Should Government designate Northern a decarbonisation R&D franchise?

[modernrail]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ains-from-319s-initially-for-northern.138660/

Rather than give out piecemeal grants and having the odd piecemeal micro-fleet, it might be a good idea for the Government to designate Northern a decarbonisation R&D franchise now is back in public control and use decarbonisation as an opportunity to develop new tech in the UK whilst also improving provision for passengers.

Take the Harrogate line. A heavily used line like that with surpressed demand either needs to be electrified or an alternative solution is required.

The 769 is not it in that case as it would just be a diesel train.

I am open minded about what is the best solution but let's at least see the problem as the opportunity it is.

 

[Roger B]

Rather than giving out piecemeal grants and having the odd piecemeal micro-fleet, it might be a good idea for the Government to designate Northern a decarbonisation R&D franchise now is back in public control and use decarbonisation as an opportunity to develop new tech in the UK whilst also improving provision for passengers. Take the Harrogate line. A heavily used line like that with surpressed demand either needs to be electrified or an alternative solution is required. The 769 is not it in that case as it would just be a diesel train. I am open minded about what is the best solution but let's at least see the problem as the opportunity it is.

Spot on modernrail. This needs to happen now. On the today's railway it's taking years to develop prototypes, test them, and then roll-out in new / modified fleets (just look at the history of classes 230 and 769). The 150s and 156s (and then the 158s) are going to need to be replaced this decade - the 150s probably in the next few years. There's a real opportunity to do something innovative that will make a significant impact on the carbon profile of railways in the north.

And get on with electrification as well. Follow the lead of the Scottish government, do this one, then the next, then the next. That way you build and retain skills. The stop / start / stop / start pattern of electrification south of the border is a significant factor in its relatively high cost, partly because of contractors and their supply chains having to start each time from scratch.

 

[AM9]

Spot on modernrail. This needs to happen now. On the today's railway it's taking years to develop prototypes, test them, and then roll-out in new / modified fleets (just look at the history of classes 230 and 769). The 150s and 156s (and then the 158s) are going to need to be replaced this decade - the 150s probably in the next few years. There's a real opportunity to do something innovative that will make a significant impact on the carbon profile of railways in the north.

And get on with electrification as well. Follow the lead of the Scottish government, do this one, then the next, then the next. That way you build and retain skills. The stop / start / stop / start pattern of electrification south of the border is a significant factor in its relatively high cost, partly because of contractors and their supply chains having to start each time from scratch.

There was an ideal opportunity to take a step forward but Northern and the DfT blew it. The class 195s were the wrong train to commit the railway to for the next 30 years, i.e. way past the current deadline for diesel road passenger vehicles. The claim was that the 195 had much in common with the 331s, however, they could easily have procured the bi-mode versions of the CAF platform but this tunnel vision that DMUs must be replaced with yet more DMUs will yet be proven to be a stupid move.
At least the 769s will not create local NOX pollution or CO2 locally through metropolitan Manchester, unlike the 195s. They will also give valuable experience in running a suburban service with bi-modes.

 

[Goldie]

Rather than giving out piecemeal grants and having the odd piecemeal micro-fleet, it might be a good idea for the Government to designate Northern a decarbonisation R&D franchise now is back in public control and use decarbonisation as an opportunity to develop new tech in the UK whilst also improving provision for passengers. Take the Harrogate line. A heavily used line like that with surpressed demand either needs to be electrified or an alternative solution is required. The 769 is not it in that case as it would just be a diesel train. I am open minded about what is the best solution but let's at least see the problem as the opportunity it is.

Agree with this so much - and since Shapps seems to be keen to make a good impression at the moment, it might be worth having this post chiselled in full onto his ministerial desk.

If the 769s are going to work, and if the expertise to build them well and relatively quickly has been accrued, I would also be pretty keen for Northen / Transport for the North / the government to sit down together, identify where else they could be gainfully employed and order enough of them to make best use of that expertise, the existing electrification and the pile of redundant 319s.

 

[Mogster]

Agree with this so much - and since Shapps seems to be keen to make a good impression at the moment, it might be worth having this post chiselled in full onto his ministerial desk.

If the 769s are going to work, and if the expertise to build them well and relatively quickly has been accrued, I would also be pretty keen for Northen / Transport for the North / the government to sit down together, identify where else they could be gainfully employed and order enough of them to make best use of that expertise, the existing electrification and the pile of redundant 319s.

They 319s may be available but they are also nearly 40 years old. Even if they are put to use in some way they don’t represent even a medium term solution. If they were 10-15 years old with plenty of life left and decent units like the 350s it’d be more worthwhile.

 

[Llama]

They're not quite that old, barely 30.

 

[D365]

They're not quite that old, barely 30.

Age doesn’t matter so much as mechanical condition. Look at the state of the Class 332s, for example.

 

[AM9]

They 319s may be available but they are also nearly 40 years old. Even if they are put to use in some way they don’t represent even a medium term solution. If they were 10-15 years old with plenty of life left and decent units like the 350s it’d be more worthwhile.

The 319s are between 30 and 33 years old actually, not "nearly 40". The fact is that they are available, the conversion seems to be working. Running on diesel, they emit no more than Turbostars and 195s (probably less because diesel electric traction allows the prime mover to run more efficiently), and there isn't much visibility of budget to replace serviceable units just because they have been around for some time. If anything is to be replaced, the best solution from an environmental and probably cost aspect would be to remove the 150/153/155/156s and replace them with more conversions like the 769s. Once the initial trains are in service, manufacture of the genset sleds and adding/modifying the minor items should be a fairly free flowing process. In time, as you suggest, other classes may be modified to remove more diesel running under wires.

 

[johnnychips]

The 319s are between 30 and 33 years old actually, not "nearly 40". The fact is that they are available, the conversion seems to be working.

But they aren’t yet!

 

[Bovverboy]

Here's a train which is over 40 years old..
https://flickr.com/photos/howiemilburn/17378483611
and here's a really old train.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16677680@N04/32388967054/

 

[37201xoIM]

Truth is, given the years of policy failure we need everything that we can get that is diesel, and that may well include more 769s (IF they do indeed work OK in service), retained Pacers, 185s, LHCS etc. etc. etc. - because the fleet is an order of magnitude too small. It doesn't matter how old it is, so long as it works - and PRM / WC dispensations are just going to have to be sought.

Or we start cutting timetables.

I suspect we may well end up doing both.

It's not pretty, but, like Tears For Fears, we are in a mad world...

 

[AM9]

But they aren’t yet!

Some are, there's pictures in this thread showing two of them out and about, and there's a few in Cardiff. So they are available for when the drivers are.
What isn't available is budget for more new trains, and I doubt that it will be anytime soon.

 

[Mogster]

My point is how much time, money and effort is it reasonable to expend modifying units that are already close to their end time. The 319s aren’t even that mechanically reliable it seems.

Anyway, as a regular Southport - Alderley Edge user I await their introduction with interest, and some trepidation...

 

[AM9]

... - because the fleet is an order of magnitude too small. ...

That's the second time that you've posted those words, (previously in post #4532). Do you really mean that Northern needs 10 times the number of trains that it has at present? If that is true, then they have an even bigger problem recruiting and training all the extra drivers needed, not to mention the square miles of stabling and depot space needed to park and maintain them all in.

 

[AM9]

My point is how much time, money and effort is it reasonable to expend modifying units that are already close to their end time. The 319s aren’t even that mechanically reliable it seems.

Anyway, as a regular Southport - Alderley Edge user I await their introduction with interest, and some trepidation...

Now Allerton has learnt all about them the MTIN is climbing, - a post here indicated that their MTIN was higher than the 195s praised by so many here.

 

[samuelmorris]

Now Allerton has learnt all about them the MTIN is climbing, - a post here indicated that their MTIN was higher than the 195s praised by so many here.

I believe that was me.
https://i.imgur.com/jEqEiHg.png
It's quite difficult to see because Northern have so many different types of stock all posting similar figures, but the 319 is the deep purple that just about sits on top of all the other classes around the 10k mark as of Modern Railways' last annual summary. None of the 195/331 subclasses have really been able to reach the performance of any of the Sprinter/Pacer classes yet.

 

[AM9]

I believe that was me.
https://i.imgur.com/jEqEiHg.png
It's quite difficult to see because Northern have so many different types of stock all posting similar figures, but the 319 is the deep purple that just about sits on top of all the other classes around the 10k mark as of Modern Railways' last annual summary. None of the 195/331 subclasses have really been able to reach the performance of any of the Sprinter/Pacer classes yet.

Thanks for that, this thread is getting a bit long to search for nuanced comments.
That the 319s are 30+ years old, is no secret, and if the rate of failures in service is falling, says something for the generally better reliability of EMUs over DMUs. The 319s are probably being driven in a confident manner, similar to their Thameslink use which means that the motors are asked for power output well up their specified range. As 769s, that would be the same as an Alderley Edge to Bolton path..The rest of the route under diesel would put much lower stresses on the motors owing to the limited output of the diesel engine. Rheostatic braking would of course be the same for both.

 

[Grannyjoans]

https://i.imgur.com/jEqEiHg.png

Is that the 185 or 323 at the very top ? Clearly way ahead of the rest.

 

[D365]

Is that the 185 or 323 at the very top ? Clearly way ahead of the rest.

I was going to ask myself, the colours are not very distinguishable to say the least.

 

[samuelmorris]

Is that the 185 or 323 at the very top ? Clearly way ahead of the rest.

It's the 185. Yeah, the colours aren't ideal, but I was trying to group the colours by type and there are just so many different classes Northern operate/have operated in the last couple of years that it's very difficult to get enough colours that look distinguishably different. Next time I update it I'll have a go at changing them around and see if I can do better.

 

[Grannyjoans]

The 185 is in a league of it's own on that graph.
The next most reliable trains are all EMU classes and even they aren't near it.
The ancient 14X 15X DMU's are so much lower. 170's also nearing the bottom if I'm reading the colours correctly?
At the very bottom: It looks as if LHCS was easily in bottom place for a while then began to rise slightly towards the end (presumably following the brief introduction of 68's ?) then in more recent months the 195s & 331s take bottom place since their introduction.

 

[The Ham]

That's the second time that you've posted those words, (previously in post #4532). Do you really mean that Northern needs 10 times the number of trains that it has at present? If that is true, then they have an even bigger problem recruiting and training all the extra drivers needed, not to mention the square miles of stabling and depot space needed to park and maintain them all in.

Many would agree that there's a need for more trains, I'm not sure anyone would suggest 10x the amount but certainly 2x wouldn't appear to be too crazy.

Now whilst that would certainly cause problems for storage of units, in not sure that it would be that much of an impact on the numbers of drivers. In that you're unlikely to be able to run too many more services and so you'll mostly be running longer trains. Longer trains don't generally require extra drivers.

 

[D365]

Next time I update it I'll have a go at changing them around and see if I can do better.

If that is Excel you’re using, I think you can use different patterns or add labels to the plots? Only so far that you can go with those, to be fair.

 

[AM9]

Scheduled time between Southport and Alderley Edge is 110 minutes not 90

I used the 09:50 which is a representative run between peak hours and takes 97 minutes (ref. timtable 82, dec 2019), (which for the purposes of discussion is within my definition of 'around 90 minutes' and nearer to that than 110 minutes).

Distance on diesel Southport to Bolton is 27.11 miles according to RTT not 18

Yes my error, - I'd left the 10.5 miles WGW-SOP out so I make it 27.5 miles

Intermediate stops between Southport and Bolton are 8 not 10
Meols Cop
Burscough Bridge
Parbold
Apperley Bridge
Gathurst
Wallgate
Hindley or Ince (or neither dependent on time of day)
Westhoughton

I said about 10 which includes all of the stations on the SOP line but 8 makes little difference to my points.

Intermediate stops under the wires after Bolton are 10 not 5
Salford Crescent
Deansgate
M'cr Oxford Rd
M'cr Piccadilly
Levenshulme
Heaton Chapel
Stockport
Cheadle Hulme
Handforth
Wilmslow

Timetable 82 doesn't show all the stops so I hadn't counted the Stockport line shacks.

You did get the mileage from Bolton to Alderley right however.

All this makes my point more valid, i.e. the stops are under the wires therefore there is far less justification to run diesel traction through those settlements.

 

[AM9]

Many would agree that there's a need for more trains, I'm not sure anyone would suggest 10x the amount but certainly 2x wouldn't appear to be too crazy.

I was merely querying the use of the term 'order of magnitude' which is generally accepted to mean 1/10 or x10 change.

Now whilst that would certainly cause problems for storage of units, in not sure that it would be that much of an impact on the numbers of drivers. In that you're unlikely to be able to run too many more services and so you'll mostly be running longer trains. Longer trains don't generally require extra drivers.

With any wholesale extension of train lengths, there would be lots of places where extensive SDO was needed, thereby slowing down services. Rather than wasting money on longer trains that end up clogging paths, it would be better if a sensible programme of platform extension (including any necessary signalling and formation adjustments) was completed just ahead of increasing rolling stock provision.

 

[AM9]

The 185 is in a league of it's own on that graph.
The next most reliable trains are all EMU classes and even they aren't near it.
The ancient 14X 15X DMU's are so much lower. 170's also nearing the bottom if I'm reading the colours correctly?
At the very bottom: It looks as if LHCS was easily in bottom place for a while then began to rise slightly towards the end (presumably following the brief introduction of 68's ?) then in more recent months the 195s & 331s take bottom place since their introduction.

For fairly basic new EMUs, the 331's performance in service is pretty poor. Arguably DMUs often need more bedding in, but they share some reliability issues with the 331s.

 

[samuelmorris]

If that is Excel you’re using, I think you can use different patterns or add labels to the plots? Only so far that you can go with those, to be fair.

It's Google Docs - I'd already long lost my temper with Excel trying to make these - I did at one stage try adding graphics based from the little diagrammatic images you get at the bottom of various rolling stock wiki pages as labels, but they'd be too small to see clearly.

 

[samuelmorris]

The 185 is in a league of it's own on that graph.
The next most reliable trains are all EMU classes and even they aren't near it.
The ancient 14X 15X DMU's are so much lower. 170's also nearing the bottom if I'm reading the colours correctly?
At the very bottom: It looks as if LHCS was easily in bottom place for a while then began to rise slightly towards the end (presumably following the brief introduction of 68's ?) then in more recent months the 195s & 331s take bottom place since their introduction.

You are correct, I believe the poor 170 score may be partly due to the issues cited with their introduction on the Harrogate route causing them mechanical issues with the short gaps between stations - I don't know how true that turned out to be, but I remember it being cited as a real problem for the 170s when first introduced. The LHCS explanation makes sense, but the 'spot hire' loco-hauled fleets perform terribly across the board, their score at Anglia I believe was even worse.

 

[warwickshire]

You are correct, I believe the poor 170 score may be partly due to the issues cited with their introduction on the Harrogate route causing them mechanical issues with the short gaps between stations - I don't know how true that turned out to be, but I remember it being cited as a real problem for the 170s when first introduced. The LHCS explanation makes sense, but the 'spot hire' loco-hauled fleets perform terribly across the board, their score at Anglia I believe was even worse.

Also when the 158 first came out they had the issues between the platform gaps as well. And 158714 went all over the uk with two cameras at the front recording issues off where stns had to be altered for where on routes 158s where going to be stopping at due to how the doors open out. And in doing so could hit and have issues on the platform itself.

 

[Llama]

Many would agree that there's a need for more trains, I'm not sure anyone would suggest 10x the amount but certainly 2x wouldn't appear to be too crazy.

Now whilst that would certainly cause problems for storage of units, in not sure that it would be that much of an impact on the numbers of drivers. In that you're unlikely to be able to run too many more services and so you'll mostly be running longer trains. Longer trains don't generally require extra drivers.

Some procedures drivers undertake, eg prep, take longer on longer trains, so that's one way longer trains definitely require more drivers.