Why is the railway so pressed for capacity?

[a_c_skinner]

With apologies if this has been done to death before.

This isn't a stupid "disgusted of Kendal" question. Yesterday I was on a Transpennine Scotland to Manchester Airport in the mid morning. 4 vehicles. 350. Like a lot of these trains it was very full and standing. All the stops it made could accommodate more length. Rail roving I saw a lot of TPE services, all very full. Actually a lot of the Northern trains I took were well loaded too at peak times, only a late night Pendolino was moving a lot of empty seats.

Am I right that the DfT has the final vote on how much rolling stock is in use? Didn't TPE want 4 car 185s is is that an urban myth? For TPE it isn't that trains are full at peak times and empty at others. It is pretty clear to me that a lot of the time passenger numbers are limited by capacity. Are the economics so complex to make more rolling stock unaffordable or do the projections not include an assumption that more seats will mean more passengers.

I know some parts of the UK have platform length limited and track capacity full but that isn't the case in a lot of places. Is it time for a "save the Pacers" campaign? I'd sooner sit on a Pacer than stand on a 185 (yes I know they are slower and so use more track capacity...)

Perhaps this is a stupid question.

 

[Haydn1971]

Primarily the obsession for buying new trains without any consideration for growth through the full life of the unit. The network is littered with dozens of micro fleets that can't be lengthened or joined with through corridors, have specific functions that make them difficult to cascade... the 185s, 22xs, 442s, 360s all spring to mind as short sighted thinking - the 158s and Electrostar fleets strike me as great examples of forward thinking where units can be joined up without detriment. Hopefully this new age of AT300s, Desiro City and Aventra, plus Northerns CAF fleet will help in the future, yet we are still seeing short term thinking, with the cobbled together oddness that is loco hauled on TPE !

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Class 360s are probably convertible to 350s but it would cost a lot of money. The main thing for them would be a rebuild of the cab

 

[najaB]

Perhaps this is a stupid question.

It's not a stupid question. Passenger numbers have doubled since privatisation but seats haven't kept pace.

 

[Ianno87]

Quite often it's a case of economics vs passenger experience.

In the Manchester Airport-Scotland example, your train was unquestionably busy. However, on the units other diagrammed workings during the day it will be less busy. So can you justify the extra cost of running 4 extra carriages around all day just to cover the (relatively) short periods of time in the day when the train is at its busiest? Remember that is one whole extra train to buy lease, maintain (needing extra depot staff), etc. And the train will only be busy for short periods for the passengers paying (relatively) inexpensive shorter distance tickets (Manchester-Wigan, Preston, Lancaster), for whom the numbers won't stack up commercially to provide additional capacity for.

Manchester Airport-Scotland is also tricky in that its not particularly easy to add/detach carriages on route, or at the ends (Manchester Airport is far too busy to make this practical).

The 185 diagrams used to be pretty resourceful in this respect - a 6 car peak working into Manchester would return north, and then split at Preston into (say) Blackpool and Windermere portions - provides plenty of peak capacity into Manchester, but then splits down to not provide it excessively further north.

 

[Western Lord]

Since the late BR days the policy in Britain has been to run shorter trains more frequently. This contrasts with the situation in some European countries, notably France, where the policy is to run longer trains less frequently. The result of this policy is that our railways are booming and the French (away from the TGV routes) are in the doldrums, although population density also plays it's part here.
Frequency improves the attractiveness of the service and this applies across transport modes. You are more likely to use a bus service that runs every ten minutes than one which runs every hour. When, in the late '60s the Boeing 747 was developed people thought that passengers would want the advantages of wide body comfort (yes, they really did think that wide bodied airliners would be more comfortable) on short haul connecting routes. So the European Airbus, the A300, was developed. When it entered service it soon became clear that it could only be filled by reducing frequencies. But, it was discovered that other airlines offering more frequent flights in 737s and DC-9s were getting the lion's share of the traffic. Airbus were forced to develop their own narrow body short hauler, the A320, in order to compete. Luckily for them the relaxation in the twin engine rules (since the days of piston engines they had only been allowed to fly one hour from a suitable airport) allowed the A300 to be developed into a medium/long haul aircraft.
This is also the reason that British Airways does not fly the A380 from London to New York, easily the busiest route on it's network. It might be thought to be ideal, but could only be filled by reducing frequency, which would lose market share to the competition with their multiple departures with smaller aircraft.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Manchester-Scotland services are occasionally doubled up in the peaks, by diverting trains from other routes.
The decision to send 4-car 350s to TPE for this service was taken as part of a larger order for 4-car units for LM, and was taken in mid-franchise after the Manchester-Preston (via Wigan) route was electrified.
Even that was an improvement on the 3-car 185s which went before.

Since those decisions were made, the whole scene on TPE and Northern has changed, with many new trains on order for the new franchises.
The Manchester-Scotland service will go to 5-car when these trains arrive in 2018, and a through service from Liverpool will start.
The new stock applies to most TPE services, so there will be a substantial increase in capacity over the next 3 years.

 

[Bevan Price]

Much of the blame lies with the treasury and DfT. They did not allow BR to buy enough new coaching stock to replace older stock in the 1980s onwards. Whilst 2 coach dmus were adequate for a few of the most rural routes, they were never adequate for city commuter routes, or for most inter-urban routes. This effect persisted after Major's great sell-off. More frequent trains encouraged growth in passenger traffic, but they (DfT) never allowed enough new coaching stock to be obtained.

Having to hire stock from rolling-stock owners is expensive - I believe that TOCs still have to pay vast sums (I have seen £40,000+ per year quoted to hire antiquated Pacers) - and the system of track access charges probably also contributes to a desire to use "small" trains.

And the trend still continues, with Northern Connect getting numerous 2 car units, when some of their 3 car units will be barely adequate for many routes. It remains to be seen if TPE's 5 coach units will be adequate for the busier routes. As units designed for 125 mph, if their body shell resembles that of Voyagers or Pendolinos, their (standard class) capacity could be little more than 4 Mark 2 or Mark 3 coaches, which I fear will still be inadequate for many services.

 

[Greenback]

While 2 and 3 car units were sufficient for the traffic back in the 1980's and early 1990's when the second generation DMU's were coming in, things have moved on and 4 or 5 car units are now needed on many routes.

The ones that come straight to mind for me are Bristol/Cardiff to Portsmouth, and Cardiff to Manchester. I'm sure there are others.

 

[theageofthetra]

Since the late BR days the policy in Britain has been to run shorter trains more frequently. This contrasts with the situation in some European countries, notably France, where the policy is to run longer trains less frequently. The result of this policy is that our railways are booming and the French (away from the TGV routes) are in the doldrums, although population density also plays it's part here.
Frequency improves the attractiveness of the service and this applies across transport modes. You are more likely to use a bus service that runs every ten minutes than one which runs every hour. When, in the late '60s the Boeing 747 was developed people thought that passengers would want the advantages of wide body comfort (yes, they really did think that wide bodied airliners would be more comfortable) on short haul connecting routes. So the European Airbus, the A300, was developed. When it entered service it soon became clear that it could only be filled by reducing frequencies. But, it was discovered that other airlines offering more frequent flights in 737s and DC-9s were getting the lion's share of the traffic. Airbus were forced to develop their own narrow body short hauler, the A320, in order to compete. Luckily for them the relaxation in the twin engine rules (since the days of piston engines they had only been allowed to fly one hour from a suitable airport) allowed the A300 to be developed into a medium/long haul aircraft.
This is also the reason that British Airways does not fly the A380 from London to New York, easily the busiest route on it's network. It might be thought to be ideal, but could only be filled by reducing frequency, which would lose market share to the competition with their multiple departures with smaller aircraft.

Going a bit OT but is the two engine rule why the DC10, Tristar etc were developed? Also what about the 4 tiny engines on those British Aerospace ones that uses City Airport?

The lack of planning and accountability for the impacts of population growth, movement of population to cities that were previously declining and workers being forced further out due to unaffordable city centre housing have all contributed to this mess.

Another aspect is that fewer young people are driving. When I was 18 virtually everyone I knew drove and had a car or bike. Not one of my daughters friends drive (including her) despite living in the sticks and mainly due to outrageous insurance costs and much stricter MOT's on the sort of old bangers I had!.

 

[Deepgreen]

Since the late BR days the policy in Britain has been to run shorter trains more frequently. This contrasts with the situation in some European countries, notably France, where the policy is to run longer trains less frequently. The result of this policy is that our railways are booming and the French (away from the TGV routes) are in the doldrums, although population density also plays it's part here.
Frequency improves the attractiveness of the service and this applies across transport modes. You are more likely to use a bus service that runs every ten minutes than one which runs every hour. When, in the late '60s the Boeing 747 was developed people thought that passengers would want the advantages of wide body comfort (yes, they really did think that wide bodied airliners would be more comfortable) on short haul connecting routes. So the European Airbus, the A300, was developed. When it entered service it soon became clear that it could only be filled by reducing frequencies. But, it was discovered that other airlines offering more frequent flights in 737s and DC-9s were getting the lion's share of the traffic. Airbus were forced to develop their own narrow body short hauler, the A320, in order to compete. Luckily for them the relaxation in the twin engine rules (since the days of piston engines they had only been allowed to fly one hour from a suitable airport) allowed the A300 to be developed into a medium/long haul aircraft.
This is also the reason that British Airways does not fly the A380 from London to New York, easily the busiest route on it's network. It might be thought to be ideal, but could only be filled by reducing frequency, which would lose market share to the competition with their multiple departures with smaller aircraft.

"This flight will divide en route - upper deck for Washington, lower deck for New York. Please make sure you are in the correct portion of this 'plane".

 

[sprinterguy]

As units designed for 125 mph, if their body shell resembles that of Voyagers or Pendolinos, their (standard class) capacity could be little more than 4 Mark 2 or Mark 3 coaches, which I fear will still be inadequate for many services.

For reference, the TPE franchise agreement states the following capacities for the new rolling stock:

"IC100" loco-hauled (5-car): 29 first, 257 standard, 143 standing.
125mph EMU (5-car): 24 first, 262 standard, 156 standing.
125mph Bi-mode (5-car): 24 first, 318 standard, 132 standing.

 

[The Ham]

Much of the blame lies with the treasury and DfT. They did not allow BR to buy enough new coaching stock to replace older stock in the 1980s onwards. Whilst 2 coach dmus were adequate for a few of the most rural routes, they were never adequate for city commuter routes, or for most inter-urban routes. This effect persisted after Major's great sell-off. More frequent trains encouraged growth in passenger traffic, but they (DfT) never allowed enough new coaching stock to be obtained.

Having to hire stock from rolling-stock owners is expensive - I believe that TOCs still have to pay vast sums (I have seen £40,000+ per year quoted to hire antiquated Pacers) - and the system of track access charges probably also contributes to a desire to use "small" trains.

And the trend still continues, with Northern Connect getting numerous 2 car units, when some of their 3 car units will be barely adequate for many routes. It remains to be seen if TPE's 5 coach units will be adequate for the busier routes. As units designed for 125 mph, if their body shell resembles that of Voyagers or Pendolinos, their (standard class) capacity could be little more than 4 Mark 2 or Mark 3 coaches, which I fear will still be inadequate for many services.

Although I've not seen the Pacer figure before, but I would guess from what I have seen quoted that £40,000 could well be per coach as I have seen figures of £100,000 (EMU) and £110,000 (DMU) per coach quoted before.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

With apologies if this has been done to death before.

This isn't a stupid "disgusted of Kendal" question. Yesterday I was on a Transpennine Scotland to Manchester Airport in the mid morning. 4 vehicles. 350. Like a lot of these trains it was very full and standing. All the stops it made could accommodate more length. Rail roving I saw a lot of TPE services, all very full. Actually a lot of the Northern trains I took were well loaded too at peak times, only a late night Pendolino was moving a lot of empty seats.

Am I right that the DfT has the final vote on how much rolling stock is in use? Didn't TPE want 4 car 185s is is that an urban myth? For TPE it isn't that trains are full at peak times and empty at others. It is pretty clear to me that a lot of the time passenger numbers are limited by capacity. Are the economics so complex to make more rolling stock unaffordable or do the projections not include an assumption that more seats will mean more passengers.

I know some parts of the UK have platform length limited and track capacity full but that isn't the case in a lot of places. Is it time for a "save the Pacers" campaign? I'd sooner sit on a Pacer than stand on a 185 (yes I know they are slower and so use more track capacity...)

Perhaps this is a stupid question.

becasue the franchises / management contracts are not long enough for TOCs to take the risk on new stock themselves, there rolling stock companies seek government assurances which have not be forthcoming when franchises were let on a 'no growth' basis ...

 

[The Ham]

For reference, the TPE franchise agreement states the following capacities for the new rolling stock:

"IC100" loco-hauled (5-car): 29 first, 257 standard, 143 standing.
125mph EMU (5-car): 24 first, 262 standard, 156 standing.
125mph Bi-mode (5-car): 24 first, 318 standard, 132 standing.

The bimodal would seem to imply a micro buffet as maxed out for seating (2+2 and 2+1) my guess was something like 33 first class seats and 320 standard class seats (3.6 coaches of standard and 0.6 of a coach of first class).

Either way a pair of 185s would have 308 standard seats and 30 first class seats so the bimodal units will have a few extra seats but you wouldn't need to swap units to get to the spare seats.

 

[DarloRich]

Do we mean track capacity or passenger occupancy capacity?

 

[Greenback]

Do we mean track capacity or passenger occupancy capacity?

The two things are linked, at least in my way my way of thinking. Track capacity in some places is low because of the number of short trains running across junctions.

Yet the increased frequency of these short trains has helped to increase demand so that we need more passenger capacity.

 

[DarloRich]

The two things are linked, at least in my way my way of thinking. Track capacity in some places is low because of the number of short trains running across junctions.

Yet the increased frequency of these short trains has helped to increase demand so that we need more passenger capacity.

Indeed - although improvements in, say, signalling systems, could unlock extra capacity to allow more trains to run.

 

[Greenback]

I think we need a mixture of longer trains on some routes and more capacity at some junctions. The rationalisation under BR went too far at some locations.

 

[CosherB]

Class 360s are probably convertible to 350s but it would cost a lot of money. The main thing for them would be a rebuild of the cab

And what does that achieve?

The 360 lacks inter-unit gangways due to a late design change, as the HSE was'nt happy with the driver's visibility with the 350-type gangway cab for DOO. Apparently.

 

[broadgage]

In my view, part of the problem is the indecent rush to scrap old trains when new ones are delivered.
In a great many cases new rolling stock is needed IN ADDITION to the present fleet, but all too often the old is withdrawn and the new proves inadequate.

One example, much discussed, is the withdrawal of the 442s. These are old, non standard and in some respects at least they are outmoded. I therefore can not support some of the more fanciful and expensive plans to convert them into something else.
I feel however that they could have run for a few more years "as is" on one of the many grossly overcrowded routes for which we are continually told "no spare stock is available"

HSTs are likewise old, non standard and arguably outmoded, at least for some routes. Many will be displaced by the new IEPs, but I fear that most of the displaced HSTs will be scrapped rather than used to relieve overcrowding on some of the other routes for which "no spare stock is available"

HSTs have slower acceleration than modern DMUs and are therefore not ideal for services that make frequent stops on busy routes.
Some could usefully be retained for limited stop services, or for routes with a line speed of 100MPH or less.

 

[6Gman]

1. Money - extra carriages/trains cost money. Passengers don't want to pay higher fares, govts don't want to increase subsidy, TOCs don't want reduced profits.

2. Fragmentation - BR built a huge fleet of DMUs, 80% of which were interoperable [Blue Square code]; carriage stock was 95% interoperable. Since privatisation every operator seems to want their "own" trains with much less interoperability. Plus moving stock short-term between TOCs is much more complex.

 

[tbtc]

Yesterday I was on a Transpennine Scotland to Manchester Airport in the mid morning. 4 vehicles. 350. Like a lot of these trains it was very full and standing

It's worth pointing out that the Manchester to Scotland service has gone from:

• bi-hourly two coach 158 in BR Cross Country days (to/from Manchester/ Airport) - I did see a two coach HST at Edinburgh Waverley on such a service once, presumably when no spare 158s!
• bi-hourly four/five coach Voyager in Virgin Cross Country days (but through services to/from Birmingham and beyond, rather than just to Manchester Airport, so Manchester passengers had to share the trains with longer distance passengers)
• bi-hourly three coach 185 when it moved to TPE (with the Scotland - Birmingham passengers catered for by a doubling of the service via Wigan to hourly, so back to just being for Manchester passengers
• hourly four coach 350/4s

...and will be hourly five coach EMUs in a year or two.

Back in BR times, the service from Carlisle to Preston could mean trains over an hour apart. Now, we have an hourly London service, an hourly Birmingham service and an hourly Manchester service, plus additional services from Liverpool to Scotland in a year or two. Three or four trains an hour!

So supply has definitely increased, it's just hard to forecast demand and keep up with it.

I accept that a history lesson is no consolation when you are forced to stand over a long distance, of course, but the number of seats today are significantly higher than they were a generation ago.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In my view, part of the problem is the indecent rush to scrap old trains when new ones are delivered.
In a great many cases new rolling stock is needed IN ADDITION to the present fleet, but all too often the old is withdrawn and the new proves inadequate

How much has been withdrawn since privatisation though (ignoring freight locomotives)?

Slam door DMUs and EMUs were life expired (much as I enjoyed 101s and 117s!).

508s were pretty knackered and basic.

A handful of 460 cabs?

A few coaches damaged in accidents?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Class 360s are probably convertible to 350s but it would cost a lot of money. The main thing for them would be a rebuild of the cab

Gangways aren't essential for commuter services, as revenue protection tends to be by barriers and people don't have other reasons e.g. catering to walk through.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

we are still seeing short term thinking, with the cobbled together oddness that is loco hauled on TPE !

What's short-term about it? Change the loco to an electric one, and form them into longer sets - both far easier than with a DMU.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Manchester Airport-Scotland is also tricky in that its not particularly easy to add/detach carriages on route, or at the ends (Manchester Airport is far too busy to make this practical)

It could easily be, and sometimes is, done at Preston.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The bimodal would seem to imply a micro buffet

I'd expect *no* buffet.

 

[Ianno87]

It could easily be, and sometimes is, done at Preston.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But what do you productively do with the detached unit at Preston? If it's come out of the Manchester peak to be at Preston around 1000, there's nowhere else it can really go (at least until, say, Electrification to Blackpool has been completed) until it heads back into the Manchester peak at say 1500-1600.

 

[gsnedders]

Going a bit OT but is the two engine rule why the DC10, Tristar etc were developed? Also what about the 4 tiny engines on those British Aerospace ones that uses City Airport?

Yes, trijets were exempt from the rules from the 1960s onwards, hence why they became so common.

The 146 is a quadjet for reasons of STOL performance: it's designed to operate from short runways, and for that you need a relatively large amount of thrust—and with a twinjet you have to survive an engine failure during the take-off roll hence a single engine has to be able to get you from V1 (i.e., the point at which aborting take-off would result in running off the engine of the runway) to a positive rate-of-climb. You also have noise-restrictions at airports like City Airport to consider, which pushed the design towards a high-bypass engine, and none existed in the power-range that would have been needed for it to be a twinjet.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Do Electrostars and Desiros when fitted with gangways have any kind of sensors in the gangway to detect the presence of a gangway on another unit?

 

[A0]

One example, much discussed, is the withdrawal of the 442s. These are old, non standard and in some respects at least they are outmoded. I therefore can not support some of the more fanciful and expensive plans to convert them into something else.
I feel however that they could have run for a few more years "as is" on one of the many grossly overcrowded routes for which we are continually told "no spare stock is available"

HSTs are likewise old, non standard and arguably outmoded, at least for some routes. Many will be displaced by the new IEPs, but I fear that most of the displaced HSTs will be scrapped rather than used to relieve overcrowding on some of the other routes for which "no spare stock is available"

HSTs have slower acceleration than modern DMUs and are therefore not ideal for services that make frequent stops on busy routes.
Some could usefully be retained for limited stop services, or for routes with a line speed of 100MPH or less.

The 442s have the same problems you mention with the HSTs, against more recent EMU's they are slow to accelerate and have long dwell times owing to the end-carriage door design - fine for limited stop services, not so good on stoppers.

It was also a relatively small fleet which, over time, has effectively become non-standard. Add in electrical equipment which is almost certainly nearing end of life, bearing in mind it was recovered from the 4REPs which preceded them, making the electrical equipment about 50 years old now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But what do you productively do with the detached unit at Preston? If it's come out of the Manchester peak to be at Preston around 1000, there's nowhere else it can really go (at least until, say, Electrification to Blackpool has been completed) until it heads back into the Manchester peak at say 1500-1600.

Put it in a siding.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do Electrostars and Desiros when fitted with gangways have any kind of sensors in the gangway to detect the presence of a gangway on another unit?

No. What would be the purpose of such a thing? The gangway is operated manually.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I believe I have made the following point elsewhere on the forum but it bears repeating: the national rail network in this country loses money when taken as a whole. That loss is made up by subsidy from public funds. Of course the detail of the financial balance varies greatly across the network but the basic fact still stands. It is also possible to argue that any increase in the "size" of this loss-making railway, whether in infrastructure or passenger-carrying capacity, runs the risk of making that loss worse. This leads to any proposal for such an increase being subject to a rather complex evaluation to test its value for money, often expressed as BCR (Business Case Return). Given that the Treasury is at best sceptical about the value of a national railway these evaluations tend to err on the side of caution. The outcome is what we experience currently, a network struggling to keep up with demand with promises always of "jam tomorrow" but tomorrow seems never to come!

As for a solution I doubt we'll ever see it as it requires political intervention on a fairly large scale. We, as an electorate, tend to prioritise other matters (and parties!) when we cast our vote so it seems inevitable that the making-do-and-mend attitude that dominates so many railway policies will continue.