Second hint from DfT at new DMUs being procured

[Murph]

At the risk of straying further off-topic from new DMUs...
Aren't the traction motors on the 442s (originally on the 4-REPs/432s) and 73s basically the same motors (EE546), and of the same vintage (mid-1960s) in any case?
Are the motors on the 73s equally life expired? Are they doing anything with the motors in the current the 73/9 rebuild programme?

I'd be quite surprised if the traction motors didn't get a rebuild for the 73/9s, unless they were already in excellent shape, since they were making a significant investment into them in the rest of the rebuild. Frankly, I think this is a case of mistaking "old" for "life expired", unless the motors in the 442s have suffered a lack of proper maintenance or been particularly abused (and it would have to be quite extreme abuse for a rebuild not to be able to make it good again).

 

[Rhydgaled]

Maybe a poor example as once CP6 is finished (given what is hinted at in the Wessex plan about electrification south and east of Salisbury) there would be a significant percentage of that route will be electrified. With the gap being between Bath and Salisbury (unless more is done that that which is know/hinted at).

Actually, didn't you just prove that it was a good example by stating that there will still be a gap between Bath and Salisbury? Doesn't matter how long a non-electrified stretch is, unless it is only a handful of meters long to allow coasting, if there's no juice the unit needs to be self-powered.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Network Rail seem to be hinting at a new design of train for regional routes being versatile enough to also use on rural stopping services.

For long-distance rural routes, such as the HOWL, I would suggest that the only thing wrong with using stock such as 175 is the waste of top speed capablity. The only difference other than linespeed being frequency of stops, many of which aren't going to be used by many passengers, unlike mainline stopping services where there are lots of pax to board/alight at more of the stations.

 

[northwichcat]

For long-distance rural routes, such as the HOWL, I would suggest that the only thing wrong with using stock such as 175 is the waste of top speed capablity. The only difference other than linespeed being frequency of stops, many of which aren't going to be used by many passengers, unlike mainline stopping services where there are lots of pax to board/alight at more of the stations.

If you look at the report in full they've coloured in lines on network maps to indicate what type of rolling stock they would see as an indicative example. With some lines having multiple services it's not always easy to tell which type they are intending for which service. However, from what I can tell we're talking about a type of train suitable for all the following:
* Manchester to Hull
* Blackpool to York
* Bidston to Wrexham
* Manchester to Sheffield (stopping services)
* Manchester to Chester via Altrincham
* Manchester to Cardiff
* Cumbrian Coast services

So a diverse range of services which all have one common feature - an intermediate station where a lot of people board and alight.

While you may not like it there is always the option of taking 156s and 158s off stopping services and sending those to the Wales & Border franchise as long distance stock.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Could a 3rd rail bi-mode (with potential for tri-mode) working handle the Waterloo-Exeter route. If it could would that free up many DMUs?

 

[47802]

I disagree there. I think the routes less likely to be electrified throughout are longer distance services like Cardiff-Portsmouth, which may cut across regions with electrification but traverse sections of track with no electrification. Also, there is a short-medium term prospect of suburban-door stock being cascaded in the form of Scotrail 170s and TPE 185s, but no large source of regional express units to boost capacity on regional express routes like Manchester-Swansea.

Of course the unit would need AC capabilty too, all 3rd rail units built since privatisation have had pantograph wells I think. If releasing SWT's diesel fleet isn't enough to solve the DMU shortage (and given some of us are/were convinced that the electrification cascades alone would be sufficient to avoid buying any new diesel stock) then the bi-mode (or should that be tri-mode) 175-alike units could also be ordered for Cardiff-Portsmouth as well, and/or possibly EMT's Liverpool-Norwich and/or the TPE south route which isn't yet earmarked for wires.

In the article on the class 707s on page 11 of the Oct 2014 Modern Railways, it describes the 707s as 'Plan C'. 'Plan D' does not appear to be clearly defined yet, but it says ETCS "would make 30tph possible, but that is only feasible with an all-electric fleet, implying electrification of the Salisbury route." I interpreted that as 'DMU performance isn't good enough' although that isn't there in black-and-white.

Without the Exeter services, would it be worth wiring to Salisbury even with Yeovil services reduced to a shuttle?

I don't see the need for a regional long distance bi-mode, potentially redundant HST's could work such as some Cardiff Manchester services, or even Voyagers/Meridians eventually, and how close would a long distance regional bi-mode be to an IEP in both spec and price. There might be an argument for it in the longer term depending on electrification progress but I don't see it at the moment, as a solution to replacing 14x and possibly 15x

Wiring to Salisbury well you might need the freight argument to help justify it but the hourly Salisbury service could go electric and that could free up more diesel units for Exeter Waterloo trains and maybe an additional off peak Yeovil Salisbury service as well.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I am itching to suggest the following for Waterloo to Exeter. Electrify to Salisbury as that is arguably the end of the meaty bit of the service and is a better place to juggle stock. Run a pair of 442s from Waterloo to Salisbury. At Salisbury the rear unit would uncouple and pull back slightly. A diesel locomotive would immediately reverse onto what was the leading 442. The diesel locomotive would pull the 5-car 442 to Exeter and then propel it back to Salisbury. At Salisbury the diesel loco would uncouple and the 442 would couple to another 442 waiting in the platform. Thence as an electric ten coach (equivalent length to 12 coaches of other units) train to Waterloo.

Its been done before and quite a slick operation. The place was Bournemouth, the loco a class 33 and the units were a 4-REP at the Waterloo end and a pair of 4-TCs at the country end. The only difference was that the 4-TCs had no power capability as the 4-REP was as powerful as roughly 3 normal 4-car units. Irony is that the traction equipment in the 442s is the same as that found in the 4-REPs .. It worked all through the 1970s and 1980s iirc. No need to lug diesel engines around on electrified lines.

I am keen on this because it would free up a lot of class 159 (basically class 158) diesel multiple units for use elsewhere.

 

[47802]

I am itching to suggest the following for Waterloo to Exeter. Electrify to Salisbury as that is arguably the end of the meaty bit of the service and is a better place to juggle stock. Run a pair of 442s from Waterloo to Salisbury. At Salisbury the rear unit would uncouple and pull back slightly. A diesel locomotive would immediately reverse onto what was the leading 442. The diesel locomotive would pull the 5-car 442 to Exeter and then propel it back to Salisbury. At Salisbury the diesel loco would uncouple and the 442 would couple to another 442 waiting in the platform. Thence as an electric ten coach (equivalent length to 12 coaches of other units) train to Waterloo.

Its been done before and quite a slick operation. The place was Bournemouth, the loco a class 33 and the units were a 4-REP at the Waterloo end and a pair of 4-TCs at the country end. The only difference was that the 4-TCs had no power capability as the 4-REP was as powerful as roughly 3 normal 4-car units. Irony is that the traction equipment in the 442s is the same as that found in the 4-REPs .. It worked all through the 1970s and 1980s iirc. No need to lug diesel engines around on electrified lines.

I am keen on this because it would free up a lot of class 159 (basically class 158) diesel multiple units for use elsewhere.

This form of Loco Hauled push pull operation is likely to be expensive to operate, and any Electric extension to Salisbury will almost certainly be AC

 

[The Ham]

Actually, didn't you just prove that it was a good example by stating that there will still be a gap between Bath and Salisbury? Doesn't matter how long a non-electrified stretch is, unless it is only a handful of meters long to allow coasting, if there's no juice the unit needs to be self-powered.

The point is that, although as we aware of there will be a gap, it is likely to of a fairly high priority be electrified due to the distance that the trains will be running over electrified sections.

As, not only would that service benefit but so would other services such as the Waterloo to Bristol service (which could see an increase in frequency if there was more units, which could be more likely if they could be EMU's).

 

[Rhydgaled]

If you look at the report in full they've coloured in lines on network maps to indicate what type of rolling stock they would see as an indicative example. With some lines having multiple services it's not always easy to tell which type they are intending for which service. However, from what I can tell we're talking about a type of train suitable for all the following:
* Manchester to Hull
* Blackpool to York
* Bidston to Wrexham
* Manchester to Sheffield (stopping services)
* Manchester to Chester via Altrincham
* Manchester to Cardiff
* Cumbrian Coast services

So a diverse range of services which all have one common feature - an intermediate station where a lot of people board and alight.

That is quite an assortment. MAN-CDF, MAN-Hull (assuming you are talking TPE) and Blackpool-York all sound like duties for a 158 (or 175-alike with UEGs) to me. MAN-Sheffield I cannot comment on, but given you say stopping services I guess I would probably categorise it differently. I've no experience of Cumbrian Coast services either. Wrexham-Bidston I would probably place as a 150 route, but boarding on a 156 and MAN-Chester via Altrincham probably 156s.

While you may not like it there is always the option of taking 156s and 158s off stopping services and sending those to the Wales & Border franchise as long distance stock.

Refurbished 156s or 153s (converted back into 155s) with enhanced legroom etc. are what I believe should work HOWL and Swansea-Pembs. services, with 158s and 175s on the regional express routes (eg. Cardiff - Llanelli - Carmarthen - Pembs., Swansea - Cardiff - Manchester, Cardiff-Chester and Manchester/Crewe-Holyhead/Llandudno).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The point is that, although as we aware of there will be a gap, it is likely to of a fairly high priority be electrified due to the distance that the trains will be running over electrified sections.

As, not only would that service benefit but so would other services such as the Waterloo to Bristol service (which could see an increase in frequency if there was more units, which could be more likely if they could be EMU's).

Maybe there would be a strong case, maybe there wouldn't. My point is that services which cut across regions like that aren't necessarily going to be on the priority list for complete electrification, despite parts of the route being covered. Maybe Swansea/Cardiff-Manchester would have been a better example, will wired at both ends in a few years time but a fair gap in between. Regional express really is a mixed bag, you also have Pwllheli - Birmingham, not cutting across regions like Cardiff-Portsmouth but nonetheless along way down the list for complete electrification.

 

[deltic08]

Network Rail seem to be hinting at a new design of train for regional routes being versatile enough to also use on rural stopping services.



http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ots/network rus - passenger rolling stock.pdf P75

100mph units are not suitable for North TPE post electrification. The slow lines between York and Northallerton will be full of 60/75mph freight according to the East Coast 2016 Capacity Review meaning these lines will not be available for TPE. 100mph units on fast lines will become a no-no with IEP potentially being 140mph on this fast stretch.

Short formation IEP must become the stock of choice on Liverpool-Newcastles to maintain capacity between York and Newcastle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Short formation IEP must become the stock of choice on Liverpool-Newcastles to maintain capacity between York and Newcastle.

If growth continues as it has done, short-formation anything won't really work anywhere.

Neil

 

[samuelmorris]

I'm not sure it's justified or practical to go from 3-car 185 to 9-car IEP though :P - 5 should probably suffice!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm not sure it's justified or practical to go from 3-car 185 to 9-car IEP though :P - 5 should probably suffice!

The only reason there's anything as short as 3-car on North TPE during the daytime is that there aren't enough of them for everything to be 6-car. Ideally 5-6 car would be the minimum really.

 

[JonathanH]

The only reason there's anything as short as 3-car on North TPE during the daytime is that there aren't enough of them for everything to be 6-car. Ideally 5-6 car would be the minimum really.

That just isn't true is it. There are plenty of services run by TPE where 3 coaches are more than adequate. Perhaps not during the peak hours but definitely during the daytime.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Short formation IEP must become the stock of choice on Liverpool-Newcastles to maintain capacity between York and Newcastle.

If growth continues as it has done, short-formation anything won't really work anywhere.

Neil

I'm not sure it's justified or practical to go from 3-car 185 to 9-car IEP though :P - 5 should probably suffice!

That just isn't true is it. There are plenty of services run by TPE where 3 coaches are more than adequate. Perhaps not during the peak hours but definitely during the daytime.

From my experience of TPE (limited to a few trips between MAN and York/Leeds), I would say that the 3-car 185s aren't enough even on some off-peak services. A 4-car 100mph unit would probably cope off peak at the moment, but as I say my experience is rather limited. A 5-car IEP should therefore be ok off-peak, but longer sets will probably be needed because of the peaks (multiple working with 125mph units is messy, because UEGs are impossible, and you waste more space with cabs than with a 100mph unit).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That just isn't true is it. There are plenty of services run by TPE where 3 coaches are more than adequate. Perhaps not during the peak hours but definitely during the daytime.

The only services where 3-car is an over-provision between Leeds and Manchester would be in the very early mornings and very late evenings (and the handful of overnight services I suppose). There is no doubt that yes, there's the chance that one might "luck out" on a daytime service and get a seat due to the 5tph frequency... The new Liverpool to Newcastle via Victoria service seems under-used compared to those that still serve Piccadilly for example. Nevertheless ungangwayed 3-car sets are woefully inadequate for the vast majority of services. I just hope that the same mistake isn't repeated when our new electric trains are ordered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure it's justified or practical to go from 3-car 185 to 9-car IEP though :P - 5 should probably suffice!

For a bit of future-proofing I'd go 6 or preferably 7. The Voyager mistake needs not to be repeated.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

That is quite an assortment. MAN-CDF, MAN-Hull (assuming you are talking TPE) and Blackpool-York all sound like duties for a 158 (or 175-alike with UEGs) to me. MAN-Sheffield I cannot comment on, but given you say stopping services I guess I would probably categorise it differently. I've no experience of Cumbrian Coast services either. Wrexham-Bidston I would probably place as a 150 route, but boarding on a 156 and MAN-Chester via Altrincham probably 156s.

OK but what happens longer term when the choice is 158/9, 165/6, 168, 170, 172, 175, 185 and one new type of DMU (which could have different sub-classes)?

 

[ainsworth74]

I think one of the issues for TPE is that their main flow, Leeds - Manchester, has to end up dictating the whole franchise. It's the main reason why the 185s have 1/3 2/3 doors with huge vestibules and lots of standing space rather than end doors with narrow vestibules like the 158s had.

The reality is, in my experience, the vast majority of the time services north of York and east of Selby can meet demand with a three car unit quite happily. There might be a bit of squeeze on some peak time services but nothing to severe. But in the core there is a need for it to probably be a six car railway with everything being six cars. Certainly in the peak and probably on a number of off-peak services also.

To me the obvious way of dealing with overcrowding on TPE has always been portion working probably splitting and joining at York. So a three car unit from Middlesbrough joins another three car unit at York and runs through the core as a six. Something similar could work at Selby I'm sure with a bit of jiggery pokery.

 

[northwichcat]

100mph units are not suitable for North TPE post electrification. The slow lines between York and Northallerton will be full of 60/75mph freight according to the East Coast 2016 Capacity Review meaning these lines will not be available for TPE. 100mph units on fast lines will become a no-no with IEP potentially being 140mph on this fast stretch.

Currently Hull isn't confirmed for electrification and Manchester-Selby/Hull services are set to be semi-fasts so that other North TPE services will have an intercity style calling pattern.

 

[sprinterguy]

If growth continues as it has done, short-formation anything won't really work anywhere.

Neil

A 5-car IEP train could have as many as 335 seats (If first class was limited to just one of the driving cars) compared to 161 (plus however many tip-up) on a class 185: A little over double the seating capacity. Not an insubstantial increase in capacity.

Plus, won’t there be some stations that might have difficulties handling more than a 5-car IEP set, given that their length is similar to that of 6 x 23 metre carriages (e.g. equivalent to a double 185 formation)? Granted I would expect these to be in the minority, but it’s still a consideration.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A 5-car IEP train could have as many as 335 seats (If first class was limited to just one of the driving cars) compared to 161 (plus however many tip-up) on a class 185: A little over double the seating capacity. Not an insubstantial increase in capacity.

If procuring new fixed-formation rolling stock, though, a bit of future thinking is necessary. That lesson was proven with the Pendolinos - 8 car of which half was First Class was ridiculous. Within a few years they'll wish all of them had been extended to 11.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To me the obvious way of dealing with overcrowding on TPE has always been portion working probably splitting and joining at York. So a three car unit from Middlesbrough joins another three car unit at York and runs through the core as a six. Something similar could work at Selby I'm sure with a bit of jiggery pokery.

Or LM-style strengthening, adding and removing a unit (or even two) at Leeds like LM do at Northampton.

Plenty of LM services run 4-car north of Northampton and 12-car south thereof.

Neil

 

[Emyr]

I think one of the issues for TPE is that their main flow, Leeds - Manchester, has to end up dictating the whole franchise. It's the main reason why the 185s have 1/3 2/3 doors with huge vestibules and lots of standing space rather than end doors with narrow vestibules like the 158s had.

That's overstating the role Leeds - Manchester plays in dictating a "Commuter" layout.

Despite the transfer of some services away from the Bolton corridor, TPE plays a critical role in providing capacity to Bolton, Horwich, Chorley and beyond. The dwell times at Bolton and Horwich would be even worse with end doors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Despite the transfer of some services away from the Bolton corridor, TPE plays a critical role in providing capacity to Bolton, Horwich, Chorley and beyond. The dwell times at Bolton and Horwich would be even worse with end doors.

It does, but proposals are (and I agree with them, as the old "North West Express" services are a very poor fit with TPE) that those services should move to Northern.

Neil

 

[Rhydgaled]

OK but what happens longer term when the choice is 158/9, 165/6, 168, 170, 172, 175, 185 and one new type of DMU (which could have different sub-classes)?

What is that? Something like this:

1. 229x regional express layout (158/159/175)
2. 257x suburban layout (168/170/171/172/185)
3. 97x suburban layout with wider body (165/166)

The total of suburban-style stock (354x) is a fair few more units (125x) than the regional express. Wrexham-Bidston could probably use stock from item 2 on that list, possibly MAN-Altrincham-Chester too depending on number of carriages provided. Still think item 1 on my list is short of stock though, particularly since the current plans will cascade 185s, 170s and networker turbos but next to nothing (if anything) from type 1.

I think one of the issues for TPE is that their main flow, Leeds - Manchester, has to end up dictating the whole franchise. It's the main reason why the 185s have 1/3 2/3 doors with huge vestibules and lots of standing space rather than end doors with narrow vestibules like the 158s had.

Leeds-Manchester takes around 50mins, far too long to expect passengers to stand if you ask me, which is why I resent the 'lots of standing space' and the sacrifice of comfort in favour of huge vestibules.

To me the obvious way of dealing with overcrowding on TPE has always been portion working probably splitting and joining at York. So a three car unit from Middlesbrough joins another three car unit at York and runs through the core as a six. Something similar could work at Selby I'm sure with a bit of jiggery pokery.

Not sure about 3 and 6, but portion working (if you are doing it with units with UEGs, which rules out anything faster than about 115mph I think) could be a good idea.

A 5-car IEP train could have as many as 335 seats (If first class was limited to just one of the driving cars) compared to 161 (plus however many tip-up) on a class 185: A little over double the seating capacity. Not an insubstantial increase in capacity.

The 5-car IEP draft layouts already have little more than one driving car worth of first, it is just the kitchen that shunts much of first class into the next carriage. They only have 315 seats. In comparison, a 5-car 175 would probably have around 325 seats, in a 15m shorter train. Exceeding 115mph has quite serious design penalties.

If procuring new fixed-formation rolling stock, though, a bit of future thinking is necessary. That lesson was proven with the Pendolinos - 8 car of which half was First Class was ridiculous. Within a few years they'll wish all of them had been extended to 11.

Neil

Unless they wire to Holyhead, in which case they could order new 11-car Pendos to cascade the remaining 9-car ones to replace Voyagers.

 

[northwichcat]

It does, but proposals are (and I agree with them, as the old "North West Express" services are a very poor fit with TPE) that those services should move to Northern.

Serving North West destinations was apparently going to be an optional extra for TPE, for instance, if they wanted to run Barrow to Hull or Blackpool to Cleethorpes (the latter is reportedly what Arriva proposed.) First TPE originally started serving Bridlington as an optional extra destination but it got dropped within the first year of the franchise, presumably due to an insufficient number of carriages.

The reason for 185s on North West services was because the SRA wanted to stretch the 185 order further so it could allow exclusive use of the 175s to the Wales & Border franchise without requiring Northern to order new trains. First TPE didn't know anything about taking on Blackpool to Manchester Airport services until after they placed an order for 185s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The total of suburban-style stock (354x) is a fair few more units (125x) than the regional express. Wrexham-Bidston could probably use stock from item 2 on that list, possibly MAN-Altrincham-Chester too depending on number of carriages provided. Still think item 1 on my list is short of stock though, particularly since the current plans will cascade 185s, 170s and networker turbos but next to nothing (if anything) from type 1.

I agree you have more stock with wide middle doors and that'll increase once the 158/9s get withdrawn. However, I think the issue is if you order new regional DMUs that'll last for 25 years or more then they'll need to be versatile DMUs given uncertain long term electrification plans.

Is there a reason why we can't have double doors at the carriage ends?

 

[swt_passenger]

I think the primary purpose of Rhydgaled's cunning plan for stock transfers is that he cannot personally cope with the official NR/DfT plans that the GW franchise will be running Turbos on the Portsmouth - Cardiff route, basically because he has a thing about the door positions not being suitable.

Whereas in reality anyone who's seen the time it takes for FGWs 158s to do a station call at places like Southampton would think that ⅓ ⅔ door stock would be a great idea.

I agree that Turbos would be fine on the Romsey 6 though, but I can't see any logical reason to transfer the route to FGW. Why should they get involved in running what is primarily the all shacks stopping service around Southampton?

If the possible flawed logic is that FGW already have staff that maintain and operate the stock already, won't they be needed on their existing routes to maintain and operate the new stock that arrives there?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not stick with doors at 1/4 and 3/4 but have interior doors between the vestibule and saloon?

Neil

 

[The Ham]

I agree that Turbos would be fine on the Romsey 6 though, but I can't see any logical reason to transfer the route to FGW. Why should they get involved in running what is primarily the all shacks stopping service around Southampton?

Given the 159's and 16x's are of a similar age and that route is discussed in the Wessex Route Report as being electrified in CP6 when any of those units would have between 2 and 7 years until the are 35 years old (depending on when in CP6 the electrification happens), I would see little point in changing the units which serve that route.

Of course there could be a case if the 159's would be better suited to an alternative route for which the 16x's were not (i.e. too wide).

 

[3141]

Is there a reason why we can't have double doors at the carriage ends?

I think one of the issues with end doors and vestibules is the time it takes to walk from the middle of the coach to get to the exit. If the doorway itself was wider it would speed up passengers' departure by a little but not much, because they'll continue to arrive in single file from further down the coach.

Similarly, a double end door would let them on twice as fast but the single width gangway would still determine their boarding speed after the first few had got on.

On a coach with doors at one third and two thirds, which are also twice as wide, and therefore with a large vestibule as well, more passengers can get up from their seats and get themselves to a point near the doors before the train stops, so they will emerge from the coach quickly once the doors are open. Even if they stay in their seats till it stops they have less far to walk to reach a pair of doors, and with double doors passengers from two directions can make their way out of the coach simultaneously.

So I think it's the fact that the doors are at the end of the coach, rather than end doors are not being double width, that's the important factor causing alighting and boarding to take longer.