Is it good to replace Northern 150s with spare 158s?

[Bletchleyite]

Northern is by and large a commuter railway and trains suitable for that purpose should not be replaced by trains set up for a different service style (ie regional express) ‘just because

Northern has plenty of "long, thin" rural routes where 158s could be used instead of 150s without any real issues. Ormskirk, Kirkby, Southport, Bentham, S&C, Cumbrian Coast (the clearance work will have to be done at some point)...

You can also (mostly*) unseat 195s from expresses to cascade them onto stoppers.

* Not on the WCML due to the paths being 100mph.

 

[Neptune]

Northern has plenty of "long, thin" rural routes where 158s could be used instead of 150s without any real issues. Ormskirk, Kirkby, Southport, Bentham, S&C, Cumbrian Coast (the clearance work will have to be done at some point)...

You can also (mostly*) unseat 195s from expresses to cascade them onto stoppers.

* Not on the WCML due to the paths being 100mph.

None booked on Bentham (all 158’s), Cumbrian Coast (156’s) or S&C (158’s).

Ormskirk and Rainford (Kirkby is no longer served by Northern) are fine with 150’s with Southport seeing mainly 769’s (far better to use than a 158 for the Manchester section).

I would personally prefer 158’s to be used on longer distance services such as Leeds - Nottingham/Lincoln and York - Blackpool releasing 195’s onto local routes.

I honestly can’t see the point in extra 158’s being acquired bearing in mind the end of the 15x fleet on Northern is being planned for.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Ultimately it depends. 150s are ideal for certain Northern routes, and indeed have been used as the metric for things like platform extensions in some places. For example Huddersfield to Sheffield is solid 150s these days, mostly 3-car... but when the time comes that those 150s can no longer be patched up and kept going, replacement with 2-car 158s would represent a capacity reduction compared to the 3-car 150s.
For routes that don't require 90mph running, a 156 would make more sense... though some of those units apparently aren't in great shape from a corrosion point of view.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ultimately it depends. 150s are ideal for certain Northern routes, and indeed have been used as the metric for things like platform extensions in some places. For example Huddersfield to Sheffield is solid 150s these days, mostly 3-car... but when the time comes that those 150s can no longer be patched up and kept going, replacement with 2-car 158s would represent a capacity reduction compared to the 3-car 150s.
For routes that don't require 90mph running, a 156 would make more sense... though some of those units apparently aren't in great shape from a corrosion point of view.

They're not from the same manufacturer, but in practice a 158 is just a tarted-up 156. Nothing whatsoever is lost by swapping a 156 for a 158 and I can't see why anyone would object to that unless they were an enthusiast who liked noisy engines.

158s aren't passed for the narrow bit of the Cumbrian Coast, but that's going to need dealing with at some point, probably by singling the relevant section and slewing it to the middle of the formation as was done to sort out the similar issue at Hastings. I seem to recall the issue is a fairly short section somewhere on the northern part of the line.

Using 20m units to plan platform extensions is just silly, looking after the pennies but not the pounds (doing that has been the cause of no service on the Marston Vale for over a year in total) when there's only one class of DMU with that length of vehicle and there are unlikely to be any new ones (a 2 car FLIRT is more than 40m once you add in the thrash cupboard). Everything on provincial routes needs to be done with 24m vehicles as the assumption, because in the long term every Northern route (that isn't closed entirely) is going to have 195s or 331s on it at some point.

 

[Neptune]

They're not from the same manufacturer, but in practice a 158 is just a tarted-up 156. Nothing whatsoever is lost by swapping a 156 for a 158 and I can't see why anyone would object to that unless they were an enthusiast who liked noisy engines.

They interwork nicely in the North East.

158s aren't passed for the narrow bit of the Cumbrian Coast, but that's going to need dealing with at some point, probably by singling the relevant section and slewing it to the middle of the formation as was done to sort out the similar issue at Hastings. I seem to recall the issue is a fairly short section somewhere on the northern part of the line.

No point really. Why reduce line capacity when their is fair chance of a 156/158 replacement by the end of the decade. That will all be taken into account during the fleet tendering process. Maybe even 195’s will eventually be able to be cleared up there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No point really. Why reduce line capacity when their is fair chance of a 156/158 replacement by the end of the decade. That will all be taken into account during the fleet tendering process. Maybe even 195’s will eventually be able to be cleared up there.

It'll be 195s eventually (as electrification rolls out the 195s will end their days on the uneconomic-to-electrify branch lines) but I suspect the work to clear the 195s' longer 24m vehicles will also clear the 158s, which being similarly sized to 156s with 23m vehicles probably *only just* don't fit. So just get on with it, and gain the flexibility.

As I said, like Hastings it'll involve singling a couple of short sections where clearances on curves are a bit tight, after which basically everything will fit.

 

[HSTEd]

No point really. Why reduce line capacity

Is line capacity really a serious issue on the Cumbrian Coast of all places?

when their is fair chance of a 156/158 replacement by the end of the decade. That will all be taken into account during the fleet tendering process. Maybe even 195’s will eventually be able to be cleared up there.

It's highly likely clearing the 195s will involve the same work as clearing the 158s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is line capacity really a serious issue on the Cumbrian Coast of all places?

in short no. It's an hourly passenger service which is never going to be more frequent than that (not unlikely it may revert back to two hourly at some point, I was surprised it didn't in May) plus the odd freight.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Using 20m units to plan platform extensions is just silly, looking after the pennies but not the pounds (doing that has been the cause of no service on the Marston Vale for over a year in total) when there's only one class of DMU with that length of vehicle and there are unlikely to be any new ones (a 2 car FLIRT is more than 40m once you add in the thrash cupboard). Everything on provincial routes needs to be done with 24m vehicles as the assumption, because in the long term every Northern route (that isn't closed entirely) is going to have 195s or 331s on it at some point.

As a general rule I agree, but marginal routes such as Penistone (which falls into that awkward category of being PTE/ITA-supported but not serving the key regional centre) have to beg and scrape for any improvements at all. Even with the platform extensions for 60m now complete, the bay at Huddersfield is a tight squeeze for the non-hybrid units.

 

[Meerkat]

I assume you wouldn't want to replace a 150 with a 158 on anything that goes through Castlefield.
Is the bit of the Cumbrian Coast part of the route for the coal trains if that ever happens, or is that irrelevant as the capacity issue is more around section lengths?

 

[liamf656]

It’s a difficult one, but assuming these 158s come from TFW I’d replace a handful of 150/156 and all 155s with a bit of shuffling as follows:

10 units can be put onto the Leeds to Nottingham/Lincoln circuit, displacing 195s onto stoppers to see off 10 150s. It may be a controversial one putting the old fleet back onto these routes but the capacity is greater than a 195 and it may help

7 units can directly replace the 155 fleet to work services from Hull to Halifax, York and Bridlington

The last 7 units can then go to Heaton to replace the 156s in worst condition (either directly or by moving some to the North West to replace the worst of those)

Not sure if many will agree but I reckon with a bit of shuffling it can be done

 

[yorksrob]

We still have single 150's on the Hallam stopper. These are inadequate for the service.

 

[Halish Railway]

We still have single 150's on the Hallam stopper. These are inadequate for the service.

Oh the joys of platform 17 at Leeds perennially limiting the potential of the Hallam line. The 158s are just about the best fit for the Hallam line due to them making the most use of the platform length, as well as having end doors and therefore many seats. Ultimately this situation is completely unideal and there really ought to be more platforms, although a platform extension is mooted.

Either that or you could just foul the signal by using an oversized train as happened on the day of the LNER HST farewell service.

 

[yorksrob]

Oh the joys of platform 17 at Leeds perennially limiting the potential of the Hallam line. The 158s are just about the best fit for the Hallam line due to them making the most use of the platform length, as well as having end doors and therefore many seats. Ultimately this situation is completely unideal and there really ought to be more platforms, although a platform extension is mooted.

Either that or you could just foul the signal by using an oversized train as happened on the day of the LNER HST farewell service.
View attachment 133244

My train is full and standing at Castleford today, and that's on a 158. I'm sure before the pandemic that didn't happen until Woodlesford.

Plat 17 needs to be sorted out ASAP, but I can't see it happening soon.

 

[bramling]

They're not from the same manufacturer, but in practice a 158 is just a tarted-up 156. Nothing whatsoever is lost by swapping a 156 for a 158 and I can't see why anyone would object to that unless they were an enthusiast who liked noisy engines.

In many ways the 156 is a better train. 158s can be made to look okay from the passenger point of view, but they have a lot of niggling issues.

158s aren't passed for the narrow bit of the Cumbrian Coast, but that's going to need dealing with at some point, probably by singling the relevant section and slewing it to the middle of the formation as was done to sort out the similar issue at Hastings. I seem to recall the issue is a fairly short section somewhere on the northern part of the line.

The issue is with overbridges on the M&C section, from Arkleby to Carlisle. A singling scheme would work, but would cost money compared to the status quo.

 

[Meerkat]

In many ways the 156 is a better train. 158s can be made to look okay from the passenger point of view, but they have a lot of niggling issues.




The issue is with overbridges on the M&C section, from Arkleby to Carlisle. A singling scheme would work, but would cost money compared to the status quo.

All of the overbridges? There's looks enough of them that the whole section would have to be single with passing places at the stations.
If so that would be getting on for problematic/expensive enough to replace the bridges or have dedicated stock.

 

[tbtc]

No.

I can’t think of any Yorkshire lines where 150s are regularly running on routes more suited to 158s

However I can think of some where 158s have filled in for 150s, and we’ve found that the units with the higher top speed end up being slower and losing time because they aren’t suited to frequent stops on services like the Dearne Valley slows

We need more fast accelerating DMUs with “commuter” doors. Top speed is fairly irrelevant as few Northern diesel services are scheduled to get over 75mph anyway.

Since the 195s were sold as fast long distance trains intended for Flagship (Northern Connect) routes, it’ll be difficult to “downgrade” services like the Calder Valley fasts to BR-era stock (even if a 158 could fill in okay)…

…But not as hard as extending Platform 17 at Leeds (since the capacity of the Woodlesford line is clearly an infrastructure and nothing to do with which 1980s DMU gets put on local services) or tinkering with the tracks on the Cumbrian coast. Both of those should be forgotten

It’s not exciting, it’s not sexy, but my priority would be to salvage what we can from the three dozen 150s currently in Wales and looking to extend current diagrams that currently manage with only two coaches.

(Ideally I’d prefer a big order of bi-mode units, or some reliable 769s or more electrification etc but none of that seems likely, so no point agitating)

Forget about putting faster/ more powerful trains on routes where they’d be a disadvantage (see also “XC should use Voyagers on the Stansted line” etc)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue is with overbridges on the M&C section, from Arkleby to Carlisle. A singling scheme would work, but would cost money compared to the status quo.

Of course. But once 153s and 156s are withdrawn, and they can't have long due to their poor condition, it's either do that or close the line, and the northern bit is probably the busier bit. (If it was around the middle bit i.e. Netherton etc I'd expect closure to at least be discussed).

It's also an interesting question in the medium term as to whether there'd be any savings if Barrow was able to become a 195 only depot, and the service could be improved by running all Coast services through to at least Lancaster that way which would increase usage. And it's likely the work needed to bring in 158s would also clear 195s and vice versa.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2023 ==

No.

I can’t think of any Yorkshire lines where 150s are regularly running on routes more suited to 158s

However I can think of some where 158s have filled in for 150s, and we’ve found that the units with the higher top speed end up being slower and losing time because they aren’t suited to frequent stops on services like the Dearne Valley slows

We need more fast accelerating DMUs with “commuter” doors. Top speed is fairly irrelevant as few Northern diesel services are scheduled to get over 75mph anyway.

Since the 195s were sold as fast long distance trains intended for Flagship (Northern Connect) routes, it’ll be difficult to “downgrade” services like the Calder Valley fasts to BR-era stock (even if a 158 could fill in okay)…

…But not as hard as extending Platform 17 at Leeds (since the capacity of the Woodlesford line is clearly an infrastructure and nothing to do with which 1980s DMU gets put on local services) or tinkering with the tracks on the Cumbrian coast. Both of those should be forgotten

It’s not exciting, it’s not sexy, but my priority would be to salvage what we can from the three dozen 150s currently in Wales and looking to extend current diagrams that currently manage with only two coaches.

(Ideally I’d prefer a big order of bi-mode units, or some reliable 769s or more electrification etc but none of that seems likely, so no point agitating)

Forget about putting faster/ more powerful trains on routes where they’d be a disadvantage (see also “XC should use Voyagers on the Stansted line” etc)

Northern is "drip feeding" 195s onto local routes where their acceleration brings big benefits, e.g. the CLC. They were always intended to be cascaded to the branches which will probably never be electrified and may well just end up using biodiesel for the next 30 odd years.

I don't think people would object to a decent 158 over a 195. If we're talking the TfW ones with the Grammer seats that's a signficant upgrade for most people, while the Northern refurbed 2-car sets have an interior basically identical to the 195 anyway. (The 3 car sets have just had replacement cushions which are too thick so your knees clout the table underside so aren't as good).

 

[Neptune]

Of course. But once 153s and 156s are withdrawn, and they can't have long due to their poor condition, it's either do that or close the line, and the northern bit is probably the busier bit. (If it was around the middle bit i.e. Netherton etc I'd expect closure to at least be discussed).

The 153’s have long departed Northern but we’ll see what happens in the future. 195’s will be the sensible choice.

It's also an interesting question in the medium term as to whether there'd be any savings if Barrow was able to become a 195 only depot, and the service could be improved by running all Coast services through to at least Lancaster that way which would increase usage. And it's likely the work needed to bring in 158s would also clear 195s and vice versa.

100% makes sense. Workington Traincrew depot would also become completely 195.

Northern is "drip feeding" 195s onto local routes where their acceleration brings big benefits, e.g. the CLC. They were always intended to be cascaded to the branches which will probably never be electrified and may well just end up using biodiesel for the next 30 odd years.

The 195 was given an interior for any service it would be able to operate now and in the future on Northern. Door stand backs for local services, 2+2 seats and tables for longer distance. Excellent sized overhead luggage racks suitable for everything up to a large suitcase. Fast acceleration for locals and 100mph top speed for inter regional. The only thing I would say is that the centre car should have been given a space saver toilet at the cost of 4 seats giving 1 toilet on a 2 car and 2 toilets on a 3 car. Not impossible to retrofit these however.

I don't think people would object to a decent 158 over a 195. If we're talking the TfW ones with the Grammer seats that's a signficant upgrade for most people, while the Northern refurbed 2-car sets have an interior basically identical to the 195 anyway. (The 3 car sets have just had replacement cushions which are too thick so your knees clout the table underside so aren't as good).

The 3 cars have the disappointing original seats with the awful back ache inducing rake, thick not all that comfortable seatbase making it difficult to access the table seats (as you mention) and appalling tiny flimsy seat back tables. The Grammar seats in the TfW units are fantastic. It has a more upright back with a better cushion to stop you slouching and creating back ache, decent comfy seat base without just being thick and excellent seat back table. If they were to replace 195’s on longer routes then so long as they didn’t reduce capacity on those services by running 2 cars vice 3 then they would be fine (apart from the crap air conditioning). I personally prefer 170’s on inter-regional services but they are limited in number.

 

[DanNCL]

Northern has plenty of "long, thin" rural routes where 158s could be used instead of 150s without any real issues. Ormskirk, Kirkby, Southport, Bentham, S&C, Cumbrian Coast (the clearance work will have to be done at some point)...

You can also (mostly*) unseat 195s from expresses to cascade them onto stoppers.

* Not on the WCML due to the paths being 100mph.

158s already work everything on the S&C and Bentham routes. Kirkby and Southport have the Piccadilly P13/P14 issue so need stock with doors at the thirds. So that only leaves Ormskirk and the Cumbrian Coast, the latter which requires work that hardly seems worth doing, and the former only requires a single unit.

They interwork nicely in the North East.

I’d hardly say they interwork ‘nicely’. 158s don’t keep to the generic 15x timings on the Tees Valley line because of the lengthened dwell time. And on the other side of it, 158s are much more suitable for Morpeth and Chathill than 156s. The North East either needs a fleet that can handle both 90mph running and stop-start commuter routes, or two separate fleets that don’t interwork other than on the Tyne Valley.

Is line capacity really a serious issue on the Cumbrian Coast of all places?

It's highly likely clearing the 195s will involve the same work as clearing the 158s.

in short no. It's an hourly passenger service which is never going to be more frequent than that (not unlikely it may revert back to two hourly at some point, I was surprised it didn't in May) plus the odd freight.

Capacity definitely is an issue in the Cumbrian Coast, both in terms of paths and in terms of passenger capacity. The trains are packed out during the summer, going down to two-hourly would be a terrible idea.
The Cumbrian Coast also has to handle high security MOD nuclear flask workings. They might be few and far between but they exist and have to be taken into account when working out what can and can’t be done on the line.

I struggle to see why seemingly no DMU newer than a 156 can be cleared when both 66s and 68s have been cleared for it without any adjustments having to be made. If 170s or 195s really can’t be made to fit then they’ll have to get a custom build from Stadler as the 156s won’t last forever and something has to run the line.

It’s a difficult one, but assuming these 158s come from TFW I’d replace a handful of 150/156 and all 155s with a bit of shuffling as follows:

10 units can be put onto the Leeds to Nottingham/Lincoln circuit, displacing 195s onto stoppers to see off 10 150s. It may be a controversial one putting the old fleet back onto these routes but the capacity is greater than a 195 and it may help

7 units can directly replace the 155 fleet to work services from Hull to Halifax, York and Bridlington

The last 7 units can then go to Heaton to replace the 156s in worst condition (either directly or by moving some to the North West to replace the worst of those)

Not sure if many will agree but I reckon with a bit of shuffling it can be done

Apart from the 7 units to Heaton (which should go to Neville Hill instead) I agree.

I don't think people would object to a decent 158 over a 195. If we're talking the TfW ones with the Grammer seats that's a signficant upgrade for most people, while the Northern refurbed 2-car sets have an interior basically identical to the 195 anyway. (The 3 car sets have just had replacement cushions which are too thick so your knees clout the table underside so aren't as good).

Generally speaking the ‘normals’ don’t even realise that the 158 is any older than the 195!

 

[yorksrob]

No.

I can’t think of any Yorkshire lines where 150s are regularly running on routes more suited to 158s

However I can think of some where 158s have filled in for 150s, and we’ve found that the units with the higher top speed end up being slower and losing time because they aren’t suited to frequent stops on services like the Dearne Valley slows

We need more fast accelerating DMUs with “commuter” doors. Top speed is fairly irrelevant as few Northern diesel services are scheduled to get over 75mph anyway.

Since the 195s were sold as fast long distance trains intended for Flagship (Northern Connect) routes, it’ll be difficult to “downgrade” services like the Calder Valley fasts to BR-era stock (even if a 158 could fill in okay)…

…But not as hard as extending Platform 17 at Leeds (since the capacity of the Woodlesford line is clearly an infrastructure and nothing to do with which 1980s DMU gets put on local services) or tinkering with the tracks on the Cumbrian coast. Both of those should be forgotten

It’s not exciting, it’s not sexy, but my priority would be to salvage what we can from the three dozen 150s currently in Wales and looking to extend current diagrams that currently manage with only two coaches.

(Ideally I’d prefer a big order of bi-mode units, or some reliable 769s or more electrification etc but none of that seems likely, so no point agitating)

Forget about putting faster/ more powerful trains on routes where they’d be a disadvantage (see also “XC should use Voyagers on the Stansted line” etc)

150's regularly run on the Hallam stopper on their own and aren't suited to the line at busier times. 158's are better suited in terms of layout and provide a better capacity fit without extending platform 17.

 

[HSTEd]

Capacity definitely is an issue in the Cumbrian Coast, both in terms of paths and in terms of passenger capacity. The trains are packed out during the summer, going down to two-hourly would be a terrible idea.

Even hourly does not require double track throughout.
Railways are operated far more intensely than this one with single track sections. The borders railway for one.

And train length is obviously largely independent of whether the line is single or double track.

The Cumbrian Coast also has to handle high security MOD nuclear flask workings. They might be few and far between but they exist and have to be taken into account when working out what can and can’t be done on the line.

One path a day would be more than sufficient for such traffic, which ultimately means it doesn't really matter much in terms of infrastructure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

158s already work everything on the S&C and Bentham routes. Kirkby and Southport have the Piccadilly P13/P14 issue so need stock with doors at the thirds. So that only leaves Ormskirk and the Cumbrian Coast, the latter which requires work that hardly seems worth doing, and the former only requires a single unit.

Kirkby and half the Southports (possibly all of them post electrification of Westhoughton) run to Victoria. Ormskirk is part of a three way circuit (Blackpool South, Colne and Ormskirk) which I think uses 5 units but it might be 6. That's a fair few!

I’d hardly say they interwork ‘nicely’. 158s don’t keep to the generic 15x timings on the Tees Valley line because of the lengthened dwell time. And on the other side of it, 158s are much more suitable for Morpeth and Chathill than 156s. The North East either needs a fleet that can handle both 90mph running and stop-start commuter routes, or two separate fleets that don’t interwork other than on the Tyne Valley.

156s and 158s have near identical layouts. What would make a 158 slower?

I struggle to see why seemingly no DMU newer than a 156 can be cleared when both 66s and 68s have been cleared for it without any adjustments having to be made. If 170s or 195s really can’t be made to fit then they’ll have to get a custom build from Stadler as the 156s won’t last forever and something has to run the line.

The work will be done. There won't be a custom order. The costs of a microfleet would be much higher than singling some short sections.

 

[DanNCL]

Even hourly does not require double track throughout.
Railways are operated far more intensely than this one with single track sections. The borders railway for one.

And train length is obviously largely independent of whether the line is single or double track.

One path a day would be more than sufficient for such traffic, which ultimately means it doesn't really matter much in terms of infrastructure.

The Cumbrian Coast isn’t double track throughout, it already has many sections of single track.

Kirkby and half the Southports (possibly all of them post electrification of Westhoughton) run to Victoria. Ormskirk is part of a three way circuit (Blackpool South, Colne and Ormskirk) which I think uses 5 units but it might be 6. That's a fair few!

Do they interwork with anything that passes P13/P14 though? As if they do it would still need suitable stock or a diagram recast.

156s and 158s have near identical layouts. What would make a 158 slower?

The doors take considerably longer to open and close on a 158 than on a 156. Taking dispatch as an example, by the time a 158 has closed the passenger doors and then the guards local door afterwards, a 156 doing the same procedure at the same platform would already have cleared the platform by the point the driver of 158 finally gets two bells.

The work will be done. There won't be a custom order. The costs of a microfleet would be much higher than singling some short sections.

I wouldn’t be confident of work being done to allow 158s. They’re known to have clearance issues on multiple parts of the network.
170s or 195s however, I’m struggling to see how they’re not cleared in the first place, unless it’s a case of Network Rail seeing any need to do so.

It wouldn’t be a micro fleet if said order also saw off a load of 150s and 156s from Newton Heath.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do they interwork with anything that passes P13/P14 though? As if they do it would still need suitable stock or a diagram recast.

I don't think they do. Services to Victoria are not unknown to be 156/158 anyway on occasion whereas the Piccadilly ones are normally 150s.

I wouldn’t be confident of work being done to allow 158s. They’re known to have clearance issues on multiple parts of the network.
170s or 195s however, I’m struggling to see how they’re not cleared in the first place, unless it’s a case of Network Rail seeing any need to do so.

If the issue is similar, then singling will clear all of them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2023 ==

It wouldn’t be a micro fleet if said order also saw off a load of 150s and 156s from Newton Heath.

I think they'd be better ordering new express bi-mode units (for stuff like Barrow/Windermere) and cascading 195s to replace 150s. The 195 really is an excellent 150 replacement, it's just a modern, 24m version of the same thing, designed for heavy loadings and good acceleration.

There should be no faffing about with new 20m units; just do the work based on multiples of 24m as should have been done to start with. No 40m-long DMUs (bar 230s) have been built since the mid 1980s, it's not like there hasn't been warning.

 

[Greybeard33]

The work will be done. There won't be a custom order. The costs of a microfleet would be much higher than singling some short sections.

And the Cumbrian Coast has already been singled for 10 miles between Sellafield and Whitehaven, and for another mile at Parton.

 

[Trainbike46]

Would doing what sounds like quite significant infrastructure works (singling, which would rquire new points, track layout and changes to signalling, so unlikely to be cheap), really be cheaper than ordering a fleet of 755s designed to fit without infrastructure works. We could order a fleet with a mix of 2, 3 and 4 car units to replace a bunch of sprinters to avoid having a microfleet. Plus, we'd get bimodes and level boarding at that

 

[HSTEd]

Would doing what sounds like quite significant infrastructure works (singling, which would rquire new points, track layout and changes to signalling, so unlikely to be cheap)

We must remember to reduced the signalling changes and such by the suitably adjust cost of avoided renewals from early replacement.
And the section of line in question is not really devoid of crossovers, so the total increase in point ends is likely to be smaller than might be expected.

, really be cheaper than ordering a fleet of 755s designed to fit without infrastructure works. We could order a fleet with a mix of 2, 3 and 4 car units to replace a bunch of sprinters to avoid having a microfleet. Plus, we'd get bimodes and level boarding at that

Trains cost £2m per carriage or more now.

It will add up quick, and there is obviously no guarantee that a 755 or similar would fit. If its a custom design the mobilisation costs for the modified design will drive the cost even higher.

I have some sympathy with ordering 755s for everything, but that probably isn't going to happen any time sooner. And the more standard we can make clearances across the network the better in the long run.

 

[Meerkat]

Can’t even really guess without knowing how many bridges are involved. If it’s not many then maybe they can be replaced (particularly if that improves the road too), if it’s a lot then it’s a lot of singling plus multiple passing loops.
I assume there is no precedent for suitable signalling changes such that trains are preventing from crossing on a section of track that is closer together under the requisite bridges? Less pathing impact and no extra point ends.
Then the 158s and everything else should fit.

 

[Trainbike46]

We must remember to reduced the signalling changes and such by the suitably adjust cost of avoided renewals from early replacement.
And the section of line in question is not really devoid of crossovers, so the total increase in point ends is likely to be smaller than might be expected.


Trains cost £2m per carriage or more now.

It will add up quick, and there is obviously no guarantee that a 755 or similar would fit. If its a custom design the mobilisation costs for the modified design will drive the cost even higher.

I'm not suggesting we replace any trains early though; there is a significant number of sprinters on Northern that are nearing their end of life, so it would just be replacing the end of life fleet with new units. And while there would likely be some extra cost to a bimode 755 over ordering more 195 DMMUs, it is unlikely to be massively significant, and if the replacement for the 150s (and possibly further sprinters) was specced as bimode and level boarding may very well just disappear entirely

Of course, before any order of trains is placed, it is essential to ensure that it would fit, or to plan for the work to allow them to fit. Checking whether a 755 would fit would be essential before ordering them