If you could replace all of Northern's stock with a single type of DMU...?

[61653 HTAFC]

It was a 31 (possibly 2 top&tailed, can't remember) with air-conditioned ex-FGW Mk2s in the 'fag packet' livery. Used it a couple of times from Piccadilly to Preston. A real step up compared to any given 2-car DMU but sadly LHCS is too expensive for such services to become the norm...

 

[northwichcat]

What was this hauled by, a 37?

Refurbished class 31s subleased from FM Rail.

Picture of one of the two posted here:
http://www.martynhilbert.railpic.net/gallery/displayimage.php?album=14&pid=2891#top_display_media

 

[12CSVT]

Electrified routes - class 380.

Non-electrified routes - class 172. (Class 185s for longer distance services such as Leeds - Nottingham, Calder Valley and S & C).

 

[tbtc]

Part of the problem here is that we've had very few local DMUs built since privatisation that there's not a lot of benchmarks (other than the 172s).

All other DMUs have been designed with longer distance/ faster routes in mind (Voyagers, Turbostars, Medidians, 175s...).

Then you get onto Northern's variety of routes. Do you want commuter doors on longer distance routes like the Cumbrian Coast/ Whitby/ Lincolnshire services?

And then the problem with enthusiasts arguing about unit design - nobody wants 3+2 seating but then they complain about crowding if they have to stand. Everyone criticises the LM 350/2s but the seating seems to be required on peak Euston services (where there's no scope for longer trains).

Plus how do you justify extending every service to 4x23m coaches when Northern already require a large subsidy? No, a "one size fits all" arrangement would never work.

 

[LE Greys]

Part of the problem here is that we've had very few local DMUs built since privatisation that there's not a lot of benchmarks (other than the 172s).

All other DMUs have been designed with longer distance/ faster routes in mind (Voyagers, Turbostars, Medidians, 175s...).

Then you get onto Northern's variety of routes. Do you want commuter doors on longer distance routes like the Cumbrian Coast/ Whitby/ Lincolnshire services?

And then the problem with enthusiasts arguing about unit design - nobody wants 3+2 seating but then they complain about crowding if they have to stand. Everyone criticises the LM 350/2s but the seating seems to be required on peak Euston services (where there's no scope for longer trains).

Plus how do you justify extending every service to 4x23m coaches when Northern already require a large subsidy? No, a "one size fits all" arrangement would never work.

I quite agree. Really, this either calls for two separate classes which share components (something like the 150 and 156) or two sub-classes. While I agree with those who've suggested the 172 for suburban diesel routes (hopefully the gangwayed version), I reckon the rural routes call for something else, call it the 173 perhaps. Basically, an extended 172 with doors near the end, but otherwise practically identical. The obvious alternative (although it takes a lot longer) is to electrify the suburban routes and bias the new DMUs more towards rural services.

The problem is that the 'glamour' routes get the stock and the funding, with of course the resulting cascades. It could be far worse, at least we aren't seeing Victorian suburban tank engines on rural branches any more, which we did up to the 1960s on the Southern.

 

[Anvil1984]

I'm all for having 2 different types of unit but I have to take exception where Whitby line was mentioned. Heaton depot (which services the Whitby line) and its routes should only have 1 type of unit as its pretty much self contained within the Northern network. Heaton currently has 142s and 156s and the units get used interchangeably.
I don't see the argument for retaining end doors up here there'd probably be no real door rattle as the units don't go fast enough on Whitby line or Carlisle line (top linespeed for either is 65 mph) the same units which go to those places will also at some point go through Metrocentre / Newcastle and deal with football fans / buggies / shopping etc. We could just deal with one type of unit that can deal with all that because at rush hour 156 doors barely cope.

As I say I am in favour of two layouts but where you can guarantee they will be kept apart, 1 type of unit for express runs (like Leeds to Nottingham which interworks with Leeds to Sheffield fasts, York to Hull, Hull to Sheffield) and 1 for services with more stops

 

[tbtc]

The problem is that the 'glamour' routes get the stock and the funding, with of course the resulting cascades

A great summary of rolling stock procurement post-privatisation!

 

[Cheshire Rover]

Did you ever use the late afternoon loco-hauled Chester-Altrincham-Blackpool service that ran semi-fast on the Mid-Cheshire line under FNW? I think the time between departing Chester and arriving at Manchester Piccadilly was just under 1 hour 15.

No, I never used that service. I remember using loco hauled services from Chester, Helsby and Frodsham to Man Vic back in the early 80's.

 

[thelongestroad]

How did Northern come to have the Heathrow Express style trains?

 

[tbtc]

How did Northern come to have the Heathrow Express style trains?

The 333s?

The Airedale/ Wharfdale lines were electrified as part of the ECML wiring twenty years ago. Like the North Berwick branch, they were a fairly simple "add on" to the main line electrification (given that BR wanted to maintain direct Bradford - London services).

Like the North Berwick branch, these lines got cascaded slam door EMUs from the London area (305s to North Berwick, shortened 308s in Yorkshire).

I hope that others bear this in mind when they complain about newly electrified routes in CP5 getting 319s etc.

Electrification saw passenger numbers rise in Yorkshire (partly because a short 308 was a good bit longer than the Pacers etc that they replaced), which saw an order for new EMUs.

Three coach 333s were ordered (around the same time as the 332s for the Heathrow route). Maybe in hindsight it'd have been better to have better to have an order of something like 375s (rather than a tiny fleet of 333s), but since there were no plans back then for other electrification in/around Yorkshire, the non-standard EMUs without corridor connection weren't a problem.

As passenger numbers continued to rise, the 333s were extended to four coaches (still with just one toilet, and with 3+2 seating - despite the "envy" of those who don't use them).

(this was all before the current Northern franchise, of course)

 

[northwichcat]

Plus how do you justify extending every service to 4x23m coaches when Northern already require a large subsidy? No, a "one size fits all" arrangement would never work.

You don't/can't.

What you can do though is order a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 car DMUs.

The 4 car DMUs would be more cost-effective than joining up pairs of 2 car DMUs and keeping them joined up all day, which happens on some services like Southport to Manchester Airport.

Having a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 would also allow overcrowded peak time 4 car 150s (like on the Buxton line) to be replaced by 5 car workings, which is less likely to mean an overcrowded service suddenly has a lot of spare unused capacity that might occur with a 6 car working replacing a 4 car working. Also there are some platforms which can take 115m trains but not 138m trains so it would also be more cost effective (at least in the short term) from less funds for infrastructure improvements.

One thing that's not come up in this thread yet is tram-trains. The low-floor ones being ordered for the Sheffield-Rotherham trial can't be used in the Manchester area. While those ones will be electric, a lot of the potential tram-train proposals will be for diesel or bi-mode tram-trains due to both the cost of electrification and the issues with DC OHEs on the National Rail network.

nobody wants 3+2 seating but then they complain about crowding if they have to stand.

Add to that no-one really wants to have to pay extra and buy a 'First Class' ticket just to sit in a 2+2 seating compartment on a commuter train when other commuter routes get 2+2 seating in standard class.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Like the North Berwick branch, these lines got cascaded slam door EMUs from the London area (305s to North Berwick, shortened 308s in Yorkshire).

I hope that others bear this in mind when they complain about newly electrified routes in CP5 getting 319s etc.

The cascaded 319s by 2014 replaced a previous government plan for an order of brand new DMU vehicles to be introduced during 2012. At the time we were reassured that the 319s would be completely refurbished before being introduced in the North West. Now it doesn't sound unlikely that they'll be introduced in their current state and there may not even be the required number coming up in time for the December 2014 timetable change. So we may have gone from new trains in 2012 to cascaded refurbished trains in 2014 to possibly cascaded unrefurbished trains not before 2014.

Although I understand that Yorkshire was all set to get new class 323s by around 1994 but Metro had funding issues following central government cutting back PTE support (which led to cut backs in other areas as well like Sunday services in Greater Manchester being cut back) and so the order was delayed and cascaded 308s were taken on. However, a lack of train orders meant that Hunslet collapsed and Metro had to look elsewhere when funds became available.

 

[ainsworth74]

A great summary of rolling stock procurement post-privatisation!

I believe I've trotted these figures out in some form before but just to help illustrate the point above. Between 1980 and 1990 BR procured 1069 DMU vehicles (standard warning that these figures are broadly accurate but not 100%) whilst between 2000 and 2010 1114 DMU vehicles were acquired. What's interesting is exactly what vehicles have been procured. Of BRs total 926 are made up of classes 141, 142, 143, 144, 150, 155 and 156. Of the privatised total 788 are made up of classes 175, 180, 185, 220, 221 and 222.

Which I think rather starkly shows where the DMU procurement priority has lain.

 

[Haydn1971]

One thing that's not come up in this thread yet is tram-trains. The low-floor ones being ordered for the Sheffield-Rotherham trial can't be used in the Manchester area. While those ones will be electric, a lot of the potential tram-train proposals will be for diesel or bi-mode tram-trains due to both the cost of electrification and the issues with DC OHEs on the National Rail network.

The Sheffield to Rotherham Tram-Trains will be run by Stagecoach not Northern, I'm led to believe that 6 units have been (or are due to be) ordered, three for the new route, three to increase tram capacity across the whole network, thus i would expect these will run on overhead DC for inter operability with the existing tram power supply.

I'm hopeful for bi-mode tram-trains becoming the new "Pacer", providing a cost effective way of new stock, but hope we don't get just new tram-trains up here :-/

 

[northwichcat]

The Sheffield to Rotherham Tram-Trains will be run by Stagecoach not Northern

It's to be run by Stagecoach Supertram on behalf of Northern. It was originally going to be run by Northern but a number of issues arose with Northern running it so Stagecoach have taken over the running of the trial.

 

[Haydn1971]

It's to be run by Stagecoach Supertram on behalf of Northern. It was originally going to be run by Northern but a number of issues arose with Northern running it so Stagecoach have taken over the running of the trial.

Northern have no stake in it now

 

[tbtc]

One thing that's not come up in this thread yet is tram-trains. The low-floor ones being ordered for the Sheffield-Rotherham trial can't be used in the Manchester area. While those ones will be electric, a lot of the potential tram-train proposals will be for diesel or bi-mode tram-trains due to both the cost of electrification and the issues with DC OHEs on the National Rail network

A diesel train is a train. People like to confuse things with the buzzword "tram-train", but it really needs to be something that runs on Network Rail lines *and* on a tram network to justify that name (as the Sheffield - Rotherham plan does).

Calling a DMU a "tram train" seems strange (as does the idea of having "tram trains" that run wholly on Network Rail lines).

I believe I've trotted these figures out in some form before but just to help illustrate the point above. Between 1980 and 1990 BR procured 1069 DMU vehicles (standard warning that these figures are broadly accurate but not 100%) whilst between 2000 and 2010 1114 DMU vehicles were acquired. What's interesting is exactly what vehicles have been procured. Of BRs total 926 are made up of classes 141, 142, 143, 144, 150, 155 and 156. Of the privatised total 788 are made up of classes 175, 180, 185, 220, 221 and 222.

Which I think rather starkly shows where the DMU procurement priority has lain.

It's certainly worth repeating - we've had new DMUs since privatisation but almost all of the focus has been at the 100mph - 125mph operations (fine for those routes, but not what we need for local services).

Can you imagine if Stagecoach had stopped buying minibuses/ midibuses and only been purchasing 12m coaches? That'd be a silly way to run things.

 

[northwichcat]

A diesel train is a train. People like to confuse things with the buzzword "tram-train", but it really needs to be something that runs on Network Rail lines *and* on a tram network to justify that name (as the Sheffield - Rotherham plan does).

Calling a DMU a "tram train" seems strange (as does the idea of having "tram trains" that run wholly on Network Rail lines).

Do you recall the original tram-train trial proposal where initially diesel tram-trains would have simply replaced DMUs on Penistone line services. Then after that had been implemented and they had been running for a year or two it was proposed phase 2 would have seen them running on the streets in Sheffield?

I think we can say with certainty that tram-trains will be classed as DMUs or EMUs considering the Parry People Movers have been classed as 139 DMUs even though the diesel engine in the units is only a backup.

Can you imagine if Stagecoach had stopped buying minibuses/ midibuses and only been purchasing 12m coaches? That'd be a silly way to run things.

It's actually been the case that Stagecoach and other operators have replaced coaches on longer routes with low floor buses - quite often with high back leather seating but not always.

I've experienced local bus services on routes in both Ireland and Spain (where there isn't an alternative rail route) operated by coaches not buses. It actually seems a sensible way of running things as it means there's ample luggage space under the coach which some operators allow bikes to be carried in. Also coaches usually have seat belts while buses don't so on bendy mountainess routes a coach can be safer for the passengers.

 

[Chris125]

Now it doesn't sound unlikely that they'll be introduced in their current state and there may not even be the required number coming up in time for the December 2014 timetable change. So we may have gone from new trains in 2012 to cascaded refurbished trains in 2014 to possibly cascaded unrefurbished trains not before 2014.

In the last few weeks there's been an add-on order for 40 vehicles and a new procurement for 116+ to ensure that the 319 cascade happens on time, and with RVAR alterations needed anyway the 319's will almost certainly be getting a thorough overhaul, probably including a new traction package too.

Chris

 

[yorksrob]

I think what we really need is something like a replacement 150. Something in 2 and 3 carriage versions, but with high quality 2+2 seating and tables etc, rather like the FGW refurbed versions.

 

[northwichcat]

I think what we really need is something like a replacement 150. Something in 2 and 3 carriage versions, but with high quality 2+2 seating and tables etc, rather like the FGW refurbed versions.

So something like a 172 or equivalent then?

 

[yorksrob]

So something like a 172 or equivalent then?

I guess so, providing it's technically suitable for longer distance journeys as well as suburban hops. (I'll leave that to the engineering types to decide).

 

[aylesbury]

If its a deisel option ,class 172 could be a possibility.

 

[JohnCarlson]

Thanks for the thoughts.

If your company were to be awarded a fifteen year franchise for a merged Northern/TPE operation from 2015 along with the ambitious targets of doubling passenger numbers and completely replacing the fleet within the fifteen year period what would you do? There would be an assumption of as much standardisation as possible.

Taking the existence of the Northern Hub as a given, iwhich new stations on existing lines would you open, which new routes would you introduce,which freight only lines would you look at introducing passenger services on and which closed lines would you consider reopening.

Additionally would you consider rationalising depot facilities, closing existing depots and/or opening new ones.

If you wanted to retain existing stock for longer than the fifteen year period how would you justify it?

 

[Manchester77]

Currently there are 313 trains operated by Northern.
Of these 41 are electric and 102 are pacers.
Northern need a set of near standard trains of different lengths and different interiors. This way the trains would be mechanically simular to reduce maintinence costs, but are styled differently for different passenger uses. So I prepose two classes of trains with different subclasses.
Class 160:-
Main pacer replacer
Vary from 2 to 4 cars in length
All cars are 23 metres long
Trains have SDO, end gangways and Are DDA compliant
2+2 style seats mostly airplane style, with some at tables
90 mph top speed
Class 161:-
An express version of class 160
Vary from 3 to 5 cars in length
Trains have SDO, end gangways, DDA compliant, IC style doors
2+2 mostly airline style, some at tables
100/110 mph top speed
A sort of modern 158?

As opposed to scrapping the entire fleet and replacing with new trains some, such as 158s, can be refurbished to run along side 161s. Others could perhaps be cascaded to other operators. For example 156s could be cascaded to FSR to be used on the Waverly Line once re opened? And 153s transferred to EMT for strengthening services.
Replace 142s, 144s, 150/1s with 160s.
Either replace 153s with 160s or reform them into 155s? More likely they'd be scrapped unless EMT wants the 153s to strengthen some of their services.
Longer distance inter regional services can be operated by 161s and 158s.

 

[Lewisham2221]

I would use Class 175s. Some could be 2 car some could be 3 car. They can also adapt to commuter and long distance routes, being lightweight (unlike 170s) and having a higher max speed than the sprinter products.

Huh? According to http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New DMU Tech Data /DMU_170.html and http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New DMU Tech Data /DMU_175.html a 3 car 175 is ~15 tonnes heavier than a 3 car 170.

 

[Manchester77]

Thanks for the thoughts.

If your company were to be awarded a fifteen year franchise for a merged Northern/TPE operation from 2015 along with the ambitious targets of doubling passenger numbers and completely replacing the fleet within the fifteen year period what would you do? There would be an assumption of as much standardisation as possible.

Taking the existence of the Northern Hub as a given, iwhich new stations on existing lines would you open, which new routes would you introduce,which freight only lines would you look at introducing passenger services on and which closed lines would you consider reopening.

Additionally would you consider rationalising depot facilities, closing existing depots and/or opening new ones.

If you wanted to retain existing stock for longer than the fifteen year period how would you justify it?

I'd look to increase the frequency on the Stockport to Staylybridge line. I'd refurbish the stops on the line, installing lighting, shelters, benches etc.
I'd split it with two sub brands, Northern Local and Northern Express.

Ill post more tommorrow

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

One Chinese company wants to build trains for the UK network: http://www.scmp.com/article/736125/chinese-trains-may-soon-run-british-rails (Obviously Ian Yeowart's proposed order for Polaris trains in mid-2011 didn't go ahead.)

It's believed Serco/Abeillo are a potential buyer with them mentioning a vague proposal in a Northern Rail magazine about acquiring new trains if they win the next Northern franchise. Although, they also said about new trains for Northern in 2003/2004.

Have we heard anything from forum member Kingfisher200262 recently with regard to CSRE matters ?

 

[northwichcat]

I guess so, providing it's technically suitable for longer distance journeys as well as suburban hops. (I'll leave that to the engineering types to decide).

I think Bombardier either offered or planned to offer 172s in response to the cancelled Northern/TPE/FGW invitation to tender. It was believed the extra FGW units would have worked Cardiff-Portsmouth, freeing up 158s for other routes while the extra TPE units would have worked an additional Manchester-York service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

installing lighting, shelters, benches etc.

Benches is an interesting topic. The Merseyrail franchise includes targets for the number of passengers who can sit down at the station while waiting for the train. Other franchises with less frequent services don't.

 

[Bevan Price]

Pacers - scrap them.


Although, there is also the class 185 fleet to consider, which could finish up being Northern's to use or cascade if the Northern and TPE franchises are merged.

Do you really see any TOC wanting to use 185's on local or shortish distance semi-fast services ? In their present form, they are far too fuel-hungry for such services. So, do you replace the engines with lower power alternatives, or remove the engine from the centre coach ?.

Or would a better alternative be a multi-operator swap, with the 185's being sent to somewhere like Waterloo - Exeter ?

 

[LE Greys]

Do you really see any TOC wanting to use 185's on local or shortish distance semi-fast services ? In their present form, they are far too fuel-hungry for such services. So, do you replace the engines with lower power alternatives, or remove the engine from the centre coach ?.

Or would a better alternative be a multi-operator swap, with the 185's being sent to somewhere like Waterloo - Exeter ?

Depending on Trans-Pennine electrification, that might end up happening one day. Hopefully, the 159s won't go far, but will be used to reinforce FGW's fleet, which might free up a few 158s as well as replacing their remaining Pacers. They'll need to keep 150s for the sharply-curving Cornish branches, unless something else replaces them. However, I'm not sure 185s can run at the highest speed differentials west of Worting Junction, although it's also single track, so any substantial upgrade to produce double-track might be a good opportunity to resolve that.