The future for DMU's

[LE Greys]

Top-contact third rail is avoided unless a justifiable extension of an existing system... Would have been interesting to see how Harrogate would have worked out with D Stock converted to bottom-contact (as seen on DLR), but that would need the bi-mode IEP to continue InterCity service..

And unfortunatly, we WILL need further new DMUs if we want to replace Pacers by 2020, even with the current rate of electrification - most of the diesels released are InterCity type! (HSTs, Voyagers/Meridians thanks to the loss of Thor, several Adelantes)

And, unless we are going to abandon Wick, Mallaig, Pwllheli, Barnstaple. Whitby, Sheringham and so on, we will still need DMUs ad infinitum.

 

[HSTEd]

We could potentially electrify everything.... would be expensive but it would give us an all electric, all multiple unit (for passengers and possibly containers anyway) railway.

Which is probably the optimum in terms of energy and operating efficiency.

 

[The Ham]

We could potentially electrify everything.... would be expensive but it would give us an all electric, all multiple unit (for passengers and possibly containers anyway) railway.

Which is probably the optimum in terms of energy and operating efficiency.

If we were to electrify a lot, but leave the long branch lines but have bi-model trains, then as long as some of the route was electrified then the emissions per km could just squeeze in just below the limit. If the limit gets revised down and you need new trains, then just add another few km of electrification to each line for which your new trains need to run on and hey presto your train falls bellow the new limit per km.

It also means that they can be used anywhere on the network using electric traction.

 

[Goatboy]

You do know that MML electrification is cheaper than *not* electrifying the route?

Ultra-long-term of course it is - its cheaper to run and more efficient than diesel power. It also offers a better passenger experience versus a DMU.

But it requires enormous up front capital investment and if this investment is not cited at some point in the future as a reason behind fare increases then I will be absolutely amazed.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

If we were to electrify a lot, but leave the long branch lines but have bi-model trains, then as long as some of the route was electrified then the emissions per km could just squeeze in just below the limit. If the limit gets revised down and you need new trains, then just add another few km of electrification to each line for which your new trains need to run on and hey presto your train falls bellow the new limit per km.

It also means that they can be used anywhere on the network using electric traction.

IEP down the Falmouth branch then? Or Portsmouth-Bristol?

Don't you think it is time that there were a bit more open-mindedness about updatings of old technologies which might be appropriate in niche situations?

Roger Waller at DLM, building on the work of others, has put a great deal of work into developing steam traction, first to overcome the drawbacks of the technology as implemented before 1950, and second, to fit it into the modern operating environment. Capital costs are low - but after years of trying, and despite successful demonstrations of the updated technology, he has still failed to get a sufficiently large order (minimum 20) to enable delivery at a competitive price. This reflects poorly on those responsible for procurement.

The solitary rebuilt class 52 is fully compatible with the SBB infrastructure and I believe is now fitted with ERTMS. The locomotive earns its keep running specials and infrastructure trains but the other projects still exist only on paper, despite the fact that the costs are, relatively speaking, peanuts.

Yet one finds some very costly high tech trains running remote and lightly used routes such as the Frederickshavn-Skagen branch at the top of Jutland.

 

[junglejames]

Has anyone ever done a survey to ascertain people's views on the subject?

No not really. Nobody is ever given an option.
Its said how people dont moan about voyagers. How much of that is down to a- People not bothering to moan, and b- People not knowing any different, and so accepting it?
Also, how do we know people dont moan about them, or that people like them? Ive never moaned about them anywhere except on here. So if I wasnt on this forum, would it be assumed i liked them? So could the same be said of other people?

Im not suggesting either way, as nobody has ever been given such a choice. All we have to go on is Mr Shooters words. Which seems to suggest that LHCS is prefered, and this was at a time when the LHCS stock had the supposed hated slam doors.

One thing that springs to mind as well, is me and planes. Im not an air enthusiast, but I fly a lot. I used to think 747s were good. Thats because I didnt know any different and i assumed all aircraft were the same (ie noisy). Then I travelled on an A380 and an A340. All of a sudden i realised there is a lot better out there (ie much much quieter).

 

[Oswyntail]

And, unless we are going to abandon Wick, Mallaig, Pwllheli, Barnstaple. Whitby, Sheringham and so on, we will still need DMUs ad infinitum.

There is nothing inherently wrong with wiring any of these, so long as the business plan can justify it - same as any route. And, of course, the business plan improves every time somewhere else is wired, with the increased costs of maintaining microfleets. But we do tend to be defeatist in such matters. Providing what the travelling public needs in such places - as opposed to what current operations provide - could work wonders.

 

[AndyLandy]

Has anyone ever done a survey to ascertain people's views on the subject?

I will admit it's hardly representative, since it represents a very small sample size and doesn't tackle any specifics, but...

Many of my friends here in Southampton are happy with the Voyagers. Indeed, I know people who will use them in preference to SWT's 444s along the BSK-BMH corridor. The only complaint you ever hear raised is when they're overcrowded. It's only when you get to those who are rail enthusiasts that you start to encounter any other objections to Voyagers.

I work at the University in Southampton, so know lots of people who have come from all over the country. Most of them use rail travel to go between the uni and their home towns and cities. Many aren't particularly knowledgable about trains and mostly only care about them when they're dirty, delayed or overcrowded. A surprising number of people still think that Virgin run the CrossCountry services in and out of Southampton. A few are a little more savvy about it and get cross when SWT put on the "blue commuter trains" (450s) instead of the "white intercity ones" (444s) on the London services. I've heard complaints about prices, or the commuter-nature of SouthEastern services, but nobody has ever complained about diesels being noisy or Voyagers being unreasonably cramped or uncomfortable.

 

[transmanche]

Has anyone ever done a survey to ascertain people's views on the subject?

Passenger Focus do. E.g. they did a survey to see what passengers thought of the Class 185.

No not really. Nobody is ever given an option.
Its said how people dont moan about voyagers. How much of that is down to a- People not bothering to moan, and b- People not knowing any different, and so accepting it?

The National Passenger Survey captures passenger satisfaction information on many aspects such as "comfort of the seating area" and "toilet facilities".

I've grabbed a couple of stats from the Spring 2012 results that seem particularly relevant to Voyagers. I've shown XC (all DEMU/DMU) vs EC (all mk III/IV) and the sector average for long-distance high speed TOCs. The first figure shows those who are "fairly satisfied" or "very satisfied"; the second figure shows those who are "fairly dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied".

Comfort of the seating area:
76% XC 8%
78% EC 8%
80% LDHS 8%

Toilet facilities:
48% XC 29%
52% EC 26%
51% LDHS 25%

 

[ainsworth74]

Continuing with the above adding in VT (who operate the much maligned 390s and 221s):

Comfort of the seating area:

82% VT 7%

Toilet facilities:

54% VT 23%

 

[Surreyman]

Top-contact third rail is avoided unless a justifiable extension of an existing system... Would have been interesting to see how Harrogate would have worked out with D Stock converted to bottom-contact (as seen on DLR), but that would need the bi-mode IEP to continue InterCity service..

And unfortunatly, we WILL need further new DMUs if we want to replace Pacers by 2020, even with the current rate of electrification - most of the diesels released are InterCity type! (HSTs, Voyagers/Meridians thanks to the loss of Thor, several Adelantes)

DAB-Move, reluctantly I have to agree with you, although personally I would like to see an ongoing rolling programme of electrification resulting in no more new DMUs being built, after several exchanges in these forums, I have to admit that the timescales/numbers/DDA deadlines fall short.
It is great pity that the Chiltern line(s) (Tier 2 electrification priority) and associated lines around Birmingham could not have been approved for electrification in CP5, this would have released the 165s/168s for cascade.
So the questions are: -
1. Will Dft issue a derogation for Pacers (& maybe 153s) to continue after 2020.
2. Can Pacers be made DDA compliant? - still not 100% clear.( I know the timescales are different but an awful lot of european rolling-stock serves low platforms with steep steps up into carriages).
3. Ditto 153s - despite Roscos apparent lack of interest.
4. New DMUs are ordered to meet 2020 deadline, possibly funded directly by Government as Roscos not interested.

 

[tbtc]

1. Will Dft issue a derogation for Pacers (& maybe 153s) to continue after 2020.
2. Can Pacers be made DDA compliant?

The way I see it, almost anything can be made DDA complaint (you could fit a "universal" toilet in a Pacer if you wanted, I'm sure the "step" could be tackled with enough cash thrown at the problem) - the question is will it be economical to spend sufficient money on Pacers for this, given that they will be almost forty years old by 2020. I can't see that happening.

 

[The Ham]

IEP down the Falmouth branch then? Or Portsmouth-Bristol?

I said Bi-model not IEP, the two are not the same (although IEP has Bi-model guise), I was envisioning a 2 or 3 coach sprinter type train which could run under either traction mode.

As several of the services that would benefit from such stock are not independent of the rest of the network*, it would make sense to provide one or possibly two classed of train capable of running near IC type services (under electric traction) as well as plodding up and down branch lines as needed.

*Portsmouth-Cardiff being a classic example where much of the route is along fairly major lines and by 2019 quite a length of the route would be electrified, and most of the route is likely be electrified by 2025. However the gap is likely to be fairly low down the list of lines that would be a priority to electrify other than to allow the service to be transferred to being run by EMU.

Don't you think it is time that there were a bit more open-mindedness about updatings of old technologies which might be appropriate in niche situations?

Theoretically we could look at old technologies (steam), however that means that it has to be built to move along the mainlines, it also would be very different to maintain from any other rolling stock which would add to the upkeep costs. Especially as it is likely that such trains would be spread to the four corners and with very few TOC's having enough to justify employing their own engineers to maintain them (and even those would have to travel around quite a bit).

There is a need for them to use the mainlines either for passenger services (as only a few lines/services are truly independent of the rest of the network) or to go to a depot to be maintained (even if that is only for the more major maintenance).

 

[transmanche]

I said Bi-model not IEP, the two are not the same (although IEP has Bi-model guise)

What do you mean by 'bi-model'?

 

[AndyLandy]

What do you mean by 'bi-model'?

One assumes he meant "bi-modal" and it's merely a typo.

 

[The Ham]

One assumes he meant "bi-modal" and it's merely a typo.

yes a typo

 

[transmanche]

What do you mean by 'bi-model'?

One assumes he meant "bi-modal" and it's merely a typo.

I've noticed he uses it a lot. And as he was discussing definitions, I thought it worth checking if he meant 'bi-mode' (in the sense of having two modes; i.e. diesel and electric traction) or something else. Just in case I was missing something obvious!

 

[starrymarkb]

I said Bi-model not IEP, the two are not the same (although IEP has Bi-model guise), I was envisioning a 2 or 3 coach sprinter type train which could run under either traction mode.

Something like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorail_à_Grande_Capacité

 

[jopsuk]

Blimey that bad boy's a bit heavy- the B82500 version is a similar length to a 3-car 170, two less axles, 35 tonnes heavier. Slightly heavier than a 185. With, again, one less bogie.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

What do you mean by 'bi-model'?

One assumes he meant "bi-modal" and it's merely a typo.

Either that or he is talking about Megan Fox.