"No new DMU orders in CP5"

[MidlandMainlie]

Looking at what DfT have proposed as potential future electrification schemes what's currently South TPE as far, west of Doncaster is included, as is Selby-Hull but not Trafford Park - Liverpool SP.

They are also proposing:
* Chopping Liverpool-Norwich at Nottingham
* Giving Liverpool a half-hourly service to Sheffield post-North TPE electrification
* Running additional Manchester-Sheffield services.
* Changing South TPE to go to Hull after Doncaster instead of Cleethorpes.

So there will be potential for electric services between Manchester and Nottingham and Manchester and Hull via Doncaster in the future but then what'll happen with the CLC line?

Out of curiosity would such a service go via Selby or Goole?

Also if the Cllethorpes service transfers to EMT and most of North Lincolnshire becomes EMT territory should the Sheffield to Lincoln service via Gainsbough and Retford also transfer?

 

[northwichcat]

Out of curiosity would such a service go via Selby or Goole?

We are therefore examining the option, subject to operational
constraints, of terminating the TPE service from Manchester at
Doncaster with a replacement Sheffield-Cleethorpes service
being operated by Northern, possibly as an extension of the
existing hourly Northern Sheffield-Scunthorpe service. A wider
package of changes could also feature the transfer of one of
Northern's two services between Doncaster and Hull in each
hour to TPE, allowing a through TPE service to Hull via the
South TransPennine route (i.e. via Sheffield)

So probably via Goole unless a business case is proven for a diversion.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Out of curiosity would such a service go via Selby or Goole?

Not specified yet, but as it stands the Selby route is the one being wired (to suit HT from London and TP North from Leeds).
It's one of the paradoxes that if the route via Goole stays unwired there will be substantial diesel running under the wires.
But wiring it will nearly double the Hull wiring cost (23 miles Doncaster-Gilberdyke, 30 miles Selby-Hull).
No doubt its fate is tied up with whether TP South goes fully electric at some point (Liverpool-Sheffield-Hull).

 

[Buttsy]

I fear it is likely that even with plenty of electrification we will be left with the wrong type of Diesel trains for the lines left un-electrified. I expect we will need small (1 or 2 coaches), not fuel hungry and not-fast diesel units. I think it is likely that the UK will have quite a few diesel trains (intercity) that are inappropriate for our needs (rural).

You could always go back to the BR idea of removing engines when the requirement for such power is no longer needed. I remember Calder Valley units (110s) having the trailer and one engine removed as they were no longer needed on such hilly routes, but were still in pretty good nick.

 

[David Barrett]

Also if the Cllethorpes service transfers to EMT and most of North Lincolnshire becomes EMT territory should the Sheffield to Lincoln service via Gainsbough and Retford also transfer?

The only mention of an expanded EMT in the consultation is with regard to TP continuing to operate the Manchester to Cleethorpes service in the next franchise period, in which case the Barton Branch would most likely become EMT operated.

A few years ago there was a report which suggested the wholesale transfer of everything south of the Humber to EMT including South Trans Pennine although it was suggested that the terminus would ultimately not be Manchester Airport but Liverpool Lime Street, and the unification of the remaining TP operations with Northern. The stopping services between Scunthorpe, Doncaster, Sheffield and Lincoln were proposed for transfer also but the report, perhaps overtaken by events, seems to have had no influence so far.

I have made my thoughts known about this on the class 170 thread and probably elsewhere for that matter.

 

[Class83]

According to the info in this months informed sources (p23) I make it about 22 - 24 units for EGIP and another 22 - 24 units for Dunblane + Alloa (assuming 66 vehicles is for 3 car units and 96 vehicles for 4 car units). Therefore 48 2 car Class 156 units to be displaced would seem reasonable.

As I said my list was in broad terms given the lack of detail about who will operate what and what the final routes will look like, however, with about another 30 Class 319s to go to Northern after the current batch, that would free up enough stock for the TPE Hope Valley Services (Class 158s?).

The Edinburgh-Glasgow Shuttle requires 16 units at peak times, 8 double diagrams. Dunblane is harder to work out, there seem to be 3/hour to Glasgow and 2or3/hour to Edinburgh, I think that it works out to 14 diagrams over peak, inbound are probably doubles, outbound may not be. So 20 units would seem reasonable. That gives 36 units, if Scotrail have 12 170s/158s sitting around at rush hour I doubt they'd be running the loco-hauls. Still 40 units from Scotrail, possibly all the 156s in return for 8 158s to avoid a micro fleet.

South Transpennine, at 3 per hour could use 25-30 185s as anything arriving into Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield or Nottingham between 8 and 9 am will need to be 6 car, which is pretty much everything. Leaves 25 for Northern.

But yes, together with the rest of NW electrification (so 43 319s) that makes 108 extra units so enough to replace the pacers with most capacity growth coming from the individual units being longer.

 

[Surreyman]

"But yes, together with the rest of NW electrification (so 43 319s) that makes 108 extra units so enough to replace the pacers with most capacity growth coming from the individual units being longer".

But not in time to meet the 31/12/2019 deadline!

 

[northwichcat]

But yes, together with the rest of NW electrification (so 43 319s) that makes 108 extra units so enough to replace the pacers with most capacity growth coming from the individual units being longer.

Well the HLOS for CP4 identified a need for 130 additional diesel carriages for Northern for predicted passenger numbers by the end of CP4 (not including cascades which have happened), that was in addition to 72 electric carriages which would have resulted in the 323s cascading to LM. So that's a total of 202 carriages required. However, as LM are getting 350/3s which weren't part of the CP4 plans it brings 202 down to 162.

You're suggesting 172 additional carriages, so that might be enough to free up 5 Pacers at a stretch assuming there's 0% growth in CP5.

Although, what will happen with the 153s when the Sprinters are made accessible? If the 153s are re-formed in to 2 carriage trains then the freed up Pacers will be needed to cover some of the single 153 diagrams.

So nothing to withdraw as a result of Northern getting 319s.

Although, there may be some DMUs released if Northern get DMUs as a result of part of North TPE going over to electric traction.

Also note FGW were to get 32 additional carriages in CP4 which they never got. TPE eventually manged to get the 40 additional carriages they were expected in the form of the 350/4s.

 

[David Barrett]

You could always go back to the BR idea of removing engines when the requirement for such power is no longer needed. I remember Calder Valley units (110s) having the trailer and one engine removed as they were no longer needed on such hilly routes, but were still in pretty good nick.

I remember the plan but in the end it appeared that the engines remained in use despite the loss of the trailer. Some were then used on routes where 150s were being introduced in order that there would be no disruption to the timetables in the period leading up to total conversion to the new DMU types. They didn't perform badly as built but without the trailer they seemed untouchable at times.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Looking at what DfT have proposed as potential future electrification schemes what's currently South TPE as far, west of Doncaster is included, as is Selby-Hull but not Trafford Park - Liverpool SP.

They are also proposing:
* Chopping Liverpool-Norwich at Nottingham
* Giving Liverpool a half-hourly service to Sheffield post-North TPE electrification
* Running additional Manchester-Sheffield services.
* Changing South TPE to go to Hull after Doncaster instead of Cleethorpes.

So there will be potential for electric services between Manchester and Nottingham and Manchester and Hull via Doncaster in the future but then what'll happen with the CLC line?

Chopping Liverpool-Norwich seemed like a good idea to me. It raised a few thoughts.

I imagine these long routes are at risk of picking up delays at one end and then passing on delays to other services at the other end of the route anyway. Given how busy the railways are these days it is probably more likely to be an issue than (say) fifteen years ago. Its probably more acceptable than on an intercity route where cutting, for example, Paddington to Penzance in half at somewhere like Bristol would be a no no !. OK I find myself worrying about that happening to Cross Country and then again things like Liverpool-Norwich is a future Cross Country type service ?.

One practical problem I can see is *IF* there is not enough platform capacity at, in this case, Nottingham to handle trains arriving from Liverpool and another departing for Norwich and layovers. Obviously the other problem is passengers having to change trains. In the case of Cross Country it could be hopeless at Birmingham New Street - where capacity is already overstretched. Unless the platforms are long enough to terminate one train and then start another from the other end of the same platform. If both trains are five car Voyagers then easy but if its two 8 /10 car services then no room ?. Anyway its morally not nice to make passengers walk half the length of a platform for a "connecting" service while another group of passengers are heading in the opposite direction of course !.

I have wondered about Cross Country before as I can see there being very little infill electrification required to make Cross Country North of Birmingham 100% electric. Another case for IEP (not that I like IEP). Off topic really.

I would say Bi-Mode is not an option for non intercity (including cross country) routes. The kind of routes this thread is covering.

Generally speaking I think the railways must be looking at cases for splitting services where a large part is diesel running under the wires. Contentious perhaps but that will become more acceptable as the price of diesel goes up and the environmental issues get raised (even higher). The more important routes will survive intact as they will get electrified in full (One would hope !).

 

[edwin_m]

The only part of Liverpool-Norwich that is committed for electrification is Sheffield to Clay Cross plus a mile or so westwards from Nottingham. The proposal to split it is driven by a perceived need to rationalise the franchise map, not by minimising running under the wires, and both halves would remain DMU-worked for very many years.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Yes, sorry, I know its not an immediate option. Hoping though that South transpennine electrification won't be too far off thus leading to the prospect of the Liverpool end of Liverpool to Norwich dispensing with diesel trains before the current diesel trains fall apart or get barred for want of a DDA loo.

 

[Boothby97]

Could the Norwich-Nottingham be merged with the existing Nottingham-Birmingham (hourly service). The hourly Nottingham-Cardiff could remain unaffected (or it could be extended to Lincoln)

 

[The Ham]

I have wondered about Cross Country before as I can see there being very little infill electrification required to make Cross Country North of Birmingham 100% electric. Another case for IEP (not that I like IEP). Off topic really.

By my calculations the gaps in XC's network are:

The two routes York/Sheffield (about 45 miles) and wire up Derby/Birmingham (about 40 miles) and wire up the routes between Birmingham/Bristol and Cardiff (about 125 miles) and then the following XC services would be run as EMU services:
- (Southampton) Reading to Newcastle (85 miles of wires)
- (Cardiff) Bristol Temple Meads to Manchester Piccadilly (125 miles of wires, assuming both the route to Bristol and the more direct route to Cardiff)
- Bournemouth to Manchester Piccadilly (CP5 scheme)
- Cardiff Central to Nottingham (165 miles of wires, although this is milage which is included in the routes above, so is efectively "free")

The above would require a total of 210 miles

That would only leave the following services as DMU's (miles of wires would be in addition to the above):
- (Penzance/Newquay) Plymouth to Edinburgh Waverley (Glasgow Central/Aberdeen) (350 miles of wires to include the extentions, however only 145 miles of wires to be able to run Plymouth to Glasgow Central)
- Guildford to Newcastle (35 miles*)
- Paignton to Manchester Piccadilly (100 miles of wires, or 10 miles if the line to Plymouth has been done)
- Birmingham to Stansted Airport (125 miles of wires)

*assuming replacing the sections of third rail with OHLE as well as removing a section of a diesel island

taken from http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1554424&postcount=1

 

[David Barrett]

Could the Norwich-Nottingham be merged with the existing Nottingham-Birmingham (hourly service). The hourly Nottingham-Cardiff could remain unaffected (or it could be extended to Lincoln)

I don't see the commercial gain in the Norwich to Birmingham scenario although it might be to someone's advantage operationally. On the other hand your Lincoln suggestion could well make sense both commercially and operationally if a little more mileage could be gained out of XC's 170s, probably not too difficult given the layover time at Nottingham. If my memory serves me well the Lincoln/Nottingham service is well timed for such an amalgamation although it would produce an asymmetrical service of Lincoln-Cardiff in one direction and Birmingham-Lincoln in the other (or was it the other way round?). No matter, I think that there certianly would be Lincoln-Midlands potential and a small saving of EMT rolling stock although with the transfer of a large chunk of EMT's work to TP and some to XC there might be little left to justify EMT's existence as a viable regional operator unless they themselves pick up something from someone else.

 

[Class83]

"But yes, together with the rest of NW electrification (so 43 319s) that makes 108 extra units so enough to replace the pacers with most capacity growth coming from the individual units being longer".

But not in time to meet the 31/12/2019 deadline!

NW electrification (319s) is between this December and 2016/7
EGIP (156s) will be December 2016 & December 2018
North Transpennine (185s) will be December 2018

So they've got a year to spare on the current schedule.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Could the Norwich-Nottingham be merged with the existing Nottingham-Birmingham (hourly service). The hourly Nottingham-Cardiff could remain unaffected (or it could be extended to Lincoln)

The problem with extending the Cardiff-Nottingham service to Lincoln is the flat crossing at Newark and the impact that any delays at the western end could have on the crossing and the ECML timetable, short of building a flyover at Newark I don't see how tis could be avoided.

 

[HSTEd]

It seems unlikely Norwich-Liverpool will actually be cut, they have tried to do it before and backed down.

And myself I think that slicing up all the services like that sets a very dangerous precedent.

 

[edwin_m]

I think Lincoln-Birmingham makes a lot of sense given how poor the train service is from Lincoln to most places. However Norwich-Nottingham-Birmingham isn't much use because it takes a huge detour between Peterborough and Birmingham.

 

[northwichcat]

The only part of Liverpool-Norwich that is committed for electrification is Sheffield to Clay Cross plus a mile or so westwards from Nottingham. The proposal to split it is driven by a perceived need to rationalise the franchise map, not by minimising running under the wires, and both halves would remain DMU-worked for very many years.

It seems unlikely Norwich-Liverpool will actually be cut, they have tried to do it before and backed down.

And myself I think that slicing up all the services like that sets a very dangerous precedent.

I imagine the medium term plan is for 6 car 185s on Liverpool-Nottingham and 158s to remain on Nottingham-Norwich. (The platform lengthening plans unveiled by Network Rail seem to support this.) As I've pointed out before they could move Leeds-Nottingham to EMT to join to to Nottingham-Norwich and keep a through service between Sheffield and Norwich which is an option they didn't have when they split up the Central Trains franchise.

The consultation does talk about adding a new Sheffield service and changing which services go to the Airport and which go to Liverpool, with possibly Chester being added as a TPE destination. So long term I imagine the long term plan is for an electric service but if Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester doesn't get wired then it could be a Manchester Airport-Nottingham or Chester-Nottingham electric service or maybe Liverpool-Nottingham via Chat Moss with the Liverpool-Airport service running via the CLC line.

 

[joeykins82]

Norwich to Birmingham via Leicester maybe?

 

[Surreyman]

NW electrification (319s) is between this December and 2016/7
EGIP (156s) will be December 2016 & December 2018
North Transpennine (185s) will be December 2018

So they've got a year to spare on the current schedule.

These Schemes/timescales aren't going to release enough units to replace all Pacers or indeed possibly any.
(See Roger Fords article in August Modern Rail).

My guess is that either (A future) Dft will panic @ 2017 and authorise at great expense the upgrading of the 14X fleets, or as many people have rumoured, issue a derogation to allow pacers to continue unmodified in service until 2021, by which time there should be sufficient cascades available from the various Electrification schemes.
Of course there has been much speculation that units could continue in service unmodified, if run coupled to a compliant unit, not sure how this pans out either legally or practically myself?
Of course, a future government could always source a fleet of new DMUs for Northern, providing the Government was the actual owner/direct funder, might not be cheap but presumably Bombardier could be persuaded to build a fleet of say 50 3 car DMUs (updated 172s?) with 'Euro stage 111B' engines/emissions provided the Government was guaranteeing/directly footing the bill.

 

[dosxuk]

Norwich to Birmingham via Leicester maybe?

That sounds a lot like a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Haydn1971]

Just been reading the London Infrastructure Plan, £1.3 trillion over 35 years - it's interesting to read about using cascades from ThamesLink to reinforce Southeastern, plus other rolling stock demands - so, loads of 319's coming north ? Looks like London has different ideas, now, where's that order book for new diesels gone

 

[swt_passenger]

Just been reading the London Infrastructure Plan, £1.3 trillion over 35 years - it's interesting to read about using cascades from ThamesLink to reinforce Southeastern, plus other rolling stock demands - so, loads of 319's coming north ? Looks like London has different ideas, now, where's that order book for new diesels gone

25 x 377s (100 vehicles) that are surplus from TSGN and going to Southeastern has been known about since the ITT came out last year, it's possible that might be all they are writing about...

 

[northwichcat]

it's interesting to read about using cascades from ThamesLink to reinforce Southeastern

Is not why DfT authorised Southern have placed an order for a number of new EMUs with options for further orders, so that the 'old Thameslink' trains the South East franchises get will in fact be 37xs?

 

[Class377/5]

Thameslink stock goes as follows

319s go Northern/Great Western
25x 377s to Southeastern
29x 387 to somewhere
Around 20-25x 365 to somewhere (rumour is TPE)

No word on the 317/321 fleet but the Great Northern 313 have interested parties with Southern's 313 still in service.

Most if not all of the 319s will be compliant with disabilities rules prior to release from Thameslink on current plans.

 

[northwichcat]

Around 20-25x 365 to somewhere (rumour is TPE)

That probably wouldn't be enough to cover TPE even if they keep the 350/4s. Note the 350/4s aren't enough to cover all Scottish weekend services even without capacity improvements on the busiest services or potentially Liverpool portions. But maybe if TPE had that number of 365s for North TPE and slightly more than half of the 387s it would just about work.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

At the moment these routes are run with entirely standard trains that would be better used elsewhere as they are not particularly suited to the role they are doing and will be doing in future. What sort of lines would be come under this description and how many trains are used on them at the moment? Off the top of my head I can think of:

• West Highland Line
• Kyle of Lochalsh Line
• Far North Line
• Glasgow South Western Line to Stranraer
• Cambrian Line
• Settle & Carlisle

Would the Heart of Wales line be another long line with a considerable number of railway stations be an acceptable addition to your list above ?

 

[Haydn1971]

Around 20-25x 365 to somewhere (rumour is TPE)

Interesting, more old trains for the north, Wikipedia suggests these are being upgraded with accessible loos and such, so sounds possible.