Future Rolling Stock Plans: My Ideas

[starrymarkb]

172s do exist with corridor connections and I believe all future Turbostar orders will have them.
Unfortunately a redesign with a new bodyshell would cause all sorts of extra costs that can be avoided, and with the development of good quality door seals I am no longer convinced that the comfort of the train is significantly impaired by the "commuter" style door positions.

If you are buying say 2-300 vehicles then the extra cost of having a different door position becomes insignificant.

 

[D365]

Well, this idea of a common suburban design was something BR tried several times, first with MkI-based units, then PEP-based, then MkIII/Sprinter-based, then Networker/Turbo based. They never quite did it, because the lengthy construction periods resulted in a new generation of unit coming along before there were enough of the previous ones to replace everything. Still, assuming for the moment that we will get mass electrification, I reckon it's an excellent idea, and hope that there will be a regional diesel version of the same thing (essentially a modern Super Sprinter [Super-Duper Sprinter if you like]) with doors at the end and a bit more luggage space. It doesn't have to be super-powerful, but be light, efficient, comfortable, fast off the mark and have good hill-climbing ability. You could have single-car, two-car and three-car versions, all with end-gangways.

I haven't covered DMUs yet but I reckon that's the way the Turbostar family is heading, or indeed has headed. For my next plan update, I will add "153 single-car DMUs to return to 155 formation (retrofitted cabs semi-permanently coupled and locked), to be replaced by Parry People Mover (PPM) 20/23m single-car units."

Looking bigger, it's worth having some new Desiro-based stock around, to replace 455s on SWT for instance. It's also worth keeping the 185s, especially if they could work on Waterloo-Exeter (for commonality with 444s) or the Scotrail Express routes (where hill-climbing is important). This would release 170s and 159s for other uses - the 159s might do well on the former Alphaline routes for instance. A bit of upgrading to 90mph would be very helpful, especially over longer routes which might use remaining 158s and the released 159s.

I don't understand why so many people suggest moving the 185s from Pennine routes; are they not suitable for the job? Is Scotland a better place for them??

The eVoyager, or rather its replacement design, might make a good main line unit for routes parallel to HS2. While I will mourn the loss of 91s and MkIVs, they don't really suit regular stops, so replacing them with something lighter and quicker to accelerate will be helpful. IEP (if we ever see it) would make a good unit for longer-distance work, any remaining ECML Anglo-Scottish traffic for instance.

My personal opinion is that the whole IEP project should be scrapped and the process restarted. Work on electrifying the GWML should be slowed or stopped until electric intercity trains have been ordered and Class 319s are ready to be released from Thameslink.

My "IEP²" plan, as mentioned in my initial post but is to be expanded, partially consists of the complete "eVoyager" project, for Cross Country, West Coast Main Line and Midland Main Line (Meridian) units, along with extra carriages for the aforementioned. The actual "IEP" in this case would be similar to the current [mess] project, with (D)EMUs or loco-hauled trains forming new InterCity fleets, and EMUs for 'commuter' services from London-Oxford/Kings Lynn. Longer-distance services would remain with IC225s for now; they're doing just fine I think.

The new InterCity trains would either be manufactured by Bombardier, a development of the Class 222 Meridian, alongside eVoyager (hopefully with a new UK plant or a refitted Litchurch Lane), or the proposed Alstom Class 180/390 fusion. Somebody mentioned Preston as a factory, I thought it was only the old Washwood Heath... Unless I've missed something.

P.S. Myth-busting facts about the "Harrogate Metro" scheme

 

[142094]

That link to the Harrogate Chamber of Trade and Commerce says:

"There is no initial proposal to increase peak frequencies into Leeds or York".

Therefore all that is being suggested is an increase in capacity, which could be easily met by the use of perhaps another 153 added on to the stock that already runs on the route. Even so, outside of the peak hours, the Harrogate line is not busy at all.

 

[anthony263]

IEP should be scrapped in its current form with IEP2 having 23m carriages so no expensive work done to modify infrastructure to accomodate 23m carriages which will be as cramped as a class 153. Also I hope IEP if it ever did happen would be funded by something other than PFI

For the Great Western I would rather see the existing mk3 carriages modified to work with electric locomotives and fitted with powered doors which would be cheaper than ordering new high speed trains. Of course new trains could be odered when we get closer to 2030-2035 which is where I think the MK3's woudl start to be really showing their age.

Bombardier did say they had come up with a design of their Traxx locomotive which would fit the UK loading guage so that would be something to look at and woudl be good if built at Derby.

Alstom's factory in Preston does all the electrical work for the trains with the bodys being put together in france of course perhaps Alstom may look at expanding their plant in Preston if they get a good number of orders.

Another train builder which hasnt been mentioned is CSRE who's pacesetter unit looks to be a more modern version of the class 158 and I believe they were looking at opening a factory in the UK as well if they got a big enough order/orders

 

[tbtc]

The hill climbing ability of the 185s gets a lot of press, but is it really required?

Not east of Sheffield (or on the Hull line). Not to Blackpool either.

Yet XC 170s seem to cope with Lickey okay.

Going back to the Harrogate line, Northern have done quite a lot to improve capacity on what is quite a rural route, with doubled up services being on the majority of workings. Does the line deserve to be electrified? Some will argue yes, but I'd say there are far more lines that could do with the investment before Harrogate.

Harrogate is a difficult line to serve due to the different demands. You could probably fill a six coach departure from Leeds as far as Horsforth but only need four coaches to continue to Harrogate and then only a couple beyond Knaresborough...

However it is a self contained line (apart from the one London service a day) which is electrified at both ends. The wealthy commuters in that part of the world look like they could sustain some First Class provision but all they have are Pacers/ 150s etc.

 

[ainsworth74]

For the Great Western I would rather see the existing mk3 carriages modified to work with electric locomotives and fitted with powered doors which would be cheaper than ordering new high speed trains.

I think that's a good alternative, though it would require refitting the Mk3s to accept standard ETS rather than the HST specific ETS (unless you want these brand new electric locomotives to be stuck only being compatable with on set of passenger stock). Not impossible but worth bearing in mind.

My preferred IEP solution would be a 180 body shell married with a 390 traction package and diesel locomotives hauling it away from the wires.

Bombardier did say they had come up with a design of their Traxx locomotive which would fit the UK loading guage so that would be something to look at and woudl be good if built at Derby.

It's unlikely they'd set up Derby to build what would be a fairly small run of locomotives (in the grand scheme of things) when they already have production facilities for the locomotive on the continent.

The hill climbing ability of the 185s gets a lot of press, but is it really required?

Not east of Sheffield (or on the Hull line). Not to Blackpool either.

Yet XC 170s seem to cope with Lickey okay.

Yeah I agree that this is something that's way overblown I don't think there is anything particularly difficult about the gradients of the Pennines, especially seeing as the 158s seem to have been able to cope with them without too much difficulty (unless the introduction of 185s led to a speeding up of services over the hills?).

That being said I do think that their power could be useful in the hilly parts of Scotland.

 

[anthony263]

Yes ainsworth74 the alstom class 180/390 emu is something I would prefer I suggested the MK3's as a cheaper stopgap which could be used when the GW is wired for a few years rather than having cramped exprensive bi-mode trains build under a PFI deal which I am sure would be regretted about 15 years down the line.

Anyway I am hoping as are many others that the DFT idiots who are pushing for this train built by Hitachi back down or someone in the treasury takes a hard look at the figures and the figures of what Alstom or the others are porposing and kills Hitachi's IEP

 

[tbtc]

Yeah I agree that this is something that's way overblown I don't think there is anything particularly difficult about the gradients of the Pennines, especially seeing as the 158s seem to have been able to cope with them without too much difficulty (unless the introduction of 185s led to a speeding up of services over the hills?).

That being said I do think that their power could be useful in the hilly parts of Scotland.

I agree about the Highland Main Line being a potential "home" for the 185s (as well as routes like Manchester - Buxton), since they have good hill climbing abilities, but they certainly didn't need to be so over-engineered in the first place and the fact that we have the tail wagging the dog means that 185s aren't really suitable for cascading to just anywhere.

 

[D365]

We have quite a lot of spare Mark 3 coaching stock, don't we? Now that I think about it, I'd like to see a locomotive similar to the Class 43 or the planned single-cab Class 67 for IEP, with transformers and a pantograph located on a converted Mk3 unit, or a brand-new coach. The diesel equipment should be able to be removed if it is not needed in the future. Commuter high-speed units similar to the Class 395 Javelin would take over London to (Didcot)-Oxford and Cambridge-Kings Lynn services instead.

 

[fgwrich]

We have quite a lot of spare Mark 3 coaching stock, don't we? Now that I think about it, I'd like to see a locomotive similar to the Class 43 or the planned single-cab Class 67 for IEP, with transformers and a pantograph located on a converted Mk3 unit, or a brand-new coach. The diesel equipment should be able to be removed if it is not needed in the future. Commuter high-speed units similar to the Class 395 Javelin would take over London to (Didcot)-Oxford and Cambridge-Kings Lynn services instead.

Nope! You'll have a hard job looking for any spare Mk3s left over these days, with really the only ones not doing any work being 5/6 ex Cargo D Mk3 RFMs and a very limited hand full of ex HST buffets also in store in Long Marston.

However...There is a fair amount of ex Irish Mk3s not doing anything. Though what state these are now sadly in remains to be seen, but if there anything to go by Iarnród Éireanns standards (rather low for most loco hauled coaches), they would require a rather hefty overhaul & refurbishment.

(And i say that with a vengance - Yes, i have seen IE Mk2s with a fair few holes rusting away in the bodysides, as well as rather lumpy floorings - and this was when IE were using the Mk2s)

As for the Thames Valley commuter services - 395s? No thanks, there extra speed ability and High Speed Design with single plug leaf doors would be rather pointless, something more akin to the 125 MPH 332s would far far better!

 

[D365]

My bad... I forgot to suggest that the leftover Mark 3 coaches from the HST sets could be rebuilt with power doors and new cabling, and reused for 10-15 years with the new locomotives. Effectively, the sets would still be HSTs, but only with new powerheads (and an OHL 'adaptor' coach each) at first. Coaching stock would be supplememnted by new "Mark 5.2s" and eventually replaced.

It wouldn't really be cost-effective regauging/rebuilding the Irish Mark 3 coaches, compared to buying new stock. Would it be worthwhile? I've heard the stored buffet coaches are being stripped and refitted for First Great Western.

 

[tbtc]

I've heard the stored buffet coaches are being stripped and refitted for First Great Western.

The fact that this is happening just goes to show how desperate we are for "spare" stock - I wish there were dozens of unused coaches sat idle in sidings, but the fact that FGW are converting these buffets is evidence that there's almost nothing spare.

 

[D365]

There are the 9 317/7s, still maintained and run wihout passengers, as well as 15 or so rapidly dildiplating 508s and Mark 2 coaches... Decades of underinvestment and misadventures by the Tories (coughPRIVITISATIONOFBUSESTRAINSHOSPITALSPOLICEANDSOONFIREBRIGADEARMYSCHOOLSTOOcough) are begining to show. When do they ever learn?

That's another story though... Importing the 141 Pacers back from Iran, anyone?

 

[ainsworth74]

There are the 9 317/7s, still maintained and run wihout passengers, as well as 15 or so rapidly dildiplating 508s

The problem of course being that there is nowhere for them to run as we need more DMUs not more EMUs (at least in the short term).

and Mark 2 coaches...

How many Mk2s are there and what condition are they in?

Decades of underinvestment and misadventures by the Tories

Though let us not forget that the privatised railway has spent most of it's life in the hands of Labour

 

[LE Greys]

My bad... I forgot to suggest that the leftover Mark 3 coaches from the HST sets could be rebuilt with power doors and new cabling, and reused for 10-15 years with the new locomotives. Effectively, the sets would still be HSTs, but only with new powerheads (and an OHL 'adaptor' coach each) at first. Coaching stock would be supplememnted by new "Mark 5.2s" and eventually replaced.

It wouldn't really be cost-effective regauging/rebuilding the Irish Mark 3 coaches, compared to buying new stock. Would it be worthwhile? I've heard the stored buffet coaches are being stripped and refitted for First Great Western.

The general idea of an electric HST has been around since they cancelled APT. Modifying the remaining MkIII DVTs to couple to one end and adding a locomotive to the other might be a possible stopgap solution, although it would require a complicated set of inverters to produre the required ETS - and I suppose having a backup d.c. supply so that it could haul other coaches is a possibility.

Incidentally, the idea of moving the 185s was because I thought that North Trans-Pennine was being electrified. Is that not still on? I had considered swapping them for XC's 170s, but that would require work to increase DMU speed limits to match SP limits on several lines. The Aberdeen Road does not have that problem, although I can't speak for the Highland Main Line. Aberdeen-Inverness does, so I don't think they'd work that line.

 

[ainsworth74]

Incidentally, the idea of moving the 185s was because I thought that North Trans-Pennine was being electrified. Is that not still on?

Oh it's on but no one is sure quite how much is being done. We know for sure that Liverpool - York will be wired but what's not clear is if it's going to include Scarborough, Middlesbrough, Hull and even Cleethorpes. Those are the destinations on the Network Rail tender but there has been no confirmation yet from the DfT/Treasury as to how much of that is going to be done.

 

[Donny Dave]

The hill climbing ability of the 185s gets a lot of press, but is it really required?

Not east of Sheffield (or on the Hull line). Not to Blackpool either.

I agree the hill climbing ability isn't needed to Blackpool, but between Doncaster and Grimsby, there's several good hills to negotiate. From Doncaster, you have the run upto Scunthorpe station (a couple of miles at something like 1 in 60), and in the other direction, there's Brocklesy bank, Elsham bank and Appleby bank. While the first doesn't affect the 185s too much as they don't have to slow down to negotiate a P/TSR, Elsham bank is just after Wrawby Jn, a 30mph PSR, and Appleby bank is just after a long 40 TSR. You notice how much harder a 170 has to work on those hills compared to a 185 ....

Yeah I agree that this is something that's way overblown I don't think there is anything particularly difficult about the gradients of the Pennines, especially seeing as the 158s seem to have been able to cope with them without too much difficulty (unless the introduction of 185s led to a speeding up of services over the hills?).

That being said I do think that their power could be useful in the hilly parts of Scotland.

The 158s coped fine with the hills, but then again, the timetable was quite slack in places. Since Eureka was implimented on the ECML, the South TPE route has been tightened a bit, something the 170s struggle with (quite badly at times). Using the 158s, I think they were scheduled 55 mins between Sheffield and Manchester Picc (fast line between Stockport and Manchester), where it's now 51 minutes (slow line between Stockport and Manchester), where as the EMT services are still timetabled for 54 mins, and they AFAIK use the fast lines from Stockport.

Decades of underinvestment and misadventures by the Tories (coughPRIVITISATIONOFBUSESTRAINSHOSPITALSPOLICEANDSOONFIREBRIGADEARMYSCHOOLSTOOcough) are begining to show. When do they ever learn?

*Ahem*

ECML electrification. Stations being built/reopened in the late 80s and early 90s. Menchester Metrolink, Sheffield supertram. Mass replacement of mark 1 DMUs and EMUs. Guess which government they all happened under? Yup, you've got it, the Conservatives.

Mind you, we won't let the facts get in the way of a good rant eh ....

That's another story though... Importing the 141 Pacers back from Iran, anyone?

Erm, no thanks!

 

[D365]

You've just got me there with infrastructure, but where do the ECML masts keep toppling? That's right, so close to my house! OK, that's exaggerating really, the line runs right past Port Holme Meadow near Huntingdon (the proud location of my recent unintended "bogging"!) and parallel to the Great Ouse for a bit (three-tracking along Stilton Fen between Huntingdon and Peterborough - it makes me SO mad when people think it's two tracks!) - the high-speed nature of the railway doesn't make it easy either.

OK, that wasn't really the Tories' fault, but their privatisation of just about every public service or asset can kiss my gluteus maximus!

 

[sprinterguy]

It doesn't have to be super-powerful, but be light, efficient, comfortable, fast off the mark and have good hill-climbing ability. You could have single-car, two-car and three-car versions, all with end-gangways.

A modern single car DMU would probably make an inefficient use of the interior space and provide only a very limited number of seats due to the greater number of facilities, such as disabled access toilets, that would take up saloon space when compared to the 153s. Plus, there are very few routes that still have the same low levels of passenger demand that warranted no more than a single class 153 when they were introduced, and 153s are commonly used for strengthening other services (Exceptions such as Bedford - Bletchley, Coventry - Nuneaton and Adwick - Sheffield recognised, but a handful of short routes does not a cost effective train order make) rather than just operating singly. It would be better to stick to 2 and 3-car 172s, so that any train length between 2 and 6 carriages can be provided as capacity demands.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

172s do exist with corridor connections and I believe all future Turbostar orders will have them.

I wouldn't be so sure, the drivers' of a TOC that orders 172s will express a preference for the layout of their working environment (You would hope that they would get some input!) that from what I have heard generally tends towards a non-corridor arrangement for cabs as it offers much greater visibility and more freedom of movement within the cab.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I haven't covered DMUs yet but I reckon that's the way the Turbostar family is heading, or indeed has headed. For my next plan update, I will add "153 single-car DMUs to return to 155 formation (retrofitted cabs semi-permanently coupled and locked), to be replaced by Parry People Mover (PPM) 20/23m single-car units."

In similar fashion to my post responding to LE Greys directly above, there are only a few routes where replacing 153s with a new design of single carriage unit would offer sufficient passenger capacity. In many instances, stretched Parry People Movers would be unsuitable as class 153 replacement as many 153s are presently used to strengthen other services and the PPMs would be incompatible with existing rolling stock, unsuitable for longer distance journeys and do not strike me as being sufficiently structurally resilient to gain a safety case for operation on mixed-use commuter and trunk routes amongst a wide range of heavy rail rolling stock.

There are some routes though where replacement of class 153s with PPMs would be a suitable option, these being routes that are self-contained and constitute a reasonably short distance journeys. The Coventry - Nuneaton, Bedford - Bletchley and Barton on Humber branches are examples that I can think of off the top of my head. The sort of PPM design that would be most suitable for these sorts of routes would be this:
http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/pdf/2011-04-01-tram-train-brochure.pdf
Or the PPM 130 or PPM 175:
http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/PPM130.htm
http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/PPM175-spec.htm

It is also possible that some routes currently worked by single 153s in urban areas could be worked into a greater light rail scheme for the area, although given the slow progress of light rail projects in the UK and the limited locations where sufficient population densities are present to support light rail (and if the route is currently being served by a single 153 then it seems unlikely that those areas would have sufficient passenger demand for light rail) then the application of this approach seems limited.

In the majority of cases though, 153s should be replaced (to allow them to be reformed back into 2-car 155s) by class 172s in busy urban areas with a large commuter traffic, or by the likes of cascaded 150s displaced from commuter duties by new class 172s in the more rural areas such as the Devon and Cornish branches.

 

[John55]

With all this talk of building new DMUs does anyone know if a practical solution to the latest emission regulations has been developed?

It has been reported for some time that fitting a powerful diesel engine with all the latest solutions (Euro 3B?) for the various controlled substances is impractical for a DMU within the British loading gauge.

 

[D365]

It wasn't my intention to get onto DMUs in real life (the first post was actually a personal wishlist!) but I don't know how much stricter the regulaions are getting..
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And how about classic-compatible PPMs; a joint project with Bonbardier or something..?

 

[LE Greys]

A modern single car DMU would probably make an inefficient use of the interior space and provide only a very limited number of seats due to the greater number of facilities, such as disabled access toilets, that would take up saloon space when compared to the 153s. Plus, there are very few routes that still have the same low levels of passenger demand that warranted no more than a single class 153 when they were introduced, and 153s are commonly used for strengthening other services (Exceptions such as Bedford - Bletchley, Coventry - Nuneaton and Adwick - Sheffield recognised, but a handful of short routes does not a cost effective train order make) rather than just operating singly. It would be better to stick to 2 and 3-car 172s, so that any train length between 2 and 6 carriages can be provided as capacity demands.

You're almost certainly right. I was thinking of those routes where it's a case of cut costs or shut down, where a single-car unit would be one way to do that. I had, of course forgotten about most of the requirements. A light rail solution sounds very sensible - at least as a temporary measure. Reinforcing other services would have been a secondary role, and 3-car units would make that unnecessary.

The two reasons I didn't suggest 172s directly were the door issue and because I wasn't sure how well they meet the latest emissions requirements. Would it be possible to solve both of those with (perhaps) a Class 173?

I wouldn't be so sure, the drivers' of a TOC that orders 172s will express a preference for the layout of their working environment (You would hope that they would get some input!) that from what I have heard generally tends towards a non-corridor arrangement for cabs as it offers much greater visibility and more freedom of movement within the cab.

Sounds like a case of swings and roundabouts. Not having through-gangways would make it harder for a guard to move about the train, as it does in Scotland with 170s. In areas with flexible formations, I would tend to go for gangways for that very reason.

In similar fashion to my post responding to LE Greys directly above, there are only a few routes where replacing 153s with a new design of single carriage unit would offer sufficient passenger capacity. In many instances, stretched Parry People Movers would be unsuitable as class 153 replacement as many 153s are presently used to strengthen other services and the PPMs would be incompatible with existing rolling stock, unsuitable for longer distance journeys and do not strike me as being sufficiently structurally resilient to gain a safety case for operation on mixed-use commuter and trunk routes amongst a wide range of heavy rail rolling stock.

There are some routes though where replacement of class 153s with PPMs would be a suitable option, these being routes that are self-contained and constitute a reasonably short distance journeys. The Coventry - Nuneaton, Bedford - Bletchley and Barton on Humber branches are examples that I can think of off the top of my head. The sort of PPM design that would be most suitable for these sorts of routes would be this:
http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/pdf/2011-04-01-tram-train-brochure.pdf
Or the PPM 130 or PPM 175:
http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/PPM130.htm
http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/PPM175-spec.htm

It is also possible that some routes currently worked by single 153s in urban areas could be worked into a greater light rail scheme for the area, although given the slow progress of light rail projects in the UK and the limited locations where sufficient population densities are present to support light rail (and if the route is currently being served by a single 153 then it seems unlikely that those areas would have sufficient passenger demand for light rail) then the application of this approach seems limited.

In the majority of cases though, 153s should be replaced (to allow them to be reformed back into 2-car 155s) by class 172s in busy urban areas with a large commuter traffic, or by the likes of cascaded 150s displaced from commuter duties by new class 172s in the more rural areas such as the Devon and Cornish branches.

Sounds like a good solution.

 

[HSTEd]

I wouldn't be so sure, the drivers' of a TOC that orders 172s will express a preference for the layout of their working environment (You would hope that they would get some input!) that from what I have heard generally tends towards a non-corridor arrangement for cabs as it offers much greater visibility and more freedom of movement within the cab.

The problem with this is the driver might gain a slightly larger working space, but it means that effective-DOO becomes the only practical option.
For instance a nine carriage Cl159 formation would have atleast one unit with no crew in it at any one point.
At which point the argument of having a guard starts to fail as he can't do significant revenue protection duties.

Its the drivers comfort versus the guards and catering staff (if there is a trolley)'s jobs.

If you don't want DOO you have to be for the largest possible number of inter-unit gangways, and drivers can hardly say this is a new hardship.

If you are buying say 2-300 vehicles then the extra cost of having a different door position becomes insignificant.

I don't think we would need that many more end door vehicles, especially as suburban-layout doors have already proven perfectly viable with passengers on several routes that are traditionally done by Class 158s with end doors.
As for it being "insignificant".... would you rather have a few units with end doors, or a few more units purchased by the several million pounds the redesign would require?
And trying to keep parts commonality as close as possible to 100% would be hurt by having single leaf doors at the ends.

With all this talk of building new DMUs does anyone know if a practical solution to the latest emission regulations has been developed?

It has been reported for some time that fitting a powerful diesel engine with all the latest solutions (Euro 3B?) for the various controlled substances is impractical for a DMU within the British loading gauge.

This is largely a rumour spread by people desperate for a return to mass loco hauled operations, AdBlue with Selective Catalytic Reduction will almost certainly allow the existing 485hp engines fitted to Class 172s to comply with all reasonable future emissions requirements.

On another note... six car Cl172s in place of the Chiltern loco hauled rakes? Would have gangways to allow portion working with two or three car units attached to one end.

 

[LE Greys]

I thought we were talking about a massive order to replace 114 X 156s, 7 X 155s, 70 X 153s and an assorted number of Pacers and 150s, plus some to allow 158s to cascade away from 75mph routes. That's 200 units at least, some of which would have to be 3-car. To me, this suggests a new class optimised for medium-distance rural stoppers, such as those that can be found in East Anglia, on Northern, EMT, FGW, ATW and Scotrail. There's still life in the units to be replaced, but they're not DDA-compatible (AFAIK) or meeting emissions requirements. Target areas would be the East Anglian branches, Lincolnshire branches, Devon and Cornish branches (assuming 158s elsewhere), Midland and Northern medium-distance (Morecambe, Yorkshire Coast, etc), medium-distance Welsh routes (Heart of Wales, Conwy Valley, etc) and Scottish long-distance locals (Far North/Kyle, West Highland/Oban and Stranraer [maybe]).

Stick with 172s for now, but they are closer to being a suburban unit. I can't really imagine one turning up at Skegness or Mallaig.

 

[sprinterguy]

This is largely a rumour spread by people desperate for a return to mass loco hauled operations, AdBlue with Selective Catalytic Reduction will almost certainly allow the existing 485hp engines fitted to Class 172s to comply with all reasonable future emissions requirements.

I didn't realise that there were any problems with the MTU 6H 1800 R83 engines fitted to the 172s in meeting emissions regulations? I thought it was just the larger 750hp engines under other units that failed to meet the most recent qualifications.

On another note... six car Cl172s in place of the Chiltern loco hauled rakes? Would have gangways to allow portion working with two or three car units attached to one end.

It must be more cost effective for Chiltern to have procured mark 3s and to lease 67s from DB Schenker instead of purchasing new stock, or they wouldn't have done it, surely. Once again, your desperation to see class 172 world domination seems to fly in the face of economic sense when they are not required in the first place.

Plus, why on earth would a six carriage DMU on the Chiltern route need corridor connections? There would virtually never be a situation where passenger numbers would demand that they would need to work in multiple, and a train length of more than six carriages would be pushing the limits of some of the platform lengths on the route, starting with the bay platforms at Moor Street.

 

[HSTEd]

I didn't realise that there were any problems with the MTU 6H 1800 R83 engines fitted to the 172s in meeting emissions regulations? I thought it was just the larger 750hp engines under other units that failed to meet the most recent qualifications.

If we really were to standardise on the 172's engine we would have to be sure it would meet emissions standards long into the future, such as a Stage IV... (has such a thing been specified yet?).

It must be more cost effective for Chiltern to have procured mark 3s and to lease 67s from DB Schenker instead of purchasing new stock, or they wouldn't have done it, surely. Once again, your desperation to see class 172 world domination seems to fly in the face of economic sense when they are not required in the first place.

Well remember the private sector does not often like capital expenditure because it almost always has a higher interest rate than available to the state, and since I plan the domination of the Turbostar on the basis of a state owned ROSCO......
Additionally the Mark 3 refurbishment will probably give them another decade at most, maybe 15 years if we are being generous, and in my plan Turbostars might well be in production in ten years time.....

Plus, why on earth would a six carriage DMU on the Chiltern route need corridor connections? There would virtually never be a situation where passenger numbers would demand that they would need to work in multiple, and a train length of more than six carriages would be pushing the limits of some of the platform lengths on the route, starting with the bay platforms at Moor Street.

I don't think gangways significantly increase the price of the units, and there is the possibility of future cascades to other routes where longer trains might be useful. Additionally some of the platforms at Marylebone should be able to take 8 coaches (since they want to have 67+6Mk3+DVT), which leaves the possibility of through working two coaches from a local service on the Snow Hill Lines to London a couple of times a day.

 

[sprinterguy]

Additionally the Mark 3 refurbishment will probably give them another decade at most, maybe 15 years if we are being generous, and in my plan Turbostars might well be in production in ten years time.....

The Chiltern line might be in line for electrification in ten years time. It has been noted by Network Rail in an RUS or similar document as an aspiration during the CP6 period (2019-2024), when the class 165s become due for withdrawal. There's a lot of different possibilities for what could happen in 10 - 15 years time, and nothing to suggest that new trains to replace the loco hauled Chiltern Mainline rakes, which Chiltern are currently investing a lot of interest and money into with expectations of expanding their operations in the future, are required.

 

[HSTEd]

The Chiltern line might be in line for electrification in ten years time. It has been noted by Network Rail in an RUS or similar document as an aspiration during the CP6 period (2019-2024), when the class 165s become due for withdrawal. There's a lot of different possibilities for what could happen in 10 - 15 years time, and nothing to suggest that new trains to replace the loco hauled Chiltern Mainline rakes, which Chiltern are currently investing a lot of interest and money into with expectations of expanding their operations in the future, are required.

I doubt that the Chiltern Line is going to be electrified within twenty years, there are so many routes ahead of it, the Midland Main Line, the other Cross Country route, the spurs from the ECML..... its an awful lot to get done before an unimportant commuter line gets done.
I doubt the Manchester-Bournemouth trains will convert to EMU operations any time soon, it will more likely be the place all the remaining Voyagers go to.

 

[fgwrich]

I doubt that the Chiltern Line is going to be electrified within twenty years, there are so many routes ahead of it, the Midland Main Line, the other Cross Country route, the spurs from the ECML..... its an awful lot to get done before an unimportant commuter line gets done.
I doubt the Manchester-Bournemouth trains will convert to EMU operations any time soon, it will more likely be the place all the remaining Voyagers go to.

What with the vast improvements carried out by Chiltern, and the increase in passengers on that route - i would hardly call it an unimportant commuter route!

Dont forget too, that with further electrification happening across the Cross Country network - Electrification covering at least (Possibily Basingstoke) Reading to Oxford (Onwards to Banbury?), it would put the E Voyager plan into use. And having beein involved with a meeting rather reccently with a manager from Chiltern, i think there long term aspiration is Electrification - So if they want it, NR wants it, then who knows how long it'll be.

 

[WatcherZero]

With all this talk of building new DMUs does anyone know if a practical solution to the latest emission regulations has been developed?

It has been reported for some time that fitting a powerful diesel engine with all the latest solutions (Euro 3B?) for the various controlled substances is impractical for a DMU within the British loading gauge.

This was the case 5 years ago, for example using a diesel engine for the original tram-train pilot route was cancelled because there simply wasnt any engines around that met the new standards that were shortly going to become mandatory however compliant engines are now starting to appear because the work had to be done for Truck and plant machinery engines too and the crossover to DMU is fairly easy as their similar size and power, they just have to reorient the engine.