250 new coaches (EMU/DMU)

[colchesterken]

could they put the bogies from stored sleepers and former great western resturant cars
on the irish mk3 s

 

[RobShipway]

could they put the bogies from stored sleepers and former great western resturant cars
on the irish mk3 s

I don't think there would be enough for the number of carriages possibly required.

 

[tbtc]

For the 5 car Class 222 trains, this would be given to XC

Ideally XC would need units longer than five coaches, so it'd involve doubled up units on certain journeys. Which leads to the problem that Bombardier 222s can't work in multiple with Bombardier 220/221s...

 

[jopsuk]

Could I be cheeky and make it 260? A fleet of 65 Four-car electrostars for FCC GN. Re-shoe the 365s and send them south of the river. The 317s and 321s can be distributed elsewhere- perhaps, with some cross-East Anglia electrification (Ipswich-Peterborough and Cambridge, Ely-Norwich) they can cause some diesel cascade. The 375s from SE that would be displaced 940 units) could go to Southern, who could then get rid of the 313s again and possibly the 442s as well.

 

[Kneedown]

250 of something along the lines of a 153, because they're more flexible, so can be used alone for lightly loaded services, or added onto other services that need them.

It's all very well wanting loads of 3 or 4 car units, but the capacity is wasted using them on services that only need 1 or 2 cars when it could be used more effectively elsewhere.

The pro HS2 lobby argue that potential future capacity requirements need addressing now. So i'm going to take a leaf out of their book and suggest that we build no more single car units as they do nothing to address future capacity needs. All future units should be a minimum of two coaches, with the ability to lengthen to three or four in the future should passenger numbers require it.
As regards what units, i'd suggest a "Class 173":- Like a 172 but with electric, rather than mechanical transmission, to enable them to be converted simply and economically to AC power when more routes get electrified.
A few more Meridians would be welcome too, with AC coaches retrofitted to the existing Voyager/Meridian fleet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well replacing 170s with 220s won’t always help you there: A popular fact bandied about on here with great regularity is that a four carriage 220 seats slightly less passengers than a three carriage 170.

But less seats doesn't always mean less capacity. The more seats you have in a given number of coaches, the less room for luggage there is. This was the mistake made by EMT during the 158 refurb. By cramming more seats in, luggage space was reduced, so now instead of people standing around everywhere, there are bags, cases and pushchairs standing around everywhere!

 

[Benno]

But less seats doesn't always mean less capacity. The more seats you have in a given number of coaches, the less room for luggage there is. This was the mistake made by EMT during the 158 refurb. By cramming more seats in, luggage space was reduced, so now instead of people standing around everywhere, there are bags, cases and pushchairs standing around everywhere!

It wasn't a mistake made by EMT, it was a requirement by the DFT. It's the same reason that tip up seats have been included in the 153 / 156 refresh - to increase capacity on a unit where fitting more seats is nearly impossible.

 

[moonrakerz]

But less seats doesn't always mean less capacity. The more seats you have in a given number of coaches, the less room for luggage there is. This was the mistake made by EMT during the 158 refurb. By cramming more seats in, luggage space was reduced, so now instead of people standing around everywhere, there are bags, cases and pushchairs standing around everywhere!

This, and related aspects, seem to be factors that are ignored in the "cascade" game.
My line has 158s/159s, which are very overcrowded at times. Even though I find these units to be very cramped (I'm only 6ft !) a move to 4 car units would be welcomed by everyone - fat chance !
We were told we would be getting new 4 car 172s, these now appear to have vanished. The latest idea is to receive 165s, ex Thames valley, post electrification. We are told there are more seats in these - this is rather a disingenuous statement. Rolling stock designed for a commuter route is of no use whatsoever where journeys in excess of 5 hours are going to be using this stock, by passengers carrying a lot more luggage than just a briefcase.

In the meantime we seem to be getting a multi-coloured assortment of 15*s to tack on the back of the existing stock.

 

[tbtc]

The latest idea is to receive 165s, ex Thames valley, post electrification. We are told there are more seats in these - this is rather a disingenuous statement

It'll be interesting to see whether the 3/2 seats are used properly on the Cardiff - Portsmouth line - in some areas these are only used by four passengers (with nobody wanting to sit in the "middle" seat) - meaning the additional capacity is wasted

 

[Chris125]

The pro HS2 lobby argue that potential future capacity requirements need addressing now.

Most people realise that capacity enhancements dont happen overnight and need to be planned so that they are ready when needed, whether its a flyover or HS2 - rolling stock is no different, indeed the biggest problem that DMU's with a 30 or 40+ year lifespan have is the ROSCO's, which see the risk of rising oil prices and ever tightening engine standards and set the leasing costs accordingly.

I cant help but think that in most cases we'd be much better off with further electrification and rebuilding our existing 150/158's etc than hundreds of new units.

Chris

 

[MCR247]

I cant help but think that in most cases we'd be much better off with further electrification and rebuilding our existing 150/158's etc than hundreds of new units.

Chris

So, we gradually take off trains, reducing the capacity that we don't have, and no more trains are gained?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

This, and related aspects, seem to be factors that are ignored in the "cascade" game.
My line has 158s/159s, which are very overcrowded at times. Even though I find these units to be very cramped (I'm only 6ft !) a move to 4 car units would be welcomed by everyone - fat chance !
We were told we would be getting new 4 car 172s, these now appear to have vanished. The latest idea is to receive 165s, ex Thames valley, post electrification. We are told there are more seats in these - this is rather a disingenuous statement. Rolling stock designed for a commuter route is of no use whatsoever where journeys in excess of 5 hours are going to be using this stock, by passengers carrying a lot more luggage than just a briefcase.

In the meantime we seem to be getting a multi-coloured assortment of 15*s to tack on the back of the existing stock.

Your line, presumably is on the Cardiff-Portsmouth route?

Whoever told you that you would be getting four car 172s was jumping then gun. There was a tender.... the notorious DfT HLOS 202, but the winner was never announced. Depending upon who you ask, the smart money was on the Chinese winning that tender, but DfT got cold feet and cancelled on the premise of reduced need for DMUs due to electrification.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As regards what units, i'd suggest a "Class 173":- Like a 172 but with electric, rather than mechanical transmission, to enable them to be converted simply and economically to AC power when more routes get electrified.

Sorry to be pedantic, but to be right, that would be a 2xx with electric traction.

 

[Chris125]

So, we gradually take off trains, reducing the capacity that we don't have, and no more trains are gained?

I meant further electrification, new EMU's, and cascade existing diesel units to increase capacity and replace pacers where there's isnt a suficient business case for OHLE.

Chris

 

[MCR247]

150s etc can't live for ever, it wouldn't be worth rebuilding them

 

[RobShipway]

Your line, presumably is on the Cardiff-Portsmouth route?

Whoever told you that you would be getting four car 172s was jumping then gun. There was a tender.... the notorious DfT HLOS 202, but the winner was never announced. Depending upon who you ask, the smart money was on the Chinese winning that tender, but DfT got cold feet and cancelled on the premise of reduced need for DMUs due to electrification.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Sorry to be pedantic, but to be right, that would be a 2xx with electric traction.

I would also point out that you would be better with the Class 166 trains replacing the Class 158/159 trains as the class 165 are only 90mph trains and have no or little Aircon whereas the Class 166 trains have aircon and are 100mph trains which if reburfished to 2+2 from the 2+3 seating would be ideal trains for you I think.

 

[moonrakerz]

Your line, presumably is on the Cardiff-Portsmouth route?

Correct !

Whoever told you that you would be getting four car 172s was jumping then gun.

Well, FGW did say that they had asked for them (11 of 4 car units) - and they were (allegedly !) included in the x thousand new coaches that were (allegedly !) being ordered that year. Our local MP was very enthusiastic about them !


I can't really speak for other parts of the country but I have lived in/known this neck of the woods for 65 years and to be honest the way the railway "service" has been provided by various Governments has been a disgrace.

At the end of the steam era we had the same run down locos/stock as the vast majority of the land. The early DMUs were new, but that is all you could say about them. They were, like all the "new" diesel traction at the time, very unreliable - and as for the ride, just imagine, grandfather of Pacer ! and NO welded track anywhere............

The Sprinters/Super Sprinters/Expresses were a small step in the right direction, but almost from their introduction they were never big enough. Ever since then we have had those as our prime rolling stock, except they were always somebody else's hand-me-downs. It was almost worth seeing peoples' faces when a train for Portsmouth arrived labelled "Trans Pennine Express".
What has been our latest piece of good fortune ? Our 20+ year old stock is now being reinforced with even older stuff.
As for the complete pantomime of privatisation/franchise letting ! I really am lost for words - no I'm not, but I won't bore you again with the appalling saga of franchise changes on this route !!

 

[thefab444]

I would also point out that you would be better with the Class 166 trains replacing the Class 158/159 trains as the class 165 are only 90mph trains and have no or little Aircon whereas the Class 166 trains have aircon and are 100mph trains which if reburfished to 2+2 from the 2+3 seating would be ideal trains for you I think.

No. Class 165/1s and Class 166s are both 90mph. Only Class 165/0s are 75mph, and they are with Chiltern. Neither would be suitable for the Portsmouth - Cardiff route in my opinion. What that route needs is to be transferred to SWT along with some 158s (I would suggest the /9s reformed back to two coaches, along with 158798 which would become 159109), which would be maintained at Salisbury.

 

[tbtc]

150s etc can't live for ever, it wouldn't be worth rebuilding them

Precisely

You'd have to build thousands of miles of electrification before you could withdraw all British Rail DMUs (Pacers, Sprinters), and that isn't going to happen in the next decade. A new fleet of DMUs needs built (whether with DEMU capability or not)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No. Class 165/1s and Class 166s are both 90mph. Only Class 165/0s are 75mph, and they are with Chiltern. Neither would be suitable for the Portsmouth - Cardiff route in my opinion. What that route needs is to be transferred to SWT along with some 158s (I would suggest the /9s reformed back to two coaches, along with 158798 which would become 159109), which would be maintained at Salisbury.

How much of the Cardiff - Portsmouth route is over 90mph, and how much timetabled for 90mph+ speeds?

I can't see the point in SWT running to Cardiff. Better to wire up the remaining DMU lines SWT have, because that'd have a good "DMUs saved" to "miles wired" ratio (due to the length of the SWT 158/159 diagrams

 

[Chris125]

I've seen it said that the sprinters, with a heavy rebuild and perhaps even a new traction package are good for another couple of decades at least. If it works out cheaper than new-build, then why not? I know we all want to see shiny new trains but thats not always the best option long term.

Chris

 

[MCR247]

Because, although it may be cheaper than new units in the short term, a rebuilt 150 may cost 1/4 less than a new 172 say, but a 172 would have a long life. A rebuilt 150 couldn't compare with new build as it simply couldn't last as long

 

[moonrakerz]

How much of the Cardiff - Portsmouth route is over 90mph, and how much timetabled for 90mph+ speeds?

Much of it is only 75mph, I think the only 90 + is beyond Bath and into S Wales when you get onto HST standard track.

 

[Invincibles]

I can't remember the specific stations either. I've seen it mentioned on this forum in the past with relation to why some trains on the Leicester line are formed of two carriages, apart from fleet limitations. Maybe the idea was debunked.

The Leicester trains are on diagram share with the Stansted so it must be fleet limitations because both see 3 and 2 cars during the course of the day.

I would go for 5 car trains (probably with corridors), used to add more splits and joins to give more journey opportunities. I am thinking particularly of the cross country core.

5 cars would also be suitable for a lot of trans pennine services freeing 3 car units for elsewhere.

 

[WillPS]

I think we need a capacity increase, then Pacer replacement, then a further capacity increase before we can even think about withdrawing 15xs.

 

[tbtc]

Here’s a proposal...

249 = 35x 7 car 222s (with fourcoaches spare).

Use the four coaches to extend the four “four car” EMT 222s to five coaches.

Give EMT thirteen of the Seven Car 222s to replace their thirteen HSTs to XC. XC now have eighteen HSTs, which should be a "critical mass".

Give the remaining 22 x 222s (all seven car) to TPE. This should be roughly enough to run the “Northern” TPE service (Liverpool/Manchester Airport – Leeds – Hull/ Scarborough/ Middlesbrough/ Newcastle). Bear in mind that no services would need doubling up any more, which should make the numbers match.

Give all fifty one TPE 185s to ATW (I appreciate that they don’t *all* run the Leeds route, but bear with me…). This then releases 27 x 175s and 24 x 158s (ATW gain 51 three car units and lose 51 two/three car units).

The 27 x 175s go to run the Manchester Airport – Blackpool/ Barrow/ Glasgow/ Edinburgh service in the short run (before electrification happens). This should allow all Scottish TPE services to be doubled up (splitting/joining at Carstairs, or portions for Windermere etc). 15 x 158s go (from ATW) to EMT to run the Manchester Airport – Cleethorpes service (four car west of Doncaster) and beef up the Liverpool - Norwich.

The remaining nine ATW 158s go to FGW to provide additional capacity on the Portsmouth service. The nine TPE 170s go to NXEA to release nine 156s to Northern (TPE won't need the 170s as they are losing the Cleethorpes service).

**

So, EMT: Gain long 222s (and extra coaches in the shortest 222s) to replace HSTs, giving a uniform fleet (with two "lengths" of 222 rather than “three lengths of 222 plus HST”) - should make allocations easier. EMT also gain 158s to use on the Manchester Airport – Cleethorpes route (which is a more natural fit since EMT already run to Manchester/ Sheffield/Doncaster/ Grimsby). Twenty three additional coaches.

XC gain thirteen HSTs, which should allow a lot of Voyagers to be doubled up. 91 additional coaches.

TPE gain seven coach 222s to replace three coach 185s on the “North” route. The “West” route goes to 175 operation, more suited to long distance work (doors at each end of the coach etc). The “South” route moves to EMT. Once the Lancashire electrification is completed the 175s are freed up. 64 additional coaches.

ATW gain a uniform fleet of long-distance units (rather than the mix of 158s, two car 175s, three car 175s they currently have). Thirty five additional coaches.

NXEA get a more standard fleet, with two car 170s replacing two car 156s (since they already run 170s)

Northern get more 156s (to add into existing diagrams). Not a massive increase, but there will be greater capacity on other routes in the area (e.g. four car EMT 158s on Sheffield – Doncaster, more XC HSTs, seven coach TPE 222s). I’d have suggested more for Northern, but you’d claim I was biased… Eighteen additional coaches.

FGW get more 158s (to add into existing diagrams). Eighteen additional coaches.

Overall, most TOCs see an increase in units/ coaches, and a simpler operating fleet too. Then, once this is resolved, start worrying about Pacer replacement.

 

[Kneedown]

Sorry to be pedantic, but to be right, that would be a 2xx with electric traction.

You're absolutely right Sir, Congratulations on spotting the.. errr, deliberate (ahem) mistake!

<Thinks: "I think i got away with that">

 

[jopsuk]

Barely matters these days, with "Class 70" being a diesel and entire 3xx classes destined to spend their entire working life on the 3rd rail.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Barely matters these days, with "Class 70" being a diesel and entire 3xx classes destined to spend their entire working life on the 3rd rail.

Sorry to stray off topic, but that raises a very interesting point.

Why did the Rolling Stock Library allocate Class 70 to the GE / Freightliner fleet when there are still plenty of unallocated Class 6x numbers?

 

[tbtc]

Sorry to stray off topic, but that raises a very interesting point.

Why did the Rolling Stock Library allocate Class 70 to the GE / Freightliner fleet when there are still plenty of unallocated Class 6x numbers?

On a related note, why are new DMUs getting nice "round" class numbers (170/175/180/185) rather than sequential ones? Why no 169/173/174 etc?

(with the exception of the 172, of course)

 

[WatcherZero]

170,171,172, not that bad there. 180 and 185 are different familys of trains, Coradia and Desiro to the 17x of Turbostar.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

On a related note, why are new DMUs getting nice "round" class numbers (170/175/180/185) rather than sequential ones? Why no 169/173/174 etc?

(with the exception of the 172, of course)

I suspect the reasoning was that it would allow room for follow on variants, as in the case of Class 171 and Class 172, which are both variants of the Class 170 Turbostar.

There could probably now reasonably be some "infill" as it's hardly likely that there will be any new variants of Alstom's 175 or 180.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes the 175 180 is the glaring issue, based on the same family of trains. I guess its because 180 were Intercitys while 175 were suburban and it was thought future variations would of each would be subbed under the respective use?