Future DMU Orders

[daikilo]

People thought the same thing after that one crashed into the 86 on the WCML. Afterwards Pacers were deemed to be safe.

... and most other railway stock even safer, but what of buses and cars.

The issue is not there. There are many cases where train, tram, guided bus or bus can offer a viable and safer collective solution. The issue is being allowed to integrate and plan on a long-term (say 20-30 year) solution.

Governments have a finite tenure, transport need is infinite.

 

[starrymarkb]

Well there is an EMU that runs on Bio-fuel

*gets coat*

 

[ainsworth74]

*Calls a taxi for starrymarkb*

 

[LE Greys]

So much good sense has rarely been spoken

Thanks!

Future cascades would work as far as 150s replacing the Pacers, and 156s replacing the 150s, with 170s replacing most of the currently 156 and 158 operated services. After that it comes unstuck though: As has been mentioned, the 158s will never be suitable for either rural or commuter use due to their poorer acceleration characteristics and narrow doors hindering loading times, and the 170s would be too heavy and too overpowered to wind up working the kinds of routes currently operated by Pacers and 150s.

As to the above Turbostar lengthening idea, I think that is an excellent scheme, and I would further that by constructing a few further trailer standards and insert them into the currently 3 car 170/1s to give four carriage units that would do away with the current pairs of XC two car 170s that operate some services-which might free up a couple more 170s.

I'd also like to see Greater Manchester receive a new fleet of lower geared, 75mph, gangway fitted 172s (Which sounds like the Turbostar "Traveller" concept that was floated for just such an eventuality about 10 years ago) to mirror the current West Midlands fleet renewal. That would free up a load of 142s and 150s from the Manchester area, which could be redeployed strengthening services in other areas of the Northern network. Might even be able to withdraw a few Pacers.

I think that a lightweight fleet of low geared 172s would be a reasonable replacement for the 142s and 150s: Something with wide double leaf, one third and two third position doors is definitely the best way forward for quick loading times on local commuter services, as has been learnt the hard way with the 142s and 143s with three doors per side, and even worse, the 141s with only two doors per side!

Some excellent ideas here, I wish there was more of this sort of thinking around.

The 175s and 185s are the "bendi-buses" of the railway world. They look good when new, and were built to do a job on a particular line, but will be useless for any other work and possily redundant after half the life alternative vehicles would have.

In the same way that bendi-buses are okay at running "flagship" routes in London, but would struggle to run round provincial housing estates at ten years old (a lot of London buses get sent to other cities once they are too old for London) , and are decidedly "non standard". A small fleet of 175s and 185s was a very short term fix by First that will be a long term nightmare. Due to common parts (etc), I wouldn't be surprised if 156s/ 158s outlive 185s (if the main Transpennine route is wired up, or gets new stock).

This sounds very likely.

Currently 170s work coupled to 153s/ 158s/ other 170s. Sticking in additional carriages would free up a lot of Sprinters, and would also mean that a four/ five car 170 would be a good alternative to 180/220/221s on other routes (where you don't need to go over 100mph).

As I've said many times before, we don't need more trains, we need longer trains. Buying 100 extra centre cars for 170s would mean longer trains and free up (say) 50x* 153/158 carriages which could be used to lengthen other services to three coach (stick the 153s onto 156s and turn the 158s into three car in the way that FGW do)

* - sounds a lot, I know,but bear in mind that a 170 lengthened to four car would then free up a two/three car 170 currently coupled to another 170 etc etc

Sounds like a good idea. I'm afraid I don't know how often sets have to be reinforced, but I might see if it's possible to work out how many units can be freed up, then send the ideas off to someone. It'll probably get ignored, but I'll give you full credit for coming up with it.

Voyager/turbostar centre cars would be not be powered because the engines aren't in production any more

The uprated 6H1800R83 certainly is (someone once called this 'Turbostar GTI') but that would probably cause maintenance problems if you had two different engines in one unit. Swapping out the 6R 183TDs probably isn't much of an option either, although uprated power would be especially useful for Scotrail units that have to take on the Drumochter Pass. However, I'm almost certain that 170s with in areas with easier terrain (NXEA for example) could handle trailers without too much fuss. As for 220s, we've often discussed the idea of adding a PTSO (or PTRSB in this case). Do-able, but requires a longer lead-in time. However, extra units (which I suggested, to allow some of the 221s to go to TPX for Manchester-Scotland services) might be a bit more difficult.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well there is an EMU that runs on Bio-fuel

*gets coat*

1 passenger, very fast and a bit hazardous.

 

[tbtc]

As with the 185's they'll do a decent job for years to come as pennine will not get electrified any time soon.

...assuming no additional passengers, since you can't add new coaches, you can't find more paths over the Pennines and there are no corridor connections.

 

[ukrob]

No connections between units doesn't mean they can't run in 6 car formation though - they can and do everyday. Not ideal - but not a problem either.

 

[Drsatan]

As opposed to ordering more DMUs for use on commuter services in the Greater Manchester area or for the Valley Lines, I'd seriously consider electrification. Given that only 40% of the national rail network in the UK is electrified (compared to around 65% in Germany), I believe that it's time for Britain to catch up in this regard.

For instance, say the Greater Manchester area lines were electrified (and possibly Manchester - Leeds), then EMUs could be ordered to replace any 150s, 153s and 158s. Any Pacers would go to the scrapyard.

Likewise, if the Snow Hill lines around Birmingham were electrified, then the 172/1s (which would then be in use) could be cascaded elsewhere around the country

 

[tbtc]

As opposed to ordering more DMUs for use on commuter services in the Greater Manchester area or for the Valley Lines, I'd seriously consider electrification. Given that only 40% of the national rail network in the UK is electrified (compared to around 65% in Germany), I believe that it's time for Britain to catch up in this regard.

For instance, say the Greater Manchester area lines were electrified (and possibly Manchester - Leeds), then EMUs could be ordered to replace any 150s, 153s and 158s. Any Pacers would go to the scrapyard.

Likewise, if the Snow Hill lines around Birmingham were electrified, then the 172/1s (which would then be in use) could be cascaded elsewhere around the country

I agree, BUT the trouble is that there are few self contained routes that you can wire.

For example, there are five (?) trains per hour from Manchester to Wigan, so you'd think that'd make sense to wire. But you'd need to wire all the way to Southport/ Kirby, and do the "via Bolton" and the "via Swinton" routes.

Wire Manchester to Preston, and you then have to deal with DMUs running under the wire to Barrow/ Clitheroe/ Windermere, or electrifying all those branches.

Its not impossible, but it'd need to be comprehensive to be worthwhile. And the trouble is that it makes sense operationally to electrify *everything* in one area, rather than a line here and a line there, but politically it may be easier to give Lancashire some wires, South Wales some wires and other areas a token bit too.

 

[Drsatan]

Its not impossible, but it'd need to be comprehensive to be worthwhile. And the trouble is that it makes sense operationally to electrify *everything* in one area, rather than a line here and a line there, but politically it may be easier to give Lancashire some wires, South Wales some wires and other areas a token bit too.

Alternatively, electrify lines which are the 'odd one out' so to speak, like the Chase Valley Line to Rugeley and the Marshlink line.

A comprehensive electrification program needs to be drawn up NOW to avoid over-investment in DMUs. British Rail fell down that hole in the 1960s by ordering too many diesel locomotives and diesel mutiple units. I accept that BR was under pressure to cut costs and modernise, but there was no need to order multifarious diesel locomotives with a short lifespan, such as the class 21 'Baby Deltics'

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought it was more to do with signal sighting, you'll notice they also have an extra side window for the driver.

That's a far more likely reason. Gangwayed units such as SN Electrostars and SWT Desiros operate on infrastructure where signal positioning has been designed for units with end gangways for many years.

I just can't believe a 'not allowed with 125 mph' rule was introduced specially for 185s, it would have to have been sometime after the 350/1s entered service with Central/Silverlink, and then cancelled again just before the 350/2s arrived... :-?

 

[tbtc]

Alternatively, electrify lines which are the 'odd one out' so to speak, like the Chase Valley Line to Rugeley and the Marshlink line.

Agreed.

Filling in the gaps might not be a massive vote winner, but it'd be a lot more useful than electrifying the GWML

A list of "short" electrified lines (e.g. Kirknewton to Bellshill, Coventry to Nuneaton, maybe even Ely - Norwich and Manchester - New Mills/ Marple) would be the way to go

Of course, new EMUs still cost money, same as new DMUs, but would hopefully last a bit longer.

However, as I can't see the above happening, I think we have to face facts and buy some replacement Pacer-equivalents (maybe built with a view to convert them to EMU operation)

 

[WatcherZero]

I agree, BUT the trouble is that there are few self contained routes that you can wire.

For example, there are five (?) trains per hour from Manchester to Wigan, so you'd think that'd make sense to wire. But you'd need to wire all the way to Southport/ Kirby, and do the "via Bolton" and the "via Swinton" routes.

Wire Manchester to Preston, and you then have to deal with DMUs running under the wire to Barrow/ Clitheroe/ Windermere, or electrifying all those branches.

Its not impossible, but it'd need to be comprehensive to be worthwhile. And the trouble is that it makes sense operationally to electrify *everything* in one area, rather than a line here and a line there, but politically it may be easier to give Lancashire some wires, South Wales some wires and other areas a token bit too.

Theres one 6th in the morning peak from NW returning in the evening peak, goes via Chat Moss I think? but yeah basically 5. When you start thinking about it it does snowball the number of little additions you have to make.

Atherton lines longterm future is as another Metrolink line I believe as Network Rails last RUS declared the signalling was too expensive to improve for better frequencies to relieve overcrowding, nevermind electrification. (possibly street running from Salford Crescent through Manchester to Picc before connecting to either Marple or Rose Hill converted lines) I believe Merseyrail 3rd Rail will **eventually** reach Wigan as originally planned.

 

[tbtc]

When you start thinking about it it does snowball the number of little additions you have to make

Yeah, this is the problem with Transpennine electrification.

Whilst the "core" is pretty frequent, you'd either have to wire up the hourly routes (Hull/ Scarborough/ Middlesbrough) or cut Transpennine back to the main Manchester - Leeds - York (Newcastle) stretch

This is one of the reasons I'm against GWML electrification, as the Paddington service has spurs to Cheltenham/ Worcester/ Weston/ Torbay/ Newquay... either wire up these infrequent lines, chop links to London or get involved with messy 67 haulage.

 

[starrymarkb]

1 passenger, very fast and a bit hazardous.

yep, sharp one end and smelly the other

 

[CarterUSM]

Sorry to ask, but why was there a rule saying 185 ' s couldn't share track with 125mph stock?

 

[ukrob]

Sorry to ask, but why was there a rule saying 185 ' s couldn't share track with 125mph stock?

There wasn't.

 

[455driver]

*Calls a taxi for starrymarkb*

It had better be quick, I am on my way round "wiv da bouys"

 

[CarterUSM]

As I have said before, at the time of order, they were not allowed to be designed with gangways due to sharing track with 125mph stock. It wasn't that they just didn't want them.

Apologies, but this is what i meant. Why so?

 

[ukrob]

Apologies, but this is what i meant. Why so?

I can't remember - it must have been at least six years ago, but I remember it being stated as the reason why they didn't have end gangways. Or it may have been that Siemens at the time couldn't come up with an acceptable gangway that H&S pen-pushers would allow for mixing with 125mph stock.

 

[swt_passenger]

I can't remember - it must have been at least six years ago, but I remember it being stated as the reason why they didn't have end gangways. Or it may have been that Siemens at the time couldn't come up with an acceptable gangway that H&S pen-pushers would allow for mixing with 125mph stock.

But 6 years ago, the 350/1s were being introduced on the WCML which strongly suggests that the speed of other traffic was not an issue, as I pointed out in the earlier post...

 

[ukrob]

But 6 years ago, the 350/1s were being introduced on the WCML which strongly suggests that the speed of other traffic was not an issue, as I pointed out in the earlier post...

It doesn't suggest anything, as the 350s were spec'ed and designed about two years before the 185s.

I'm not going to have an argument about it, it isn't worth it over something so trivial which has nothing to do with the thread. I have stated the reason which was given at the time. If you disagree with it, that is fine, but it was the reason given.

 

[Kneedown]

I agree that in 20 or 30 years or so the 185s will be useful for very little in the way of cascades onto other services as they are just too heavy and seriously overpowered for local work!

Local and commuter trains need fast acceleration due to the more frequent stops they have to make, and 185's would actually be ideal.

 

[158722]

As opposed to ordering more DMUs for use on commuter services in the Greater Manchester area or for the Valley Lines, I'd seriously consider electrification. Given that only 40% of the national rail network in the UK is electrified (compared to around 65% in Germany), I believe that it's time for Britain to catch up in this regard.

For instance, say the Greater Manchester area lines were electrified (and possibly Manchester - Leeds), then EMUs could be ordered to replace any 150s, 153s and 158s. Any Pacers would go to the scrapyard.

Likewise, if the Snow Hill lines around Birmingham were electrified, then the 172/1s (which would then be in use) could be cascaded elsewhere around the country

This was my original point - there are enough sensible cascade options which could be taken up via a few in-fill electrification scehemes, which will allow the poorest elements of the UK diesel fleet to be displaced. There will come a point when new build diesel may have to considered, but I'd suggest not for another decade when 150s, 153s and 156s start to come to the end of their life. Just an example, in Scotland plans to in-fill the south Clyde lines (Whifflet, Paisley Canal, East Kilbride and Barrhead) could see around 12-15 156s freed up. ScotRail even look like having a surplus of EMUs, so might not even require any further new build EMUs on top of the 380s currently on their way. The ex-FSR 156s go off to Northern, say to Heaton to replace their ex-ATN 142s on the Carlisle-Newcastle-M'boro circuit, in turn displacing the bus-seated 142s from Newton Heath. 3rd railing Uckfield would allow 171s to go to FGW Cardiff-Pompey with more suitable 158s moving to the Cardiff-Penzance circuit, displacing the current 150s/153s to branch work or Bristol locals vice 142s/143s. There are so many permutations to be looked at if the purse strings are eventually loosened to allow some more wiring, which must look at the overall cascade of benefits around the country, not just for the specific scheme.

 

[sprinterguy]

Local and commuter trains need fast acceleration due to the more frequent stops they have to make, and 185's would actually be ideal.

Surely not, I would imagine that their gearing is too high, given their 100mph top speed, to allow fast acceleration on regular stop-start services. Plus given their immense weight (for a DMU) I can only imagine how much track wear would increase on secondary routes if they took on such services.

On the in-fill electrification front, I can't really imagine the Stratford-upon-Avon line being electrified if the Snow Hill local lines were wired up; seeing as it only has one train per hour it hardly seems worth the cost.

There are some important missing links that could very much benefit from electrification though; it's always mystified me as to why some of the South Clyde branches aren't already wired up. I like 158722s' idea for cascading ex-FSR 156s to Northern if those lines were electrified.

 

[Kneedown]

Surely not, I would imagine that their gearing is too high, given their 100mph top speed, to allow fast acceleration on regular stop-start services. Plus given their immense weight (for a DMU) I can only imagine how much track wear would increase on secondary routes if they took on such services.

From a standing start they leave our 158's for dust mate, and 153's. 156's and even 170's are slower off the mark than a 158. It's down to the sheer power. Remember, they have the same Cummins QSK-19 engines used in Voyagers and Meridians, although the transmission is different.
As regards the weight issue, the lower speeds generally found on secondary routes minimise these problems. Remember that a lot of secondary passenger routes also carry heavy freight traffic.

 

[158722]

Just an idle exercise in a post-172 delivery scenario...

Electrify Uckfield, re-draft Brighton-Hastings-Ashford timetable allowing latter to be covered by just 4 171s - this would free up 12 3 car 171s (171725-730/801-806 reformed). These move to FGW replacing their 3-car 158 sets on Pompey services, which are then reformed as 16 2-car units (with the centre car from 158798 away to Northern). These 16 158s replace 150s and 153s on the longer FGW runs such as Cardiff-Penzance and G Malvern-Weymouth, allowing 150s/153s to replace their 8 143s which go to ATW along with say 8 150s. ATW therefore receive 16 new units to replace their 15 142s.

Overall result, FGW see service quality improvements on their longer corridors which become all 158s or 171s with 143s removed from the fleet and ATW looses all its 142s with a uniform Valleys fleet of 143s and 150s. 15 142s or around 10% of the Pacer fleet is sent away for scrap.

Electrifying Hastings-Ashford would see off the last 4 171s, replaced by off lease 508s, so another 4 units to FGW with say a similar number of 150s or 158s displaced to Northern with 142s dropping out of the bottom.

Wire Manchester to the WCML as planned, allowing TPE 185s to Edinburgh replaced by 350s, with the 185s displacing TPE's 170s. These 9 units go to FSR at Inverness for Far North/Aberdeen services vice 158s, which then move south to Northern, allowing a rejig of 15x units and 142 again heading off to the bin...

All sorts of options...!

 

[MCR247]

Surely not, I would imagine that their gearing is too high, given their 100mph top speed, to allow fast acceleration on regular stop-start services. Plus given their immense weight (for a DMU) I can only imagine how much track wear would increase on secondary routes if they took on such services.

On the in-fill electrification front, I can't really imagine the Stratford-upon-Avon line being electrified if the Snow Hill local lines were wired up; seeing as it only has one train per hour it hardly seems worth the cost.

There are some important missing links that could very much benefit from electrification though; it's always mystified me as to why some of the South Clyde branches aren't already wired up. I like 158722s' idea for cascading ex-FSR 156s to Northern if those lines were electrified.

185s are overpowered, they currently run with one notch out of use I think

 

[ainsworth74]

Not really that surprising that their overpowered seeing as they have the same engines as the 22x's which are intended for 125mph rather than the 100mph of the 185's.

 

[sprinterguy]

Just an idle exercise in a post-172 delivery scenario...

Electrify Uckfield, re-draft Brighton-Hastings-Ashford timetable allowing latter to be covered by just 4 171s - this would free up 12 3 car 171s (171725-730/801-806 reformed). These move to FGW replacing their 3-car 158 sets on Pompey services, which are then reformed as 16 2-car units (with the centre car from 158798 away to Northern). These 16 158s replace 150s and 153s on the longer FGW runs such as Cardiff-Penzance and G Malvern-Weymouth, allowing 150s/153s to replace their 8 143s which go to ATW along with say 8 150s. ATW therefore receive 16 new units to replace their 15 142s.

Overall result, FGW see service quality improvements on their longer corridors which become all 158s or 171s with 143s removed from the fleet and ATW looses all its 142s with a uniform Valleys fleet of 143s and 150s. 15 142s or around 10% of the Pacer fleet is sent away for scrap.

Electrifying Hastings-Ashford would see off the last 4 171s, replaced by off lease 508s, so another 4 units to FGW with say a similar number of 150s or 158s displaced to Northern with 142s dropping out of the bottom.

Wire Manchester to the WCML as planned, allowing TPE 185s to Edinburgh replaced by 350s, with the 185s displacing TPE's 170s. These 9 units go to FSR at Inverness for Far North/Aberdeen services vice 158s, which then move south to Northern, allowing a rejig of 15x units and 142 again heading off to the bin...

All sorts of options...!

Another set of cascades that I really like the sound of. Oh if only such joined up thinking actually prevailed...
I probably wouldn't throw out quite so many displaced 142s mind, seeing how woefully short of units Northern are. As much as I hate the idea of Northern becoming even more of a kingdom where the dreaded 142 reigns supreme than it already is, I wouldn't start scrapping Pacers until the stage of the cascaded Transpennine 170/3s was reached, when I'd get rid of about 10 Pacers following the arrival of 9 158s from FSR, starting with the ones with surviving 3+2 bus seating (even though I get all nostalgic when I end up travelling on one of these units). If the remaining South Clyde branches were electrified and displaced FSR 156s went to Northern (the previously mentioned 12-15 units), I would then see fit to also scrap the 15 ex-ATW 142s (Or whichever 15 142s were most knackered).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not really that surprising that their overpowered seeing as they have the same engines as the 22x's which are intended for 125mph rather than the 100mph of the 185's.

Alright fair enough, I can envisage that if you really gave a 185 full welly then it would storm off at a rapid pace irrelevant of its' gearing because there's just so much power. I'm still not convinced that they'd be suited to some secondary duties. The fuel consumption would be unjustifiable I would think for many lightly loaded lines. Taking it to extremes, I can't really see 185s on the Penistone or Whitby lines.

BUT, I s'pose I can see them being cascaded to work the likes of FGWs' Cardiff-Weymouth and Cardiff-Penzance services, or even (as an example) on some of the more crush-loaded peak Northern diagrams around Sheffield. What I can say for certain that station dwell and loading times would be much shorter than a Pacer for busy commuter trains due to the much better door layout on a 185.

 

[ainsworth74]

Taking it to extremes, I can't really see 185s on the Penistone or Whitby lines.

It would certainly be different seeing them on services like that