Replacing the Parry People Movers

[MarkyT]

They could hire a 14xx 0-4-2T plus Autocoach from a heritage railway.......
(runs for cover).........

Utilising the GW mechanical autoworking gear as a control linkage to the loco, a local university might be contracted to research development of a box of tricks onboard the coach for autonomous operation, then a single operator would be able to carry out customer care and revenue protection duties between stops after giving the go command. The boiler might be converted to liquid biofuel and automated.

 

[Sprinter107]

How much to replace the 139s though? That's what this thread is about.



Full disclosure: I don't know what mothballing actually involves. I was talking essentially about abandonment which costs **** all. If that can't be done then even worse choices to be made...

The point of abandoning is so that it could be reopened in more favourable economic circumstances. If you think there's no chance it would ever be reopened then that rather suggests you agree with me it's a bit of a historical aberration that while nice doesn't really "deserve" to exist.



To be clear I wasn't calling the Far North Line a vitally important transport link. I was saying it's politically impossible to close it and anyway the Scottish Government's business (or if it's not, we should bloody well make it so). But the Stourbridge branch isn't vitally important either. Unless I'm missing something about Stourbridge (quite possible) there's really nothing special about it which justifies a rail link from a main station about 10-15 minutes walk from centre over the countless other medium sized towns with one.




Can't tell if you're joking or not but if it is revenue-neutral/positive fine. Emirates Air Lift suggests otherwise...

It justifies retention because of the many people that use it. The current walk involves a 15 minute walk, up a steep hill from both Junction and Town. Not great in the middle of winter. Its not some obscure service that carries just one or two passengers. Nobody is saying that Stourbridge is special, compared with other towns which are a mile from the nearest station. The only difference is, Stourbridge has a railway station slap bang in the town centre, and they dont. Why should it be penalised for that. Its a busy line and as a regular user, long may it continue. The usage alone justifies finding a replacement, whatever that will be,for the 139s as when that is needed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It justifies retention because of the many people that use it. The current walk involves a 15 minute walk, up a steep hill from both Junction and Town. Not great in the middle of winter. Its not some obscure service that carries just one or two passengers. Nobody is saying that Stourbridge is special, compared with other towns which are a mile from the nearest station. The only difference is, Stourbridge has a railway station slap bang in the town centre, and they dont. Why should it be penalised for that. Its a busy line and as a regular user, and long may it continue. The usage alone justifies finding a replacement, whatever that will be,for the 139s as when that is needed.

There's also very little to compare to it. Wrexham Central perhaps? But that of course isn't a shuttle.

 

[Sprinter107]

There's also very little to compare to it. Wrexham Central perhaps? But that of course isn't a shuttle.

I suppose Bromley North and Grove Park would be a comparison. Cardiff Queen Street to Cardiff Bay wouldve been a similar thing. I think that's due to be replaced by a tram, which would be ideal for the Dodger if the Midland Metro came to Stourbridge.

 

[Bob Price]

Yes the Cardiff Bay branch will have tram trains running down it and be more integrated into the South Wales Metro. Plus and extra station added at Loudon Square.

 

[mike57]

How much would adding an overhead tramway supply cost? 750v DC. And then get one or two new/refurbished trams. If a light rail solution ever reaches Stourbridge it would then be ready to intergrate. How would the costs compare with lifting the track and converting to a bus route.

 

[zwk500]

How much would adding an overhead tramway supply cost? 750v DC. And then get one or two new/refurbished trams. If a light rail solution ever reaches Stourbridge it would then be ready to intergrate. How would the costs compare with lifting the track and converting to a bus route.

It doesn't really matter, because converting the track into a bus route isn't going to happen, nor is electrification. NR won't want to take on the maintenance liability of the wires, and there's nobody to fund installation either. Integration with the tram system is best left until the extension is ready, not by building half a mile of the wrong end of the track first.
WMT will probably be looking at the VLR railcar concept mentioned above, but may also be looking at their existing DMU stock and a move to only 1 driver.

 

[MarkyT]

It doesn't really matter, because converting the track into a bus route isn't going to happen, nor is electrification. NR won't want to take on the maintenance liability of the wires, and there's nobody to fund installation either. Integration with the tram system is best left until the extension is ready, not by building half a mile of the wrong end of the track first.
WMT will probably be looking at the VLR railcar concept mentioned above, but may also be looking at their existing DMU stock and a move to only 1 driver.

My bet is on Vivarail or VLR. It's currently a low, if not zero, emission operation entirely in an urban area (where particulates, NOx and noise are arguably as important for railway neighbours' health and wellbeing as total carbon), so it would be retrograde to switch to diesel. A small battery electric solution is very practical for the distance involved with layover charging at one end. Running mainline services through to Town with a reverse at Junction could be possible, but isn't practical for various reasons:

1. The layout doesn't allow it at Jn currently, with the bay only accessible through the carriage sidings, so signalling isn't up to passenger standards, and there's no facing crossover from the Birmingham direction to access the sidings.
2. The very short platform at Town couldn't accommodate any typical mainline unit length, and it would be difficult/expensive to extend it.

The line is completely segregated, well-fenced with no level crossings of any kind, so might be a great low-risk trial site for some level of automation to reduce onboard staffing costs.

 

[zwk500]

My bet is on Vivarail or VLR. It's currently a low, if not zero, emission operation entirely in an urban area (where particulates, NOx and noise are arguably as important for railway neighbours' health and wellbeing as total carbon), so it would be retrograde to switch to diesel. A small battery electric solution is very practical for the distance involved with layover charging at one end. Running mainline services through to Town with a reverse at Junction could be possible, but isn't practical for various reasons:

1. The layout doesn't allow it at Jn currently, with the bay only accessible through the carriage sidings, so signalling isn't up to passenger standards, and there's no facing crossover from the Birmingham direction to access the sidings.

Agree with this

2. The very short platform at Town couldn't accommodate any typical mainline unit length, and it would be difficult/expensive to extend it.

Why is it very difficult? It's a low speed line with only 1 type of unit, the platform is already c.40m long (Google Maps measurement) so it wouldn't need a long extension, and could be done with pre-fab sections or even scaffolding.

The line is completely segregated, well-fenced with no level crossings of any kind, so might be a great low-risk trial site for some level of automation to reduce onboard staffing costs.

I think for the moment the equipment required for automation wouldn't be in budget. When ETCS L2 gets to that part of the world, I could easily see DLR style ATO-with-Conductor being introduced, but not before.

 

[Bletchleyite]

2. The very short platform at Town couldn't accommodate any typical mainline unit length, and it would be difficult/expensive to extend it.

It wouldn't be difficult nor expensive to extend it to 2x23m so a 2-car 172 or (shorter) 230 could be used, to save the need to "cut and shut" a single car battery 230, though I'm sure the welders could do that safely if needs be, and the Tube style interior layout would be ideal. This is fairly apparent from Google Maps. However, longer than 2-car would indeed be awkward. What I suppose you could do is run a through service to Brum with a double 2-car set and run only the front 2 to Town, leaving the other 2 in the platform at Junction to pick up on the way back, but it's hassle and the shuttle is quite popular with people as it is so the money would probably not be well-spent. It could also only really be done by taking from Kidderminster unless the Snow Hill lines went back to 6tph which isn't happening any time soon, and dropping that to 2tph would not be popular.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Nov 2022 ==

Why is it very difficult? It's a low speed line with only 1 type of unit, the platform is already c.40m long (Google Maps measurement) so it wouldn't need a long extension, and could be done with pre-fab sections or even scaffolding.

Wikipedia claims it's 52m which would already fit any 2-car train WMT has including the longest, the 196 (though it wouldn't be one of those, if using one of the main fleet it'd be a 172).

There's a possibility it's wrong, though, e.g. perhaps including the full length to the end of the track, of which the usable platform actually stops short. However extending it all the way wouldn't be difficult, there's nothing actually there, you'd just have to change the layout of the ramp. The buffers could potentially be pushed back a bit if a different design was used, I guess. (Sorry, edited that line, the buffers are further back than I thought). There's also room to extend the other way a short distance.

So in short, any current UK 2-car DMU or a 2-car 230 would be easily made to fit. The argument for not using one before was that there were better things to do with them - it's not like the Marston Vale where 172s (or double 153s) would be used but for several very awkward signal and level crossing locations which would be very costly to fix, or rather cost more than having the 230s did, as against the need to order something to replace those 172s, e.g. add two to the 196 order.

 

[zwk500]

It wouldn't be difficult nor expensive to extend it to 2x23m so a 2-car 172 or (shorter) 230 could be used, to save the need to "cut and shut" a single car battery 230, though I'm sure the welders could do that safely if needs be, and the Tube style interior layout would be ideal. This is fairly apparent from Google Maps. However, longer than 2-car would indeed be awkward. What I suppose you could do is run a through service to Brum with a double 2-car set and run only the front 2 to Town, leaving the other 2 in the platform at Junction to pick up on the way back, but it's hassle and the shuttle is quite popular with people as it is so the money would probably not be well-spent. It could also only really be done by taking from Kidderminster unless the Snow Hill lines went back to 6tph which isn't happening any time soon, and dropping that to 2tph would not be popular.

You've ignored @MarkyT's point about the junction layout.

Wikipedia claims it's 52m which would already fit any 2-car train WMT has including the longest, the 196 (though it wouldn't be one of those, if using one of the main fleet it'd be a 172).

Google Maps measure of the white-painted edge is 36m. There's at least another 30m towards the Junction wide enough for a platform, and ramps are now out of vogue so don't need to fit one in. so it can't currently take a 2-car, but could be made to do so relatively easily unless there's a sharp drop in gradient immediately after the platform.

There's a possibility it's wrong, though, e.g. perhaps including the full length to the buffers, of which the usable platform actually stops short. However extending it all the way to the buffers wouldn't be difficult, there's nothing actually there, you'd just have to change the layout of the ramp.

The platform is already pretty much on the buffers, and there's no sign of any restriction on the length nearest the buffers. Moving the buffers back also isn't practical as they're friction buffers and are designed to slide backwards when stopping a train to mitigate the force involved. The end of that overrun is pretty much as far back as it can be. (there's a photo on Google maps taken from the platform).

 

[MarkyT]

Why is it very difficult? It's a low speed line with only 1 type of unit, the platform is already c.40m long (Google Maps measurement) so it wouldn't need a long extension, and could be done with pre-fab sections or even scaffolding.

The platform is narrow today, only just over 2m. Any extension would be get progrssiively narrower the further you went due to the adjacent retaining wall getting closer and closer to the single line. My notional ~60m platform shown below would be around 1m wide at its far end. Not saying that's impossible to approve but it's substandard. The extension would also be on a curve and a gradient, which modern designs also try to avoid. Alternatively the bus station might be demolished and the extension made at the bufferstop end!

I think for the moment the equipment required for automation wouldn't be in budget. When ETCS L2 gets to that part of the world, I could easily see DLR style ATO-with-Conductor being introduced, but not before.

Maybe the type of automation mooted for VLR in Coventry, which may be based more on automotive techniques rather than the typical railway solutions available today. Certainly not 'off the shelf' today, but if a rolling stock supplier was chosen whose stated goal was to achieve some level of autonomy, then there could be an upgrade path following initial manual operation, and an opportunity to participate in trials at little cost.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it is a perfect situation to test a simplified form of automotive style automation, with the guard able to drive manually on sight if needed. ETCS is gross overkill.

 

[zwk500]

The platform is narrow today, only just over 2m. Any extension would be get progrssiively narrower the further you went due to the adjacent retaining wall getting closer and closer to the single line. My notional ~60m platform shown below would be around 1m wide at its far end. Not saying that's impossible to approve but it's substandard. The extension would also be on a curve and a gradient, which modern designs also try to avoid. Alternatively the bus station might be demolished and the extension made at the bufferstop end!

I think derogations for curve and platform width wouldn't be too hard to justify. Gradient may be a problem, but you would only need 50m for a 2-car unit, not 60m.

Maybe the type of automation mooted for VLR in Coventry, which may be based more on automotive techniques rather than the typical railway solutions available today. Certainly not 'off the shelf' today, but if a rolling stock supplier was chosen whose stated goal was to achieve some level of autonomy, then there could be an upgrade path following initial manual operation, and an opportunity to participate in trials at little cost.

I think it is a perfect situation to test a simplified form of automotive style automation, with the guard able to drive manually on sight if needed.

Maybe, depends where the braking points are for the buffers. If the train would have time to brake after sensing the end of the line, then yes. However if the braking would be required before you're in range then you are back to balise-based systems.

ETCS is gross overkill.

To be clear, I wasn't saying they should install ETCS now. When ETCS is installed on the Snow Hill lines (a very long time away), then adding in the branch will be peanuts. Although the tram will probably get to Stourbridge before ETCS does.

 

[edwin_m]

Maybe, depends where the braking points are for the buffers. If the train would have time to brake after sensing the end of the line, then yes. However if the braking would be required before you're in range then you are back to balise-based systems.

If the VLR is being designed for street operation then the braking must be able to stop short of an obstruction, which would include the buffer stops or a curve where its sightline wasn't good enough to continue at full speed.

 

[MarkyT]

If the VLR is being designed for street operation then the braking must be able to stop short of an obstruction, which would include the buffer stops or a curve where its sightline wasn't good enough to continue at full speed.

The system could also plausibly incorporate cheaper passive digital beacons/balises to indicate critical braking points etc. not from major signalling manufacturers. They might even be made compliant with the open ETCS message protocols, even if the particular devices weren't fully certified for mainline use. After all, a passive balise is little more than a glorified RFID tag.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The system could also plausibly incorporate cheaper passive digital beacons/balises to indicate critical braking points etc. not from major signalling manufacturers. They might even be made compliant with the open ETCS message protocols, even if the particular devices weren't fully certified for mainline use. After all, a passive balise is little more than a glorified RFID tag.

Indeed. It's quite feasible that the idea of an automated branch line might not involve full continuous ETCS, but instead a combination of separate safety systems, some based on roads (e.g. detection of obstacles at level crossings or trespassers, animals etc, or indeed the unexpected end of the line*) and others such as passive balises as you say (e.g. one saying "you are now approaching Little-Piddle-in-the-Wold, if you stop here now's the time to start braking and you have 100 metres in which to do so", followed by another confirmatory "you are now in the platform, you can stop and release the doors" one).

With a lack of any of the things that cause massive challenges for heavy rail automation - i.e. basically being segregated to the same level as the DLR is with no level crossings or the likes - it seems a perfect testbed for technology development of this kind.

With the line only running to 20mph and being fully segregated it could easily be brought under Light Railway type rules if it isn't already, if doing that sort of experimental stuff is too awkward under NR rules. It already, per my note above, seems to be operated much more informally than a "proper" railway, much more like a tram or even a bus.

* It doesn't strike me that it would be particularly difficult to analyse images to establish whether the vehicle can see clear, continous rails the right distance apart in the correct place for its stopping distance, plus a radar beam establishing that that space isn't obstructed, and if it can't then it needs to slow down until the stopping distance has reduced so it can. That (but with a road) is exactly what automated cars need to do. It isn't much of a step up from technology fitted to new cars already, such as Teslas, whether one might happen to like Musk or not, but with no need to steer.

 

[Purple Train]

To me, the logical next step is something a la VLR. Cheap, energy-efficient, and the nature of the branch makes it a perfect testbed for new things. Extending the platform to accommodate a 172 or sticking in a 230 is overkill.

 

[HSTEd]

Conversion to automated or partially automated operation would be a good test bed, but I bet there would be major political ructions if they tried.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Conversion to automated or partially automated operation would be a good test bed, but I bet there would be major political ructions if they tried.

Would there? It's not really part of the National Rail network in a staffing sense and it's adequatly obscure, and as the staff work for Pre Metro Operations Ltd and not WMT the extent of any possible anti-"GOO" strikes is only that line.

I don't think there would be ructions if it was to be proposed for closure, other than locally, so I don't think automating it with some sort of guard/train captain/whatever it's called (UK people aren't well behaved enough for zero staff on this sort of thing) would cause ructions at all, other than in the present staff who could perhaps be offered, subject to passing the relevant tests, mainline driver or guard jobs as per their choice if they still wanted to play "proper" trains.

 

[zwk500]

Conversion to automated or partially automated operation would be a good test bed, but I bet there would be major political ructions if they tried.

I imagine the politicians would be quite keen on trialling a system that reduced the dependence on drivers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I imagine the politicians would be quite keen on trialling a system that reduced the dependence on drivers.

As I said it's pretty isolated in terms of strikes. The staff* all work for Pre Metro Operations Ltd, not WMT, so a strike can't affect anything other than that line, and while it'd be annoying to have to walk it wouldn't be disastrous.

* Other than possibly the booking office, which strikes me as a huge waste of money, I've never seen anyone use it! Tickets can be bought at Junction, which appears not to be a gated station so anyone arriving on the shuttle is no different in ticketing terms than someone walking in the front door.

 

[Ken H]

I would look at tram technology. There must be loads of 20m tram designs that could be bought off the shelf, with the simplest control gear available.. A simple lov voltage DC overhead. Doesnt even need tensioning.
May not be technically elegant but it will work.

 

[zwk500]

I would look at tram technology. There must be loads of 20m tram designs that could be bought off the shelf, with the simplest control gear available.. A simple lov voltage DC overhead. Doesnt even need tensioning.
May not be technically elegant but it will work.

I would imagine that it is non-negotiable for NR that whatever happens the maintenance costs and resource requirements for the infrastructure cannot be greater than they are today. Tram-ifying the line fails that condition. I think even a quick-charge battery point would be pushing it tbh.

 

[HSTEd]

I would imagine that it is non-negotiable for NR that whatever happens the maintenance costs and resource requirements for the infrastructure cannot be greater than they are today. Tram-ifying the line fails that condition. I think even a quick-charge battery point would be pushing it tbh.

Ultimately Network Rail serves the will of the state.

What matters is that state spending on the route overall is the same or lower. The fraction of that spending which is in the Network Rail or TOC column is largely immaterial.

 

[alf]

If the problem is that the parry people movers are becoming unreliable why not make them reliable?

They now have a long maintenance history so it can be assessed what should be put right.

Has a key engineer left?
Mr Parry was a great innovator, but he must be very old.
Should he take a less active part?

The parry people mover & Mr Parry revolutionised the service.
Why junk it when we have new track giving a better ride & replace it with another unknown?

Is this stuff about unreliability just a (quite sensible) local authority negotiating attempt to forestall Parry People movers demanding a pay increase?

 

[zwk500]

I think somebody mentioned upthread that Parry People Moves hasn't existed for some time.

 

[bussnapperwm]

I thought it was Pre Metro Operations that ran the Stourbridge line, with PPM being the manufacturer

 

[edwin_m]

I think somebody mentioned upthread that Parry People Moves hasn't existed for some time.0

Parry People Movers is still active at Companies House and directors include Phil Evans (I believe the person behind PRE Metro) and John Parry. There is however an "Actcive proposal to strike off" so I assume this is in the course of being wound up. The other Parry company, Parry Associates, was apparently closed in 2013.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought it was Pre Metro Operations that ran the Stourbridge line, with PPM being the manufacturer

Yes, PMOL operates it.