Could Northern order more Class 195 units?

[ScottGallagher]

The government has said no more diesel trains past 2040, that is seperate to covid completely.

We have new 195s, 196s and 197s for those as well as about a third of the way old 172s and half way old 170s.

To be fair i didnt say it was covid connected I used it as a comparison , I meant going back on a 2040 diesel promise which most people.wont care about or even be aware of is easy peasy politically compared to what politicians are having to do to the nation at the moment .

 

[Energy]

To be fair i didnt say it was covid connected I used it as a comparison , I meant going back on a 2040 diesel promise which most people.wont care about or even be aware of is easy peasy politically compared to what politicians are having to do to the nation at the moment .

Its more than the 2040 agreement. Ordering diesel trains looks very bad in terms of climate change, especially given the complaints about HS2.

The best solution is simple, electrify.

 

[ScottGallagher]

Its more than the 2040 agreement. Ordering diesel trains looks very bad in terms of climate change, especially given the complaints about HS2.

The best solution is simple, electrify.

It looks bad to a very small portion of the population and there is a great deal of difference between running 2 carriage diesel trains on rural remote lines every 2 hours to running 2 car deisel trains every 15 mins in cities and major termini.
A 195 or future fuel efficient variant replacing a 150 or 156 is still far greener even as a stopgap.

 

[Energy]

A 195 or future fuel efficient variant replacing a 150 or 156 is still far greener even as a stopgap.

Is It? A lot of energy goes into making a trains and the 195s have a much more powerful engine although I'm unsure on fuel consumption.

There will be some lines it isn't feasible to electrify, which we have 195s, 196s and 197s for.

 

[Anonymous10]

I think so, myself to replace the 150s.

i can see them doing it allows them to replace 150s and depending if they pull a tfw their 155/6/8 units through time as well

 

[Bevan Price]

The best thing would be to increase all the existing 2 car 195s to 3 cars, but I don't see them having money to do more than that.

 

[warwickshire]

i can see them doing it allows them to replace 150s and depending if they pull a tfw their 155/6/8 units through time as well

Exactly. Also 195 and modern units etc are very much favoured by dft nowadays.
Also its starting to take effect and get noted that, press attention and political attention towards the sprinters especially 150s. For replacement in its early stages. No sooner than the demise off the Pacers. It's now turn to target the sprinters.

 

[clagmonster]

There was no economic case to replace the pacers - it was a purely political move. With a recent refurbishment, various mod cons fitted despite their spartan nature and lack of available money, I cannot see the same being the case for 150s. However, with the current Prime Minister's keenness to invest in infrastructure, there is a possibility of further electrification to allow new or cascaded units.

 

[YorksLad12]

Electrification of Leeds to York, Transpennine and Calder Valley routes maybe a partial solution?

Partial, yes; but given the pace of progress on TRU and the Neville Hill-Colton Junction bit, Calder Valley might not happen until the next set of EMUs are due in!

Also: given that Calder Valley trains go to lots of destinations, I'd do Harrogate line (throughout) first. I was going to suggest Sheffield-Doncaster and Sheffield-Moorthorpe/Fitzwilliam via Rotherham Central as well, but then the class 399s would need to run on 25kV. Small schemes, perhaps, but they keep teams busy and working while the large-scale projects are sized and costed.

 

[Energy]

There was no economic case to replace the pacers - it was a purely political move.

Indeed, the DfT said it was bad value for money to replace them.

However, with the current Prime Minister's keenness to invest in infrastructure, there is a possibility of further electrification to allow new or cascaded units.

I hope so, electrification is the best way forward and there are a lot of routes at Northern which really should be electrified.

but then the class 399s would need to run on 25kV.

They can already run on 25kV.

Small schemes, perhaps, but they keep teams busy and working while the large-scale projects are sized and costed.

There are small schemes which make a lot of sense, there are quite a few diesel islands which are short such as Windermere.

 

[tbtc]

What problem are people actually trying to solve?

Bearing in mind that (AIUI) Northern have got all of the trains intended to run the services that Arriva signed up to...

...even though they aren't running all of those services (e.g. the PVR was meant to cover things like frequency increases on the Mid Cheshire, the plan for an hourly Sheffield - Wakefield Westgate - Leeds - Bradford service, extension of some Calder Valley trains through to Manchester Airport etc)...

...and there are going to be 150/156/158s freed up by changes at EMT/ TfW...

...so is this just about scrapping DMUs that you don't like (DMUs which have just had a few quid spent on them to comply with accessibility rules)?

I don't like 150s - the seats are far too low down, you're sat in a 3+2 toaster rack, I much preferred a Pacer - but operationally Northern have lots of services where a 75mph DMU with wide doors is pretty suitable - so I can't see Northern scrapping them any time soon (especially after the money spent on the "uneconomic" scrapping of the Pacers, and the increased subsidies needed to keep the railway functioning during various lockdowns).

And if the answer is "get rid of microfleets" then introducing a micro fleet of bi-mode CAF stock doesn't solve much

 

[Bletchleyite]

What problem are people actually trying to solve?

15x [x<=6] being old, outdated and polluting? And potentially likely to be banned in cities before too long?

 

[HSTEd]

From a carbon emissions perspective, even assuming the GWEP style of electrification, virtually all railway lines would be worth electrifying.

I did the calculation a while back and came to the conclusion even the Far North line would be worthwhile.

EDIT:

Here it is:

No, because very little steel is actually used in absolute terms.

Total embodied carbon, even using GWRM style overhead wiring is about 313 tonnes of CO2 per mile. Note that a simple calculation based on the numbers given in the article, and the article text implies that that is per route mile of twin track railway.

So a low density, largely single track railway will be much lower than that.
Especially as you won't need enormous anchor portals.

So about 150 tonnes of CO2 per track mile.

The averaged lifespan of the equipment will be very long, since the biggest deal is the foundations and mast, which can be shown to have lifespans well over 50 years from historical examples (see Greater Anglia and Manchester 1500V electrification).

So about 3 tonnes of CO2 per mile per year.

That is about burning about 1 tonne of diesel per mile per year.

Or about ~3.3L of diesel per day, assuming 365 day running. Call it 3.5L to account for blockades etc etc.
A two car Class 170 (according to T618 'Traction Energy Metrics') consumes about 0.94L per km, or 1.5L per mile.

So if a single track railway has traffic totalling more than about three two-car Turbostars over it a day, electrifying it (assuming zero carbon electricity is available) is worthwhile compared to diesel operation.

Note that that is trains travelling in one direction only, so somewhere between one and two round trips by two-car Turbostars is the carbon breakeven point.
I can think of very few railways (if any) in the Uk that do not meet that criterion.

(Biodiesel doesn't help here because we could potentially bury the biodiesel or carburise it and bury the carbon, so burning it is still a net emission relative to not burning it,)

Making things causes emissions of carbon, sure, but nothing emits carbon like burning carbon fuels.

 

[tbtc]

What problem are people actually trying to solve?

15x [x<=6] being old, outdated and polluting? And potentially likely to be banned in cities before too long?

So nothing has actually changed (since the franchise was awarded to Arriva and the money spent on upgrading all that stock), it's just that people don't like the adequate trains and want lots of shiny new ones?

Not convinced I've seen sufficient to warrant getting the chequebook out (e.g. whilst some cities have requirements for bus emissions to meet a certain standard, I can't see that any cities have banned diesel trains yet... the trains are "old" but if you want to use equations then the 150s are only "age when Arriva won the franchise + 5", they've not got significantly older, they still comply with the regulations)

Northern have much bigger problems to worry about.

 

[py_megapixel]

the money spent on upgrading all that stock

That's a little generous in my view

"as little possible of the money spent on minimally refreshing all that stock and making it actually legal to operate" would be more appropriate.

 

[43074]

Northern have much bigger problems to worry about.

The train fleet is part of solving those though, whether because it's possible to speed up journey times with better accelerating stock, running longer trains which allows more capacity to be provided in every path or procuring more electric or bi-mode units which allows Northern to make more use of overhead wires where available allowing them to reduce emissions etc.

The 150/1s are now 35 years old so will become increasingly unreliable and expensive to maintain, to be thinking about their replacements now is perfectly sensible. It does however make more sense to achieve that with more electrification rather than buying new DMUs.

 

[Energy]

The train fleet is part of solving those though, whether because it's possible to speed up journey times with better accelerating stock, running longer trains which allows more capacity to be provided in every path or procuring more electric or bi-mode units which allows Northern to make more use of overhead wires where available allowing them to reduce emissions etc.

Northern suffers from overcrowding and having a fleet with many different types of trains, both can be solved by replacing large amounts of stock. In the ideal (and given our prime ministers love of infrastructure and the need to restart the economy more post covid, not too far of) world Northern would be fully electrified using 331s with the few routes which aren't quite yet electrified or it doesn't make sense to being served by 195s.

 

[HSTEd]

You can make a case that new very high performance units would allow substantial pruning of the timetable and stem the torrent of operational losses.

But a 195 is probably not high enough performance.

 

[py_megapixel]

You can make a case that new very high performance units would allow substantial pruning of the timetable and stem the torrent of operational losses.

But a 195 is probably not high enough performance.

Did you go on one when they were first introduced (as I'm fairly sure they were being driven harder then)? They can really shift.

The 331s even more so, so in conjunction with mass electrification it probably would be enough.

 

[HSTEd]

Have you been on one? They can really shift.

I have been, but my understanding (never been on one so cannot confirm) is that a 755/4 will leave them in the dust regardless. Then we could make a 755/3 with the generator pack from the /4.

The 331s even more so, so in conjunction with mass electrification it probably would be enough.

Unfortunately funding is not likely to be available for mass electrification, as much as I would like it to be.

 

[Anonymous10]

Northern suffers from overcrowding and having a fleet with many different types of trains, both can be solved by replacing large amounts of stock. In the ideal (and given our prime ministers love of infrastructure and the need to restart the economy more post covid, not too far of) world Northern would be fully electrified using 331s with the few routes which aren't quite yet electrified or it doesn't make sense to being served by 195s.

and hopefully Wales can get up to Swansea maybe Carmarthen electrified as well as the north wales main line both being relatively busy lines with the south wales one having minimum of 4 tph likely more in future

 

[43074]

Northern suffers from overcrowding and having a fleet with many different types of trains, both can be solved by replacing large amounts of stock. In the ideal (and given our prime ministers love of infrastructure and the need to restart the economy more post covid, not too far of) world Northern would be fully electrified using 331s with the few routes which aren't quite yet electrified or it doesn't make sense to being served by 195s.

Replacing all of Northern's fleet doesn't solve any problems though. It eases things in the short term but it is only part of the solution.

Northern's problems are more to do with the timetable, performance (both operational and financial), infrastructure capacity and industrial relations I think would be a fair summary. Looking at the fleet can help some of those but are not a means to an end.

 

[py_megapixel]

I have been, but my understanding (never been on one so cannot confirm) is that a 755/4 will leave them in the dust regardless. Then we could make a 755/3 with the generator pack from the /4.

I'll be honest - I've never been on a 755 either!
I think it's unlikely that Northern will want to order Stadlers they'd be incompatible with the Civities

Of course, ideally you could replace the entire fleet at once, but the 195s are brand new so it would be extremely wasteful to replace them now.

Unfortunately funding is not likely to be available for mass electrification, as much as I would like it to be.

Sadly, I believe you are correct.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2021 ==

Replacing all of Northern's fleet doesn't solve any problems though. It eases things in the short term but it is only part of the solution.

Northern's problems are more to do with the timetable, performance (both operational and financial), infrastructure capacity and industrial relations I think would be a fair summary. Looking at the fleet can help some of those but are not a means to an end.

It does solve the overcrowding, if you order higher capacity trains than what you're replacing!

 

[Anonymous10]

I have been, but my understanding (never been on one so cannot confirm) is that a 755/4 will leave them in the dust regardless. Then we could make a 755/3 with the generator pack from the /4.


Unfortunately funding is not likely to be available for mass electrification, as much as I would like it to be.

in regard to the 755s i suspect its partly down to costs the 19x units are likely much cheaper

 

[HSTEd]

in regard to the 755s i suspect its partly down to costs the 19x units are likely much cheaper

Perhaps, but if you can axe most of the semi fast services because the stoppers are dramatically accelerated, that probably overwhelms the extra cost of the stock - especially as you need less of it.

 

[tbtc]

Again, what problem are people trying to solve?

More capacity/ longer trains can be resolved with the numbers of second hand 150/156/158s coming free at EMR/TfW (and even the Welsh 175s and any TPE 185s freed up) - no need for brand new trains.

Scrapping the 150s may keep people on here happy but isn't going to add seats - if anything you want to be keeping existing trains if capacity is so important.

A more standard fleet sounds good but after getting rid of the token number of 153/155s the only other stock to easily get shut of would be the three coach 170s - is that what people want? You'd need to build a large number of 195s before you could replace all of the 150/156s - hundreds of carriages (even if no additional capacity was required and you were just doing a like-for-like replacement).

Faster journey times with better acceleration sounds nice in theory but I'd wager that paths would still be timed for 150s most of the time, since you couldn't guarantee that one wouldn't turn up (given the way that people like to talk about a "random unit generator" and the large amount of inter-working of Northern duties), so the paths would remain the same

It just feels like people are trying to create a "get rid of 150s" bandwagon, now that the Pacers have gone, and the 150s are the lowliest trains in the fleet, but haven't managed to find a coherent argument as to why we need brand new diesel trains to replace them

That's a little generous in my view

"as little possible of the money spent on minimally refreshing all that stock and making it actually legal to operate" would be more appropriate.

I appreciate that they're not as plush as you've have wanted but they were upgraded to comply.

I could understand this argument if we were having it in 2017/2018 and the idea of new trains was going to be compared with the cost/disruption of taking Sprinters out of service so that money could be spent on upgrading them... but a decision was taken to "make do and mend"

The train fleet is part of solving those though, whether because it's possible to speed up journey times with better accelerating stock, running longer trains which allows more capacity to be provided in every path or procuring more electric or bi-mode units which allows Northern to make more use of overhead wires where available allowing them to reduce emissions etc.

The 150/1s are now 35 years old so will become increasingly unreliable and expensive to maintain, to be thinking about their replacements now is perfectly sensible. It does however make more sense to achieve that with more electrification rather than buying new DMUs.

I agree that electrification (and amending the timetable to stop running service so far under the wires, e.g. Southport to Hazel Grove) should be the solution. Building pure-diesel trains (like the 195s in the title of this thread) should never be the solution.

We'd be better looking at lines with a high number of diesels under the wires, or lines where we could tweak the timetables to significantly reduce the amount of diesels once electrified - e.g. I'd be happy with electrification from Knaresborough to Armley in Leeds so that the four trains per hour from Leeds to Harrogate could be electric run (with an hourly diesel shuttle from Harrogate to York) - I'd be happy if we gave up on running through trains from Barrow/ Windermere to Manchester - I'd be happy if we gave up on running so many through trains from Carlisle/ Lancaster to Leeds - I'd be happy if we stopped running so many DMUs through to Manchester Airport - but such suggestions always get dismissed from people who "prefer direct trains" - much easier to spend a lot of carbon on building shiny new trains than inconvenience small numbers of people who want the luxury of a direct train.

 

[Glenn1969]

We are living in a world where new diesel cars will be banned from 2030. So IMHO they should apply the same logic to the railways and electrify most of the network so you don't need to worry much about running increasingly unreliable DMUs to anywhere

 

[HSTEd]

Faster journey times with better acceleration sounds nice in theory but I'd wager that paths would still be timed for 150s most of the time, since you couldn't guarantee that one wouldn't turn up (given the way that people like to talk about a "random unit generator" and the large amount of inter-working of Northern duties), so the paths would remain the same

If you discarded the entire Northern 150 fleet they wouldn't be!
I'm essentially proposing the Irish Railways 22000-solution.

 

[43074]

I appreciate that they're not as plush as you've have wanted but they were upgraded to comply.

I could understand this argument if we were having it in 2017/2018 and the idea of new trains was going to be compared with the cost/disruption of taking Sprinters out of service so that money could be spent on upgrading them... but a decision was taken to "make do and mend"

Arriva's management themselves were known to be disappointed at the quality of the refurbishments. It amounts to lipstick on a pig frankly in the context of 35 year old DMUs. Why shouldn't we be discussing the replacement of Class 150 - 156 when the environment and facilities they offer to passengers is at best primitive? Nevermind things like the concerns over the environment which was not so vocal in 2016, benefits of capacity and reliability that electrification could offer etc etc.

 

[Bevan Price]

Arriva's management themselves were known to be disappointed at the quality of the refurbishments. It amounts to lipstick on a pig frankly in the context of 35 year old DMUs. Why shouldn't we be discussing the replacement of Class 150 - 156 when the environment and facilities they offer to passengers is at best primitive? Nevermind things like the concerns over the environment which was not so vocal in 2016, benefits of capacity and reliability that electrification could offer etc etc.

Given the likely post-Covid financial situation, - on the railways, and in the country, where do you propose that "they" find the money to replace 150s, etc. ??