Cumbrian Coast Loco Hauled Stock

[47802]

http://www.thebay.co.uk/news/local-news/cumbrian-mps-unite-in-call-for-upgrade-to-dire-train-system/

 

[absolutelymilk]

According to Richard Clinnick on Twitter, Northern are in discussions to replace the 37s, possibly with 68s.
https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/939232692876595200
https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/940546803606458368

In addition, DRS have said that they are likely to phase out 37s in the "current strategy period"
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/fleet/exclusive-drs-traction-policy

 

[mushroomchow]

Do these run through the winter? I'm keen to have a gricer bash up-north in January / February, and would love to cop the 37s while they're still about.

 

[sprinterguy]

Do these run through the winter? I'm keen to have a gricer bash up-north in January / February, and would love to cop the 37s while they're still about.

Yes, two diagrams all year round, Monday to Saturday.

 

[47802]

According to Richard Clinnick on Twitter, Northern are in discussions to replace the 37s, possibly with 68s.
https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/939232692876595200
https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/940546803606458368

In addition, DRS have said that they are likely to phase out 37s in the "current strategy period"
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/fleet/exclusive-drs-traction-policy

Given these trains are supposed to go in around 18 months anyway I doubt DRS long term strategy will have much bearing on it, its a pity they didn't go to 68's in the first place from a reliability viewpoint and the DBSO's could have been modified to work with the 68's rather than 37's but i suspect now it wouldn't justify the time and costs of modifying them again hence possible T&T.

 

[Roose]

Latest update to users re the unsatisfactory state of services on the Furness and Cumbrian Coast lines to take place at a meeting of the Cumbria Better Connected Campaign at Ulverston in Labour MP John Woodcock's Barrow and Furness constituency on Friday 22nd December with Tim Farron MP (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland) in attendance and both Trudy Harrison MP (Conservative, Copeland) and Transport for the North also represented.

It would be heartening if Santa could also deliver someone from Cumbria County Council to the meeting - they have a poor record, in public at least, of pushing for improvements to those rail services in the county that do not impact in Carlisle in a major way. Someone could go even down from Carlisle on the train. (Oh, hang on - there may be a problem with that plan...)

 

[70014IronDuke]

http://www.thebay.co.uk/news/local-news/cumbrian-mps-unite-in-call-for-upgrade-to-dire-train-system/

Interesting that three MPs all from different parties signed up for this. However, they can't really blame the 37s for the 'dire' service on the Furness bit of the route, given that they only work 1 train each way per day beyond Barrow on that line.

And really, talking of "clapped-out" coaching stock (I think that was the phrase) is a bit much. The Mk IIs are far more comfortable/spacious than most modern DMUs.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Do these run through the winter? I'm keen to have a gricer bash up-north in January / February, and would love to cop the 37s while they're still about.

Provided you go before the summer TT in May, you could still sample main-line running between Carnforth and Preston.

Incidentally, are they allowed to do 90 mph on the WCML? The locos (90 mph) and stock (100 mph) are ok for that, even if RTT says timed for 75 mph max, surely?

 

[yorksrob]

And really, talking of "clapped-out" coaching stock (I think that was the phrase) is a bit much. The Mk IIs are far more comfortable/spacious than most modern DMUs.

Indeed. Have they travelled on any "modern" rolling stock before ?

If they can get reliable traction for the mk2's, they'll be the best trains on the Cumbrian.

 

[47802]

From an enthusiast viewpoint I have loved the fact that the 37's have run the service and have been up to travel on them and photograph around 30 times since they started running, but if I was a regular user on that route I would be hoping mad.

 

[47802]

Interesting that three MPs all from different parties signed up for this. However, they can't really blame the 37s for the 'dire' service on the Furness bit of the route, given that they only work 1 train each way per day beyond Barrow on that line.

And really, talking of "clapped-out" coaching stock (I think that was the phrase) is a bit much. The Mk IIs are far more comfortable/spacious than most modern DMUs.

Well perhaps not entirely the case the last time I was up there when a 37 failed a unit was nicked from the Furness bit to replace it, plus we also have had the reduction in 185's as a result of the TPE 170 fiasco

 

[yorksrob]

From an enthusiast viewpoint I have loved the fact that the 37's have run the service and have been up to travel on them and photograph around 30 times since they started running, but if I was a regular user on that route I would be hoping mad.

As a reasonably regular user of the route, I was thinking more of the availability of decent seating, tables and three toilets in a set (which increases the likelihood of one working).

This plus reliable traction would be ideal.

 

[47802]

As a reasonably regular user of the route, I was thinking more of the availability of decent seating, tables and three toilets in a set (which increases the likelihood of one working).

This plus reliable traction would be ideal.

Well yes but they are an expensive luxury and cumbersome to operate on that route. Refurbished 156's are reasonably adequate for Barrow Carlisle which I presume will be the likely sole motive power post 2019, with mainly 195's on Furness route.

I don't doubt they have brought in extra revenue from Enthusiasts but I doubt that covers the extra cost of operating these trains, and they have likely lost revenue through unreliability.

 

[sprinterguy]

Well yes but they are an expensive luxury and cumbersome to operate on that route. Refurbished 156's are reasonably adequate for Barrow Carlisle which I presume will be the likely sole motive power post 2019, with mainly 195's on Furness route.

Heaven forfend that the railway provide such "expensive luxuries" as air conditioning, comfortable seats with a window view and quiet carriages in sufficient quantity, all things which were considered de rigeur (sans air conditioning away from the inter-city routes, admittedly) thirty years ago! Oh how we've progressed...

I get what you mean though, if sufficient 156s are available then they'd be better off using them on what is a fairly marginal route, they certainly trump the class 37 hauled rakes in the reliability stakes.

 

[Karl]

Provided you go before the summer TT in May, you could still sample main-line running between Carnforth and Preston.

Is the 2C47 10.04 service from Preston to Barrow ceasing after the summer timetable change? I hope not. As a Prestonian I make many journeys up and around the Cumbrian Coast on this service just for the experience of proper railway travel of the past.

In fact it was these services that got me back out on the railways again after about 30 years since I last used a train.

 

[47802]

Is the 2C47 10.04 service from Preston to Barrow ceasing after the summer timetable? I hope not. As a Prestonian I make many journeys up and around the Cumbrian Coast on this service.

Well I may be wrong but was under the impression that the 37's or maybe 68's? would be concentrated on Barrow - Carlisle from next May

 

[yorksrob]

Well yes but they are an expensive luxury and cumbersome to operate on that route. Refurbished 156's are reasonably adequate for Barrow Carlisle which I presume will be the likely sole motive power post 2019, with mainly 195's on Furness route.

I don't doubt they have brought in extra revenue from Enthusiasts but I doubt that covers the extra cost of operating these trains, and they have likely lost revenue through unreliability.

Well, I'd rather look at the issues of traction and rolling stock separately on their own merits. I'm not really receptive to an argument that relies on confusing the two.

156's are good, although I've already been caught out by their inadequate toilet provision, and heaven help us if Northern do take leave of all their senses and install ironing board seats.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Well perhaps not entirely the case the last time I was up there when a 37 failed a unit was nicked from the Furness bit to replace it, plus we also have had the reduction in 185's as a result of the TPE 170 fiasco

Hmmm. Interesting. I don't get the impression they rob the Furness too often for the coast line, but fair point. Perhaps others better acquainted with things on the ground could comment?

 

[70014IronDuke]

Heaven forfend that the railway provide such "expensive luxuries" as air conditioning, comfortable seats with a window view and quiet carriages in sufficient quantity, all things which were considered de rigeur (sans air conditioning away from the inter-city routes, admittedly) thirty years ago! Oh how we've progressed...
...

I suspect 47802 was thinking about the track access charges caused by six heavy axles of the Cl 37 rather than the air-con Mk2s as such.
(Air-con began to come in as standard around 1970, surely? Not all routes, of course - but by the time HSTs were introduced, pretty much all Class 1 trains on principal inter-city routes were so equipped, surely? That makes ir more like 50 years than 30.)

If the LHCS trains had a bit more turn-round time it might help, especially the first turn out of Barrow. The early turns also have a tendency to lose 5-10 minutes on the coast route - made up of a minute here and another there. Presumably this is because these trains are well relatively loaded, and there is always a certain percentage of passengers who fail to close the doors - and all the 15-20 seconds of extra dwell time add up?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Well, I'd rather look at the issues of traction and rolling stock separately on their own merits. I'm not really receptive to an argument that relies on confusing the two.

Given that self-propelled multiple-unit stock has been around in quantity for over 80 years (you as a former Southerner should be well aware of this!) it seems a little strange to suggest that traction and rolling stock are separate issues. Perhaps you should have referred to on-board comfort and facilities instead?

Air-con began to come in as standard around 1970, surely? Not all routes, of course - but by the time HSTs were introduced, pretty much all Class 1 trains on principal inter-city routes were so equipped, surely? That makes ir more like 50 years than 30.

Air-conditioned rolling stock first started to appear in numbers during the early 1970s but it wasn't until completion of HST deliveries in the mid 1980s that air-conditioning could be almost guaranteed on all genuine Inter-city routes. So 30 years is actually about right.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I've enjoyed seeing and using the 37s*, but surely we will have some spare DMUs soon? I could easily get off topic with cl. 769 speculation (no, not up the coast, but freeing enough units for the coast).

Andrew

*I was hauled by 37401 on a fine day early on in the service and the place was alive with photographers...

 

[yorksrob]

Given that self-propelled multiple-unit stock has been around in quantity for over 80 years (you as a former Southerner should be well aware of this!) it seems a little strange to suggest that traction and rolling stock are separate issues. Perhaps you should have referred to on-board comfort and facilities instead?
.

If we were discussing a multiple unit, you would have a point. As we are not, you don't.

You cannot logically suggest that loco hauled coaching stock is unsuitable, then justify that opinion with reference to the unreliability of a separate locomotive.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

If we were discussing a multiple unit, you would have a point. As we are not, you don't.

You cannot logically suggest that loco hauled coaching stock is unsuitable, then justify that opinion with reference to the unreliability of a separate locomotive.

Except you have yourself made reference to the unreliability of the toilets on the hauled stock. And how much does timekeeping suffer due to having slam doors? Potentially several minutes per journey I would suggest, hence all the stories from the locals, as opposed to visiting enthusiasts, about how poor the trains are. The 37+mk2s was a sticking plaster solution to a problem caused by Dft meddling in rolling stock allocations and the sooner said stock is gone the better for the people who actually rely on the route. Enthusiasts have plenty of heritage lines for such old fashioned experiences. And if hauled stock is so superior how come you're such a big Thumper fan?!

 

[greyman42]

Except you have yourself made reference to the unreliability of the toilets on the hauled stock. And how much does timekeeping suffer due to having slam doors? Potentially several minutes per journey I would suggest, hence all the stories from the locals, as opposed to visiting enthusiasts, about how poor the trains are. The 37+mk2s was a sticking plaster solution to a problem caused by Dft meddling in rolling stock allocations and the sooner said stock is gone the better for the people who actually rely on the route. Enthusiasts have plenty of heritage lines for such old fashioned experiences. And if hauled stock is so superior how come you're such a big Thumper fan?!

I don't think you loose any time with the slam doors. The Cranks tend to see to them.

 

[yorksrob]

Except you have yourself made reference to the unreliability of the toilets on the hauled stock. And how much does timekeeping suffer due to having slam doors? Potentially several minutes per journey I would suggest, hence all the stories from the locals, as opposed to visiting enthusiasts, about how poor the trains are. The 37+mk2s was a sticking plaster solution to a problem caused by Dft meddling in rolling stock allocations and the sooner said stock is gone the better for the people who actually rely on the route. Enthusiasts have plenty of heritage lines for such old fashioned experiences. And if hauled stock is so superior how come you're such a big Thumper fan?!

Au contraire - in my posts, I've referenced the unreliability of toilet provision on the 156's, which have only one. The Mk2 rake has three, which means much more reliability.

As for timings due to slam doors, it is a very long and windy route, so these will barely make much difference in the scheme of things.

If the route has been suffering cancellations due to failing locomotives, then of course passengers are going to blame the "old trains" as a whole. If reliability improves markedly with shiny new locomotives, then these criticisms will dissolve into the Cumbrian mist, regardless of the coaching stock.

Your question regarding my love of thumpers is a valid one - I don't take an ideological view over loco hauled verses MU. I tend to be more concerned about the comfort and utility of the travelling environment, rather than the type of traction per se. The Southern Region had many DEMU's and EMU's with a travelling environment that I find more comfortable than many modern units. The seating on a 205 Hampshire for example, is more comfortable than most modern DMU's I travel on. And they even had two toilets, as opposed to the one on most of today's units (although you had to get the correct carriage).

In terms of the 156's, these are probably my favourite units on Northern. However the reliability of facilities has recently taken a hit with the installation of vacuum toilets. Will their exalted position in terms of comfort be completely destroyed by the installation of totally unsuitable seating. I hope not but we shall see.

 

[47802]

I suspect 47802 was thinking about the track access charges caused by six heavy axles of the Cl 37 rather than the air-con Mk2s as such.
(Air-con began to come in as standard around 1970, surely? Not all routes, of course - but by the time HSTs were introduced, pretty much all Class 1 trains on principal inter-city routes were so equipped, surely? That makes ir more like 50 years than 30.)

If the LHCS trains had a bit more turn-round time it might help, especially the first turn out of Barrow. The early turns also have a tendency to lose 5-10 minutes on the coast route - made up of a minute here and another there. Presumably this is because these trains are well relatively loaded, and there is always a certain percentage of passengers who fail to close the doors - and all the 15-20 seconds of extra dwell time add up?

The Air Con aspect isn't greatly relevant more modern DMU have Air Con anyway, the point was that short form Loco Hauled trains are generally more expensive to operate, added to the extra staff member you usually get on the Loco Hauled train to cope with the doors and slower timings compared to the DMU timings they are hardly an ideal solution.

From ''Yorksrob" viewpoint yes the MK2's have the bonus of Air Con compared to a 156 and plenty of Toilets, but less toilets on modern trains is a fact that people will have to get used to anyway with the need to provide Retention Tanks and the large amount of space that a fully disabled Toilet takes up.

If they end up being worked by T&T 68's then reliability should improve but I imagine its to be a very expensive solution compared to running a 156

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

As for timings due to slam doors, it is a very long and windy route, so these will barely make much difference in the scheme of things.

Yet local reports demonstrate that it does actually make a difference.

If the route has been suffering cancellations due to failing locomotives, then of course passengers are going to blame the "old trains" as a whole. If reliability improves markedly with shiny new locomotives, then these criticisms will dissolve into the Cumbrian mist, regardless of the coaching stock.

The public are more savvy than you give them credit for. One of the problems with Mk2 era air-conditioning is that it's not really very good. It needs plenty of TLC in maintenance depots, which I doubt the Cumbrian Coast stock is getting given that DRS has bigger fish to fry, and it it doesn't cope well on stopping services with doors being opened every few minutes. The same was clearly evident when similar stock was used on the Cardiff-Taunton turns. The result is an on-board atmosphere that's unpleasant in a way that's hard to describe but obvious to anyone who isn't just along for the ride. The big shiny 68s won't make the slightest difference to this.

Your question regarding my love of thumpers is a valid one - I don't take an ideological view over loco hauled verses MU. I tend to be more concerned about the comfort and utility of the travelling environment, rather than the type of traction per se. The Southern Region had many DEMU's and EMU's with a travelling environment that I find more comfortable than many modern units. The seating on a 205 Hampshire for example, is more comfortable than most modern DMU's I travel on. And they even had two toilets, as opposed to the one on most of today's units (although you had to get the correct carriage).

Well I too had Thumpers in my upbringing as those strange hybrid Tadpoles (Class 206) were staple traction on the North Downs line which was my link to the spotting Nirvana of Reading in the mid-1970s. The overriding impression they made on me was just how incredibly slow they were and I didn't miss them when they were gone. [/OT]

In terms of the 156's, these are probably my favourite units on Northern. However the reliability of facilities has recently taken a hit with the installation of vacuum toilets. Will their exalted position in terms of comfort be completely destroyed by the installation of totally unsuitable seating. I hope not but we shall see.

The issue of modern toilets being horribly complicated devices is one I have posted about elsewhere. Suffice to say that it's not an issue that's going to go away. As for seats on 156s the ATN refurbs have had horrible seating (insufficient legroom) for many years now!

The Air Con aspect isn't greatly relevant more modern DMU have Air Con anyway, the point was that short form Loco Hauled trains are generally more expensive to operate, added to the extra staff member you usually get on the Loco Hauled train to cope with the doors and slower timings compared to the DMU timings they are hardly an ideal solution.

From ''Yorkshire Robs" viewpoint yes the MK2's have the bonus of Air Con compared to a 156 and plenty of Toilets, but less toilets on modern trains is a fact that people will have to get used to anyway with the need to provide Retention Tanks and the large amount of space that a fully disabled Toilet takes up.

If they end up being worked by T&T 68's then reliability should improve but I imagine its to be a very expensive solution compared to running a 156

Regarding the above enbolded points, absolutely!! And on a line which doubtless already consumes considerable subsidies and would have closed in the 1960s were it not for the need to serve Windscale/Sellafield.

 

[yorksrob]

Yet local reports demonstrate that it does actually make a difference.



The public are more savvy than you give them credit for. One of the problems with Mk2 era air-conditioning is that it's not really very good. It needs plenty of TLC in maintenance depots, which I doubt the Cumbrian Coast stock is getting given that DRS has bigger fish to fry, and it it doesn't cope well on stopping services with doors being opened every few minutes. The same was clearly evident when similar stock was used on the Cardiff-Taunton turns. The result is an on-board atmosphere that's unpleasant in a way that's hard to describe but obvious to anyone who isn't just along for the ride. The big shiny 68s won't make the slightest difference to this.



Well I too had Thumpers in my upbringing as those strange hybrid Tadpoles (Class 206) were staple traction on the North Downs line which was my link to the spotting Nirvana of Reading in the mid-1970s. The overriding impression they made on me was just how incredibly slow they were and I didn't miss them when they were gone. [/OT]



The issue of modern toilets being horribly complicated devices is one I have posted about elsewhere. Suffice to say that it's not an issue that's going to go away. As for seats on 156s the ATN refurbs have had horrible seating (insufficient legroom) for many years now!



Regarding the above enbolded points, absolutely!! And on a line which doubtless already consumes considerable subsidies and would have closed in the 1960s were it not for the need to serve Windscale/Sellafield.

You had had Tadpole units and you had to go all the way to Reading to get your railway kicks

Yet local reports demonstrate that it does actually make a difference.



The public are more savvy than you give them credit for. One of the problems with Mk2 era air-conditioning is that it's not really very good. It needs plenty of TLC in maintenance depots, which I doubt the Cumbrian Coast stock is getting given that DRS has bigger fish to fry, and it it doesn't cope well on stopping services with doors being opened every few minutes. The same was clearly evident when similar stock was used on the Cardiff-Taunton turns. The result is an on-board atmosphere that's unpleasant in a way that's hard to describe but obvious to anyone who isn't just along for the ride. The big shiny 68s won't make the slightest difference to this.



Well I too had Thumpers in my upbringing as those strange hybrid Tadpoles (Class 206) were staple traction on the North Downs line which was my link to the spotting Nirvana of Reading in the mid-1970s. The overriding impression they made on me was just how incredibly slow they were and I didn't miss them when they were gone. [/OT]



The issue of modern toilets being horribly complicated devices is one I have posted about elsewhere. Suffice to say that it's not an issue that's going to go away. As for seats on 156s the ATN refurbs have had horrible seating (insufficient legroom) for many years now!



Regarding the above enbolded points, absolutely!! And on a line which doubtless already consumes considerable subsidies and would have closed in the 1960s were it not for the need to serve Windscale/Sellafield.

You had Tadpole units and you felt the need to go all the way to Reading to get your railway kicks !!

In truth that route was always a slowish one with many stops. I would suggest you book a trip on HDL and you will soon find out how fast thumpers can go.

Anyhow, back on topic, I've travelled on the Mk2 stock a fair few times now and I can't say as I've noticed any particular issue to the air con - certainly not one that comes close to poor seating/no toilet/no window view. In truth my preference would probably be for non-aircon stock with ventilators, but we live in a world of compromises and in a world of air con stock, the Cumbrian mk2's do just fine as far as I'm concerned.

So, modern toilets are a complicated device. Why, as a regular passenger, should I be expected to give the train company more leeway for a technical issue, when it is their job to sort it out. Except they have sorted it out - by having a rake of loco-hauled stock with three toilets on it. Oh, but no - I as a passenger (with my regular passenger hat on) am supposed to ignore this benefit and fall in line with a sort of "oh, modern toilets are rubbish, but they're here to stay, so we have to accept they won't work a lot of the time" spiel.

Similarly with your point about the expense of operating loco hauled, compared to units. This has no relevance to the average passengers experience.

It's amusing that railway enthusiasts are lambasted for having an unrealistic view of what the public will put up with, yet the public are expected to fall in line with the rail industry on subjects such as toilets and seat comfort for the industry's convenience.

 

[fowler9]

The issue of modern toilets being horribly complicated devices is one I have posted about elsewhere. Suffice to say that it's not an issue that's going to go away.

It is an issue that is going to have to go away. Long distance trains frequently running with no working toilets is an issue that needs sorting out.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

You had Tadpole units and you felt the need to go all the way to Reading to get your railway kicks !!

Considering that in the early days there were still lots of Westerns in service, then yes!

In truth that route was always a slowish one with many stops. I would suggest you book a trip on HDL and you will soon find out how fast thumpers can go.

It was the appallingly sluggish acceleration that put me off the things. Not so bad ex Waterloo East next stop Sevenoaks but awful for everything else.

Anyhow, back on topic, I've travelled on the Mk2 stock a fair few times now and I can't say as I've noticed any particular issue to the air con - certainly not one that comes close to poor seating/no toilet/no window view. In truth my preference would probably be for non-aircon stock with ventilators, but we live in a world of compromises and in a world of air con stock, the Cumbrian mk2's do just fine as far as I'm concerned.

It's actually a pity there is no suitable non air-conditioned stock available. So long as the window seals are tight and the heater fans work there's little maintenance effort required.

So, modern toilets are a complicated device. Why, as a regular passenger, should I be expected to give the train company more leeway for a technical issue, when it is their job to sort it out. Except they have sorted it out - by having a rake of loco-hauled stock with three toilets on it. Oh, but no - I as a passenger (with my regular passenger hat on) am supposed to ignore this benefit and fall in line with a sort of "oh, modern toilets are rubbish, but they're here to stay, so we have to accept they won't work a lot of the time" spiel.

My point is actually the opposite. Namely that fitting modern retention toilets in British loading gauge rolling stock is problematic. It may well be that we need to work our way through a number of technical "generations" of equipment to reach an optimum solution. Just as we had to do with air-conditioning equipment (ironically!)

Similarly with your point about the expense of operating loco hauled, compared to units. This has no relevance to the average passengers experience.

On such deeply marginal routes such as the Cumbrian Coast it rather does. Increasing the costs of a railway that already consumes so much subsidy makes it harder to find money for rather better used routes elsewhere.

It's amusing that railway enthusiasts are lambasted for having an unrealistic view of what the public will put up with, yet the public are expected to fall in line with the rail industry on subjects such as toilets and seat comfort for the industry's convenience.

But in reality views on such matters tend to be highly subjective. Enthusiasts moan about the lack of views out of a Pendolino, the general public don't care in the slightest. And a seat that one person finds uncomfortable will be praised for its comfort by someone else. Toilets are another matter (see comment above)

It is an issue that is going to have to go away. Long distance trains frequently running with no working toilets is an issue that needs sorting out.

I totally agree but I suspect we are a long way from finding long-term solutions that are both practical and affordable (see above responses to yorksrob)