better than the 450s!
@@IanKeenan-ot5wi if the 455s werent the most reliable trains in the SWR fleet then why have they been awarded with 12 seperate golden spanners for reliability and why did SWR write "great britians most consistently reliable electric train fleet" on the side of 455868 (the br blue one). theyre getting rid of the 455s for the same reason that every other operator is getting rid of perfectly good stock and replacing it with crap stock, they want shiny new stuff because its percieved to be better regardless of how good it actually is. and SWR really are the epitome of that flawed mentality with the irony of the fact that theyre replacing britians most consistently reliable electric train fleet with britiains most consistently unreliable electric train fleet. VEPs CEPs and CIGs were killed off by CDL requirments and crashworthiness, had it not been for those then they would have easily served into the 2010s
@@IanKeenan-ot5wi 455s have too long a station dwell time for the type of services they operate. Class 158 and 159 are perfect for the Waterloo - Exeter service. As for the CIGs and VEPs, all Mk1 stock had to go because of poor crashworthiness.
Nice drone footage, and yes shame about the stored 68s.another example of wasted taxpayers money.we will probably gift them to Mexico or Bulgaria.i wish I was minister for transport, some heads would be Rolling!
Surely the question should be about why they were ever built in the first place? The fact that DRS has no use for them other than for hire to another operator has always struck me as odd especially as at the point where 68010 - 15 were being hired out to Chiltern Trains construction of a further 19 locos was still under way including those ex TPE ones shown here.
I cannot believe how wasteful the TOCs are. There are so many multiple units as well as the locos sitting in sidings and they go out and buy new ones. It's like getting rid of your car because the ashtray is full. It's disgraceful. Love from Oz
The fleet of Arterio class 701's have been sat there for a few years because ASLEF(train drivers union) claimed the wipers were too big and obscured the drivers view. Miraculously this has been cured with a 15% pay rise for the drivers.
@@olivermilner1470 exactly, ROSCOs own virtually all of them. although there is the exception of TfW owning all of their Mark 4 sets and some of their 153s (I think that's it, as GWR no longer of course have the 143s they owned, and I think the HST Mark 3s they owned were part of their "full length" sets).
Maybe Scotrail could use the Mk5's when the HST's are withdrawn. They could go "full-Metra" and use repurposed ex-Class 60's geared for 90mph working so that the hills up there won't be an issue. Metra repurposed around 10 SD70MAC's for passenger work that were freight locomotives into SD70MACH's for passenger work as EMD added a HEP generator to them and regeared the SD70MACH's for 90mph workings on passenger. I bet my next pint of beer that something could be done with the Class 60 locomotives. I know I would do it! Also have some on a new Cambridge to Cleethorpes services as well. I would use the Cummins QSK95 power packs in the ex-Class 60's as well as do something similar to what has become of the SD70MACH's. As for the Class 68's, other work or export them to another country. Uruguay or Panama might take them.
Scotland won’t accept 35 years old, heavy-duty freight locomotives for express passenger services, especially after the HST fiasco. I doubt they’d be particularly energy efficient in that role, nor have good acceleration.
Thanks for the fascinating video as always. Is stock still stored on the other side of the Long Marston site in/around the large ex-Army transit sheds behind the Site entrance off the B4632 Campden Road? I'm guessing that area may be prohibited or beyond drone range from the Pebworth side? Keep up the good work!
They should never have been built in the first place and why they exist is largely due to the TPE tender spec from the Dft, from the TPE perspective the original plan was to release 22 185's when all their new trains were in service later reduced to 15 so the fact they are now keeping all 185's means capacity is slightly reduced from the original plan but not massively. XC are getting 12 Ex Avanti 221's so need for them there.
Such a shame to see so much equipment collecting dust (and other assorted detritus). We hear so often of trains not living up to expectations, etc. Reminds me that Noah's Ark was built by amateurs but the Titanic was built by professionals.
The ex-TPE Mk5 stock is visible at the start of the video, by the 701s. They are the white coach sets with the funky-looking driving coaches on the end.
There were a number of reasons. Cracking on CAF stock was an issue at the time, they were significantly behind on crew training, and they were less reliable than hoped
If you think about it boils down to cost a train operator has got to pay for access rights to Network Rail, cost of leasing the trains from train leasing companies also pay for maintaining the fleet, I worked o the South Western which was one of the first Railway companies to be shadow franchised before stagecoach took over.
yer i can use them i could sell them and be rich and not worry about money at over a millon pounds that will do me haha. on the other note nice video and music well put together thank you.
Fewer people use trains since Covid and home working have occurred. It isn't profitable to run half empty trains, so you reschedule your trains and run fewer.
That’s not true, passenger numbers are now higher than before the pandemic, but Crossrail is responsible for some crazy proportion of rail journeys. Most of these trains are here because they don’t work.
Definitely isn’t true. Tuesday to Thursday busy. Monday and Friday, not so much, Saturday and Sunday up by 110% or more. The weekend is where it’s at now.
The Bankers Railway of rolling stock. Go and ask, JP Morgan Chase Bank about the MK5a and the Class 68's. The owner of Beacon Rail in the UK and Europe.
No they're just being maintained to a sub-par standard, nothing wrong with the GWR HSTs. Besides there aren't enough mark 5 sets to cover for them and why would they want those horrifically unreliable mark 5s anyway
Issues with cab layouts and software and other various problems, Unions won't allow the drivers to drive them until modifications are carried out hence why they are now slowly entering service.
The SWR units have got have modification work done the drivers and unions won't drive the trains until this is carried out hence why the class 701's are so late entering service.
Scotrail have recently put out a tender to replace their unreliable worn out HSTs in 2030, some doubt they will even last that long. If they need a stopgap don't be surprised if they turn to these.
their HSTs arent worn out and are only unreliable because theyre not being maintained properly, they were all mechanically sound when handed over from GWR. theyre replacing them because parts are becoming harder to source and they consume excessive amounts fuel for 4/5 coaches. firstly, why would they replace their slightly unreliable HSTs with extremely unreliable mark 5s and secondly, there arent nearly enough mark 5 sets to make up for them
@@Trainman10715 They were handed over from GWR over 6 years ago and being slightly unreliable is very generous. Whatever the reasons for their unavailability it is a regular occurrence. They are primarily being replaced because the unions threatened to instruct their members not to operate them following the Carmont derailment and subsequent crash worthiness concerns. Fully aware of the mk5 problems but the mk3 are worn out, leaking roofs and faulty electrics are common. I also know there are not enough class 68s to replace them all and that is not what I implied. Scotrail operated 2 on the Fife Circle 5 years ago due to a shortage of suitable DMUs and my point was a similar short term arrangement may be required.
@@MrScootmcg yeah as I said, theyre not being maintained properly. The union had nothing to do with their replacement, that boycott was due to take place over a year ago and it didn't happen because all the drivers like the HSTs, it's only the union bosses in suites who don't understand that steel bodied trains are more crashworthy than modern aluminium trains and the driver at carmont was dead whatever train he was in because his power car fell off a bridge. The Scotrail mark 3s were fully rewired and had full corrosion repairs done when they were refurbished so those claims aren't true, the only issues they could have are the power doors which haven't been great. Whatever reliability issues the HSTs have due to neglect by Scotrail, the mark 5s are worse. TPE were regularly reporting up to half the mark 5 fleet being out of traffic with various issues, an availability rate of 50 percent making them by far the most unreliable rolling stock in the country. The mark 5s have litteraly nothing over the HSTs so why would Scotrail want to spend the time and money route clearing them and training staff for a short term lease that won't even cover all HST workings?
@@Trainman10715 I get the whole nostalgia for them but the reality is the class 43s have just failed to deliver, committing to them for so long was a poor decision. Drivers may well like them but there was also the tree strike near Dundee which fortunately wasn’t fatal, that was the final straw for the unions. Even the late Sir Kenneth Grange questioned their suitability for use before his passing. Wabtec made a pigs ear of the refurb, there is no onboard catering because of the wiring. Many coaches have a damp smell - usually a sign of water ingress. SR struggle to sell first class seats because there is a good chance you’ll be travelling in a 170 or 158 anyway. Those are pulled from commuter services causing subsequent short forming and even more unhappy customers. If they do go the new build route then these issues are only going to get worse between now and 2030. Class 68s are a possibility, although due to financial constraints cascaded 222s are more likely imo.
@@Trainman10715 Second attempt, YT comments being unreliable.... Regardless of how you perceive the quality of maintenance, they need a lot of it which is hardly surprising given their age. The (thankfully) non fatal tree strike near Dundee was the final straw for the unions, regardless if drivers like them or not. Before his passing even Sir Kenneth Grange questioned their suitability for continued use. Wabtec made a pigs of the refurb, there is no onboard catering partly because of electrical issues. And yes some carriages have leaked, the damp smell is coming from somewhere. SR struggle to sell first class seats on them because there is a good chance you'll be travelling on a 170 or 158 anyway. Thereby making more passengers unhappy. Look, I get the whole nostalgia thing many have for them but the decision to rely on hard worked 40 year old rolling stock as a long term solution was a poor one. Time will tell, but they might not be capable of providing a sustainable service until 2030 without some alternatives. Be that a few class 68s or they replace the whole fleet with cascaded 222s. The later being a possibility given current financial conditions.
Such a waste to see these sat around doing nothing as they seem very new. Are the news reports right about these being taken out of service due to a lack of drivers qualifited to operate these locos?
no, they were taken out of service cos they were crap, unreliable and a constant source of problems. TP deliberatly stopped training staff on them when the internal decision to withdraw them was reached and then used the resultant lack of trained staff as an excuse
got fgw runing class 57’s on their sleeper service, which are getting un reliable 😢 to say the least, so why now get a couple of them 68’s done into fgw colours, have one as a thunderbird for when the new hitachi’s get stuck due to the weather at dawlish. such a waste of new kit,sat there doing nothing
far too loud to be used at night, they already generate noise complaints wherever they go, itd be even worse at night. theyre no more reliable than GWRs 57s anyway
the 68/Mk5a sets are unreliable, and the 701s are extremely slowly entering service due to an ongoing programme of modifications and software fixes (let me know if you want me to respond for the others).
This is what makes me so annoyed. Billions have been wasted on a rich man's toy (HS2) while there are so many trains sitting around not being used and areas that could do with upgraded rolling stock. Sad state of affairs. Need sorting out.
@@mybeasty3560 as far as im aware aberdeen is almost always 4 coaches and whenever its 4 coaches its pulled by just a 73. i watched the sleeper leave aberdeen back in 2022 after arriving on the XC service from plymouth and it was a 73 + 4 coaches
Why so many new trains increase up these?!!... It is absolutely qate of new trains and money... Why weren't stop increase of new trains against all over the UK? Just very ridiculously that the government doing that! 😣This is waste of spaces in the landmarks it is.
Should have been seeing the 68’s at Middlesbrough on services to Manchester airport but we’re left with shonky dmus thanks to the miserable people of Scarborough. Would never consider going over to Manchester on the current rubbish stock.
@@Trainman10715 Yeah, but I come from an era where the locomotive was king, those shonky dmus are uncomfortable, noisy and slow and in my day a complement to a dmu would have been to call it a “bog cart”. Reliability is a good one too, the ultimate bog cart from Hitachi is so good that LNER had to press the 91’s back into service lol…….I loved the days when the trans Pennine services were hauled by class 40s.
@@harrycummings6501 my guy the class 185s are not slow, theyre among the most overpowered DMUs in the country and trump almost everything diesel powered in terms of acceleration. theyre also made by a reputable manufacturer so they have a good ride and are reliable, unlike the mark 5s which had a terrible ride and were a constant source of problems. dont compare a crap manufacturer like hitachi to siemens who actually know how to make quality trains. i absolutly agree that loco hauled trains are superior to DMUs, just as long as the coaches arent mark 5s which had the worst availability rate of any stock in the country with transpennine regularly seeing half its fleet out of traffic
The 68s are too darn noisy. I back into Chat Moss and when they were operating here you knew about it. Think Scarborough had similar problems. The MK5 is however excellent so with a bi mode they would be excellent but the 68 isnt suitably for urban passenger use.
@@TrainSimEnjoyer I also have 60s 66s 37s and the occasional steam train go by. The 68s are significantly louder. It's relative and this is why Chiltern don't want them because of existing noise issues already. The 68s stabled at Scarborough caused issues (Google it) and the 185s aren't quiet by any means. As I said they are unsuitable for urban passenger service hence why they are still sitting there.
@@TrainSimEnjoyer as i said, the class 68 is leagues beyond any other modern diesel for noise. they also generate an intense low frequency bassy sound, and low frequency sounds travel further and penetrate walls better than high frequency sounds, exasperating their noise output
@@damiendye6623 The class 60 were rather unreliable. Initially they wanted to purchase class 59 derivatives (much like the eventual class 66), but because of mandates to buy UK-built locos the class 60 was built instead
Enjoyed the video. Tens of millions of pounds sitting there and not providing revenue. Las toured Long Marston 9th June 2018.
Drove past this a couple of weeks ago. Couldn’t see anything because it was pouring with rain and I was driving. Thanks for this video. Never been that way before so wasn’t aware it was there.
Those TPE Mk5 coaches were wonderful inside, the first class was the best on the UK network. However, those 68’s were noisy I could hear them from my flat.
Cross country could use some of these units, it’s standing room only on their 4 car units from Edinburgh to Plymouth service since they got rid of the HST’s obviously they don’t like passengers and the passengers that were on the train last week told the crew
Always said that Cross Country could do with the 68's & Mk5 coaches.
Haven't/aren't they taking on the majority of 221s when avanti finally get rid of them? If that's the case, then they should have enough stock to make things 8-10 cars long like they did during covid for pretty much every service so they would have no need for these. Also, mk5s and 68s probably don't have the required performance.
@ORBITERDAVE driver training and distance to depots was some of the reasons why not
@@trainman86trainstramsandmoredepends when avanti release them
100 mph limit so theyd be limited as to which parts of the XC network they can operate on and theyre not route cleard on those parts. so itd be more trouble than its worth with avanti 221s coming off lease
Why can’t they use some of this stock to replace the old DMU’s that are still in use in the North of the country?
cos they want reliable stuff like sprinters, not mark 5s which were just a constant source of problems
@@Trainman10715 More because operators want one fleet or as uniform of a fleet as possible. There isn't enough Mk5 sets to do that
@@class313 the mark 5s having the worst availability rate in the country when TP was using them is probably a bigger issue than them being a microfleet
Absolutely, because of totally waste of new trains increases money! Just those new trains are very ridiculously it is... Now THESE, what the hell purpose!! 😣
Because the locos that push/pull them get noise complaints from people who choose to move into a house next to a railway lol.
They are all quite new but they also have serious cracks in them so can’t be used.
Too easy the get the Spanish manufacturer to repair them when the TOCs never paid for them in the first place.
Not a problem that would have occurred if BREL built them in the first place.
Foreign ones are cheaper for a reason.
Spanish build quality. Don’t mention their frigates.
Ay, good old brel, 158's with cracked yaw damper mounts, all had to be modified. Good old 158's, engine mounting rafts all cracking and all had to be replaced with heavier duty rafts. Yeh good old brel 158's. Oh by the way, did I tell you the prop shafts all started falling off soon after delivery and all had to be modified. The best one was the one that fell off at Newbridge and came up through the floor. Don't forget the drivers windows that rattled so loud, you couldn't hear the dsd bleeper so the brakes kept coming on, especialy going through Queen St tunnel, so all had to get new mounts. Didn't make that much difference so had to get solid steel bars on them where the 2 sides came together. Don't forget the fish pond you had in the cab every time it rained, and the draught when it didn't, but hey, made by BREL so they were good. Nope they were shit
@@mybeasty3560 very obviously made up/exaggerated as you failed to mention the teething issues the 158s were actually known for when they entered service. Even if what youre saying was true then it's a one off, most of what BREL made entered service with few teething issues. The 158s have gone on to be extremely reliable for decades which the mark 5s won't do. Lastly to say they were 'made by BREL' is a bit disingenuous considering how much work BREL was contracting out by that time
@@Trainman10715 more shite from you. The yaw damper problem came to light when drivers reported the rough riding, the engine raft problem came to light when Haymarket started swapping the engines on routine maintenance,(which is why they were mounted on rafts), the prop shaft problem came to light after several fell off, BREL engineers took over the old coach shed at Cowlairs to carry out checks on them all. Ferried many set up there to be checked. The window problem came to light after being in service for a while and the slides were wearing faster than anticipated. The only person lying is you. Worked these from the day we got them, including the Aberdeens, also did running out tests with the inspectors after one couldn't stop at Linlithgow in freezing weather. This resulted in the special running brake test for inboard disc brakes. I've forgot more about 158's than you'll ever know..
Simply put, the DfT (DAFT !) won’t allow it because they say they are too expensive !
They are
Many questions on this one 😂
Great video Rob 👍
i hope all these units get into service soon, or at least give them a new life and save them from scrap or save them from rotting away
68’s and mk5 sets would be brilliant for interstate services in Australia. Sydney-Melbourne, Melbourne-Adelaide, Sydney-Brisbane to replace the old xpt stock (based on the class 43)
They would be perfect with the mk5s on the new proposed london euston to Wrexham route ...
apart from all the reasons that caused tpe to get rid of the mark 5s
@Trainman10715 modifications kid ,
Cheaper than ordering new stock
@@dazshewring4358 "modifications" is a lot easier said than done kid. if it was as simple as typing "modifications" then TPE would have done it rather than getting rid of them. fundamental design flaws and poor build quality cant simply be rectified with "modifications" either. and idk what you mean by it being cheapter than ordering new stock as new locos would have to be ordered to run with the mark 5s anyway. would be much cheaper and easier to order new IETs as everyone else is doing and it would be much smarter to order tilting trains so they can run at full speed on the WCML where the majority of their route runs
@Trainman10715 , good point , cannot argue with that 👌👊
Great footage 👏
Now the 325s are virtually gone, what about this ? Convert the Mk5s into freight/parcels carriers, reform them with 68s and a DVT and you have the perfect replacement for the 325s to run mail trains UK wide
My sentiments exactly Richard.... Seeing a lot of the rolling stock just sat there doing nothing absolutely beggars belief.
I thought mail trains had stopped 😠?
@@chriswalford4161 they have because the owners allegedly didn't want to pay to refurbish the trains
Didn’t U.K. Mail Trains stop some time ago. Cheaper and quicker to take it by air.
@@davecooper3238 that was the Railnet services hauled by 47,67,86 & 90 traction centred on the PRDC in Willesden and a few cross country services
This is the confused state of the rail industry of today.
Locomotives made for purpose, but without a purpose to fulfil.
Where are the traffic flows for these machines?
Keeping them in long term storage for an upturn in business, in open air storage, less than ideal.
As far as freight goes, seems they would prefer to send it all by road with all the inherent congestion and additional environmental issues it causes.
Rail was made to compliment the poor quality roads of earlier years, often swiftly carrying bulk loads with ease, and keeping the roads clear for all else.
Britain rather have passenger focus. Same goes with Japan. Their Freight market share is really low.
Notice both countries have both freight market share low. Japan Rail never outright publicly state their freight market share
if the UK wasn’t so deeply incompetent id assume they were purposefully trying to make people car dependent
These would look mint in grand central colours plus’s a 68/9 be better than those 185’s
apart from 185s actually work
Loved the flyovers, I think they'd really suit the GBRf livery, would be great on intermodal services like the DRS ones, unfortunately this probably won't happen with their new 99s on the way. Hopefully they get used somewhere and don't have the same fate as the 60s at Toton 👍
To small for GBRf. See: class 99.
Yes I did say GBRf probably wouldn't take them, just would really suit the GBRf livery 😃
@TrainsAtTrimley-eastSuffolk AFAIK those 68s are still with DRS, they were just subleased to tpe
@@morph- Yes I did know they were subleased by DRS to Transpennie express.
But now all 14 have been returned to their owner Beacon rail by DRS, as when they officially come off their lease in May DRS have no work for them, and don't want to sublease them anymore. As a result Beacon Rail is looking for a new operator for the 68s 68019-032.
I think they're hoping to lease them to an operator with the ex Tpe Mk5 stock, I doubt this will happen though.
At this point it really will be interesting to see which operator takes these 68s next
@TrainsAtTrimley-eastSuffolk Interesting that DRS won't have any work for them by then, id rather they replace some of their older stock like the 66s, would have thought it would be better to have a nice matching fleet of stadlers. The Welsh could take them to replace the unreliable 67s?
Fingers crossed that MK5's end up going to Chiltern.
i hope that they'd get the reliability issues sorted before they would go there. They were never fully accepted into service with TPE and suffer with the same type of cracking that the CAF 195 & 331 units suffered with.
Apparently, according to Rail Express, the DFT have blocked this idea.
Locos too noisy
why would you want chiltern to replace the good mark 3s they have with crap mark 5s? its not happening anyway due to the lack of an ETS generator
@@Trainman10715 more to replace the crappy 168s
Its easy for management to say they are unreliable, but how do we know whether they received adequate maintenance? The level of manintenance may have been decided by bean counters not engineers?
they are unreliable, you know they recieved adiquate maintainence cos the 68s are maintained by the manufacturer and they have an incentive to make their stuff look good
Yes Cross Country could do with those mk 5s and 68 and get rid of those cattle wagons aka the voyager sets
The voyagers being far better than the mark 5s though
Not enough of these for that
Off to Chiltern soon
No they're not, Chiltern don't need any more
There's a prospective tender for Chiltern which these would fit, but nothing has been announced or agreed. It may or may not happen
It is an absolute shame that some of the best modern generation diesels are languishing with no hope for the future, and then there's the debacle of the MK5 sets that are nearly new and they are doing nothing. What a waste of money and resources when there are long distance TOC's using inadequate rolling stock. I was futunate enough to try the 68's when they were doing the Fife Circle commuter trains. The sound was amazing and the acceleration was phenomenal.
not sure they can be the best modern diesels when the 66 exists
@@Trainman10715 The 66s are soulless compared to a 68 but that is my preference.
@@DavidPeacock1972 thats from an enthusiast standpoint and to that i agree. from on operational standpoint however, 66s trump 68s in every way on freight and no passenger operators want loco hauled trains anymore, so the 68s are good for nothing
@@Trainman10715 Unfortunately I do have to agree with you there. Three-axled bogies are always going to be far more superior than two-axled bogies. There's a reason why Freightliner uses two 90's paired together.
@@DavidPeacock1972 yeah, gearing and weight too, which the class 90s dont have going for them either but theyre powerful enough to cope as long as theyre double headed, 68s arent. anything a double headed 68 can do, a single 66 can do better. the class 90s are at least electric and have better performance on intermodals at higher speeds
GB Railfreight, DB Cargo or Freightliner could use the class 68s. GWR the class 458s maybe on metrowest but that'll probably mean conversion to third rail
none of them want 68s
@@Trainman10715 that's bad
The 458s are either part of a conversion program for SWR or don’t have much of a future
Its just crazy
68’s and Mk5
For the Waterloo Exeter service then give the 159’s to GWR to get rid of the 165/6 off the pompey Cardiff service
Yes to that, the 159's are getting old and need to be replaced.
@@IanKeenan-ot5wi they dont though, theyre the second most reliable trains in the SWR fleet after the 455s
If that is so, why get rid of the 455's?
Face it the 701's are JUNK, ALREADY 4 years behind schedule.
Come to think of it WHY get rid of the VEPs and CIGs their seats were miles better than the 450s!
@@IanKeenan-ot5wi if the 455s werent the most reliable trains in the SWR fleet then why have they been awarded with 12 seperate golden spanners for reliability and why did SWR write "great britians most consistently reliable electric train fleet" on the side of 455868 (the br blue one). theyre getting rid of the 455s for the same reason that every other operator is getting rid of perfectly good stock and replacing it with crap stock, they want shiny new stuff because its percieved to be better regardless of how good it actually is. and SWR really are the epitome of that flawed mentality with the irony of the fact that theyre replacing britians most consistently reliable electric train fleet with britiains most consistently unreliable electric train fleet. VEPs CEPs and CIGs were killed off by CDL requirments and crashworthiness, had it not been for those then they would have easily served into the 2010s
@@IanKeenan-ot5wi 455s have too long a station dwell time for the type of services they operate. Class 158 and 159 are perfect for the Waterloo - Exeter service. As for the CIGs and VEPs, all Mk1 stock had to go because of poor crashworthiness.
Nice drone footage, and yes shame about the stored 68s.another example of wasted taxpayers money.we will probably gift them to Mexico or Bulgaria.i wish I was minister for transport, some heads would be Rolling!
Scotrail could use them again as replacement to the HSTs
Surely the question should be about why they were ever built in the first place? The fact that DRS has no use for them other than for hire to another operator has always struck me as odd especially as at the point where 68010 - 15 were being hired out to Chiltern Trains construction of a further 19 locos was still under way including those ex TPE ones shown here.
TPE really did make a mistake in my opinion, ordering so many different train designs. They should have consolidated on fewer
What an utter waste. I liked them, and their noisy engines.
What happened to all the Mk 5 coaches, also sat rotting somewhere?
They're in the video too!!
@philipstokes2824 tpe still paying the lease as beacon rail won't accept them back
@@Stuartalison just show how efficient the privatisation model was!!!!
@@philipstokes2824 dft took control of finance during covid lockdown. That's when it went downhill
@@Stuartalison is that true that TPE is paying the lease fee for the 68s as becon rail the lease owner doesnt want em back?
I presume most, if not all, are owned by leasing companies, like Angel trains or Porterbrook?
Yes
so sad such a wonderful loco ..
I cannot believe how wasteful the TOCs are. There are so many multiple units as well as the locos sitting in sidings and they go out and buy new ones. It's like getting rid of your car because the ashtray is full. It's disgraceful. Love from Oz
You know the Department for transport and the treasury are in charge of who uses what?
@@Stuartalisonwell it’s only tax payers money (sarcasm)
The fleet of Arterio class 701's have been sat there for a few years because ASLEF(train drivers union) claimed the wipers were too big and obscured the drivers view. Miraculously this has been cured with a 15% pay rise for the drivers.
TOCs don’t own trains
@@olivermilner1470 exactly, ROSCOs own virtually all of them. although there is the exception of TfW owning all of their Mark 4 sets and some of their 153s (I think that's it, as GWR no longer of course have the 143s they owned, and I think the HST Mark 3s they owned were part of their "full length" sets).
Maybe Scotrail could use the Mk5's when the HST's are withdrawn. They could go "full-Metra" and use repurposed ex-Class 60's geared for 90mph working so that the hills up there won't be an issue. Metra repurposed around 10 SD70MAC's for passenger work that were freight locomotives into SD70MACH's for passenger work as EMD added a HEP generator to them and regeared the SD70MACH's for 90mph workings on passenger. I bet my next pint of beer that something could be done with the Class 60 locomotives. I know I would do it! Also have some on a new Cambridge to Cleethorpes services as well. I would use the Cummins QSK95 power packs in the ex-Class 60's as well as do something similar to what has become of the SD70MACH's. As for the Class 68's, other work or export them to another country. Uruguay or Panama might take them.
Panama uses much larger American-built locomotives
Scotland won’t accept 35 years old, heavy-duty freight locomotives for express passenger services, especially after the HST fiasco. I doubt they’d be particularly energy efficient in that role, nor have good acceleration.
2:25: A part of 159102 lives! I wonder what's going to happen to it?
Send them to Scotland to replace the Inter 7 city HST sets
Pure madness.
Letting leashing company's control the railways.
no, the DfT allocates rolling stock. the TOCs don’t have a say in it
Thanks for the fascinating video as always.
Is stock still stored on the other side of the Long Marston site in/around the large ex-Army transit sheds behind the Site entrance off the B4632 Campden Road?
I'm guessing that area may be prohibited or beyond drone range from the Pebworth side?
Keep up the good work!
What's happened to all the cars that used to be stored there ? Is it only rail stock in 2024?
Yes, Scotrail once the HSTs are gone.
Which will be 5 to 6 years time
They should never have been built in the first place and why they exist is largely due to the TPE tender spec from the Dft, from the TPE perspective the original plan was to release 22 185's when all their new trains were in service later reduced to 15 so the fact they are now keeping all 185's means capacity is slightly reduced from the original plan but not massively. XC are getting 12 Ex Avanti 221's so need for them there.
They will probably go abroad like the rest of our stock
why did northern take the 319 s off the blackpool north too liverpool lime street route
Because they were getting the ex West Midland's 323s, and 4-car 331/1s were moved from across the Pennines.
All the 319s are now scrapped.
ROG have already got 68026/68027
I see that the armchair experts are out in force.
You beat me to it … YEP 🙄🙄
Maybe gbrf or freightliner
Freightliner have too many class 66’s, stored in sidings at Leeds. And there also loads of Class 66’s stored at DB’s depot at Toton!
what happened to Chilterns cascaded stock tender then? surely these would be ideal?
was a speculative tender, they also released a tender for an 8 year maintainence contract for the current mark 3s, theyre just assessing options
There are hints it will be retendered, possibly next year
The Class 68 locos could replace the Class 57s on the Great Western sleeper services. The sooner the South Western trains are delivered the better.
Most of them look to have gone.
Are these the units some of the ASLEF members are complaining about, because the windscreen wipers are too big?
no the 701s were delayed over driver only operation
@@winterbliss4459 The 701s have also been extremely unreliable, though it seems they've improved a bit over time
Numbers of the 68s stored there please
In that last video
What’s that tram at 2:30
Such a shame to see so much equipment collecting dust (and other assorted detritus). We hear so often of trains not living up to expectations, etc. Reminds me that Noah's Ark was built by amateurs but the Titanic was built by professionals.
Are the TPE carriages there too?
yes, just separated from the 68s. he has other videos taken here.
The ex-TPE Mk5 stock is visible at the start of the video, by the 701s. They are the white coach sets with the funky-looking driving coaches on the end.
We were told they were being withdrawn because of cracks in the chassis, or is this another TOC lie?
There were a number of reasons. Cracking on CAF stock was an issue at the time, they were significantly behind on crew training, and they were less reliable than hoped
Total madness 🤔😡
Can they be viewed from outside.
No. It’s an ex-MOD site and still secured to military standards. I’m surprised a drone is at all allowed.
Absolutely disgraceful, and you wonder why train tickets are expensive?!!
If you think about it boils down to cost a train operator has got to pay for access rights to Network Rail, cost of leasing the trains from train leasing companies also pay for maintaining the fleet, I worked o the South Western which was one of the first Railway companies to be shadow franchised before stagecoach took over.
yer i can use them i could sell them and be rich and not worry about money at over a millon pounds that will do me haha. on the other note nice video and music well put together thank you.
Fewer people use trains since Covid and home working have occurred. It isn't profitable to run half empty trains, so you reschedule your trains and run fewer.
That’s not true, passenger numbers are now higher than before the pandemic, but Crossrail is responsible for some crazy proportion of rail journeys.
Most of these trains are here because they don’t work.
Definitely isn’t true. Tuesday to Thursday busy. Monday and Friday, not so much, Saturday and Sunday up by 110% or more. The weekend is where it’s at now.
The Bankers Railway of rolling stock.
Go and ask, JP Morgan Chase Bank about the MK5a and the Class 68's.
The owner of Beacon Rail in the UK and Europe.
ScotRail could use them, the HSTs are just (sadly) too long in the tooth.
No they're just being maintained to a sub-par standard, nothing wrong with the GWR HSTs. Besides there aren't enough mark 5 sets to cover for them and why would they want those horrifically unreliable mark 5s anyway
This is our subsidies just sitting there. The rolling stock people should be fined if the design is poor or they are unreliable
Whats wrong with all the Southwestern trains?
Issues with cab layouts and software and other various problems, Unions won't allow the drivers to drive them until modifications are carried out hence why they are now slowly entering service.
haven't they got cracks and electronic problems so they're just waiting for repair work?
Yes cracks in the subframe of the MK5's
Why so many stored? When there's a tremendous shortage of stock everywhere, etc 🤨🤔
cos theyre unable to fulfil any of the roles for which there is a shortage of stock
The SWR units have got have modification work done the drivers and unions won't drive the trains until this is carried out hence why the class 701's are so late entering service.
Is it possible to annotate the video with what we are looking at? Would help us less knowledgeable types 😎
Scotrail have recently put out a tender to replace their unreliable worn out HSTs in 2030, some doubt they will even last that long. If they need a stopgap don't be surprised if they turn to these.
their HSTs arent worn out and are only unreliable because theyre not being maintained properly, they were all mechanically sound when handed over from GWR. theyre replacing them because parts are becoming harder to source and they consume excessive amounts fuel for 4/5 coaches. firstly, why would they replace their slightly unreliable HSTs with extremely unreliable mark 5s and secondly, there arent nearly enough mark 5 sets to make up for them
@@Trainman10715 They were handed over from GWR over 6 years ago and being slightly unreliable is very generous. Whatever the reasons for their unavailability it is a regular occurrence.
They are primarily being replaced because the unions threatened to instruct their members not to operate them following the Carmont derailment and subsequent crash worthiness concerns.
Fully aware of the mk5 problems but the mk3 are worn out, leaking roofs and faulty electrics are common.
I also know there are not enough class 68s to replace them all and that is not what I implied. Scotrail operated 2 on the Fife Circle 5 years ago due to a shortage of suitable DMUs and my point was a similar short term arrangement may be required.
@@MrScootmcg yeah as I said, theyre not being maintained properly. The union had nothing to do with their replacement, that boycott was due to take place over a year ago and it didn't happen because all the drivers like the HSTs, it's only the union bosses in suites who don't understand that steel bodied trains are more crashworthy than modern aluminium trains and the driver at carmont was dead whatever train he was in because his power car fell off a bridge.
The Scotrail mark 3s were fully rewired and had full corrosion repairs done when they were refurbished so those claims aren't true, the only issues they could have are the power doors which haven't been great.
Whatever reliability issues the HSTs have due to neglect by Scotrail, the mark 5s are worse. TPE were regularly reporting up to half the mark 5 fleet being out of traffic with various issues, an availability rate of 50 percent making them by far the most unreliable rolling stock in the country.
The mark 5s have litteraly nothing over the HSTs so why would Scotrail want to spend the time and money route clearing them and training staff for a short term lease that won't even cover all HST workings?
@@Trainman10715 I get the whole nostalgia for them but the reality is the class 43s have just failed to deliver, committing to them for so long was a poor decision.
Drivers may well like them but there was also the tree strike near Dundee which fortunately wasn’t fatal, that was the final straw for the unions.
Even the late Sir Kenneth Grange questioned their suitability for use before his passing.
Wabtec made a pigs ear of the refurb, there is no onboard catering because of the wiring.
Many coaches have a damp smell - usually a sign of water ingress.
SR struggle to sell first class seats because there is a good chance you’ll be travelling in a 170 or 158 anyway. Those are pulled from commuter services causing subsequent short forming and even more unhappy customers.
If they do go the new build route then these issues are only going to get worse between now and 2030.
Class 68s are a possibility, although due to financial constraints cascaded 222s are more likely imo.
@@Trainman10715 Second attempt, YT comments being unreliable....
Regardless of how you perceive the quality of maintenance, they need a lot of it which is hardly surprising given their age.
The (thankfully) non fatal tree strike near Dundee was the final straw for the unions, regardless if drivers like them or not. Before his passing even Sir Kenneth Grange questioned their suitability for continued use.
Wabtec made a pigs of the refurb, there is no onboard catering partly because of electrical issues. And yes some carriages have leaked, the damp smell is coming from somewhere.
SR struggle to sell first class seats on them because there is a good chance you'll be travelling on a 170 or 158 anyway. Thereby making more passengers unhappy.
Look, I get the whole nostalgia thing many have for them but the decision to rely on hard worked 40 year old rolling stock as a long term solution was a poor one.
Time will tell, but they might not be capable of providing a sustainable service until 2030 without some alternatives. Be that a few class 68s or they replace the whole fleet with cascaded 222s. The later being a possibility given current financial conditions.
Such a waste to see these sat around doing nothing as they seem very new. Are the news reports right about these being taken out of service due to a lack of drivers qualifited to operate these locos?
no, they were taken out of service cos they were crap, unreliable and a constant source of problems. TP deliberatly stopped training staff on them when the internal decision to withdraw them was reached and then used the resultant lack of trained staff as an excuse
got fgw runing class 57’s on their sleeper service, which are getting un reliable 😢 to say the least, so why now get a couple of them 68’s done into fgw colours, have one as a thunderbird for when the new hitachi’s get stuck due to the weather at dawlish. such a waste of new kit,sat there doing nothing
I agree on this one, the GWR class 57's are breaking down on a permanent basis, the class 68 would be a Perfect replacement.
far too loud to be used at night, they already generate noise complaints wherever they go, itd be even worse at night. theyre no more reliable than GWRs 57s anyway
They are being refurbished thats why they are there.
The 458s are. The rest are in storage, much of it either about to enter service or at the end of their service life
I wonder what the betting odds are on eventual conversion to class 88s
cant, theyre too short
whats wrong with all those trains?
the 68/Mk5a sets are unreliable, and the 701s are extremely slowly entering service due to an ongoing programme of modifications and software fixes (let me know if you want me to respond for the others).
@@RWL2012 Good grief thanks for replying
This is what makes me so annoyed. Billions have been wasted on a rich man's toy (HS2) while there are so many trains sitting around not being used and areas that could do with upgraded rolling stock. Sad state of affairs. Need sorting out.
GBRf could use them on the sleeper services in Scotland and get rid of the class 73s which have to be piloted by a class 66
too noisy, they use 73s because theyre quiet and theyre not always dragged by 66s
@@Trainman10715indeed, Sunday nights Aberdeen portion south was 4 coaches and a single 73.
@@mybeasty3560 as far as im aware aberdeen is almost always 4 coaches and whenever its 4 coaches its pulled by just a 73. i watched the sleeper leave aberdeen back in 2022 after arriving on the XC service from plymouth and it was a 73 + 4 coaches
Why so many new trains increase up these?!!... It is absolutely qate of new trains and money... Why weren't stop increase of new trains against all over the UK? Just very ridiculously that the government doing that! 😣This is waste of spaces in the landmarks it is.
A great waste if the MK5 coaches are not given a future
Absolutely 💯
Should have been seeing the 68’s at Middlesbrough on services to Manchester airport but we’re left with shonky dmus thanks to the miserable people of Scarborough. Would never consider going over to Manchester on the current rubbish stock.
those shonkey DMUs are far more reliable and of much better build quality though
@@Trainman10715 Yeah, but I come from an era where the locomotive was king, those shonky dmus are uncomfortable, noisy and slow and in my day a complement to a dmu would have been to call it a “bog cart”. Reliability is a good one too, the ultimate bog cart from Hitachi is so good that LNER had to press the 91’s back into service lol…….I loved the days when the trans Pennine services were hauled by class 40s.
@@harrycummings6501 my guy the class 185s are not slow, theyre among the most overpowered DMUs in the country and trump almost everything diesel powered in terms of acceleration. theyre also made by a reputable manufacturer so they have a good ride and are reliable, unlike the mark 5s which had a terrible ride and were a constant source of problems. dont compare a crap manufacturer like hitachi to siemens who actually know how to make quality trains. i absolutly agree that loco hauled trains are superior to DMUs, just as long as the coaches arent mark 5s which had the worst availability rate of any stock in the country with transpennine regularly seeing half its fleet out of traffic
@@Trainman10715 Still crap bog carts….no one visits heritage railways to see bog carts.
@@harrycummings6501 no one will visit heretage railways to see Mark 5s either, at least the 185s work
Ludicrous waste of resources. Why aren't they being used?
WHAT A WASTE ????????
The 68s are too darn noisy. I back into Chat Moss and when they were operating here you knew about it. Think Scarborough had similar problems. The MK5 is however excellent so with a bi mode they would be excellent but the 68 isnt suitably for urban passenger use.
All diesels were and are loud, what exactly were you expecting from one....
@@TrainSimEnjoyer I also have 60s 66s 37s and the occasional steam train go by. The 68s are significantly louder. It's relative and this is why Chiltern don't want them because of existing noise issues already. The 68s stabled at Scarborough caused issues (Google it) and the 185s aren't quiet by any means. As I said they are unsuitable for urban passenger service hence why they are still sitting there.
@@TrainSimEnjoyer no modern locos are as loud as a 68
@Trainman10715 I'm talking in general... diesel locos are loud don't go and expect it to be quiet
@@TrainSimEnjoyer as i said, the class 68 is leagues beyond any other modern diesel for noise. they also generate an intense low frequency bassy sound, and low frequency sounds travel further and penetrate walls better than high frequency sounds, exasperating their noise output
68s have defects and are unreliable, TPE were under massive pressure because of poor service levels so rightly canned them.
This is why you dont nationalize trains.
Privatization/nationalization isn't responsible for why these trains are being stored
No one wants those ugly useless things bit like the 60s also in same bracket
The 60s are a fine loco just made at the wrong time of the had come earlier
@@damiendye6623 The class 60 were rather unreliable. Initially they wanted to purchase class 59 derivatives (much like the eventual class 66), but because of mandates to buy UK-built locos the class 60 was built instead