Rolling stock own goals

[sprinterguy]

Regarding the 151's mentioned in another post, from the pictures I've seen, they look like excellent units - ideally suited for the urban and commuter lines which are the mainstay of the Pacers today. As I understand it, they were scuppered by a union dispute rather than any technical problems.

The 151s also suffered from problems with their "hot shift" gearboxes. The 151s were trialled alongside the prototype 150 Sprinters in order to decide which would be built in large numbers for squadron service, and the BREL 150s won out as is said above. I only wish that the 151s had been built instead of all the Pacer classes, I like the look of them far more than the Pacers, and they had three coaches.

The 141s definitely weren't prototype units, they were just so atrocious that they were removed from service long before their expected life expectancy!

Originally Posted by starrymarkb
There is also the midland metro - 16 unique trams that are about to go up for sale as soon as Centro can source replacements

Yeah, Midland Metro, possibly Brimingham's best kept transport secret! I like it, but it's definitely a bit of a white elephant at the moment.

I think Transpennine's 185s are fantastic trains, and it means that the operator now has a completely standard fleet of 3 carriage trains instead of a mix of twos and threes. The Transpennine 158s were looking exceedingly shabby by the time they were moved elsewhere. They were good trains, but I still reckon the 185s are a definite improvement. And I saw LOADS of two carriage Transpennine workings back in 158 days, so the three carriage 185s are a definite capacity improvement. And the 185s sometimes operate as 6 carriage trains over the north Transpennine route.

 

[yorksrob]

The 151s also suffered from problems with their "hot shift" gearboxes. The 151s were trialled alongside the prototype 150 Sprinters in order to decide which would be built in large numbers for squadron service, and the BREL 150s won out as is said above. I only wish that the 151s had been built instead of all the Pacer classes, I like the look of them far more than the Pacers, and they had three coaches.

Ah, thanks for the info - I agree entirely - If only they'd persevered with them instead of the Pacers!

I think Transpennine's 185s are fantastic trains, and it means that the operator now has a completely standard fleet of 3 carriage trains instead of a mix of twos and threes. The Transpennine 158s were looking exceedingly shabby by the time they were moved elsewhere. They were good trains, but I still reckon the 185s are a definite improvement. And I saw LOADS of two carriage Transpennine workings back in 158 days, so the three carriage 185s are a definite capacity improvement. And the 185s sometimes operate as 6 carriage trains over the north Transpennine route.

Well, I do like the 185's and they certainly do the job pretty well, although I do prefer the enclosed saloon layout of the 158's along with the the ambience. I appreciate that it's difficult to specify for a service with such a mix of long distance and commuter passengers.

 

[northwichcat]

I think Transpennine's 185s are fantastic trains, and it means that the operator now has a completely standard fleet of 3 carriage trains instead of a mix of twos and threes.

What about their 11 2 car 170s?

And I saw LOADS of two carriage Transpennine workings back in 158 days, so the three carriage 185s are a definite capacity improvement. And the 185s sometimes operate as 6 carriage trains over the north Transpennine route.

6, 7 and 8 carriage 158 workings weren't unheard of on TPE routes.

The thing to note is a 3 car 185 has only a few more seats than a 2 car 158 due to the disabled toilet, increased cycle space and increased door space. The 2 car 170s also have less seats than a 2 car 158 for some of the same reasons.

I also don't know anyone who's done over 2 hours on a 185 and been happy with the comfort of the seating.

 

[Daimler]

I also don't know anyone who's done over 2 hours on a 185 and been happy with the comfort of the seating.

Not a 185, but a 350/1 (and I've had plenty of fairly long runs on 185s), which is essentially identical inside.

I find them extremely comfortable - far more so than, say, either of Virgin's trains that operate through Cumbria - lots more tables, larger windows - both important for making a journey through a scenic area enjoyable!

My only complaint is that more often than not, the three carriage length of most of their services is simply not enough - but then, FTPE wanted to order some more trailers, and the DFT, if I recall correctly, said no.

 

[northwichcat]

Not a 185, but a 350/1 (and I've had plenty of fairly long runs on 185s), which is essentially identical inside.

I find them extremely comfortable - far more so than, say, either of Virgin's trains that operate through Cumbria - lots more tables, larger windows - both important for making a journey through a scenic area enjoyable!

My only complaint is that more often than not, the three carriage length of most of their services is simply not enough - but then, FTPE wanted to order some more trailers, and the DFT, if I recall correctly, said no.

I don't think the 350/1s do many journeys of over 2 hours though and cetainly not any 4 hour journeys like the 185s do.

Virgin's Pendolino window alignment isn't good but then the seats on 220/1/390s are more comfortable. You certainly don't go 'ouch' if you put your head up against the back of the seat.

 

[Pumbaa]

I don't think the 350/1s do many journeys of over 2 hours though and cetainly not any 4 hour journeys like the 185s do.

Virgin's Pendolino window alignment isn't good but then the seats on 220/1/390s are more comfortable. You certainly don't go 'ouch' if you put your head up against the back of the seat.

Up Trent Valleys can be at 4 hours during the day, and at an average of 3 and 1/4 hours, they can certainly rival them. I like the 185/350/1 seats and will happily sit in them for long journeys!

 

[northwichcat]

Up Trent Valleys can be at 4 hours during the day, and at an average of 3 and 1/4 hours, they can certainly rival them. I like the 185/350/1 seats and will happily sit in them for long journeys!

The difference being Virgin provide much faster services between Crewe and London and between Stafford and London so the longest journey most people would do would be Rugeley to London (2hr 10 min.) Between Manchester Airport and Edinburgh there isn't a faster service and neither is there an option for changing on to a faster service.

 

[Moog_1984]

I don't think the APT-E was an engineering or logistical fiasco : unfortunetly it was launched to a journalist jolly "service" in a hard winter with the wrong grade of hyrdaulic oil and some teething issues with some equipment which were later sorted out.

3.5 hours Glasgow to London would have killed a key British Airways money maker, so the APT was more a victim of politics as BA were the first major privatisation under Mrs T.

Anyway we got pendos eventually which you can trace technology back to BREL patents according to some writers:

APT ws comfier though! It had pretty much a first class Mrk III spec through out, quite like mrk 4 (not surprisingly!)

Bucket of Fail? What about the entire 3rd generation diesel MU fleet: we are back to the situation in 1980 with a pile of non standard locos then with diverse reliabilities, spares and training requirements!

They got the 156s right, fixed the 170s pretty much and should have stuck to standardisation!

 

[tbtc]

Bucket of Fail? What about the entire 3rd generation diesel MU fleet: we are back to the situation in 1980 with a pile of non standard locos then with diverse reliabilities, spares and training requirements!

They got the 156s right, fixed the 170s pretty much and should have stuck to standardisation!

Totally agree. We should have had 170s (100mph) and 222s (125mph) - both of varying lengths (from three car 170 to eight car 222), but with standard components, and not bothered with lots of smaller classes of 171/ 172/ 175/ 180/ 185/ 220/ 221/ 222.

We have eight different classes of trains (with various sub-classes of 170) when we just needed two big classes.

 

[MCR247]

Actually, we ought to have 3 classes of DMU:

170, 172, 222
(172 being a 170 but a more suburban type max 75mph, faster acceleration etc)

 

[northwichcat]

Actually, we ought to have 3 classes of DMU:

170, 172, 222
(172 being a 170 but a more suburban type max 75mph, faster acceleration etc)

The 172s are being built in different variants. There will be 2 car sets and 3 car sets. The London Midland ones will be 100mph top speed and the London Overground ones will be 75mph.

I don't know why a 3 car set has to be classed differently to a 2 car set: for 144s they all start 144/0 whether they are three car or two car.

 

[Burkitt]

Totally agree. We should have had 170s (100mph) and 222s (125mph), and not bothered with lots of smaller classes.

Standardisation is good, but that would have given Bombardier a complete monopoly on UK diesel units. With no competition they'd have had no incentive to make any attempt to limit the massive rise in rolling stock prices over the last few years, so ultimately we'd have had fewer trains or even higher ticket prices.

 

[tbtc]

Standardisation is good, but that would have given Bombardier a complete monopoly on UK diesel units. With no competition they'd have had no incentive to make any attempt to limit the massive rise in rolling stock prices over the last few years, so ultimately we'd have had fewer trains or even higher ticket prices.

I agree with your point, but I think it a preferable cost to pay than the cost of having all these non-standard units which pushes up the long term engineering/ maintenance budgets and makes franchises less flexible

Maybe three classes are needed, like MCR247 says - 75/100/125 mph (with the 75mph one being gangwayed, maybe with an EMU equivalent of each too for further economies of scale.

I can see a future where small classes like 175s are going to be consigned to the scrapheap earlier than older stock that was built in bulk (like the 158s)

 

[northwichcat]

tbtc I think that goes without saying. Remember FNW were using a few 101s in 2000 and it was probably down to the fact that so many were built in the first place that they didn't have problems sourcing spares that had been taken out of units that had been written off.

One question I have to ask is why are we looking at a 75mph top speed still for suburban services? Trains are built for a number of years and line speeds are on average increasing. Also many suburban EMUs take advantage of having top speeds above 75mph, such as 323s on Manchester to Crewe/Stoke and 321s and 333s operating out of Leeds, even though the latter don't always make full use of their 100mph top speed.

 

[The Planner]

One question I have to ask is why are we looking at a 75mph top speed still for suburban services? Trains are built for a number of years and line speeds are on average increasing. Also many suburban EMUs take advantage of having top speeds above 75mph, such as 323s on Manchester to Crewe/Stoke and 321s and 333s operating out of Leeds, even though the latter don't always make full use of their 100mph top speed.

I wouldnt call a Manchester to Crewe or Stoke "suburban". A suburban service would be a multiple stopping service with close stations, most of the time you cant get past 75mph inbetween stations on a pattern like that. 75/100/125 is about right, what you need to focus on is acceleration and braking (and in my opinion door cycles, they need to be quicker). Top speed, as debated to death, is folly on short routes.

 

[MCR247]

100mph DMU with 1/3 & 2/3 doors like 170s with no gangway [3/4 coaches)
100mph DMU with end doors (170 & 158 cross anyone?) [2-5 coaches]
125mph DMU with end doors like 222 [3-10 coaches]
75mph DMU with 1/3 doors [2-4 coaches) gangway
90mph single car DMU gangwayed?

125mph Pendolino EMU [6-10 coaches]
100mph Dual Voltage 444 [4-6 coaches]
100mph Dual voltage 350/450 [3-5 coaches]
90mph Dual voltage 376 style train 4-5 coaches

 

[northwichcat]

I wouldnt call a Manchester to Crewe or Stoke "suburban". A suburban service would be a multiple stopping service with close stations, most of the time you cant get past 75mph inbetween stations on a pattern like that. 75/100/125 is about right, what you need to focus on is acceleration and braking (and in my opinion door cycles, they need to be quicker). Top speed, as debated to death, is folly on short routes.

If those aren't in the category of suburban than I don't think a lot of Northern's services in the North West are. The Stoke and Crewe services stop at most stations and go through very few and some of the stations are very close to one another e.g. Adlington and Macclesfield and Alderley Edge and Wilmslow.

Hazel Grove-Manchester services that don't continue to Preston is one that doesn't have much time between stations but then 142s and 150s can struggle to keep timings and not hold up expresses* if stopping at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme, whereas 323s don't.

*For the term expresses I'm referring to trains running Stockport-Manchester non-stop rather than London and Birmingham services that would usually use the other line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

100mph DMU with 1/3 & 2/3 doors like 170s with no gangway [3/4 coaches)
100mph DMU with end doors (170 & 158 cross anyone?) [2-5 coaches]
125mph DMU with end doors like 222 [3-10 coaches]
75mph DMU with 1/3 doors [2-4 coaches) gangway
90mph single car DMU gangwayed?

125mph Pendolino EMU [6-10 coaches]
100mph Dual Voltage 444 [4-6 coaches]
100mph Dual voltage 350/450 [3-5 coaches]
90mph Dual voltage 376 style train 4-5 coaches

I don't know how much use the 90mph single car would be, I'm assuming it's main purpose would be strengthening but it would be restricted to 75mph or restrict the 100mph DMU to 90mph.

The main issue with your electric units is why are they all dual-voltage? That would mean extra weight to carry around for units that only use one type of voltage such as AC in the Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Scottish areas and DC in the Merseyside area.

Most people seem to think that the 319s will have their DC equipment removed when they are cascaded to Northern and FGW. Merseyrail want to maintain a self-contained network and they do have a 25 year franchise on the basis of a self-contained network.

 

[starrymarkb]

With AC traction packs the only extra weight is the Transformer (which you need anyway to take 25kV down to ~750V to feed the inverters)

It doesn't add any weight to 375/377s as they carry ballast equivalent to the transformer to give equal ride performance

 

[MCR247]

The main issue with your electric units is why are they all dual-voltage? That would mean extra weight to carry around for units that only use one type of voltage such as AC in the Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Scottish areas and DC in the Merseyside area.

Most people seem to think that the 319s will have their DC equipment removed when they are cascaded to Northern and FGW. Merseyrail want to maintain a self-contained network and they do have a 25 year franchise on the basis of a self-contained network.

When I say Dual Voltage, I should have made it clear that I meant there would be AC versions and DC versions

 

[LE Greys]

Why not 357/375/377? More commonality with the 376/378 and a lot more comfortable than the Desiros. You could even have a 'stretched' version with 75 ft coaches and doors at the end (I'm sure Bombardier could manage).

 

[Aictos]

Why not 357/375/377? More commonality with the 376/378 and a lot more comfortable than the Desiros. You could even have a 'stretched' version with 75 ft coaches and doors at the end (I'm sure Bombardier could manage).

As long as they actually manage to resolve their infamous quality control problems ie the doors, the cctv used for DOO operation etc...

 

[LE Greys]

As long as they actually manage to resolve their infamous quality control problems ie the doors, the cctv used for DOO operation etc...

Better that than plank-hard seats, plasticy interiors and stifling lack of air inside! Desiros are a pet hate, and they've had plenty of time to track down most of the faults on the 375s and fix them by now. Back in 1990, I did Leeds-York on a brand-new 158 with the heating stuck on full blast in midsummer. Luckily, it was coupled to a Sprinter. Still, they fixed the 158s OK.

 

[Moog_1984]

Standardisation is good, but that would have given Bombardier a complete monopoly on UK diesel units. With no competition they'd have had no incentive to make any attempt to limit the massive rise in rolling stock prices over the last few years, so ultimately we'd have had fewer trains or even higher ticket prices.

And GM don't have a virtual monopoly on the most expensive component within almost the entire freight fleet??

This was exactly the thinking back in the 1950s when the government didn't want to give EE too much.

What you negotiate is a "framework agreement" with the wider supply chain and get the lead manufacuter / designer to dish out capacity to other EU suppliers.



In the early 60s, the BRB and DoT demanded the 2750hp ecomomic catastrophe from Brush, being twice the price of the proposed DP2 production loco from English Electric (prior to the perversing of this into the D400 fiasco!). Somehow they got away with spending 4 million quid fixing them and rendering the "duff" not much better than the peaks, but lighter. Incidentally, for those who slag 50s, "duffs" on comparable , sustained high speed running with "notch 8" accelerations, the 47s had a higher MPC on western region according to some writers. Add these two ....Taxi for moog

 

[87015]

In the early 60s, the BRB and DoT demanded the 2750hp ecomomic catastrophe from Brush, being twice the price of the proposed DP2 production loco from English Electric (prior to the perversing of this into the D400 fiasco!). Somehow they got away with spending 4 million quid fixing them and rendering the "duff" not much better than the peaks, but lighter. Incidentally, for those who slag 50s, "duffs" on comparable , sustained high speed running with "notch 8" accelerations, the 47s had a higher MPC on western region according to some writers. Add these two ....

Add these two ........ 47 + 50 = they are both crap!!

 

[The Box Photter]

Biggest rolling-stock own goal was the "planning blight" in the run up to privatisation. The newly formed train leasing companies had various parts of the fleet handed to them on a plate and then the accountants set about working out how they could squeeze the highest leasing costs out of each traction type. There was no incentive to order new stock, hence the manufacturers such as Brush, Rustons, BREL etc had nothing to build.

Result, no UK capacity to design & build our own trains and we end up acting as component-installers, whilst the passengers carry out in-service testing & shakedown.

Biggest own goal was letting Foster Yeoman buy its class 59s. BR and British industry should have provided the right traction at a reasonable price, but BR was complacent and the manufacturers didn't see what was coming. Just the same way as BMC and Ford ignored the first imported Datsuns & Toyotas in the early seventies.