Non PRM trains continuing into 2020

[Failed Unit]

Trying to just put together a list of fleets that will be continued beyond the PRM deadlines. with late deliver of replacements I guess this list should be longer then 3 classes.

pacers - coupled with compliant unit
153 - as above

Are all the other DMUs ok now?

Mk3 - applying for extension if on MML

317?

 

[tomwills98]

The 37's and Mk2's between Cardiff and Rhmney. They won't be attached to anything compliant but the security that stops people from hanging their head of the windows also open the doors at the stations.
Mk3's should also be staying on the WAG services between Cardiff and Holyhead, and Manchester/Crewe to Holyhead until the Mk4's enter service sometime next year.
We've still got some 150's left to do but it shouldn't be too many after 2020.

 

[JohnMcL7]

In Scotland there's the 68 hauled mk2's in Fife which I think are continuing into next year as are the 'classic' HSTs.

 

[Darandio]

as are the 'classic' HSTs.

Yet go and look at the dedicated thread and some are adamant they won't be.

 

[Cardiff123]

Northern, GWR and TfW are all planning to keep using Pacers into 2020

 

[pdeaves]

For peripheral interest, see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/heavy-rail-fleet-angel-trains-class-507 and https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/heavy-rail-fleet-porterbrook-class-143

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Why does the 144e demonstrator need a degradation?

 

[RichJF]

I believe the Class 466 are non-PRM compliant & can no longer run by themselves from 31/12/19 onwards. They must be coupled to a Class 465 to continue in service. No sign of replacement for them.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

I believe the Class 466 are non-PRM compliant & can no longer run by themselves from 31/12/19 onwards. They must be coupled to a Class 465 to continue in service. No sign of replacement for them.

If not replacement surely the DfT will require they get modified for continued long-term use? Even if they are allowed to run around coupled to 465s surely that can't be allowed to be a long-term solution considering PRM won't necessarily know which unit is which?

 

[ComUtoR]

If not replacement surely the DfT will require they get modified for continued long-term use? Even if they are allowed to run around coupled to 465s surely that can't be allowed to be a long-term solution considering PRM won't necessarily know which unit is which?

They have a derrogation. They will be allowed to run in service if they are coupled. The other option is to remove the entire fleet from service. 2-Cars are very limited in their use on their own so running them in multiple has minimal impact. Not forgetting that a 376 doesn't even have a toilet. The 466 will have the other PRM mods, just no toilet modifications.

The Networker (466/465) fleet was/is due to be replaced but due to the continuing delays to the franchise, new stock is on hold and will be delayed. I'd expect the derrogation to remain in place indefinitely and the fleet eventually replaced.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Why does the 144e demonstrator need a degradation?

Certain characteristics of Pacers would be impractical to make fully 2020-proof, such as the steps just inside the doors. It was always the case that minor derogations would be needed even if all the 143s and 144s had been given the updates.

 

[F Great Eastern]

317
321
MK3s

 

[Speed43125]

Why does the 144e demonstrator need a degradation?

IIRC, the 144e demonstrator is PRM compliant. Though if it remains it will be doing so alongside plenty of non-compliant siblings

 

[NoMorePacers]

I find the 466 toilet situation confusing myself. Considering TfW put a disabled toilet onto a goddamn 153, there are no excuses in my opinion for Southeastern not doing it to the 466s.

 

[brad465]

I find the 466 toilet situation confusing myself. Considering TfW put a disabled toilet onto a goddamn 153, there are no excuses in my opinion for Southeastern not doing it to the 466s.

If 153s have at least a semi-long term future with TfW that, combined with the long term certainty of a 15 year contract in the franchise, makes that refurbishment worth doing. In contrast the 466s are part of a franchise that has had numerous short term extensions, of no longer than 6 months or so in the last couple of years, with no certainty about Govia, who currently hold it, retaining it long term. Therefore Govia don't want to pay and complete a refurbishment that is of no use to them if they lose the franchise. The extensions into 2020 and the derogation issuing effectively made Govia fork out the very minimum that had to be done by January.

 

[PG]

If 153s have at least a semi-long term future with TfW that, combined with the long term certainty of a 15 year contract in the franchise, makes that refurbishment worth doing. In contrast the 466s are part of a franchise that has had numerous short term extensions, of no longer than 6 months or so in the last couple of years, with no certainty about Govia, who currently hold it, retaining it long term. Therefore Govia don't want to pay and complete a refurbishment that is of no use to them if they lose the franchise. The extensions into 2020 and the derogation issuing effectively made Govia fork out the very minimum that had to be done by January.

Couldn't Govia have declined to accept the latest direct award which takes the franchise past the PRM deadline?

 

[Horizon22]

They have a derrogation. They will be allowed to run in service if they are coupled. The other option is to remove the entire fleet from service. 2-Cars are very limited in their use on their own so running them in multiple has minimal impact. Not forgetting that a 376 doesn't even have a toilet. The 466 will have the other PRM mods, just no toilet modifications.

The Networker (466/465) fleet was/is due to be replaced but due to the continuing delays to the franchise, new stock is on hold and will be delayed. I'd expect the derrogation to remain in place indefinitely and the fleet eventually replaced.

2-car 466 units are in operation on the Bromley North and Sheerness branches. I suspect they'd have to be replaced with a solitary 465.

 

[hwl]

I find the 466 toilet situation confusing myself. Considering TfW put a disabled toilet onto a goddamn 153, there are no excuses in my opinion for Southeastern not doing it to the 466s.

Fitting a disabled toilet and wheel chair space would significantly reduce passenger capacity both seated and standing.
The are also only 4 single 466 diagrams, the rest of the diagrams see them coupled to disabled toilet fitted 465s (usually 2 465s) The solution is to swap 465s on to those single unit 466 diagrams rather than spend 5m+ more on fleet that is probably headed to the scrap yard when a replacement for the franchising model is sorted.

In 80%+ of the time currently they are in a train with 2 disabled toilets already.

 

[brad465]

Couldn't Govia have declined to accept the latest direct award which takes the franchise past the PRM deadline?

Forgive me if I've got this wrong, but considering reports that Govia are making a profit with SE at the moment, they would surely want to keep the franchise as long as possible while currently profitable?

2-car 466 units are in operation on the Bromley North and Sheerness branches. I suspect they'd have to be replaced with a solitary 465.

There is also one on the Medway Valley line, which will get a 3-car 375 "re-replacing" it. I do think while there are only 4 units to replace on the branch lines, having to replace the others with 465s is a waste though, especially on the Sheerness branch. The Bromley North branch though might benefit in the peak times if it means they can reduce the 15 min frequency, which requires double manning and is quite intense by the looks of things.

 

[hwl]

Forgive me if I've got this wrong, but considering reports that Govia are making a profit with SE at the moment, they would surely want to keep the franchise as long as possible while currently profitable?

There is also one on the Medway Valley line, which will get a 3-car 375 "re-replacing" it. I do think while there are only 4 units to replace on the branch lines, having to replace the others with 465s is a waste though, especially on the Sheerness branch. The Bromley North branch though might benefit in the peak times if it means they can reduce the 15 min frequency, which requires double manning and is quite intense by the looks of things.

15 mins on Bromley North is franchise/ direct award commitment. A 465 will make doing it a bit easier with twice the number of doors and space.

 

[ComUtoR]

2-car 466 units are in operation on the Bromley North and Sheerness branches. I suspect they'd have to be replaced with a solitary 465.

465s are banned from the Bromley North line

 

[brad465]

465s are banned from the Bromley North line

Are they?!? They've definitely worked it before on Sunday engineering work in the past, what's changed?

 

[ComUtoR]

There is a safety issue.

 

[brad465]

There is a safety issue.

Do we know what the plan then is come 2020? If the ban in question does not apply to 375s or 376s they could do it, but 375s are more for long distance and to use a 376 would be a notable capacity hit elsewhere. Unless of course the safety issue is rectified or an unlikely new derogation ended up being approved to keep 466s lone operating it.

 

[Cardiff123]

The Guardian have picked up on the fact that flushing sewage directly on to the tracks will continue into next year. West Midlands Railway say they will be locking toilets out of use on trains without retention tanks from January.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ay-firms-faiil-to-clean-up-waste-dumping-act?

Train firms backtrack over pledge to ban raw sewage on railway lines

A pledge to end the dumping of human waste on railway tracks in England and Wales by the end of the year will no longer be met, Network Rail and train firms have admitted.

Although Network Rail’s former chief executive, Mark Carne, said in 2017 he had secured government agreement to end the “disgusting practice” by 2019, several companies will continue to use trains whose toilets flush directly onto the track.

In 2017 the Department for Transport had said all franchises would compel firms to ensure trains had modern toilets, but several operators have now applied for exemptions. Labour said it was “totally unacceptable that railway workers continue to endure such unsanitary conditions in the 21st century”.

East Midlands Railway, whose contract was awarded to Abellio only this year, may not phase out some offending rolling stock until 2023, it has emerged. It has been given permission to continue dumping sewage on the track from fast trains running between London St Pancras to cities including Nottingham and Sheffield.

A spokesperson said most trains were already fitted with tanks and others were being removed or retrofitted. He added: “We completely support the drive by Network Rail to remove all trains without controlled emissions toilets by the end of 2023 and are already working towards having all our trains operating with tanks by the end of 2020.”

Others still believed to be operating trains that dump excrement on tracks include Northern, West Midlands, ScotRail and Transport for Wales. A West Midlands spokesperson said that non-compliant toilets on older carriages would be locked and out of use from the end of the year.

ScotRail said it was fitting retention tanks to its high-speed InterCity trains during a refurbishment programme “as soon as possible”. Transport for Wales said it was investing in new trains, phasing out the last offending rolling stock by 2023.

Shadow transport secretary Andy McDonald promised to seek assurances from ministers to end the practice. He said: “Both train operators and the government promised two years ago that the toxic practice of trains dumping raw sewage onto the railway would be over by this year.

“This dirty business stinks and is yet another broken promise from ministers and train company bosses who have proved time and again that they cannot plan the rollout of new rail infrastructure and trains in any sort of co-ordinated way.”

Network Rail said that the alternative to issuing exemptions would have been to remove certain trains from use, meaning possible cancellations. A spokeswoman said: “We are committed to putting an end to trains emptying waste onto the tracks and we are working with all operators to make this happen.

“There are a few train companies that have been given a bit more time for a small number of their trains and we are tracking their action plans closely to make sure they comply.”

 

[AndrewE]

Also an article in today's Observer https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/03/uk-railway-firms-faiil-to-clean-up-waste-dumping-act

Train firms backtrack over pledge to ban raw sewage on railway lines
Operators admit target to end ‘disgusting practice’ by the end of the year will not be met
Sun 3 Nov 2019 06.00 GMT

A pledge to end the dumping of human waste on railway tracks in England and Wales by the end of the year will no longer be met, Network Rail and train firms have admitted.


Although Network Rail’s former chief executive, Mark Carne, said in 2017 he had secured government agreement to end the “disgusting practice” by 2019, several companies will continue to use trains whose toilets flush directly onto the track.


In 2017 the Department for Transport had said all franchises would compel firms to ensure trains had modern toilets, but several operators have now applied for exemptions. Labour said it was “totally unacceptable that railway workers continue to endure such unsanitary conditions in the 21st century”.


East Midlands Railway, whose contract was awarded to Abellio only this year, may not phase out some offending rolling stock until 2023, it has emerged. It has been given permission to continue dumping sewage on the track from fast trains running between London St Pancras to cities including Nottingham and Sheffield.

 

[ComUtoR]

Do we know what the plan then is come 2020?

I really don't know. It's going to be interesting and with December looming, I hope they resolve it or have a plan in place.

**EDIT**

If the ban in question does not apply to 375s or 376s they could do it

I just checked. They are also not allowed on the Bromley North line.

 

[Alfie1014]

The Guardian have picked up on the fact that flushing sewage directly on to the tracks will continue into next year. West Midlands Railway say they will be locking toilets out of use on trains without retention tanks from January.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ay-firms-faiil-to-clean-up-waste-dumping-act?

Where does it say anything about WMR trains being locked out and actually what trains do they have left without CET?

No mention of the elephant in the room Greater Anglia and the fact that they will have over 100 non compliant EMUs still in traffic on 01/01/20 plus any MkIII sets that won’t have been replaced or simply removed from traffic by the same date.

 

[Cardiff123]

Where does it say anything about WMR trains being locked out and actually what trains do they have left without CET?

It's in the text of the article: "A West Midlands spokesperson said that non-compliant toilets on older carriages would be locked and out of use from the end of the year."

 

[Alfie1014]

Sorry didn’t see that quote when I first read the article only the ref to East Midlands Railway. Makes the reference to fellow Abellio franchise GA even more pertinent though.