Which trains would work better on selected routes?

[sprinterguy]

Thanks for the link. I'd seen reference to four diagrams a day, but without a link so wasn't sure whether to accept it. Hmm, our HSTs a day (which presumably needs five trains to cover) would double the amount of HSTs at XC if only they could be freed up. Hmm, is it getting too silly to suggest that East Coast order half a dozen 390s if there's twenty-odd Pendolini ordered for the WCML franchise - it'd be cheaper to order as a follow-on order after all. Maybe even an extra unit to replace the XC Glasgow service?

Well, GNER suggested getting two Pendolinos when Virgin first ordered theirs around the turn of the Millenium, so I'm sure half a dozen now wouldn't be at all unfeasible!

I think if the four "all electric" HST diagrams were replaced one way or another, I think the best that could be hoped for is the cascade of the four HSTs that are directly replaced. East Coast diagram twelve HSTs out of thirteen every day (Currently thirteen out of fourteen with the EMT set), which is pretty intensive diagramming already without losing one more HST than has been replaced by electric stock.

If there were thirty five 225s, then everything would be fine. However the 225s will be sticking around until HS2 is in operation (to Leeds) I would think, at which point there will be a completely different rolling stock requirement on the ECML to what there is now, so no hope of rectifying the current situation with new stock at any point in the future.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'd say:
Northern: 20 x 2 car 165/1 from FGW, working out of Heaton depot on the North East services.

Only one spare unit? FGW's 1 spare 3-car 158 out of a fleet of, I seem to remember, 13 units only just manages doesn't it? Or are you not including the proposed Tees Valley Metro with it's increase to 4tph? or perhaps you've managed to replace 1tph between Darlington and Middlesbrough with a 156 through from Bishops Auckland to the Whitby line (obviously with not all continuing all the way to Whitby) or dropped my proposal of extending the Morpeth services.

FGW: Retain the twenty one 166s for the remaining Thames Valley diesel branches (I understand that there may be some platform length issues for three car units on one of the branches though), and 17 x 3 car 165/1 for use in the Bristol area, allowing FGWs eight class 143 Pacers to go to ATW.

If a few 156s have to be retained at Heaton due to lack of 165s and due to the Network Turbos not being cleared for certain branches then so be it, but there'd certainly be no need for any more Pacers at Heaton (Except for the Yorkshire diagrams around Sheffield, which would be much better worked out of Neville Hill).

At a push, to make Heaton depot entirely 165 worked, I'd also transfer Chilterns' eleven 3 car 165s to Heaton, in exchange for Chiltern getting some/all of FGWs three carriage 165/1s, although this would mean that FGW didn't benefit from the Oxford electrification.

The map of 165 route availablity shows them as not being able to work on the Carlisle - Newcastle, Newcastle - Darlington and Bishop Auckland - Darlington lines, so you wouldn't be able to make the area entirly 165 worked without spending an unknown amount clearing those routes. Stations aren't marked on the map, so at the scale of the map it is unclear to me whether 165s could get from Newcastle to MetroCentre, but they wouldn't get beyond that by the looks of it. The map also doesn't have information for the far end of the Whitby branch, so to be on the safe side I'm assuming 165s can't get all the way down that either.

 

[sprinterguy]

Only one spare unit? FGW's 1 spare 3-car 158 out of a fleet of, I seem to remember, 13 units only just manages doesn't it? Or are you not including the proposed Tees Valley Metro with it's increase to 4tph? or perhaps you've managed to replace 1tph between Darlington and Middlesbrough with a 156 through from Bishops Auckland to the Whitby line (obviously with not all continuing all the way to Whitby) or dropped my proposal of extending the Morpeth services.

As I say, some 156s could be retained at Heaton as required in this hypothetical situation.

 

[tbtc]

Well, GNER suggested getting two Pendolinos when Virgin first ordered theirs around the turn of the Millenium, so I'm sure half a dozen now wouldn't be at all unfeasible!

I think if the four "all electric" HST diagrams were replaced one way or another, I think the best that could be hoped for is the cascade of the four HSTs that are directly replaced. East Coast diagram twelve HSTs out of thirteen every day (Currently thirteen out of fourteen with the EMT set), which is pretty intensive diagramming already without losing one more HST than has been replaced by electric stock.

If there were thirty five 225s, then everything would be fine. However the 225s will be sticking around until HS2 is in operation (to Leeds) I would think, at which point there will be a completely different rolling stock requirement on the ECML to what there is now, so no hope of rectifying the current situation with new stock at any point in the future.

Its a complicated situation. There's no chance of building more 225s, but then it seems pointless building a tiny class of single-figures. And there's nowhere to cascade the 225s to (to justify building replacements in the short term - the MML would be okay numbers-wise, but I don't see that happening any time soon).

It does make you realise just how intensely the ECML trains are used, since the 225s used to be used to provide around three departures an hour from Kings Cross (one Leeds, one Newcastle, one Edinburgh) at privatization (albeit some of those services were HST run) - now we have a half hourly Leeds service plus bi-hourly Newark/ York services too. Can't keep squeezing more mileage out of them without having some "slack" in the system.

I hope IEP means more units (and not just a "one for one" replacement - East Coast could easily use additional trains to run daytime Harrogate/ Bradford/ Lincoln services (etc)

 

[LE Greys]

Its a complicated situation. There's no chance of building more 225s, but then it seems pointless building a tiny class of single-figures. And there's nowhere to cascade the 225s to (to justify building replacements in the short term - the MML would be okay numbers-wise, but I don't see that happening any time soon).

It does make you realise just how intensely the ECML trains are used, since the 225s used to be used to provide around three departures an hour from Kings Cross (one Leeds, one Newcastle, one Edinburgh) at privatization (albeit some of those services were HST run) - now we have a half hourly Leeds service plus bi-hourly Newark/ York services too. Can't keep squeezing more mileage out of them without having some "slack" in the system.

I hope IEP means more units (and not just a "one for one" replacement - East Coast could easily use additional trains to run daytime Harrogate/ Bradford/ Lincoln services (etc)

I think the current idea is that the 225s work alongside IEPs, which replace the HSTs. Not my preferred option, I would go for complete replacement of the lot and 225s cascading to the electrified MML, and possibly a speeded-up GEML, although lack of acceleration might prove a problem, and squeezing 125 out of the GEML is unlikely.

 

[Drsatan]

Send some 153s for the Salisbury figure-of-six to release the 158s for something more appropriate.

It would be hypothetically possible to replace the 3 158s used on that service with 3 153s from FGW (with the transferred 158s used on say, the 0624 from Bristol Parkway to Penzance or Penzance - Plymouth locals), but then SWT would have 3 non-standard units on its books. Although loadings off-peak would justify a 153 vis 158, a few services are very crowded especially the 1737 to Salisbury: there's no way the number of passengers on that service would fit into a 153!

I accept that 150s (and probably pairs of 150s during the rush hour) would be sufficient for the Salisbury - Romsey via Southampton & Eastleigh service but rolling stock transfers aren't going to happen any time soon!

 

[sulli_os]

Something of an intercity nature for Norwich-Liverpool (22x?). Or 18x class for Nottingham-Liverpool and Norwich-Norwich respectively.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Manchester Airport - Southport and the Manchester Victoria - Southport services should be free from any Class 142 Pacer involvement, which would allow those units to be used elsewhere....but do your replace with nothing better that a class 150?

Most people know my views on Class 142 units appearing at Manchester Airport station.

 

[tbtc]

Hmm, I see a plan forming:

• 1x Pacer for Coventry - Nuneaton
• 2x Pacers for Bedford - Bletchley
• 3x Pacers for Salisbury Six
• 1x Pacer for Lymington branch

...frees up...

• 1x 150
• 2x 153
• 4x 158

...for use elsewhere. Who's with me?

Small print: This means that LM's entire DMU fleet would be 139/142/170/172 (with the follow-on 172 order meaning no 150s retained for Snow Hill and some three car 172s to replace the need for 153s tagged onto 170s on routes like Rugeley). SWT retain their 159s for the Exeter - London service, whilst a small fleet of Pacers are kept for the "Six"/ Lymington (could always be swapped over with Bristol based FGW ones for maintenance).

 

[LE Greys]

• 1x Pacer for Lymington branch

I'll swap that for a restored 4-CIG, or even the Southern Electric Group's 4-COR. That gives you a spare Pacer to play with, provided the locals haven't decided to send it to the Isle of Wight - without the ferry.

 

[tbtc]

I'll swap that for a restored 4-CIG, or even the Southern Electric Group's 4-COR. That gives you a spare Pacer to play with, provided the locals haven't decided to send it to the Isle of Wight - without the ferry.

I wouldn't complain with that

Its frustrating to have two coach 158s on routes like Liverpool - Norwich when there's a two coach one sat on a 100% electrified branchline. Daft.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Its frustrating to have two coach 158s on routes like Liverpool - Norwich when there's a two coach one sat on a 100% electrified branchline. Daft.

the most irritating thing about todays railways i have come across is that..... I dont see why it couldnt remain heritage operated like bardiffbay or the chiltern 121's as we are crying out for DMUS up here



I agree with the pendilino order for EC 11 car (as it will fit because of 91-9mk4's-DVT)?

Maybe about 10, could they be maintained in glasgow as they will have access to it. Try and keep them on the Edinburgh runs. Not sure how depots would work if someone mroe knowledgeable would like to take it forward.

 

[lorolrob]

A tiny fleet of Pacers at LM wouldn't be any worse than a tiny fleet of 150/153s, after all...

The Bletchley line would be perfect - nothing else to crash into there

Far too close to London for comfort. Keep them up Northernland please.

 

[sprinterguy]

the most irritating thing about todays railways i have come across is that..... I dont see why it couldnt remain heritage operated like bardiffbay or the chiltern 121's as we are crying out for DMUS up here.

Agreed. I can't see what the problem with retaining the two 3-CIG units on the Lymington branch would have been when both ATW and Chiltern operate heritage Bubble Cars on similar shuttles.

I agree with the pendilino order for EC 11 car (as it will fit because of 91-9mk4's-DVT)?

Maybe about 10, could they be maintained in glasgow as they will have access to it. Try and keep them on the Edinburgh runs. Not sure how depots would work if someone mroe knowledgeable would like to take it forward.

I have no idea of knowing, but perhaps EC might prefer nine carriage Pendolinos, if they were to take any, so as not to muck up the seating plans too much on their electric services. Granted that the completely different internal layout of a 390 compared to a 225 is going to muck things up quite drastically anyway, but at least EC wouldn't have to add extra coach letters in. Though I suppose they could just have two additional unreserved coaches if they had eleven coach sets.

I'm sure it would be possible to use them solely on out and back turns starting and finishing at Waverley so that they could be maintained at Polmadie, but admittedly I have no idea what the current 225 diagrams are.

 

[cle]

If Pendos become the de facto long distance EMU for the future - might it be worth looking at some tilt and EPS for Newcastle to Edinburgh? How much time might this save?

And obviously the MML, if wired, would be perfect for this too.

 

[Class172]

Hmm, I see a plan forming:

• 1x Pacer for Coventry - Nuneaton
• 2x Pacers for Bedford - Bletchley
• 3x Pacers for Salisbury Six
• 1x Pacer for Lymington branch

...frees up...

• 1x 150
• 2x 153
• 4x 158

...for use elsewhere. Who's with me?

Small print: This means that LM's entire DMU fleet would be 139/142/170/172 (with the follow-on 172 order meaning no 150s retained for Snow Hill and some three car 172s to replace the need for 153s tagged onto 170s on routes like Rugeley). SWT retain their 159s for the Exeter - London service, whilst a small fleet of Pacers are kept for the "Six"/ Lymington (could always be swapped over with Bristol based FGW ones for maintenance).

I do like the idea of pacers going on the Marston Vale line - perfectly suited for it (for once!) For those who are interested I made this in Trainz a few months ago and I thought it was relevant for us to look at:

 

[LE Greys]

If Pendos become the de facto long distance EMU for the future - might it be worth looking at some tilt and EPS for Newcastle to Edinburgh? How much time might this save?

And obviously the MML, if wired, would be perfect for this too.

I like the idea of that, and would extend it south to places such as Ferryhill, Retford, Offord and Hatfield. Might save 20-30 minutes on a regular London-Edinburgh run, making four-hour schedules possible.

Would it be possible to fit EPS and tilting bogies to MML's 222s if they also added pantograph coaches? Theoretically, you could do the same to MkIVs, but that's less likely.