Are Northern missing a trick by not ordering more CAFs?

[hexagon789]

Yes, I agree - logic would have been to use these to directly replace Pacers and to put refurbished 158s and 170s on Northern Connect.

When are things ever that logical in practice though?

Certainly the 170s don't seem to have been put on the most logical route for their higher-speed capability, they are well known for poor low-speed acceleration and they are now put to use on the Harrogate Liberals which is 65 maximum, which doesn't even allow them to get off the torque convertor and onto the more fuel efficient fluid coupling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When are things ever that logical in practice though?

Certainly the 170s don't seem to have been put on the most logical route for their higher-speed capability, they are well known for poor low-speed acceleration and they are now put to use on the Harrogate Liberals which is 65 maximum, which doesn't even allow them to get off the torque convertor and onto the more fuel efficient fluid coupling.

Exactly. The use of new DMUs has been done to far better effect in the West Midlands, where the modern, high powered Class 172s with their mechanical gearboxes provide EMU-like performance and economy on local services, while (for now at least) Class 170s rule the longer-distance roost, with their nicer interiors and lower acceleration.

 

[hexagon789]

The use of new DMUs has been done to far better effect in the West Midlands, where the modern, high powered Class 172s with their mechanical gearboxes provide EMU-like performance and economy on local services

Very much, 172s are perfect for routes like the Harrogate line, but if the Porterbrook technical data on them is correct they are atrocious at higher speeds - 362 seconds to 100mph.

Class 170s rule the longer-distance roost, with their nicer interiors and lower acceleration.

Northern have definitely not arranged things to make best use of their fleets individual merits, perhaps a wee while after the new trains are introduced they will eventually shuffle things about for the better.

 

[whhistle]

...even if that means a surplus of 100mph DMUs that end up being used on routes where a common-or-garden 75mph train would be fine.

Trains don't have to run at their top speed though.
Running them day in day out at the top speed will more than likely increase failure rate and increase costs.

If we're going down the path of ordering new trains all the time, then perhaps these trains will only see 10/15 years in service before being scrapped. It's a new reality we have against trains that are 40/50 years old. Modern = more efficient; perhaps less comfortable but that can easily be changed.

If we're not looking at short term trains these days, it would be easier for the DfT to name a certain type of train in franchise agreements or to ensure any new trains are go-anywhere in terms of clearance (discounting the diesel/electric supply) so:

1) If trains are moved around the country, they can be maintained at most depots.
2) Staff training will be minimal.
3) Acceptance will be quicker.
4) Replacement parts will be cheaper from buying in bulk.
5) Passengers will get to know how they work quicker.

The only downside is if a fault is found, it could affect many trains on the tracks. But then how often has that happened? Not very.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Running them day in day out at the top speed will more than likely increase failure rate and increase costs.

This is not necessarily the case. A car doing 70-80mph motorway miles day in, day out will last much better (in mileage terms) than one bouncing around country lanes or stop-starting bumper to bumper in a city. The limited "top speed" of a DMU is more comparable to 70-80mph for a car than it being ragged to bits.

 

[whhistle]

I think the mistake is including any 2 coach 195s in the order.

the 195s as ordered are perfectly satisfactory for the capacity requirements the DfT set.

Yes, and take your politcal-DfT-blaming hat off and look at it logically.
2 coach trains should be a thing of the past on most lines, especially those operated in and around cities (IE, Northern!).

The nominal cost of ordering an extra coach would have been better than being stuck with 2 coach trains that can't really be coupled together regularly without increase costs (of staff perhaps).

Having two trains coupled together all the time is stupid!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having two trains coupled together all the time is stupid!

I don't know, Chiltern gain a lot of flexibility by their mixed length DMU fleet - but unlike Northern don't have a policy of requiring staff in all units.

 

[507021]

Well they were, just the 172 order was cancelled because GENERAL ELECTION SPEND MONEY BAD or something.

No it wasn't, the 172 order was cancelled in favour of electrification.

 

[LOL The Irony]

No it wasn't, the 172 order was cancelled in favour of electrification.

Maybe both?

 

[507021]

Maybe both?

The DMU order was cancelled in favour of electrification.

 

[whhistle]

I don't know, Chiltern gain a lot of flexibility by their mixed length DMU fleet - but unlike Northern don't have a policy of requiring staff in all units.

True.
I don't really think about the flexibility of mixed length units - rather how it looks being two trains coupled together :P

I quite like the neatness of TfW services splitting and joining though.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The DMU order was cancelled in favour of electrification.

Well that plan went, well...

 

[krus_aragon]

Remember that neither Scotland nor Wales are getting all-new fleets.

Wales is going to have a virtually all-new fleet by 2024: the only old stock will be twelve 170s, three MkIV loco-hauled North-South sets, and the 230s (which, reading between the lines, are intended to be a stopgap until a solution for through-running beyond Bidston to Liverpool is found).

Incidentally, I think it's probably a wise move for them to keep some older 170s in the franchise: if extra stock is needed in 10 years time, it may be easier to get more 170s cascaded in than to find something compatible with the new CAF stock (or introduce another microfleet).

 

[Chester1]

Northern seem to be happy with their plan of having two coach 195s. I guess 9 middle coaches would be considerably cheaper than 3 X 3 sets, leaving 16 X 2 coach sets? Perhaps the Rosco was not happy with too many 3 coach sets which might be harder to find work for later in life.

 

[158756]

Yes, and take your politcal-DfT-blaming hat off and look at it logically.
2 coach trains should be a thing of the past on most lines, especially those operated in and around cities (IE, Northern!).

The nominal cost of ordering an extra coach would have been better than being stuck with 2 coach trains that can't really be coupled together regularly without increase costs (of staff perhaps).

Having two trains coupled together all the time is stupid!

2 coach trains should be a thing of the past only if there are too many passengers for them. Clearly both the public and private sectors believe Northern can run successfully with such trains. Anecdotally, my travels on Northern this year have not seen any load the train was inadequate for - granted I haven't been to Manchester by train because the service is so unreliable.