150 cascade - whats happening?

[royaloak]

As you said "we need these coaches now", so how long before the first electrification scheme is finished?
Lets be honest if 100 diesel coaches were built now, by the time the electrification is rolling out (with the new electric stock) we could have a proper cascade of the diesels to relieve overcrowding, not just a swap around of stock like we have now.

 

[northwichcat]

With electrification in the First Great Western area we are talking about 2017 before it will be complete, by that time all Sprinters will be at least 28 years old. Will the 170s, 172s, 180s, 185s, 22xs be enough to cover all routes that aren't electrified by 2019?

 

[Failed Unit]

As you said "we need these coaches now", so how long before the first electrification scheme is finished?
Lets be honest if 100 diesel coaches were built now, by the time the electrification is rolling out (with the new electric stock) we could have a proper cascade of the diesels to relieve overcrowding, not just a swap around of stock like we have now.

But that is my point, apart from the 172's there are none ordered. If you order units now they will take the same amount of time to build as EMU's so surely build EMU's to replace the daigrams that are 100% on the juice and cascade the DMU's from these routes. There are quite a large numbers of DMU diagrams that could be replaced in this way.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With electrification in the First Great Western area we are talking about 2017 before it will be complete, by that time all Sprinters will be at least 28 years old. Will the 170s, 172s, 180s, 185s, 22xs be enough to cover all routes that aren't electrified by 2019?

But remember the Reading end will be completed first and it has the highest number of DMU's to release. When the ECML was wired, the NSE services were running to Peterborough long before the 91's reached Edinburgh and Leeds.

 

[Dave R]

IEP will be introduced from 2014 on the ECML and GWML which will release 60 HST sets (aprox) that could be sent to crosscountry and possibly Virgin (London-Holyhead) which would release voyagers for heavily used routes (Liverpool-Norwich, Cardiff-Portsmouth and others) which would release sprinters for other routes. 57 165/6s will be released (minus Greenford, Marlow branchs etc) which with released sprinters would be very helpful around EMT, Northern, ATW and FGW.

 

[ukrob]

IEP will be introduced from 2014 on the ECML and GWML which will release 60 HST sets (aprox) that could be sent to crosscountry and possibly Virgin (London-Holyhead) which would release voyagers for heavily used routes (Liverpool-Norwich, Cardiff-Portsmouth and others) which would release sprinters for other routes. 57 165/6s will be released (minus Greenford, Marlow branchs etc) which with released sprinters would be very helpful around EMT, Northern, ATW and FGW.

That is very simplistic (and idealistic).

 

[royaloak]

IEP will be introduced from 2014 on the ECML and GWML which will release 60 HST sets (aprox) that could be sent to crosscountry and possibly Virgin (London-Holyhead) which would release voyagers for heavily used routes (Liverpool-Norwich, Cardiff-Portsmouth and others) which would release sprinters for other routes. 57 165/6s will be released (minus Greenford, Marlow branchs etc) which with released sprinters would be very helpful around EMT, Northern, ATW and FGW.

And a partridge in a pear tree.

Add about 10 years on for IEP and you will be about right.

 

[northwichcat]

They do that in pairs let alone in 3s!!

And the other problem with Pacers in 3 is that they would need a minimum of 2 conductors and 1 driver (1 member of staff per unit) and even then potential fare evaders can board the front unit to ensure no ticket check, unless 3 conductors were deployed. Northern quite often do 1 conductor and 1 driver for paired up Srpinters (with corridor connectors) and only add second conductors on selected services. Extra staffing for triple Pacers would likely lead to more short forming where an extra conductor is not available.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But that is my point, apart from the 172's there are none ordered. If you order units now they will take the same amount of time to build as EMU's so surely build EMU's to replace the daigrams that are 100% on the juice and cascade the DMU's from these routes. There are quite a large numbers of DMU diagrams that could be replaced in this way.

But you get EMUs built much much quicker than the wires can go up. Northern Rail could get 200 new EMU vehicles built before Manchester to Newton-le-Willows is electrified and then they would have 175 vehicles that they can only use by adding a diesel loco to the front. If they get 175 new DMU and 25 new EMU ordered now then they could all be usefully used as soon as they're built and staff training is complete.

One of the Northern Rail routes that will be electric operated is Manchester Airport to Liverpool. Although the diversary routes via Warrington Central and Warrington Bank Quay are not set to be electrified, meaning in the event of engineering work diesel units will be required to work at least part of the journey. I'd imagine by the time all possible diversions for electric train services are electrified the 175s will be at the end of their self life, never mind Sprinters, 165s or 170s.

 

[TheWalrus]

I disagree on this one, when the DMU's have a 30 year life span building more would be crazy. It takes as long to build an EMU as it does a DMU so I think in this case Adonis is right use more EMU's! Some of the short distance electrifications could possibly done in the same time as it take EMU's / DMU's to be built.

Get the Deisels running under the wires away to cascade them to areas that need them.

You don't have to look very hard to find examples. SWT has 158 diagrams on 3rd rail routes throughout the day, these should be replaced by EMU's to get the 158's back into areas that need them. I have already mentioned the voyagers and HST on East Coast that are all wired daigrams.

There are also many examples people can mention of short schemes that will enable EMU running throughout, the Manchester / Liverpool area is a good example of this. The Scottish routes will also release a lot of DMU's back into the pool (Edinburgh - Glasgow, Edinburgh & Glasgow - Dunblane, Glasgsow - Anniesland, Glasgow - Larbert via Cumbernauld).

For lines which will never be viable to wire up then probably have enough DMU's from the 16x and 17x era to keep these lines going for quite a while, then who knows what technology will be around?

We need these coaches now, but removing 100% workings under the wires is a better start. I know people will argue that the Voyagers allow Virgin to work diiversions away from the wires, but surely a 57/3 is more suitable as they are not doing it every day!

Have to agree this is a very good idea!

Where are there SWT 158s on fully electrified lines?

Read this thread I have started: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=387919#post387919
I think if you electrified Crewe-Chester, Pendos or SuperExpress could take over Euston-Chester, Man Airport-Scotland and Birmingham-Scotland, releasing a batch of 185s and 221s for other uses.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I dont know about Davenport, but every passenger door is at the platform in both directions at Blackrod, the very front/rear door only leads to the luggage van/drivers cab and isnt available for passenger use. I know this as I drive Northerns 180s

Class 142 vehicles are 15.11m in length making a 6 car rake a little over 90m and a Class 156/158 vehicle is 23m making a 4 car rake around the same length as a 6 car 142.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
they do that in pairs let alone in 3s!!

Surely 2x142s could take over a Northern 180 diagram, which have been cascaded from the Oldham Loop?

 

[northwichcat]

I think if you electrified Crewe-Chester, Pendos or SuperExpress could take over Euston-Chester, Man Airport-Scotland and Birmingham-Scotland, releasing a batch of 185s and 221s for other uses.

It's not that simple.

Doubled up Voyagers run some London-Chester services with a spilt at Chester and one Voyager returning to London and another going to North Wales, to be reattached to another Voyager at Chester on it's return journey. Also in the event of engineering works the Chester-London services can travel from Chester-Northwich-Sandbach-Crewe-London. Northwich-Sandbach currently has one freight diagram a week so it wouldn't be econmically viable to electrify it.

Extra carriages are badly needed on other TPE routes. Putting 350s on Manchester Airport-Scotland will only result in more doubled up 185s on other services, as mentioned in the electrification proposal. 185s would be not cascaded to another operator to replace Pacers or Sprinters.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely 2x142s could take over a Northern 180 diagram, which have been cascaded from the Oldham Loop?

No the 180s are full at peak times. 2x142s would be 50-90 seats less. Also the 142s cascaded from the Oldham Loop have already been allocated to overcrowded Manchester Victoria-Rochdale services, so they aren't spare.

 

[TheWalrus]

It's not that simple.

Doubled up Voyagers run some London-Chester services with a spilt at Chester and one Voyager returning to London and another going to North Wales, to be reattached to another Voyager at Chester on it's return journey. Also in the event of engineering works the Chester-London services can travel from Chester-Northwich-Sandbach-Crewe-London. Northwich-Sandbach currently has one freight diagram a week so it wouldn't be econmically viable to electrify it.

Extra carriages are badly needed on other TPE routes. Putting 350s on Manchester Airport-Scotland will only result in more doubled up 185s on other services, as mentioned in the electrification proposal. 185s would be not cascaded to another operator to replace Pacers or Sprinters.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh ok then. I didn't realise as I live a long way from the North and I don't have a good idea of what goes on up there! I just want the 15 150s FGW were supposed to be getting stated by the Nov. 2009 edition of Modern Railways, and to keep the 7x142s for Exeter local services This allows FGW to serve it's network to a greater quality, and not always being bottom of the pile!!!! :@

Is Chester-Northwich-Sandbach-Crewe electrified?

They could run 2x5car SuperExpress instead of 2x221 and electrify it? It would be economically viable if it stops us getting new DMUs and having to fuel them, so we would be taking advantage of the wires.

So if TPEx take on EMUs for MAN-GLC/EDB services, 185s are transferred to other routes. This doesn't benefit the rest of us, but it is benefitting someone Cascaded voyagers would do something though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No the 180s are full at peak times. 2x142s would be 50-90 seats less. Also the 142s cascaded from the Oldham Loop have already been allocated to overcrowded Manchester Victoria-Rochdale services, so they aren't spare.

I dunno then. Maybe 142-142-153?

BTW, isn't Preston-Hazel Grove electrified if so this should be taken over by EMUs. What is happening with the 321s from LM?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And the other problem with Pacers in 3 is that they would need a minimum of 2 conductors and 1 driver (1 member of staff per unit) and even then potential fare evaders can board the front unit to ensure no ticket check, unless 3 conductors were deployed. Northern quite often do 1 conductor and 1 driver for paired up Srpinters (with corridor connectors) and only add second conductors on selected services. Extra staffing for triple Pacers would likely lead to more short forming where an extra conductor is not available.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe Northern will get the 2 prototype 3-car 150/0s? Seeing as FGW aren't

 

[northwichcat]

I dunno then. Maybe 142-142-153?

That would mean more staff would need training on 153s and I don't think there's any spare anyway. But 142s in multiple should be a last resort not something we should be discussing different options for. They're very unreliable in multiple and much more likely to lead to fare collection problems than non-corridor linked multiples in the South East. (There's many stations in the North that don't have ticket buying facilities or where the ticket office closes by 2.30 in the afternoon.)

BTW, isn't Preston-Hazel Grove electrified if so this should be taken over by EMUs. What is happening with the 321s from LM?
No Hazel Grove-Deansgate and Leyland-Preston are electrified. Deansgate-Leyland is not.

I think there's about 3 peak time only diagrams on the entire Northern network that can currently be switched from DMU to EMU, plus it would be a good idea for Northern have one or two spare EMUs.

 

[driver9000]

And the other problem with Pacers in 3 is that they would need a minimum of 2 conductors and 1 driver (1 member of staff per unit) and even then potential fare evaders can board the front unit to ensure no ticket check, unless 3 conductors were deployed. Northern quite often do 1 conductor and 1 driver for paired up Srpinters (with corridor connectors) and only add second conductors on selected services. Extra staffing for triple Pacers would likely lead to more short forming where an extra conductor is not available.

No additional guard would be needed for the 'centre' unit of a 6 car 142 rake, all Northern rail services operate with driver and guard for all combinations of trains with or without corridor connections, the additional guard you refer to is called an AFC (Assistant Fares Collector) whose sole duty is to assist the train guard with the collection and inspection of tickets they do not carry a safety critical role on the train at that time. Ive worked services of 6 car length without full corridor connection available and have only taken 1 guard, there is nothing in the Rulebook that says a guard must be present in each section of non corridor formed trains.

A couple of years ago there were occasional problems with Pacers running in multiple with them dumping the brakes on sharp corners but improved maintenance of the BSI couplers has seen this reduce remarkedly, Ive not had it happen for at least a year.

If a 180 is subsituted for a Pacer or Sprinter, single sets have been known to appear but they will try to allocate at least a pair to make a 4 car rake. A 5 car 180 has 284 seats purely for information sakes

 

[TheWalrus]

That would mean more staff would need training on 153s and I don't think there's any spare anyway. But 142s in multiple should be a last resort not something we should be discussing different options for. They're very unreliable in multiple and much more likely to lead to fare collection problems than non-corridor linked multiples in the South East. (There's many stations in the North that don't have ticket buying facilities or where the ticket office closes by 2.30 in the afternoon.)

BTW, isn't Preston-Hazel Grove electrified if so this should be taken over by EMUs. What is happening with the 321s from LM?
No Hazel Grove-Deansgate and Leyland-Preston are electrified. Deansgate-Leyland is not.

I think there's about 3 peak time only diagrams on the entire Northern network that can currently be switched from DMU to EMU, plus it would be a good idea for Northern have one or two spare EMUs.

Ok, thanks for the info. Like I said earlier I'm not familiar with Northern Rail! If capacity is an issue you might get a loco hauled set, as it would make more sense than 3x142s!

 

[northernrailer]

When London Midlands class 150 units get cascaded, will the 3 car hybrid units be split up and the current 150/2 centre cars be reformed back to 2 car units - or will the units be going to other operators as they are - a 3car hybrid unit.

If the units all get reformed back in to 2 car units, there would be two odd class 150/2 cars, as there is 57212 & 57209 both vehicles with out toilets, this was due to 52212 & 52209 been scrapped through accidents in the late 80`s / early 90`s.

150016 has 57212 in the middle, and 150017 has 57209, i suppose all the hybrid 150`s could be split apart from 150016 / 150017, also if the units were split up it would give the TOC (who ever gets them) more class 150/2 to strengthen other services, as a 3 acr 150 might run a service where it only requires 2 cars.

Also when are London Midland / London Overground class 150`s due to be cascaded, and when are the class 172 suppose to be ready for.

 

[northwichcat]

No additional guard would be needed for the 'centre' unit of a 6 car 142 rake, all Northern rail services operate with driver and guard for all combinations of trains with or without corridor connections, the additional guard you refer to is called an AFC (Addtional Fares Collector) whose sole duty is to assist the train guard with the collection and inspection of tickets they do not carry a safety critical role on the train at that time. Ive worked services of 6 car length without full corridor connection available and have only taken 1 guard, there is nothing in the Rulebook that says a guard must be present in each section of non corridor formed trains.

I have been on doubled up Pacers where the conductor has announced to the AFC to check all the doors have shut properly as there is a problem. If no AFC was on the train then the driver would still have been available in the front unit. But who would have been available in a middle unit if there was only one conductor and driver. 142s aren't reliable in multiple like the 465s and 466s in the South East. A fire in the middle unit could be a major problem if the doors jam as they usually do.

Are you able to say Northern's policy is that only one conductor and one driver is required for any service or that railway rules in general say that?
The reason I'm saying that is one day a Buxton to Manchester service I was travelling on was formed of a 156 at the front and two 150/1s with one driver and one conductor. The conductor told passengers they weren't allowed to travel in the rear unit for safety reasons.

I also think it's very likely that if Northern are expected to use the returned 142s from FGW to cover for the 180s then they will use either 2x156s, 3x150s or 2x150s plus a 142 on the current 180 diagrams and downgrade other services from Sprinters to 142s, which will obviously increase overcrowding on the downgraded routes. I think it is very unlikely that Northern would actually use 142s in triple formation.

 

[TheWalrus]

When London Midlands class 150 units get cascaded, will the 3 car hybrid units be split up and the current 150/2 centre cars be reformed back to 2 car units - or will the units be going to other operators as they are - a 3car hybrid unit.

If the units all get reformed back in to 2 car units, there would be two odd class 150/2 cars, as there is 57212 & 57209 both vehicles with out toilets, this was due to 52212 & 52209 been scrapped through accidents in the late 80`s / early 90`s.

150016 has 57212 in the middle, and 150017 has 57209, i suppose all the hybrid 150`s could be split apart from 150016 / 150017, also if the units were split up it would give the TOC (who ever gets them) more class 150/2 to strengthen other services, as a 3 acr 150 might run a service where it only requires 2 cars.

Also when are London Midland / London Overground class 150`s due to be cascaded, and when are the class 172 suppose to be ready for.

I think they will be split up and formed back to 2 cars, as a don't believe FGW will need to run 3 car 150s.

172s are due by late 2010, and the 150s are due in June (which doesn't tie up, meaning the 150s wont be around for a while longer).

 

[driver9000]

the AFC is fully qualified guard so can push doors closed if need be but has no operational responsibility when working an AFC duty. If a problem occurs in the middle then the guard or driver would walk to the problem. Northern providing 1 driver and 1 guard is in line with the national rulebook as Northerns fleet is not equipped for DOO, empty stock can run with a driver only. Some guards lock trailing sets out of use so they can collect revenue fully and not miss passengers, the guard is supposed to travel in the rear of a non-corridor train if all vehicles are available to passengers. An emergency situation occuring in the 'centre' of a 6 car rake of non-corridor stock such as the fire given as an example can be dealt with by passengers pulling a passcomm to alert the crew (this illuminates the hazard light on the affected car) in the same way it would be on a 4 car non-corridor rake where the guard is travelling on the leading unit.


I believe that the 3 car hybrid 150s are to be split up and the 150/2 cars returned to their original partners, I suspect that the two orphaned cars would be left in the centre of whatever units they are curently in to prevent a toiletless set being created although it shouldnt be beyond the remit of a decent set of engineers to install a toilet cubicle.

 

[158722]

As I mentioned on another thread, what I had heard was of the 41 LOROL and LM 150s, 15 would go to FGW (replacing the 4x ATW 150/2s, 7x NOR 142s and 2 loco-hauled sets). Of the remaining 26, 6 were for Northern to allow 6 156s to go to EMT, another 8 were for Northern in place of the 8 158s which are to remain on sub-lease to FSR until 2014, with the final 6 likely to be split between FGW and NOR for extra capacity. Something like all the LM 150/2s, LOROL 150/1s and 150/0 prototypes to FGW (17 units), the rest to NOR, would seem sensible, but has been mentioned that the LOROL ones going to NOR. Only certainty is the uncertainty! Plus fact that the 172s are going to be late...

On a separate note, with EMT down to the final few 158s awaiting refurb (770/73/74, 863-866), has no-one considered swapping 158782/86/89 from FSR and a.n.other from NOR (784 or 787) for 863-866? 3 of the latter could then go on sub-lease to FSR until 2014, keeping 8 of the 10 400hp Cummins batch together and eventually all with NOR post-2014. Having a small batch of 10 non-standard units split over 3 operators seems a bit silly.

 

[MCR247]

Misread post!

 

[DjU]

Why would LOROL want 150/1s when they are getting 172s?

I think you've mis-read a post

 

[MCR247]

I think you've mis-read a post

Oh yeah, oops

 

[Crossforth]

I didn't realise FSR ever had 158s off Northern
Has construction started on the 172s yet?

 

[DjU]

I didn't realise FSR ever had 158s off Northern
Has construction started on the 172s yet?

I believe it started about 2 months ago,the first one for testing is still some months off though

 

[alex57601]

What I want to know of is the fate of 150001/002.

These two are the prototype 150s, and have different bogies, engines and transmission to the production 150/1 and /2s as well as different couplers inside the units.

It would be a bit ludicrous to see the centre cars removed and scrapped if the hybrid 3-car 150s are being reformed to original specification, but at the same time they would be oddballs in a fleet both mechanically and formation-wise.

Perhaps it might be an opportunity for the two 150/2 cars that will be outcasts to be put onto the ends of the 150001/002 cabs semi-permanently as 4-car units?

Of course, you still have the problem of parts above, but it saves these two cars from going to the torch unless there's a plan to strip these two cars for spares.

They can still form the toiletless 150/2 cars into a unit if they wanted, but the lack of toilet would mean that it would be a diagramming nightmare due to the services it would be limited to, unless it's made into a 'strengthening-only' unit.

 

[royaloak]

Or they get left as 3 coach trains

 

[driver9000]

What I want to know of is the fate of 150001/002.

These two are the prototype 150s, and have different bogies, engines and transmission to the production 150/1 and /2s as well as different couplers inside the units.

It would be a bit ludicrous to see the centre cars removed and scrapped if the hybrid 3-car 150s are being reformed to original specification, but at the same time they would be oddballs in a fleet both mechanically and formation-wise.

Perhaps it might be an opportunity for the two 150/2 cars that will be outcasts to be put onto the ends of the 150001/002 cabs semi-permanently as 4-car units?

Of course, you still have the problem of parts above, but it saves these two cars from going to the torch unless there's a plan to strip these two cars for spares.

They can still form the toiletless 150/2 cars into a unit if they wanted, but the lack of toilet would mean that it would be a diagramming nightmare due to the services it would be limited to, unless it's made into a 'strengthening-only' unit.

150001/002 have Cummins NT855 engines as per the rest of the class, the inner end couplers wont have any bearing on multiple working as they are never without the centre car and can work with the 150/1 and /2 without any problem. Bogies are standard too.The 150/0s prototype status is long finished and they are now standard class 150s (save for the MS) with no restrictions on drivers traction knowledge for those who sign the type.

Why would the centre cars be scrapped just because the 150/2s are being reformed? The centre cars in the 150/0s are purpose built and are mechanically identical to the driving cars.

The problem with putting the orphaned /2 cars onto the ends is lack of corridors on the front of the 150/0s. A toiletless 150 set being formed is highly unlikely but as I said previously it shouldnt be too difficult to install a toilet cubicle into one of the cars.

 

[Crossforth]

As long as I get to see them at some point, I don't care but I don't want to hear of them scrapped yet regardless.