Second hint from DfT at new DMUs being procured

[northwichcat]

Surely a surplus of DMUs (even old ones, except Pacers) would actually be a good idea? If the lines go down on an electrified commuter route (e.g. Ilkley) having surplus DMUs in store to cover it might be a great thing.

Spare DMUs might be a good idea but the likelihood of the spare DMUs being in the right place at the right time for an electrical failure is slim. Even if they were at Neville Hill by the time you find a driver to move them to Leeds station the electricity could be back on. Plus you may need a diesel loco to move any stuck EMUs off the line before running a diesel service.

 

[The Ham]

Surely a surplus of DMUs (even old ones, except Pacers) would actually be a good idea? If the lines go down on an electrified commuter route (e.g. Ilkley) having surplus DMUs in store to cover it might be a great thing.

Given that there are currently proposed new routes (Portishead springs to mind) which are not open (at least partly) due to the lack of current DMU's.

Therefore, having some sets spare (i.e. stored for a few years rather than scrapped straight away) which could be used for new routes (if there are any in the pipeline) could be a good plan.

 

[Yew]

Just seen a post elsewhere where someone's claimed Bombardier are looking whether they can produce a DEMU version of a 37x.

I assume, not a 373 or 374

 

[danielnez1]

In any case, if we are left with surplus modern DMUs, might a conversion to electric, or failing that locomotive haulage, be a possible solution?

Blue-sky thinking here: Could the surplus MK2/3 coaches be converted to push/pull rakes with 1/3-2/3 door arrangements like what New Zealand did with some of their imported MK2s?

 

[The Ham]

Blue-sky thinking here: Could the surplus MK2/3 coaches be converted to push/pull rakes with 1/3-2/3 door arrangements like what New Zealand did with some of their imported MK2s?

Could it be done, yes.

Is it likely to be done, no.

It is unlikely to happen due to the cost of such works compared to useful life span when compared with a new build, especially given the need for DVT's or DBSO's and the cost of running a loco.

To put the cost into perspective the track access charges of a 180 (the highest of the 1xx classes stock) is 14.03ppm (pence per mile) per coach, compare this with one class 43 (HST loco, which is one of the cheapest) which is 37.35ppm then each coach (mark 2 as the are a bit cheaper than the mark 3's) at 4.75ppm.

This means that a 5 coach 185 is marginally more expensive than a loco and 5 coaches (with 4 coaches being the other way around) - although that is assuming that DBSO were the same cost as their coach counterparts.

Change it to 8 mark 3 coaches (6.46ppm each) and two class 43's (basically a HST) and the cost per mile would be £1.2638 compared with a 9 coach 185 (I know they don't exist) which would be basically the same cost at £1.2627. Likewise a class 222 would be able to be 11 coaches long and still be a comparable cost at £1.2111.

I know track access charges are only one element, however given some sets can run for a thousand miles a day, even small savings can make a difference to the running costs, sometimes enough to offset higher leasing costs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Blue-sky thinking here: Could the surplus MK2/3 coaches be converted to push/pull rakes with 1/3-2/3 door arrangements like what New Zealand did with some of their imported MK2s?

You'd be better fitting power doors and using them as they are now for IC type services in the manner that Chiltern are.

Neil

 

[Chris125]

I can't see all the HSTs being used in future though. Some will find use in Scotland, and some could be used on innovative open access routes. Perhaps even Waterloo to the West Country via Basingstoke and Salisbury. Perhaps someone will revive the Wrexham and Shropshire idea with HSTs.

I imagine their continued use in England and Wales will echo that of the 27 sets in Scotland - shortformed HSTs replacing DMUs on longer distance services, providing both extra capacity and intercity-style rolling stock without extending journey times.

As I think Tony Miles has said on more than one occasion we shouldn't expect HSTs to be scrapped, not with the current DMU situation, and Abellio's winning Scotrail bid has shown why.

Chris

 

[TheWalrus]

I thought about HSTs on Waterloo-Exeter but the problem is they would be a lot slower than 159s if they were to give the same peak time capacity ie 2+8/2+9.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I imagine their continued use in England and Wales will echo that of the 27 sets in Scotland - shortformed HSTs replacing DMUs on longer distance services, providing both extra capacity and intercity-style rolling stock without extending journey times.

Although, if Southern can't or won't retraction the 442s and use them to cascade 377s to replace 313s, you could achieve the same thing with something like class 68s with 442s with the traction motors removed as push-pulling coaching stock rakes.

I thought about HSTs on Waterloo-Exeter but the problem is they would be a lot slower than 159s if they were to give the same peak time capacity ie 2+8/2+h9.

My idea for Waterloo-Exeter is new bi-mode units based on a new EMU design equivalent to a 175 with UEGs (Unit-End-Gangways). That would help with the mention in Modern Railways a while back that to maximise capacity into Waterloo requires all trains to be running on electric traction. The new EMU design, without the diesel engines, could also be used for the new TPE fleet, and the north-Wales coast line if it gets electrified. If cascading the SWT diesel fleet doesn't provide enough of an increase of DMU stock you could put more bi-mode ones on Cardiff-Portsmouth.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

, you could achieve the same thing with something like class 68s with 442s with the traction motors removed as push-pulling coaching stock rakes.

Could that even be done without a massive rewire of the 442?

 

[RobShipway]

Although, if Southern can't or won't retraction the 442s and use them to cascade 377s to replace 313s, you could achieve the same thing with something like class 68s with 442s with the traction motors removed as push-pulling coaching stock rakes.

My idea for Waterloo-Exeter is new bi-mode units based on a new EMU design equivalent to a 175 with UEGs (Unit-End-Gangways). That would help with the mention in Modern Railways a while back that to maximise capacity into Waterloo requires all trains to be running on electric traction. The new EMU design, without the diesel engines, could also be used for the new TPE fleet, and the north-Wales coast line if it gets electrified. If cascading the SWT diesel fleet doesn't provide enough of an increase of DMU stock you could put more bi-mode ones on Cardiff-Portsmouth.

I think you would be better off with a Class 444 with battery power in the same vain as the class 379 on test. That way it could be electric to the Basingstoke, then be battery powered on down to Salisbury. The only sticking point is whether the battery power would last to Exeter.

I know this is going to sound like a funny idea, but could you use class 444's with HST power cars at all? If the class 444's have enough power, my thought is that you have an HST power car at either end of a five coach class 444. Up to the point say of Basingstoke, the HST power car leading the train gets the power from the electricity supply of the class 444. Thereafter the train is powered by the diesel engines within the HST power cars?

 

[455driver]

I think you would be better off with a Class 444 with battery power in the same vain as the class 379 on test. That way it could be electric to the Basingstoke, then be battery powered on down to Salisbury. The only sticking point is whether the battery power would last to Exeter.

FFS the battery powered 379 is only to see if it works on a short branchline, not a couple of hours worth of running!
Even if it gets to Exeter, how the hell is it going to get back?

I know this is going to sound like a funny idea, but could you use class 444's with HST power cars at all? If the class 444's have enough power, my thought is that you have an HST power car at either end of a five coach class 444. Up to the point say of Basingstoke, the HST power car leading the train gets the power from the electricity supply of the class 444. Thereafter the train is powered by the diesel engines within the HST power cars?

So instead of dragging some batteries around you are going to drag 80 tonnes of powercar!
That will be so much better.

 

[Kettledrum]

I thought about HSTs on Waterloo-Exeter but the problem is they would be a lot slower than 159s if they were to give the same peak time capacity ie 2+8/2+9.

Yes they would if the current infrastructure remains unchanged, as the 159s have better acceleration but are limited to 90mph(?).....but if the single sections of the track were doubled, and line speed enhanced to allow 110mph running or even some 125mph sections, you could have HSTs running some services with fewer stops.

 

[Chris125]

Although, if Southern can't or won't retraction the 442s and use them to cascade 377s to replace 313s, you could achieve the same thing with something like class 68s with 442s with the traction motors removed as push-pulling coaching stock rakes.

It would be simpler and probably cheaper just to put some shortened HST sets through the same refurb program as those for Scotrail.

Chris

 

[TheWalrus]

I thought about HSTs on Waterloo-Exeter but the problem is they would be a lot slower than 159s if they were to give the same peak time capacity ie 2+8/2+9.

Yes they would if the current infrastructure remains unchanged, as the 159s have better acceleration but are limited to 90mph(?).....but if the single sections of the track were doubled, and line speed enhanced to allow 110mph running or even some 125mph sections, you could have HSTs running some services with fewer stops.

The problem then is how to serve the stops that have been removed, unless you are suggesting additional Salisbury-Exeter services.

 

[455driver]

Yes they would if the current infrastructure remains unchanged, as the 159s have better acceleration but are limited to 90mph(?).....but if the single sections of the track were doubled, and line speed enhanced to allow 110mph running or even some 125mph sections, you could have HSTs running some services with fewer stops.

Is that all!
makes you wonder why they havent done it already! :roll:

 

[Rhydgaled]

Could that even be done without a massive rewire of the 442?

I don't know, but I assume the class 442s have standard power wiring, so you'd only need to worry about multiple working cables. Unlike the proposal to use the 442s as IC125-trailers, which would require rewiring the 442s to have the same power system as the class 43 power cars (I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly, but I think it's that IC125s use a three-phase supply while everything else is single phase).

It would be simpler and probably cheaper just to put some shortened HST sets through the same refurb program as those for Scotrail.

Chris

Really? Personally, I would have thought using 442s as conventional coaches would be simpler than using them in IC125 sets (see the earlier point about three-phase).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think you would be better off with a Class 444 with battery power in the same vain as the class 379 on test. That way it could be electric to the Basingstoke, then be battery powered on down to Salisbury. The only sticking point is whether the battery power would last to Exeter.

I doubt the battery would get you to Exeter, which brings me back to bi-mode. A class 444 is largely equivelent to my hypothetical UEG-175, I just used the 175 as it almost certainly has more legroom and the 175's doors are cosmetically better (and work faster than those on a 159/158, which was the other kind of stock I could have suggested as a basis).

 

[Chris125]

Really? Personally, I would have thought using 442s as conventional coaches would be simpler than using them in IC125 sets (see the earlier point about three-phase)

I wasn't suggesting the use of 442s at all.

Chris

 

[northwichcat]

Apparently an unspecified ROSCO are assessing the viability of life extension work on some of their 150s due to serious corrosion issues.

So it could be a new DMU order may be expected to some Sprinters as well as the Pacers.

 

[NotATrainspott]

What are the typical speeds on routes that will not be electrified soon? A 100-110mph EMU with diesel capability for 75mph would be easier than a bi-mode capable of running at >100mph on diesel power and would help to fit in more local services alongside long distance high speed services on the WCML and ECML. If the 150s aren't going to last as long as anticipated then it would certainly increase the likelihood of such an order appearing. A three-car Hitachi AT200 with the seats nearest the driving cabs replaced with diesel generators would seem to be an ideal solution.

 

[northwichcat]

What are the typical speeds on routes that will not be electrified soon? A 100-110mph EMU with diesel capability for 75mph would be easier than a bi-mode capable of running at >100mph on diesel power and would help to fit in more local services alongside long distance high speed services on the WCML and ECML.

I would imagine that would work fine, the higher speeds and faster acceleration is usually more of a requirement on the mainline sections.

 

[JaJaWa]

Well, both FirstGroup and Chiltern own Mk3s outright...

Neil

Do Porterbrook not own First's Mark 3s?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do Porterbrook not own First's Mark 3s?

Most of them, but they did buy a few outright, though they may well have then sold them to a ROSCO.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

According to the Porterbrook website most of what they lease to FGW are the end vehicles for HST formations with only 20 mk3 carriages being leased to FGW: http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/pages/LeaseEndDates.htm

 

[Brian Aylott]

According to the Porterbrook website most of what they lease to FGW are the end vehicles for HST formations with only 20 mk3 carriages being leased to FGW: http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/pages/LeaseEndDates.htm

Not so - the 20 you refer to are the Mark 3 Sleeper coaches - the HST trailers and power cars are clearly shown earlier on the Porterbrook list to which you refer
Brian

 

[jw]

If TPE electrification is now delayed, what are the chances of Siemens building trailer cars to make the 185 fleet up to 4 cars?

I assume this would be possible under grandfather rights, even if safety standards have advanced since the initial build?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If TPE electrification is now delayed, what are the chances of Siemens building trailer cars to make the 185 fleet up to 4 cars?

Would doing this cause issues due to platform lengths, meaning you could run 6s but not 8s? (7s from a mix of 3 and 4 would complicate diagramming somewhat - Chiltern manage it, but Chiltern's network is far simpler).

I suspect a new build of 3-car DMUs is probably more practical and more likely, particularly as one design could be chosen for both Northern and TPE, just with a different internal layout for each (e.g. presence/absence of First Class).

Or you reduce TPE in scope such that only Northern needs the new units - exactly what was done with XC to make the number of Voyagers more sufficient. How many 185s does removing Blackpool, Barrow and Windermere to Northern save? Enough to remove most of the overcrowding?

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Would doing this cause issues due to platform lengths, meaning you could run 6s but not 8s? (7s from a mix of 3 and 4 would complicate diagramming somewhat - Chiltern manage it, but Chiltern's network is far simpler).

For some services 8 car would be fine, for others not. While for some even 6 car is an issue e.g. Liverpool South Parkway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For some services 8 car would be fine, for others not. While for some even 6 car is an issue e.g. Liverpool South Parkway.

Having built Liverpool South Parkway not to take 8x20m/6x23m was *incredibly* short-sighted to the point of severely incompetent, IMO.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Having built Liverpool South Parkway not to take 8x20m/6x23m was *incredibly* short-sighted to the point of severely incompetent, IMO.

Initially TPE and Central didn't agree to stop Yorkshire-Liverpool services at the station, while the Liverpool-Birmingham services which stopped there all stopped at either Acton Bridge or Winsford (the latter can barely take a 4 car 350) so it seemed unlikely anything longer than 4 carriages would stop at the higher level or 6 carriages at the lower (Merseyrail) level. I think it would have increased the building costs significantly if the upper level had been built to accommodate trains longer than 5 carriages with going over budget being an issue when the interchange was built.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How many 185s does removing Blackpool, Barrow and Windermere to Northern save? Enough to remove most of the overcrowding?

Plan is for the 185s used on those services to be used to allow the enhancements to North TPE from December 2016. Then from December 18 (when North TPE wires should have been ready) the idea seems to be additional South TPE services and 185s running Liverpool-Nottingham.