Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Tucked away in this edition of Modern Railways was a small article saying that WMT are investigating options for replacing the Class 139 Parry People Movers, as they are becoming unreliable. They also emphasized that the options would need to be "affordable".
Bar a bus, what is feasible? A couple more 230s? Get TfW to increase their owned 153 fleet by two and then hire one from them each day? Just use a 2 car 172 and short form a diagram to free it up? The latter seems easiest, but this quirky line always seems to get quirky solutions...
Tucked away in this edition of Modern Railways was a small article saying that WMT are investigating options for replacing the Class 139 Parry People Movers, as they are becoming unreliable. They also emphasized that the options would need to be "affordable".
Bar a bus, what is feasible? A couple more 230s? Get TfW to increase their owned 153 fleet by two and then hire one from them each day? Just use a 2 car 172 and short form a diagram to free it up? The latter seems easiest, but this quirky line always seems to get quirky solutions...
Probably an ideal job for a 230,be it battery or diesel. It’s pretty much an off the shelf product now and if the battery version is chosen then WMT can boast the line is carbon neutral.
Probably an ideal job for a 230,be it battery or diesel. It’s pretty much an off the shelf product now and if the battery version is chosen then WMT can boast the line is carbon neutral.
I think a Cable Car or Funicular would be very senisble. There's no massive gauging issues as the line was previously double track but the UK platform profile would cause issues ordering stock from abroad. It's just about possible to rebuild Stourbridge Junction to accept a European lower sector, but it wouldn't be able to move by rail should it need a trip to a bigger depot or something.
Remember Stourbridge Town is limited to a 1 carriage service because of the platform length so a 2 car 172 wouldn't work, especially with the 2 minute turns and it being single track
Remember Stourbridge Town is limited to a 1 carriage service because of the platform length so a 2 car 172 wouldn't work, especially with the 2 minute turns and it being single track
Mk3 Brake carriage, fit plug doors and a bit of ballast at one end. Fit a radio controlled which behind the buffers at Town, with brake end facing Kidderminster. Conductor has a long pole to punt off for departure from Town, then uses the handbrake to bring it into junction. Winch would automatically pay out at a regulated speed to maintain emergency control without too much slack. On the return journey, simply wind the cable back in.
Heretic! The route must only ever be used by steel-wheeled vehicles because it what our father's father's father's intended... (Fwiw do you even need to convert the branch, could you not just abandon it and run a bus on public roads?)
Remember Stourbridge Town is limited to a 1 carriage service because of the platform length so a 2 car 172 wouldn't work, especially with the 2 minute turns and it being single track
There is plenty of space to extend the platform if a standard two car unit is decided to be the easiest thing to do. Alternatively lock out one coach when on that route, it doesn't really need both.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I don't think a guideway would be necessary, a bus only road would be fine, though it'd need to be used by a single vehicle as it'd only be wide enough to be single track. Probably a very costly solution compared with one rail vehicle, though, as the track has just been redone (all brand new CWR now) so won't need any work for years.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Heretic! The route must only ever be used by steel-wheeled vehicles because it what our father's father's father's intended... (Fwiw do you even need to convert the branch, could you not just abandon it and run a bus on public roads?)
I did say "except a bus" at the start of the thread, as it's pretty obvious you could do that (and perhaps convert it to a cycleway). However Stourbridge does have a traffic congestion problem, and it is likely doing this would cause significant reductions in rail use at Stourbridge Jn as well as reducing the attractiveness of bus to rail interchange.
One thing I do wonder is if any companies are working on standard gauge automation and would be willing to run their vehicle at their own cost to trial the technology. I think the PPMs were effectively proof of concept on the cheap, were they not?
If you were up to spending money, reinstating the north to west curve and giving it a direct service to Birmingham would be a real gain, but only low cost options are being considered.
Heretic! The route must only ever be used by steel-wheeled vehicles because it what our father's father's father's intended... (Fwiw do you even need to convert the branch, could you not just abandon it and run a bus on public roads?)
I don't think a guideway would be necessary, a bus only road would be fine, though it'd need to be used by a single vehicle as it'd only be wide enough to be single track. Probably a very costly solution compared with one rail vehicle, though, as the track has just been redone (all brand new CWR now) so won't need any work for years.
Wondered if dangling that bait would catch anything. Also never got the point of going in there and making it all CWR, all felt like a bit of a spin piece to me.
There is plenty of space to extend the platform if a standard two car unit is decided to be the easiest thing to do. Alternatively lock out one coach when on that route, it doesn't really need both.
If locking a coach out on the branch (whilst a neighboring mainline service is short-formed) is the "best" solution we can come up with, you might as well rip the tracks up and stick a bus lane in.
The "easiest" thing to do isn't always the smartest thing to do. The branch is a bit of a one-off, so a bespoke solution is probably the way to go- as was the case with the 139s. Stadler aren't the cheapest, but they do have a reputation for being prepared to build small runs of specialised vehicles.
The branch often comes up on threads about things like "Lines that won't be easy to electrify", though it would probably be pretty simple to put the wires up, the hard part would be finding suitable rolling stock. If it was wired, you'd probably use some sort of tram-derived vehicle... you certainly wouldn't use a 350 with three coaches locked out!
Would a bespoke vehicle not cost more, though, than adding another 2 car 196 to that order and some staging to extend the platform a bit? Plus you will need two of anything bespoke, you'd only need one 196 or 172 because there wouldn't need to be a dedicated spare.
The platform is apparently 52m long, so if this is correct a 2x24m unit would fit fine, that is only 48m.
Best way to save money would be to operate whatever it is DOO. Double crewing something no bigger than a Transit minibus which runs on an isolated line with no level crossings and full mobile coverage is just silly. From observation it is near enough being operated as DOO anyway, the second driver just acts as a half-dispatcher, they often just give a thumbs up to the driver and they self dispatch.
It might also save money to make it free and close the booking office.
Would a bespoke vehicle not cost more, though, than adding another 2 car 196 to that order and some staging to extend the platform a bit? Plus you will need two of anything bespoke, you'd only need one 196 or 172 because there wouldn't need to be a dedicated spare.
Depends how much you spend on the bespoke vehicle, of course. Although the use of a common vehicle would have other cost savings as well, like being able to share depot facilities.
Best way to save money would be to operate whatever it is DOO. Double crewing something no bigger than a Transit minibus which runs on an isolated line with no level crossings and full mobile coverage is just silly. From observation it is near enough being operated as DOO anyway, the second driver just acts as a half-dispatcher, they often just give a thumbs up to the driver and they self dispatch.
Is the double-crew not also to facilitate quick turnrounds? It's a shame the line isn't long/busy enough to justify fitting ATO signalling and running the train DLR-Style.
Is the double-crew not also to facilitate quick turnrounds? It's a shame the line isn't long/busy enough to justify fitting ATO signalling and running the train DLR-Style.
I don't think walking about 10m takes long enough that double crewing really provides that benefit. The driver could easily change ends in the time it takes for passengers to alight (at Town)/board (at Junction) - reason for it being board at one end and alight at the other would be because the door is at one end.
Actually, here's a question, why is it a door at one end on each side when custom built for use on a line with both platforms on the same side? Do they occasionally spin them round to even out wheel wear?
How about an additional TFW type tram running soley on battery power? It will probably end up utilising the VLR unit though, in an almost repeat of how the 139 came around in the first place (local company, locally built stock, local low cost solution).
How about an additional TFW type tram running soley on battery power? It will probably end up utilising the VLR unit though, in an almost repeat of how the 139 came around in the first place (local company, locally built stock, local low cost solution).
With 2' turnrounds, will the regen braking on the downhill run be enough to keep the batteries topped up enough or will there need to be a missed circuit or 2 somewhere?
With 2' turnrounds, will the regen braking on the downhill run be enough to keep the batteries topped up enough or will there need to be a missed circuit or 2 somewhere?
Does it need to operate 6tph? 4, timed to connect with the Birmingham trains, would do. It looks like the arrival from Brum and departure to Brum are close enough together that it could run 4tph with all the layover at the Junction end and serve both.
There is plenty of space to extend the platform if a standard two car unit is decided to be the easiest thing to do. Alternatively lock out one coach when on that route, it doesn't really need both.
Might be extended a little where the ramp is at the moment and perhaps a bit further. Going south, the adjacent retaining wall on the east side of the formation gets ever closer, with a road on top rising to the first overbridge. You might get 40m standage at a pinch. Easily sufficient for a 2-car D-train at (~34m) which could run on battery power, with layover charging at one end. Alternatively, the operator might talk to the VLR people at Dudley to try one of their new light vehicles on the route.
If you were up to spending money, reinstating the north to west curve and giving it a direct service to Birmingham would be a real gain, but only low cost options are being considered.
I think the curve would be too tight for heavy rail. Eventually, if a Metro tram extension or VLR line ever goes south of Dudley/Brierley Hill, then the vehicles could access Stourbridge Town via such a curve after approaching Stourbridge Junction station on one track if the existing Dudley line, with the other retained for freight. Potential light rail platforms near Junction would be a long way from the existing heavy rail platforms however, which suggests relocating the mainline station a little further north, adjacent to the carriage sidings for easier interchange:
I don't think a guideway would be necessary, a bus only road would be fine, though it'd need to be used by a single vehicle as it'd only be wide enough to be single track. Probably a very costly solution compared with one rail vehicle, though, as the track has just been redone (all brand new CWR now) so won't need any work for years
Funny how people can suggest spending money on all sorts of bespoke options (cable cars, funicular railway, specialist lightweight units) or costly infrastructure improvements (platform extension etc) - all of which would presumably require two members of staff per vehicle - but the moment someone a bus (gasp!) that’s just outrageous!
Is it because the conversion to guide busway would be a one-off cost, rather than the annual subsidy required to hire/operate two specialist trains?
Or just the usual anti-bus prejudice, despite the short distance involved/ fact that any modern bus could have Guide wheels attached etc?
Funny how people can suggest spending money on all sorts of bespoke options (cable cars, funicular railway, specialist lightweight units) or costly infrastructure improvements (platform extension etc) - all of which would presumably require two members of staff per vehicle - but the moment someone a bus (gasp!) that’s just outrageous!
Is it because the conversion to guide busway would be a one-off cost, rather than the annual subsidy required to hire/operate two specialist trains?
Or just the usual anti-bus prejudice, despite the short distance involved/ fact that any modern bus could have Guide wheels attached etc?
The bus would need subsidy from rail fares to Junction like the train does. People are not going to pay say two to three quid each way on top of their train fare to do that add on trip, it would just reduce rail use as they would drive instead. At present the shuttle is free on rail fares to/from Birmingham which is what most people will do.
I'm not at all opposed to busways in the right context (I think the Cambs one was a good idea, for instance), but this isn't really the right context. If you wanted to rubber tyre it, a staffless airport style shuttle would be the thing to use.
And yes, the capital cost of conversion would be significant, plus the cost of converting it back to rail if these trams happen.
I very much doubt, if it was made DOO and remained a separate company so drivers don't get anywhere near what mainline ones do, the cost of operating some sort of light rail vehicle would exceed that of a bus, particularly when you cover the cost of replacing that bus more often than a LRV and the cost of converting to a road capable of taking a bus.
Would a bespoke vehicle not cost more, though, than adding another 2 car 196 to that order and some staging to extend the platform a bit? Plus you will need two of anything bespoke, you'd only need one 196 or 172 because there wouldn't need to be a dedicated spare.
The platform is apparently 52m long, so if this is correct a 2x24m unit would fit fine, that is only 48m.
Best way to save money would be to operate whatever it is DOO. Double crewing something no bigger than a Transit minibus which runs on an isolated line with no level crossings and full mobile coverage is just silly. From observation it is near enough being operated as DOO anyway, the second driver just acts as a half-dispatcher, they often just give a thumbs up to the driver and they self dispatch.
It might also save money to make it free and close the booking office.
If going for off the shelf, then it would be a 230 instead. They already ordered some, so they know how to look after and run them already, plus it's lighter and shorter, so better fits the route.
The bus would need subsidy from rail fares to Junction like the train does. People are not going to pay say two to three quid each way on top of their train fare to do that add on trip, it would just reduce rail use as they would drive instead. At present the shuttle is free on rail fares to/from Birmingham which is what most people will do.
I'm not at all opposed to busways in the right context, but this isn't really the right context. If you wanted to rubber tyre it, a staffless airport style shuttle would be the thing to use.
Equivalent to an airport people mover, a double-ended guided bus with autonomous tech onboard allowing a conductor to press the go button and then do customer service and revenue protection in motion would allow reversal in the existing platform locations. A VLR vehicle on rails could do the same.
The bus would need subsidy from rail fares to Junction like the train does. People are not going to pay say two to three quid each way on top of their train fare to do that add on trip, it would just reduce rail use as they would drive instead. At present the shuttle is free on rail fares to/from Birmingham which is what most people will do.
The Luton Airport shuttle bus (among others) worked perfectly fine as an extension of the train system for a long time. No need for anything complicated, just declare it a permanent RRB and sell tickets to/from Town.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
