More 150s for Northern?

[starrymarkb]

That would be an issue for FGW/Northern? The 142s in the SW are due back North next month

 

[northwichcat]

That would be an issue for FGW/Northern? The 142s in the SW are due back North next month

and for EMT who scheduled their May 2011 diagrams to include the 4x156s from Northern.

We'll probably see the 180 Northern sublease extended for the 4th/5th? time and the 142 FGW sublease for the 4th/5th? time.

 

[Nym]

Or just tell London Midland to get over it and send the stock as required, the're screwing up 3 other TOCs by messing around and holding onto their rolling stock. If the DfT wants to micro manage as much as it does, let it.

While the're at it, if we're ordering more 350/1 or 350/3 for Lancs - Scotland, tac some order on the end so LM can release it's remaining 321s, oh, and I'd also be forcing LM to get rid of all of it's 150s, I've seen this happen many times now, with the 350/2 and now the 172, order enough to fully replace your fleet then hold onto some of the old ones, why not just order more, or give you what you have, all it does when you have a microfleet, like they will with the 150s if the stock cascade goes ahead as is scheduled with LM holding onto some 150s, then it will result in them having two microfleets, the 150s and the 321s. Is kind of irritating when they don't order enough, or do order enough then change the goalposts, why don't they operate the options they dowbtlessly have for additional units. Or just have some more 350 or 390s, for example for the Northampton fasts that run on the fast lines and restirct pathing out of Euston so much, or some more 390s for the Birmingham - Scotland and Manchester - Scotland runs, aswell as the Euston - Northampton fasts...

 

[tbtc]

Or just tell London Midland to get over it and send the stock as required, the're screwing up 3 other TOCs by messing around and holding onto their rolling stock. If the DfT wants to micro manage as much as it does, let it.

While the're at it, if we're ordering more 350/1 or 350/3 for Lancs - Scotland, tac some order on the end so LM can release it's remaining 321s, oh, and I'd also be forcing LM to get rid of all of it's 150s, I've seen this happen many times now, with the 350/2 and now the 172, order enough to fully replace your fleet then hold onto some of the old ones, why not just order more, or give you what you have, all it does when you have a microfleet, like they will with the 150s if the stock cascade goes ahead as is scheduled with LM holding onto some 150s, then it will result in them having two microfleets, the 150s and the 321s. Is kind of irritating when they don't order enough, or do order enough then change the goalposts, why don't they operate the options they dowbtlessly have for additional units. Or just have some more 350 or 390s, for example for the Northampton fasts that run on the fast lines and restirct pathing out of Euston so much, or some more 390s for the Birmingham - Scotland and Manchester - Scotland runs, aswell as the Euston - Northampton fasts...

I agree with you. The politics involved of ordering a "new for old", then deciding that you want to keep some of the old trains as well (when other TOCs need that capacity) bugs me.

Same deal with LM getting two/three coach 170s then adding 153s to them all day long - would have been much better if Central Trains had ordered more 170 centre cars in the first place.

We are going to need more 172s in future years (we will never electrify fast enough to eliminate all Pacers, they are going to fall apart before all rural lines are electrified), so why not get LM to order more of these now and spare more 150/153/170s?

 

[NXEA!]

Or just tell London Midland to get over it and send the stock as required, the're screwing up 3 other TOCs by messing around and holding onto their rolling stock. If the DfT wants to micro manage as much as it does, let it.

While the're at it, if we're ordering more 350/1 or 350/3 for Lancs - Scotland, tac some order on the end so LM can release it's remaining 321s, oh, and I'd also be forcing LM to get rid of all of it's 150s, I've seen this happen many times now, with the 350/2 and now the 172, order enough to fully replace your fleet then hold onto some of the old ones, why not just order more, or give you what you have, all it does when you have a microfleet, like they will with the 150s if the stock cascade goes ahead as is scheduled with LM holding onto some 150s, then it will result in them having two microfleets, the 150s and the 321s. Is kind of irritating when they don't order enough, or do order enough then change the goalposts, why don't they operate the options they dowbtlessly have for additional units. Or just have some more 350 or 390s, for example for the Northampton fasts that run on the fast lines and restirct pathing out of Euston so much, or some more 390s for the Birmingham - Scotland and Manchester - Scotland runs, aswell as the Euston - Northampton fasts...

Totally agree with you on that one, those 7 321's left behind would be good for either Northern, FCC or NXEA to boost capacity. I agree with you about the 150 microfleet thing, but I think at least 3 sets would have to be kept behind anyway, because of the Marston Vale line only being able to take two 20m coaches. Personally if the money was there I would order an extra 13 172 vehicles, one 3 car set and 5 2 car sets to displace all 150's apart from three 2 car sets for the Marston Vale line. This means that the five two car sets could also release the 153's to other operators. I know with this you lose the flexibility of being able to use just one car or adding only one car onto other services, but on a like-for-like basis, LM aren't losing any vehicles, and in fact if they kept 3 150's behind they'd be gaining six vehicles. I know that that means there'd still be a micro-fleet but it would at least be with good reason. Oh and I'd order 7 350/2's while I'm at it...

 

[sprinterguy]

I agree with you. The politics involved of ordering a "new for old", then deciding that you want to keep some of the old trains as well (when other TOCs need that capacity) bugs me.

Same deal with LM getting two/three coach 170s then adding 153s to them all day long - would have been much better if Central Trains had ordered more 170 centre cars in the first place.

We are going to need more 172s in future years (we will never electrify fast enough to eliminate all Pacers, they are going to fall apart before all rural lines are electrified), so why not get LM to order more of these now and spare more 150/153/170s?

The size of train orders that gets past DfT approval seems to be based on some contingency for passenger demand to decrease in the near future, with a “just wait and see what happens” period following before an option to order additional carriages, which then rarely happens because by that point the relevant production line has been shut down, the on board train software has changed, or the DfT decree that funding is no longer available for any train lengthening and that the TOC affected will simply have to make do. All this despite the fact that demand for rail travel has been rising for the last decade and is continuing to do so! I can’t comprehend the DfTs’ logic in this at all.

I’d love to see less micromanagement of train orders by the DfT, and more positive entrepreneurship from the ROSCOs and the train builders: For instance, in the case of the Turbostar fleets, when the respective orders for different sub classes were made, Bombardier could have rounded up the number of trains built for each sub class to the nearest five or ten, and make the additional trains available to whichever TOC bid for them from the leasing company, as was the case with 170397/8.
For instance:
170101 to 170117 extended to 170120, making three additional trains.
170201 to 170208 extended to 170210 = two additional trains.
170301 to 170308 (There wasn’t originally a 170309) extened to 170310 = Two additional trains.

Having even a handful of additional trains built through such a process would go some way to alleviating the current rolling stock shortage.

London Midland should certainly be receiving enough 172s to replace all of its’ 150s now. Just what is the benefit of having a “possible future order” for twenty six further carriages? If the option is there, it should be part of the main train order, no questions asked!

 

[tbtc]

The size of train orders that gets past DfT approval seems to be based on some contingency for passenger demand to decrease in the near future, with a “just wait and see what happens” period following before an option to order additional carriages, which then rarely happens because by that point the relevant production line has been shut down, the on board train software has changed, or the DfT decree that funding is no longer available for any train lengthening and that the TOC affected will simply have to make do. All this despite the fact that demand for rail travel has been rising for the last decade and is continuing to do so! I can’t comprehend the DfTs’ logic in this at all.

I’d love to see less micromanagement of train orders by the DfT, and more positive entrepreneurship from the ROSCOs and the train builders: For instance, in the case of the Turbostar fleets, when the respective orders for different sub classes were made, Bombardier could have rounded up the number of trains built for each sub class to the nearest five or ten, and make the additional trains available to whichever TOC bid for them from the leasing company, as was the case with 170397/8.
For instance:
170101 to 170117 extended to 170120, making three additional trains.
170201 to 170208 extended to 170210 = two additional trains.
170301 to 170308 (There wasn’t originally a 170309) extened to 170310 = Two additional trains.

Having even a handful of additional trains built through such a process would go some way to alleviating the current rolling stock shortage.

London Midland should certainly be receiving enough 172s to replace all of its’ 150s now. Just what is the benefit of having a “possible future order” for twenty six further carriages? If the option is there, it should be part of the main train order, no questions asked!

Music to my ears.

Look at the 185s. We were meant to get 60x four car trains. These then became three car trains (with an option for a fourth coach) and then just 51 units (with some 170s from SWT as makeweight). Then, when the capacity is badly needed (IIRC most Leeds - Manchester offpeak services have standing - the peak situation is even worse), you find that the manufacturer can't build more.

This is a common thing (jigs scrapped, new environmental issues etc).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember *any* train built in the last twenty years where there were too many built. Anything built gets pressed into action (I've mentioned the "speculative" 170s Porterbrook built a few years ago that have been fully in service since), the only stock that has been in any time of "storage" is the dodgy (e.g. Class 180s) or the result of DFT fiddling (e.g. Class 460s).

 

[northwichcat]

London Midland should certainly be receiving enough 172s to replace all of its’ 150s now. J

To clarify the 172 order is large enough to replace all the 150s. However, LM want to keep 150s as well due to rising passenger numbers

 

[sprinterguy]

To clarify the 172 order is large enough to replace all the 150s. However, LM want to keep 150s as well due to rising passenger numbers

That’s true. I should have phrased that along the lines of “London Midland should be receiving enough 172s to replace all of its’ 150s now, in light of rising passenger numbers.” Building a new train fleet with the same number of carriages as the fleet it is replacing when passenger numbers are continuing to rise is never going to work.

 

[northwichcat]

not on the ones ive been on, 2+2 all boothed seating, with the bus seats outside the toilet, chapmans all round :/

although as long as they have the bus seat outside the toilet im sorted!

The former FNW 150/2s have 3 rows of 2+2 seating between an external door and the toilet and a bench seat opposite the toilet door but it's 3+2 seating on the rest of the train. The former FNW 150/1s have a slightly different seating arrangement and have longitudinal seating on one side between an external door and the toilet.

The 2+2 seats mentioned are just as squashed in as the 3+2 seating - they are right up against the window with no arm rests so a window seat anywhere on the 150 is just like being next to a window on a 350/2 or a 450.

 

[Nym]

Hang on, how long are the platforms on the Matston Vale Line, remembering door placement on the 172s, they proberbly could fit... I'll look into this..
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Right, I've checked the baseline documentation and taken a ruler to the diagram of a class 172, Yes, it will fit on the Marston Vale Line.

The shortest platform on the line is 37m long, and the length of a class 172 is 46m oviously, but, the doors are set back by at least 5m at each end from the coupler, so even with the extra lenth of the coupler on the end, it be possible to stop a 2 car 172 in every platform on the martson vale line, the front and rear bogies will overhang, but the doors will all be on the platforms.

Alternativly of course the line could be handed over to East Midlands Trains and they can run whatever they want on it, proberbly a 156, and just not allow passenger out of the rear doors of the train.

Maybe I should tell the DfT so they can tell London Midland to stop throwing their toys out of the pram and get rid of their old teddys (150s) cos they have a new one, and if they need more then to excersise their options on the 172s!

 

[WillPS]

If LM need more capacity then they need look no further than the ridiculous amount of slack built in to its own fleet!

In fact, this slack should allow them to start releasing 150s now, which would be a good incentive to get the 172s online ASAP.

 

[northwichcat]

Same deal with LM getting two/three coach 170s then adding 153s to them all day long - would have been much better if Central Trains had ordered more 170 centre cars in the first place.

CT didn't order 170s for the routes that LM are now using them on. Many of the routes that LM 170s are now used on should be operated by the Sprinters which adding a 153 on to in the morning/evening peak would work well.

CT used the 170s in 2,3,4 and 5 car formation on CityLink services. Corridor connectors would have been useful but then that's the case for all 170s as well as 175s and 185s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That’s true. I should have phrased that along the lines of “London Midland should be receiving enough 172s to replace all of its’ 150s now, in light of rising passenger numbers.” Building a new train fleet with the same number of carriages as the fleet it is replacing when passenger numbers are continuing to rise is never going to work.

Yes but with the exception of the 350/1s most orders have been for a similar number of carriages that they are replacing with options for additional orders. The problem is that the additional options don't get implemented e.g. the TPE 185s.

 

[sprinterguy]

CT didn't order 170s for the routes that LM are now using them on. Many of the routes that LM 170s are now used on should be operated by the Sprinters which adding a 153 on to in the morning/evening peak would work well.

CT used the 170s in 2,3,4 and 5 car formation on CityLink services. Corridor connectors would have been useful but then that's the case for all 170s as well as 175s and 185s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There’s a maximum of four diagrams on the Chase line at peak times. If EMT had kept hold of all the 170s that ended up going to LM, does anybody think that LM would be able to cover, say 1 x 3 carriage 150 diagram, 2 diagrams for two car 150s working singly and 1 x 2 carriage 150+153 for the Chase line, as well as managing the current diagrams for the Snow Hill lines?

LM could have had EMTs’ eleven 156s to cover the Shrewsbury and Hereford runs, with some runs coupled to 153s or working as a pair. I think there’s five diagrams on the Hereford line, I don’t know how many there are on the Shrewsbury runs but I reckon eleven trains would cover it and still leave a maintenance contingent. If EMT had the twenty seven 170s that went to LM instead in exchange for just eleven 156s going to LM, then EMT could probably afford to give away at least some, maybe all, of their 153s to London Midland to supplement the 156s.

London Midland could have made much more efficient use of this train fleet without a reduction in capacity on what we actually have in the West Midlands, and EMT would have additional trains and presumably a standard fleet consisting of just 158s and 170s for its’ local services, while LM just had Sprinter classes of classes 150, 153 and 156 for Tyseley to maintain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes but with the exception of the 350/1s most orders have been for a similar number of carriages that they are replacing with options for additional orders. The problem is that the additional options don't get implemented e.g. the TPE 185s.

Exactly as I pointed out in post number 96: The follow on options that are available at the time of the train order are rarely, if ever, implemented at a later date when it turns out, surprise surprise, that the number of passengers using the service is continuing to increase, as has been happening for the last decade, and yet exactly the same number of carriages as was the case with the old train fleet are in use. New train orders should be seen as an opportunity to increase the number of carriages in the train fleet from the very beginning, not as a potential option for later when it is too late!

 

[northwichcat]

does anybody think that LM would be able to cover, say 1 x 3 carriage 150 diagram, 2 diagrams for two car 150s working singly and 1 x 2 carriage 150+153 for the Chase line, as well as managing the current diagrams for the Snow Hill lines?

The point I was trying to make is that 153s are a good option to strengthen 150/2s, 156s and 158s but a poorer option to strengthen 170s.

Why the LM fleet included 153s and not 156s or/and 158s is anyone's guess.

 

[sprinterguy]

The point I was trying to make is that 153s are a good option to strengthen 150/2s, 156s and 158s but a poorer option to strengthen 170s.

Why the LM fleet included 153s and not 156s or/and 158s is anyone's guess.

As I'm sure you know, it's all about the standardisation of train fleets within TOCs that the DfT favours at the moment, though you’re right in saying that 153s work best with other units fitted with gangway connections, which London Midland are somewhat short on in the diesel fleet.

Which is why I think the rolling stock split between East and West Midlands could have been done another way to give EMT the 170s and LM the 156s plus some additional 153s: A couple of Snow Hill line diagrams may have to have been shortened from four carriages to three, but given that LM are soon to receive a brand new fleet of 172s for the Snow Hill lines this wouldn’t have been a problem for too long, and it would give LM the impetus to go for the additional 172 carriages instead of resting on their laurels as they are doing now and saying “we’re okay, we don’t need the additional new carriages when we already have oodles of spare capacity in our fleet and we can just hold onto some of our old trains.”

 

[Nym]

Or maybe the DfT could just force them to get rid of their old trains and hand them over to Northern, or if they continue to throw their toys out of the pram, take all the shiney new 172s off them and send them pacers from northern in place instead.

 

[sprinterguy]

Or maybe the DfT could just force them to get rid of their old trains and hand them over to Northern, or if they continue to throw their toys out of the pram, take all the shiney new 172s off them and send them pacers from northern in place instead.

Yep, I'm in agreement with that idea as well. Order the additional 172 carriages already, and get rid of the rest of the 150s to where they are needed more.

 

[Nym]

And as I've already proven above, a 2 car 172 could be used on the Marston Vale line and would be better than a 2 car 153, currently used, the doors will fit on the platform.

Would be nice to have some 3 car 150s up in NT Land for the services west out of Victoria, where all the platforms are geared toward 6 car formations, such as Preston - Hazel Grove etc.

 

[tbtc]

The follow on options that are available at the time of the train order are rarely, if ever, implemented at a later date when it turns out, surprise surprise, that the number of passengers using the service is continuing to increase, as has been happening for the last decade, and yet exactly the same number of carriages as was the case with the old train fleet are in use. New train orders should be seen as an opportunity to increase the number of carriages in the train fleet from the very beginning, not as a potential option for later when it is too late!

I sometimes wonder whether the "follow on" options are only there to beef up the size of orders (make them sound more significant than they really are). For example, you see an announcement that a TOC is ordering "one hundred coaches". Wow - one hundred! Then you realise that this is actually twenty five (four coach) trains. Then you find out that its only fifteen trains, with an option for a further ten trains at a later date. Then you find out that they are being built as three coach trains (with an option for a fourth coach to be built at a later date). Now, you have an order of under half the initial "promise"...

 

[northwichcat]

I sometimes wonder whether the "follow on" options are only there to beef up the size of orders (make them sound more significant than they really are).

Or it could be to try and agree a better price with the manufacturer. An order of 150 carriages may be charged at a higher rate per carriage than 150 plus up to 75 more.

 

[tbtc]

Or it could be to try and agree a better price with the manufacturer. An order of 150 carriages may be charged at a higher rate per carriage than 150 plus up to 75 more.

True. If it helps the unit cost then I guess its a bargaining chip. But manufacturers must be wise to the fact that these orders are rarely completed.

 

[northwichcat]

True. If it helps the unit cost then I guess its a bargaining chip. But manufacturers must be wise to the fact that these orders are rarely completed.

Repeat orders do occur though.

Siemens never got the add-on orders for the 185s or 333s but they did for the 350s and the 333s themselves are a revised 332 model.

We don't expect Bombardier to get a huge new 172 order. However, many repeat orders were done for 170s and 377s.

There were no repeat orders for 175s and 180s but the Alstom may have to take part of the blame for that for too many teething problems. However, Alstom have had an extra 390 order.

 

[OxtedL]

Wikipedia seems to imply that Overground eventually maxed out their options on Capitalstar...

 

[Nym]

And the fact that Alstom accepted a further order goes to prove that 'The Jigs are cut up' isn't an excuse from the DaFT that can be used. Jigs take less time to weld up than a unit does. Still need more 390s though, and to sort LM's act out and get them to surrender all their old stock in favour of full diesel replacement with 172s, increase fleet reliablity, and send more stock up to Northernland. Or FGW land.

All of the 150s through are in need of a good overhaul, engines and all.

Passengers though would just appreciate a good clean up of the intriors, have seen one kicking about with a steam clean, new paint, new vynal and new seats. Makes a world of difference, and when you're stripping it back that far you can perform a full overhaul with corrision protection etc.

A 4th carrage would still be nice for all the 185s, unpowered would be fine. As would having some decent length trains ordered, 3 or 4 carrage 172s would be sensible, especially for the likes of TP North, with through corridor connections. Ah well, ranting again...

 

[WillPS]

CT didn't order 170s for the routes that LM are now using them on. Many of the routes that LM 170s are now used on should be operated by the Sprinters which adding a 153 on to in the morning/evening peak would work well.

CT used the 170s in 2,3,4 and 5 car formation on CityLink services. Corridor connectors would have been useful but then that's the case for all 170s as well as 175s and 185s.

Heh, if that's what they were bought for specifically then they never made good on the diagramming!

Wikipedia seems to imply that Overground eventually maxed out their options on Capitalstar...

Hence all the delays to the 172 line I guess.

 

[OxtedL]

Hence all the delays to the 172 line I guess.

This is Bombardier we're talking about ....

 

[Nym]

That and half of their suppliers going bankrupt...?

 

[WillPS]

That and half of their suppliers going bankrupt...?

Ah, that might have had significantly more to do with it

 

[OxtedL]

That and half of their suppliers going bankrupt...?

Sounds more likely. No company could possibly justify the reason given above for not producing another contract on time.

Still though ...