Northern possibly close to taking on extra EMUs

[158722]

Combined with my attempted review of electrification plans and new stock cascades (see other thread), I've started compiling notes on the effects this will all have for DMU cascades and replacements.

So far, I can see a clear plan which will account for all 79 of Northern's class 142s to be displaced/withdrawn progressively from mid-2016 to the end of CP5 in early 2019 as a result of direct replacement by the North West electrification plans and cascades of 156s and 158s from Scotland, due to the various EGIP and associated electrification schemes there.

The Great Western electrification schemes & IEP provision from 2016 to 2018 seem to allow Great Western to replace all of their 143s & 153s (both for scrap!) and 150s (all to Arriva Wales) by retaining all of their current 158s and 165/166s. The 38 ex-GW 150s nicely replace all 30 of ATW's 142 & 143s and 8 153s - again all of which can go for scrap - prior to progressive electrification of the Valleys lines.

Note that this means all 142 and 143s are gone by 2019.

The Rugeley scheme, via a few transfers, enables all of LM's and Anglia's 153s to be withdrawn or temporarily moved to Northern.

I've not looked at the impact of the Trans-Pennine scheme yet, but I'm fairly sure that they will somehow add up in order to allow the 23 144s, Northern 153s and 155s as well as EMT 153s to be withdraw by 2019, thus avoiding the enhanced disability rules from 2020. The 150s will however need to be made compliant along with 156, 158, etc.

I'll post the notes in a new thread once I get them into a decent state!

 

[Class377/5]

Something to consider:

* Greater London has 12.9% of the British population living there and the North West has 11.2% of the British population living there.
* Yorkshire has 8.4% of the British population living there. Scotland also has 8.4% of the British population living there.
* Thameslink is getting £1.8 billion investment. The Northern Hub (which is covering both the North West and Yorkshire as well as stretching in to the North East) is getting £500 million.
* Scotland was given a budget of £200 million for new electric trains. However, they'll actually spend £430 million in total: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/trains-to-cost-230m-extra.13404527

Look at these things in comparison. Scotland spends the equivalent of 86% of the budget for the whole Northern Hub just on a new fleet of electric trains, despite having a fraction of the population of the North of England, while the Northern Hub gets 27% of the budget of Thameslink.

Now I accept London gets more visitors than other areas and has higher than average public transport use and lower than average car use. However, I think a Northern Hub budget of £1 billion could be justified considering budgets and what's been spent elsewhere.

In terms of overdue both the Ordsall Chord and Thameslink are projects which have been put back and put back.

But your logic is fault, Thameslink is not a London project but affects large areas of the south East beyond where trains will run so places like Peterborough, Cambridge, Maidstone etc get benefits along with most of Kent and Sussex through London bridge so perhaps you need to be fair.

After all you stating Thameslink is about London is accurate as stating the Northern Hub is only about Manchester.

 

[Starmill]

These Northern cities are too small to require the same level of investment. They also have good road networks. That is not to say they should have no investment, it's just not realistic to expect the same spending per head.

The government has a remit to provide balanced economic growth in all senses, as far as possible. That includes geographically. What you are suggesting is not just unfair, shortsighted, and morally deficient but it is also dangerous to the entire economy. The South East will become overheated while everywhere else goes into decline. That's just as bad for London's world standing as it is for people who end up in poverty all round the rest of the country. The link between transport and growth of local economies is just not properly appreciated.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The anti-Southern whinges get VERY tedious given that if you look at the tax take from London and the South East the reality is that the North is MASSIVELY subsidised. Hey, one area is currently the dynamo of the economy - why not starve that very same area of investment - genius idea - NOT!

The idea is that you spend more money in the areas that are not, as you put it 'the dynamo of growth' because that is actually a bad thing. As I say, and Watcher Zero helps to explain why, having one part of the country doing a disproportionate amount of the economic activity is not just bad for everywhere else which misses out as a result, but bad for the powerhouse too.

 

[The Ham]

The government has a remit to provide balanced economic growth in all senses, as far as possible. That includes geographically. What you are suggesting is not just unfair, shortsighted, and morally deficient but it is also dangerous to the entire economy. The South East will become overheated while everywhere else goes into decline. That's just as bad for London's world standing as it is for people who end up in poverty all round the rest of the country. The link between transport and growth of local economies is just not properly appreciated.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The idea is that you spend more money in the areas that are not, as you put it 'the dynamo of growth' because that is actually a bad thing. As I say, and Watcher Zero helps to explain why, having one part of the country doing a disproportionate amount of the economic activity is not just bad for everywhere else which misses out as a result, but bad for the powerhouse too.

Quite, if by investing in rail, we can rebalance the economy then it would mean a stronger economy. This would then in tern mean that the powerhouse wouldn't need to subsidise the rest, or at least not as much. This could give governments an easier time when it came to government spending and/or tax breaks.

It could also mean that there was more rail services which would pay for themselves as there would be less 1 or 2 coach DMU's nearly full and more 4. 6, 8 or 12 coach EMU's nearly full (which per person are a LOT cheaper to run).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Quite, if by investing in rail, we can rebalance the economy then it would mean a stronger economy. This would then in turn mean that the powerhouse wouldn't need to subsidise the rest, or at least not as much. This could give governments an easier time when it came to government spending and/or tax breaks.

It could also mean that there was more rail services which would pay for themselves as there would be less 1 or 2 coach DMU's nearly full and more 4. 6, 8 or 12 coach EMU's nearly full (which per person are a LOT cheaper to run).

What a most thoughtful and well-considered posting.

 

[Aldaniti]

If London and the SE is the 'dynamo of growth' then it's also the dynamo of debt and the reason why this country is now in such a mess. Not that long ago it was the north that was the economic powerhouse of this country, but incompetent politicians then changed things...

 

[TheWalrus]

Are 153s non-DDA compliant then?

 

[158722]

Are 153s non-DDA compliant then?

No and I don't see a need for expenditure to be made on them to make them so.

The only ex-BR DMUs which are being made compliant so far are the EA 156s and I suspect, the FGW 165/166 refurb project. The 158/159s already have a DA toilet, but I would imagine will still need some compliance work, whilst the remainder of the 156s and 150s will also need to be done.

 

[sprinterguy]

Combined with my attempted review of electrification plans and new stock cascades (see other thread), I've started compiling notes on the effects this will all have for DMU cascades and replacements.

So far, I can see a clear plan which will account for all 79 of Northern's class 142s to be displaced/withdrawn progressively from mid-2016 to the end of CP5 in early 2019 as a result of direct replacement by the North West electrification plans and cascades of 156s and 158s from Scotland, due to the various EGIP and associated electrification schemes there.

The Great Western electrification schemes & IEP provision from 2016 to 2018 seem to allow Great Western to replace all of their 143s & 153s (both for scrap!) and 150s (all to Arriva Wales) by retaining all of their current 158s and 165/166s. The 38 ex-GW 150s nicely replace all 30 of ATW's 142 & 143s and 8 153s - again all of which can go for scrap - prior to progressive electrification of the Valleys lines.

As far as I know the North West electrification scheme is not expected to see any rolling stock withdrawn. Displaced Northern and TPE stock will be used to strengthen services on the remaining diesel routes.

I would also be surprised if Network Turbos could be gauge cleared for several of the Devon and Cornwall brances. I expect that 150s will have to be retained for these.

It's also not confirmed what rolling stock is likely to be released from the Scottish EGIP works. There are eight Angel Trains owned 158s that are a bit non-standard in an otherwise Porterbrook managed fleet, but recent industry rumours have suggested that it might be 170s that are freed up, with prospective recipients in England identified. The EGIP works have been scaled back from the original remit, and of course additional diesel rolling stock will be required within the Scotrail franchise to work the Borders Railway and to replace the loco-hauled workings on the Fife Circle.

 

[tom1649]

If the 153s were permanently coupled to a through gangwayed DDA compliant unit like a 156 after 2020 would that avoid the need to fit a disabled toilet to the 153?

 

[jopsuk]

yes, but then you'd have a 3-car unit that would be rather unwieldy for most operations that either the 156 or 155s are used on. Slightly less silly would be to fit half them with accesible loos, take out the "small" cabs and reform as 155s...

 

[northwichcat]

If the 153s were permanently coupled to a through gangwayed DDA compliant unit like a 156 after 2020 would that avoid the need to fit a disabled toilet to the 153?

There a couple of issues with that:
1. Some routes that most Sprinters are able to operate on are not cleared for 153s and 155s.
2. The body shell of the 153s are apparently sagging meaning it's not just the cost of making them complaint that would be required to keep them in service.

Porterbrook have looked unveiled a possible (costly) option of making 143s and 144s complaint but they have declared making 153s complaint is not economically viable - their plans for making 156s complaint doesn't include an option of adding 153s as centre carriages either. So it looks like the 142s, which Angel Trains have said making complaint is not economically viable and the 153s will either have to be given an exemption order or confined to the scrap heap.

 

[tom1649]

I'd heard about the sagging body shells. In a way it's good news that the 153s are going because it means the end of single carriage units on the network.

Is there a reason why some routes aren't cleared for 153s and 155s? Are they wider than the other Sprinters, or is it the case that they've just never bothered to seek clearance?

When I talk about 'permanent' coupling, of course the 153s could still be uncoupled when not needed, but they'd have to run as ECS when on their own.

Finally, is there a plan for DDA compliance on the remaining 155 units?

 

[northwichcat]

Is there a reason why some routes aren't cleared for 153s and 155s? Are they wider than the other Sprinters, or is it the case that they've just never bothered to seek clearance?

Two reasons:
1. Less powerful - issue on lines like the Buxton line.
2. Platform clearance issue at stations like Wigan Wallgate.

 

[anthony263]

Two reasons:
1. Less powerful - issue on lines like the Buxton line.
2. Platform clearance issue at stations like Wigan Wallgate.

The platform clearance issue's are a good example of why FGW's class 153's are not cleared south of Southampton Centrall but the route was worked by class 155's years ago. The issue seems to be the small steps.

You can see the sagging bodywork on many class 153's although to be said there are some example where this isn't the case, ATW have one and I have not noticed this issue with the London Midland examples including one of those with FGW

 

[tbtc]

The idea is that you spend more money in the areas that are not, as you put it 'the dynamo of growth' because that is actually a bad thing. As I say, and Watcher Zero helps to explain why, having one part of the country doing a disproportionate amount of the economic activity is not just bad for everywhere else which misses out as a result, but bad for the powerhouse too.

I'm all for a balanced economy - I don't think that anyone would argue against this concept - but rail spending is more efficient in some areas of the country than in others.

Taking the approach of "they got a billion pound project, so we deserve our own billion pound project" ignores the fact that investment on a mass transportation system like rail makes a lot more sense in urban areas with sufficient population density.

319s are good enough for the routes around Manchester/ Liverpool that they appear to be earmarked for.

 

[AndrewP]

I remember reading about the Networker Classic somewhere where a new body was put on an old chassis.

Could this work on the 155s / 153s and pacers?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I remember reading about the Networker Classic somewhere where a new body was put on an old chassis.

Could this work on the 155s / 153s and pacers?

The Networker Classic concept was built in 1997, two year laters the Winsford accident showed why separate body and chassis are not a good idea.

 

[northwichcat]

But your logic is fault, Thameslink is not a London project but affects large areas of the south East beyond where trains will run so places like Peterborough, Cambridge, Maidstone etc get benefits along with most of Kent and Sussex through London bridge so perhaps you need to be fair.

After all you stating Thameslink is about London is accurate as stating the Northern Hub is only about Manchester.

I think the Northern Hub will benefit most of the North either directly or indirectly due to it being likely that the Sprinters released by electrification will be cascaded on to non-electrified routes in the North. I don't think the same can be said about Thameslink benefiting most of Greater London and the South East either directly or indirectly.

 

[Class377/5]

I think the Northern Hub will benefit most of the North either directly or indirectly due to it being likely that the Sprinters released by electrification will be cascaded on to non-electrified routes in the North. I don't think the same can be said about Thameslink benefiting most of Greater London and the South East either directly or indirectly.

Sorry but Northern Hub benefits the north in same way as Thameslink does, even you state that above yet your using figures that are unbalanced. Be fair as even you have stated above both project affect areas either directly or indirectly so why only use one projects more limited figures or is it just because that back up your personal view point?

You need to be fairer as its clear the figures you gave are used to further your point in an unfair way to twist the debate in your favor.

Unless your stating that creating relief for Victoria, London Bridge, Cannon Street, Charing Cross, St Pancras and Kings Cross and the lines that feed them doesn't benefit the South East of course. Yes it doesn't benefit every train route in the SE bit neither does the Northern Hub benefit every route in the North so I argue your choice of figures is questionable at best, misleading at worst.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If London and the SE is the 'dynamo of growth' then it's also the dynamo of debt and the reason why this country is now in such a mess.

Remind me, where was the location of the latest financial sector exhibition of financial flagrancy that occurred in a British city.

Oh yes, the J P Morgan Chase London office and the infamous "London Whale" six billion dollar trading misfeasance..

 

[HSTEd]

Tax receipts from the financial sector over the course of the last boom were drastically larger than the debt incurred by the government over the current problems.

So on balance the financial sector is still worth having.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Tax receipts from the financial sector over the course of the last boom were drastically larger than the debt incurred by the government over the current problems.

So on balance the financial sector is still worth having.

Had not the financial disaster occurred, those tax receipts to which you allude would been worth far more to the country than the residual net period amount post-crash.

I am not under any circumstances going to carry on a long and possibly acrimonious posting exchange over this matter. I shall let that matter speak for itself.

 

[Aldaniti]

Tax receipts from the financial sector over the course of the last boom were drastically larger than the debt incurred by the government over the current problems.

So on balance the financial sector is still worth having.

A far too simplistic view I'm afraid. Just as an example, can you factor into the equation the cost of trading speculation that keeps the price of some commodities artificially high? Just before the financial crisis, I spent a year working in the city on secondment. I was frankly disgusted by some of the attitudes and working practices that I came across. I can tell you, its not the place of milk and honey that the public are led to believe.

 

[HSTEd]

A far too simplistic view I'm afraid. Just as an example, can you factor into the equation the cost of trading speculation that keeps the price of some commodities artificially high? Just before the financial crisis, I spent a year working in the city on secondment. I was frankly disgusted by some of the attitudes and working practices that I came across. I can tell you, its not the place of milk and honey that the public are led to believe.

The trading speculation is going to happen whatever happens.
The only important question is whether the costs caused by it being the British Government that had to bail out the largest investment banks were larger or smaller than the tax receipts from the industry in Britain during the boom years.

Traders are not going to go "oh well they don't want us in London any more so lets not speculate!".
They are going to go "Well they don't want us in London any more so lets just decamp to Frankfurt or New York or Singapore or half a dozen other places".

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Traders are not going to go "oh well they don't want us in London any more so lets not speculate!". They are going to go "Well they don't want us in London any more so lets just decamp to Frankfurt or New York or Singapore or half a dozen other places".

Their PR companies have done a wonderful job in flying that particular kite for years now...which of these companies to which you so allude have led the way and have "jumped ship" from London. Certainly not J P Morgan Chase..

 

[HSTEd]

Their PR companies have done a wonderful job in flying that particular kite for years now...which of these companies to which you so allude have led the way and have "jumped ship" from London. Certainly not J P Morgan Chase..

They haven't decamped because the argument worked.
They haven't been given any reason to go anywhere else.
But you can guarantee that they would.

The market values nothing but expediency.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The market values nothing but expediency.

You have phrased this sentence ever so well, so I think I shall now no longer have any further need to have my point proved in postings upon that particular matter upon this thread.

 

[SF-02]

Traders are not going to go "oh well they don't want us in London any more so lets not speculate!".
They are going to go "Well they don't want us in London any more so lets just decamp to Frankfurt or New York or Singapore or half a dozen other places".

Ahh that old chestnut. A nice piece of propaganda from the finance industry to gain less regulation and control, and greater power. Seems to work a charm. They threaten it every year, and have for many years. Having the finance industry certainly seems to be helping the UK- still has the biggest deficit of any developed country doesn't it?

 

[anti-pacer]

Is it me or is this thread getting way, way off the subject?