What stock "should" operate Liverpool-Norwich services?

[HSTEd]

The sprinters and pacers will struggle on till the Turbo stars and Pennine Desiros relieve them

 

[fowler9]

Really? I'm aware of the planned electrification programs, but that won't cover the various branch lines and other secondary routes. With the Pacers and Sprinters now approaching 30, and cascaded stock will surely be unsuitable for the services in most cases (cascaded Intercity stock won't be suitable for branch lines), I'm sure some DMU's will be needed within the next 10 to 15 years, won't they?

I'm not so sure. As more units get cascaded there will be more and more available to use elsewhere. The newest commuter trains in the Liverpool area are over 25 years old. I'm sure the TOCs won't mind using them for a while longer on quieter routes. Edit, Apologies, just under 25 years old.

 

[edwin_m]

Really? I'm aware of the planned electrification programs, but that won't cover the various branch lines and other secondary routes. With the Pacers and Sprinters now approaching 30, and cascaded stock will surely be unsuitable for the services in most cases (cascaded Intercity stock won't be suitable for branch lines), I'm sure some DMU's will be needed within the next 10 to 15 years, won't they?

Possibly so, but nobody has any plans to order any and the ROSCOs are unwilling to fund any. This may well have changed in 10 to 15 years but that's not relevant to a manufacturer who is wanting to sell something well before that.

 

[northwichcat]

However there are no prospects for DMU orders in the foreseeable.

The ATOC suggested that assuming no unprecedented growth no new DMUs are needed in the next 5 years. They have actually said new DMUs may be required in the 2019-2024 CP as some lines are unlikely to be ever electrified.

However, Angel Trains have said making the 142s properly accessible is a non-starter. Porterbrook have said the same about the 153s but they have unveiled plans for the 143s and 144s to be made accessible at a financial and capacity cost and said that they would need 10 years of guaranteed usage post-refurbishment to justify the expenditure.

So we're looking at:
* 96 x 2 car DMUs needing replacement.
* 70 x 1 car DMU withdrawn.
* Possibly 36 Pacers being kept in service with reduced capacity, which could replace some of the above 70 x 153s.
* Possibly 10 x 3 car 144s being kept in service with reduced capacity which could replace some of 2 car Pacers.

Net loss if 143/4 refurbishment goes ahead = equivalent of 122 x 2 car Pacers and 34 x 1 car Sprinters. Yes they'll be more than 278 additional EMU carriages but they'll be in less flexible longer formations and a lot of extra capacity is required on the routes that aren't being electrified.

 

[Rhydgaled]

70 x 1 car DMU withdrawn.

Surely it's only a loss of 35x class 153, assuming class 155 life extension is viable in which case you reform the 70x class 153s back into 35x class 155 units.

 

[northwichcat]

Surely it's only a loss of 35x class 153, assuming class 155 life extension is viable in which case you reform the 70x class 153s back into 35x class 155 units.

Apparently the body shell on the 153s is sagging and they need to be scrapped in the next few years even if there was an extension to the disability deadline. I'm not certain if the 155s have the same problem. All I know is that only have to remain on Metro funded routes until the end of the current franchise, the same applies with 144s.

 

[HSTEd]

If the electrification work continues it is entirely possible that all of those units could be replaced by electrics.
The "residue" of 'non-electrifiable' lines probably requires fewer units than exist in the Class 170 fleet alone.

 

[northwichcat]

If the electrification work continues it is entirely possible that all of those units could be replaced by electrics.
The "residue" of 'non-electrifiable' lines probably requires fewer units than exist in the Class 170 fleet alone.

Note that we'll need 500+ additional carriages for extra capacity over the next five years as well replacing the 278 DMU carriages. I don't think the electrification plans will result in 800+ additional carriages by the end of 2019.

 

[HSTEd]

Note that we'll need 500+ additional carriages for extra capacity over the next five years as well replacing the 278 DMU carriages. I don't think the electrification plans will result in 800+ additional carriages by the end of 2019.

We will need?
Or just like?

 

[northwichcat]

We will need?
Or just like?

In the case of Northern, TPE and FGW the answer is definitely 'need.' They haven't had much of their promised extra capacity that they were supposed to get in CP4.

I don't know about Southern, FCC and SWT who are also due to get extra carriages as I've only ever used South East operators at the weekend.

Unless of course you can find a way of getting extra passengers on to full and standing services like that 07:17 Manchester-Chester which gets a loading of 260. The service is booked for a 2 car 150 but a 2 car 142 is not unknown to turn up without extra capacity. The next service isn't until the 08:17 Manchester-Chester for when a 142 turns up which can't load 260.

 

[Beveridges]

After seeing videos of the new DRS 68 on test I'm beginning to think these engines are the answer.

158s can go and replace 142s and 150s.

Improvements everywhere

 

[HSTEd]

In the case of Northern, TPE and FGW the answer is definitely 'need.' They haven't had much of their promised extra capacity that they were supposed to get in CP4.

I don't know about Southern, FCC and SWT who are also due to get extra carriages as I've only ever used South East operators at the weekend.

Unless of course you can find a way of getting extra passengers on to full and standing services like that 07:17 Manchester-Chester which gets a loading of 260. The service is booked for a 2 car 150 but a 2 car 142 is not unknown to turn up without extra capacity. The next service isn't until the 08:17 Manchester-Chester for when a 142 turns up which can't load 260.

And?
Is this worth spending tens, or hundreds, of millions of pounds buying more diesel units that will just be obsoleted as electrification proceeds? If only a handful of services are massively overcrowded then all those passengers must bear the £3m cost of each new unit themselves.
The money that is saved by struggling on can be spent accelerating said electrification programme.

 

[northwichcat]

If only a handful of services are massively overcrowded then all those passengers must bear the £3m cost of each new unit themselves.
The money that is saved by struggling on can be spent accelerating said electrification programme.

That's just ridiculous. On the service I quoted - the 07:17 Manchester-Chester - the most crowded section is after it leaves the PTE area i.e. the passengers are already paying higher fares than some of the passengers who travel on the brand new London Midland 172s. I take it you've never been made to wait an hour for the next service due to an hourly being too full to take any more passengers?

The DMUs replaced by EMUs will on the whole be kept in service for the foreseeable future, unless new DMUs are ordered. Network Rail are set to lengthen many platforms on non-electrified lines during CP5, there are also schemes like the Todmorden curve which have been committed to which will need additional diesel stock, while the Ordsall Chord will see a mix of diesel and electric stock. There's no point building the infrastructure for longer diesel trains and more diesel services if the carriages aren't going to be there. This seems to be something you don't want to want to know about because it doesn't fit in with your dream of diesel trains all being replaced by electric trains.

 

[Photohunter71]

DMU's/EMU's for short local services,longer hauled services some up to date coaching stock and a 68 on the front.It seems the UK has a bit of a problem with this whilst the rest of the EU can manage loco hauled passenger services no problem!

 

[tbtc]

DMU's/EMU's for short local services,longer hauled services some up to date coaching stock and a 68 on the front.It seems the UK has a bit of a problem with this whilst the rest of the EU can manage loco hauled passenger services no problem!

...other than we'd need to build some modern coaches...

...and build some more locos...

...and amend the layout of stations to allow "running round" etc.

Loco hauled services would be a huge overprovision for the kind of two/three/four coach services that we are generally discussing anyway.

 

[HSTEd]

I take it you've never been made to wait an hour for the next service due to an hourly being too full to take any more passengers?

Once, was asked to step off an XC service from Manchester because it was overloaded and my PRIV authorises travel 'subject to the extingencies of service'.

The DMUs replaced by EMUs will on the whole be kept in service for the foreseeable future, unless new DMUs are ordered. Network Rail are set to lengthen many platforms on non-electrified lines during CP5, there are also schemes like the Todmorden curve which have been committed to which will need additional diesel stock, while the Ordsall Chord will see a mix of diesel and electric stock. There's no point building the infrastructure for longer diesel trains and more diesel services if the carriages aren't going to be there. This seems to be something you don't want to want to know about because it doesn't fit in with your dream of diesel trains all being replaced by electric trains.

So you claim that lots of DMU vehicles are going to be available thanks to being relieved by EMUs, and then complain that there will be no new DMU vehicles available?

The release of hundreds of units by the arrival of the EMUs will provide the extra capacity required for all these expansions of service.
The valley lines project will release close to 30 units itself, and TPE-North is going to release an awful lot too.

 

[northwichcat]

So you claim that lots of DMU vehicles are going to be available thanks to being relieved by EMUs, and then complain that there will be no new DMU vehicles available?

Where's the nearest brick wall?

Post 184 I gave reasons why effectively 278 DMU vehicles will be withdrawn by the end of 2019 and in post 187 you said electrification will be able to replace them all, but that assumes practically no additional services on unelectrified lines!

So in summary the additional diesel services/capacity can be provided by DMUs released by electrification. However, as Angel Trains are planning to write off the 142s in 2019 and Porterbrook are planning to do the same with the 153s and will significantly reduce the class 143 and 144 capacity (if they remain in service) it means new DMUs will need to be delivered in 2019, otherwise services will have to be withdrawn or have their capacity cut back.

TPE-North is going to release an awful lot too

They'll still be a number of DMUs needed on the current North TPE network. There are no plans to electrify Scarborough, Middlesbrough or Manchester to Liverpool via Warrington. Hull-Manchester looks set to remain a DMU service in CP5 (ahead of likely electrification in CP6) and the diesel units used on that line will likely be needed for overnight services between York and Manchester Airport. This is because overnight services need to go via Wakefield Kirkgate and Brighouse for route retention purposes during engineering works.

 

[dosxuk]

DMU's/EMU's for short local services,longer hauled services some up to date coaching stock and a 68 on the front.It seems the UK has a bit of a problem with this whilst the rest of the EU can manage loco hauled passenger services no problem!

That'll be convenient with all the reversals on Norwich - Liverpool...

 

[northwichcat]

DMU's/EMU's for short local services,longer hauled services some up to date coaching stock and a 68 on the front.It seems the UK has a bit of a problem with this whilst the rest of the EU can manage loco hauled passenger services no problem!

DB have a driving trailer vehicle built in to one end of their double decker Regio stock and they attach a loco on the other end. We don't have any UK stock designs which incorporate that.

 

[HSTEd]

So in summary the additional diesel services/capacity can be provided by DMUs released by electrification. However, as Angel Trains are planning to write off the 142s in 2019 and Porterbrook are planning to do the same with the 153s and will significantly reduce the class 143 and 144 capacity (if they remain in service) it means new DMUs will need to be delivered in 2019, otherwise services will have to be withdrawn or have their capacity cut back.

They are only planning to write them off because they will either have to refit them to PRM-TSI or withdraw them, since the former is not feasible they must chose the latter.
They will not have to withdraw them if they are granted an exemption from the regulations for the next several years after 2019.

There is no absolute need to withdraw then in 2019 and not say, by the end of CP6 or whenever, by which time electrification progress should have obliterated any need for diesel services on TPE or similar.
You have not yet explained how you to plan to pay for all these new units that are going to have ten years of front line service and then have nothing to do unless you want to send still serviceable units off to the scrapline early to make room for them.

287 DMU vehicles being withdrawn because of PRM TSI is £430m worth.
Where will this money come from?

They'll still be a number of DMUs needed on the current North TPE network. There are no plans to electrify Scarborough, Middlesbrough or Manchester to Liverpool via Warrington. Hull-Manchester looks set to remain a DMU service in CP5 (ahead of likely electrification in CP6) and the diesel units used on that line will likely be needed for overnight services between York and Manchester Airport. This is because overnight services need to go via Wakefield Kirkgate and Brighouse for route retention purposes during engineering works.

Even if you can only withdraw half the fleet that is still 25 extra units for capacity enhancement elsewhere.
For context I make Middlesbrough-Northallerton via Yarm roughly 32 route kilometres, so 64 track kilometres, or ~£100m to electrigy.
Manchester-Liverpool via Warrington comes out at about 85 track kilometres, so ~£127.5m

Those two projects alone significant reduce the number of diesel units needed for Northern and TPE.
Every Class 185 freed is £4.5m saved (as we are going to be swimming in 100mph Electric Units).

 

[northwichcat]

They are only planning to write them off because they will either have to refit them to PRM-TSI or withdraw them, since the former is not feasible they must chose the latter.
They will not have to withdraw them if they are granted an exemption from the regulations for the next several years after 2019.

In the case of the 153s the cost of making them complaint as a single carriage isn't viable but the option of reforming them in to 2 carriage trains or making them centre carriages for 156s has been dismissed as well because the body shells are starting to show signs of sagging and we're still 6 years away from the end of 2019.

There is no absolute need to withdraw then in 2019 and not say, by the end of CP6 or whenever, by which time electrification progress should have obliterated any need for diesel services on TPE or similar.

UK legislation drawn up in 1994 gave a 2019 deadline because of the argument of DMUs having a 30 year shelf life and the non-complaint 158s, which were fairly new at the time, would have reached their expiry date by then and if they were given a life extension program then it would incorporate new disability legislation.

The Sectary of State for Transport can grant an exemption order but it would need to have conditions attached to it e.g. operator W can use a fleet on X trains on certain services until Y, this is due to Z.

Don't forget even in the ATOC report which was very pro-electrification and very anti-ordering new DMUs they concluded new DMUs would be required in control period 6 i.e. after April 2019 even though they concluded we could make do with the DMUs we have in CP5.

287 DMU vehicles being withdrawn because of PRM TSI is £430m worth.
Where will this money come from?

How much money will it cost to keep Pacers in service until their 35 years old even ignoring that? One I was on last night had two broken bus seats, so they are obviously in need of a complete multi-million pound refurbishment to keep in a usable condition for the next few years, ignoring any potential mechanical problems!

For context I make Middlesbrough-Northallerton via Yarm roughly 32 route kilometres, so 64 track kilometres, or ~£100m to electrigy.

But the question is why spend £100m doing that line when other lines with a more frequent service aren't electrified. Middlesbrough-York does fall in to the Network Rail's category of "a line with a standard 1tph service doesn't usually have a good enough business case for electrification to be considered."

 

[HSTEd]

Also wasn't there a proposal somewhere to swap the XC Newcastle terminator with the TPE Middlesbrough terminator?
That would save electrifying Middlesbrough any time soon.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Where's the nearest brick wall?

Post 184 I gave reasons why effectively 278 DMU vehicles will be withdrawn by the end of 2019 and in post 187 you said electrification will be able to replace them all, but that assumes practically no additional services on unelectrified lines!

So in summary the additional diesel services/capacity can be provided by DMUs released by electrification. However, as Angel Trains are planning to write off the 142s in 2019 and Porterbrook are planning to do the same with the 153s and will significantly reduce the class 143 and 144 capacity (if they remain in service) it means new DMUs will need to be delivered in 2019, otherwise services will have to be withdrawn or have their capacity cut back.



They'll still be a number of DMUs needed on the current North TPE network. There are no plans to electrify Scarborough, Middlesbrough or Manchester to Liverpool via Warrington. Hull-Manchester looks set to remain a DMU service in CP5 (ahead of likely electrification in CP6) and the diesel units used on that line will likely be needed for overnight services between York and Manchester Airport. This is because overnight services need to go via Wakefield Kirkgate and Brighouse for route retention purposes during engineering works.

They are only planning to write them off because they will either have to refit them to PRM-TSI or withdraw them, since the former is not feasible they must chose the latter.
They will not have to withdraw them if they are granted an exemption from the regulations for the next several years after 2019.

There is no absolute need to withdraw then in 2019 and not say, by the end of CP6 or whenever, by which time electrification progress should have obliterated any need for diesel services on TPE or similar.
You have not yet explained how you to plan to pay for all these new units that are going to have ten years of front line service and then have nothing to do unless you want to send still serviceable units off to the scrapline early to make room for them.

287 DMU vehicles being withdrawn because of PRM TSI is £430m worth.
Where will this money come from?



Even if you can only withdraw half the fleet that is still 25 extra units for capacity enhancement elsewhere.
For context I make Middlesbrough-Northallerton via Yarm roughly 32 route kilometres, so 64 track kilometres, or ~£100m to electrigy.
Manchester-Liverpool via Warrington comes out at about 85 track kilometres, so ~£127.5m

Those two projects alone significant reduce the number of diesel units needed for Northern and TPE.
Every Class 185 freed is £4.5m saved (as we are going to be swimming in 100mph Electric Units).

Surly the most sensible option is to build new DMU's to operate on lines like the West Highland, Far North/ Kyle of Lockalsh, Cumbrian Coast, Cambrian Mainline/Cambrian Coast etc. Routes that are unlikely to be electrified in the next 30 years so will need new build diesel stock eventually which could free up 156's/158's for use elsewhere until they are freed up/replaced by electrification.

 

[Aictos]

That'll be convenient with all the reversals on Norwich - Liverpool...

Umm actually it presents no major problem at all as a design is already proven to work quite succcessfully

Chiltern AND Arriva Trains Wales as did DBS when it was EWS all operated Class 67 hauled rolling stock with DVTs at one end so how can you say there be problems on this route - only problem is getting the rolling stock.

 

[HSTEd]

Buying new rolling stock to use with locomotives would likely pay for a fleet of Bi-mode IEPs to operate the service.

 

[dosxuk]

Umm actually it presents no major problem at all as a design is already proven to work quite succcessfully

Chiltern AND Arriva Trains Wales as did DBS when it was EWS all operated Class 67 hauled rolling stock with DVTs at one end so how can you say there be problems on this route - only problem is getting the rolling stock.

No mention of DVTs in Photohunter's post.

DMUs work well on this route. If there was a surplus of suitable LHCS and locos around that might be an argument for it, but to suggest new LHCS to go with new 68s just because they do on the continent is foolish.

 

[tbtc]

ALl this talk of getting some new locos to go with some new coaches to go with some new DVTs reminds me of the (Groucho Marx?) quote that ""If we had some eggs we could have eggs and ham, if we had some ham"..

Surly the most sensible option is to build new DMU's to operate on lines like the West Highland, Far North/ Kyle of Lockalsh, Cumbrian Coast, Cambrian Mainline/Cambrian Coast etc. Routes that are unlikely to be electrified in the next 30 years so will need new build diesel stock eventually which could free up 156's/158's for use elsewhere until they are freed up/replaced by electrification.

These routes will have a combined PVR that could probably be covered by something like the 185s, not a huge amount of stock required.

(185s would be overkill in terms of the speed limits etc, just using them as an example)

 

[fowler9]

At the end of the day the 158'sare really pretty good on this route, perhaps make them in to 5 car units at the western end of the route if possible, would 6 car units fit in South Parkway for starters? 6 car 185's don't.

 

[Photohunter71]

So we're incapable of building a type of DVT to operate with loco hauled services then?

 

[YorkshireBear]

So we're incapable of building a type of DVT to operate with loco hauled services then?

Loco Hauled is no longer considered effective in this country. No point even considering it really.