A Class 172 bi mode?

[Nym]

Not really...

Any Bi-Mode plans I've come up with involve taking a bogo EMU be it dual voltage or AC only, and adding in about 1500hp of generators for a 3 or 4 car unit...

So dual voltage is the same, and every single service I stated above currently runs. Like I hinted as well, it's not just about the length of service under the wires, but also the most time critical and busyest sections of the services being under the wires.

Ie. between Bolton and Manchester Airport / Hazel Grove.

 

[junglejames]

Not really...

Any Bi-Mode plans I've come up with involve taking a bogo EMU be it dual voltage or AC only, and adding in about 1500hp of generators for a 3 or 4 car unit...

So dual voltage is the same, and every single service I stated above currently runs. Like I hinted as well, it's not just about the length of service under the wires, but also the most time critical and busyest sections of the services being under the wires.

Ie. between Bolton and Manchester Airport / Hazel Grove.

But if the length under the wires isnt long enough, then its not worth the hassle

 

[Nym]

Then there's also the aspect of the ROCOS seeing bi-mode stock as a much better business decition than diesel only stock as they can likely charge more for leasing such an item and lease it for longer, as it would reduce diesel cost.

And I'd hardly call Bolton to Victoria on a Wigan to Victoria via Bolton an insignificant chunk of the journey, it's easilly over half.

 

[The Ham]

I dont think mileage is a particuarly useful figure, more important is how many services can be switched from diesel operation to electric - a big reduction in the need for DMU's can be achieved with a relatively small percentage increase in wiring.

Chris

Like any routes in the south east, where nearly all the routes are electric other than some notable exceptions which cause diesels to run over routes which could be run by electric trains other than a few tens of miles of missing electrification.

Once the currently planned routes are done there will be more routes that could justify infill projects to remove the need for DMU's or could allow changes to routes to shorten the length of service the DMU's run.

I would expect that by the end of CP7 or early CP8 that a large percentage of the trains in the UK will be electric, a fair few of the rest being bi-model and and the remaining diesel only trains being limited to longer semi-rural routes (e.g. North Scotland, parts of Wales, Cornish Branch Lines, etc.) or routes which have more major problems with electrifying them (e.g. lots of over structures, few electrical feeds, limited service numbers, etc.).

 

[Peter Sarf]

Then there's also the aspect of the ROCOS seeing bi-mode stock as a much better business decition than diesel only stock as they can likely charge more for leasing such an item and lease it for longer, as it would reduce diesel cost.

Makes me thnk. For the pacer-172s-like tasks how about building diesel units (with electric transmission) that can easily be converted to electric or bi-mode later ?.

My belief is that if a route is busy enough then it should get electrified. The purpose of a bi-mode would be to provide through services that run beyond what is deemed sensible to electrifiy but that have enough power/acceleration to not clutter up the important electrified core. This makes sense on routes from rural(ish) areas into a city like Manchester. I suppose in Southern land they do have 171s and they can run limited stop into London Bridge so that avoids the acceleration problem.

Its a bit more confusing in the case of cross country for example NE-SW will be under the wires Edinburgh-Leeds/Doncaster and then Sheffield-Derby. Even with bi-mode Birmingham-Derby and Sheffield-Doncaster/Leeds deserve to then be electric. The central core of the route should be electric but at least its better than the current situation. Personally I would like to see the wires starting at Bromsgrove and reaching all the way to just beyond (EGIP) Edinburgh.

 

[150001]

Exactly what I think too Peter.

 

[Phil6219]

To make inroads into the above , major branch line OHLE would be required on the Northern network to reduce the number of Pacer diagrams.
The Cumbrian coast line will probably never be done.
158 , Cambrian coast , WestWales , Cardiff/Portsmouth,very unlikely
159, WEML , very unlikely.
165/168 , Chiltern Line , maybe but won't be included till Period 6 at the earliest.
A tumble cascade of 166/165/150/142 could get rid of pacers.
170 The majority of routes not on an agenda currently
171 Brighton-Ashford = no
172 Snow Hill line could be done
175 Required long term
180 Some could be redeployed with Oxford Elec.
185 Some could be redeployed with Lancashire Elec. and the Northern Hub eventually.

A good point however 166 & 165 units are no good up North, or away from the GWML as they were built slightly wider to take advantage of the better clearances which came about from re-gauging the GWML.

I think with some TLC our Sprinters will keep on going for quite a while longer, it will be hard work but it would be possible. The pacers on the other hand are really getting knackered, I can't see them completely falling to pieces by 2025 though I do shudder at the thought of them being around that long. I can't see DDA being a problem as they still have ramps and accommodation, the only problem would be the lavatory and sadly the way around that would be to remove it (or permanently lock it off).

The 155 & 153s on the other hand are still apparently suffering from a sagging issue, which over time could see the end of them.

Is now a good time to once again bring up my LHCS idea?

Phil

 

[ainsworth74]

A good point however 166 & 165 units are no good up North, or away from the GWML as they were built slightly wider to take advantage of the better clearances which came about from re-gauging the GWML.

Erm the map on pages 25 and 26 (the actual document not the pdf reader) of this RSSB document would disagree with you. Also I'd note that a 165 is 2.8m wide whilst a 158 is 2.7m, a Mk4 is 2.73m, a 150 is 2.8m and a 323 is 2.8m. They're not particularly wider than most rolling stock.

 

[Pen Mill]

A good point however 166 & 165 units are no good up North, or away from the GWML as they were built slightly wider to take advantage of the better clearances which came about from re-gauging the GWML.

I think with some TLC our Sprinters will keep on going for quite a while longer, it will be hard work but it would be possible. The pacers on the other hand are really getting knackered, I can't see them completely falling to pieces by 2025 though I do shudder at the thought of them being around that long. I can't see DDA being a problem as they still have ramps and accommodation, the only problem would be the lavatory and sadly the way around that would be to remove it (or permanently lock it off).

The 155 & 153s on the other hand are still apparently suffering from a sagging issue, which over time could see the end of them.

Is now a good time to once again bring up my LHCS idea?

Phil

Yes I agree with that , I understand about the 165s , it's difficult to qualify every statement without going into head banging boring posts !
I think the 150 series need to be rolled Northbound to sort this.
This could partially happen with Arriva 150 units being displaced by Cardiff/Swansea & Valleys electrification , whatever that is ! and also by 165s replacing stock in the South West where possible..

Longer term though , the super sprinters are all 20+ years old.
What concerns me is that the historical track record of Electrification doesn't support the bouyant optimism of most folk on here that we can throw away the diesels in 20 years.
Even given environmental factors ,political priorities and available funds will always trump progress !!

The 156/158/159s will be completely kernackered by then.
I just don't see Rural Scotland/Rural Wales/The English South West/The Cumbrian coast to name but a few large areas being OHLE 'd in 20 years time.
Just my ingrained pessimism !

 

[WestCountry]

The 170s and 172s might be freed up by then though.

Chiltern and Snow Hill electrification would free up loads of 165/168/172s if necessary, and the Glasgow-Edinburgh program will displace a lot of Turbostars as well.

Even the partial TPE electrification is likely to free all of theirs, and the Nottingham/Cardiff and Stansted-Birmingham routes look possible in the long term (freight-driven in the latter case, for Felixstowe).

 

[D365]

I'm a strong advocate of Felixstowe-Birmingham completion, as both Ipswich-Peterborough and Stansted-Birmingham can be electrified (379s?), releasing a number of 170s, and freight can be run by 90s/92s. Hitchin-Cambridge-Ely-Peterborough could then also be used as an ECML diversion.

 

[150001]

Thats true; although what would replace the 172s with LM; as long as they are new again! Reading in Today's Railways I saw somewhere about a HINT to electrify the Snow Hill to Marylebone line in Control Period 6. But nothing past Snow Hill by the looks of it.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Thats true; although what would replace the 172s with LM; as long as they are new again! Reading in Today's Railways I saw somewhere about a HINT to electrify the Snow Hill to Marylebone line in Control Period 6. But nothing past Snow Hill by the looks of it.

I would say that if Snow Hill is electrified at all then it makes sense to electrify to Stourbridge Jct (and beyond ?) to get the full benefit of electrification Southwards to (say) Leamington and Stratford. GWML+spine electrification towards Snowhill helps with this.

The big step in electrifying Snowhill to Marylebone is that Marylebone is not yet electrified !. Its the only London terminus not yet electrified ? (scratches head in case I am wrong). What makes me think that is unlikely soon is that Marylebone is a convenient place for those surplus 165s and 166s from GWML electrification as they already fit there !.

 

[jopsuk]

You're not wrong- Marylebone is indeed the last remaining London Terminal without OHL or 3rd rail- though (excluding the Underground platforms) Paddington only got electrics with the opening of the Heathrow branch and reamins an isolated scheme that electric trains can only reach if they're dragged there as far as I know.

Unless there's will to scrap trains early, realisitically I can see the Marylebone toute being left alone until the 16x fleet are nearing their natural end, with the only work before then being possible platform lengthening to allow longer formations if the Thames Turbos are brought over.

 

[150001]

Might be a good idea then to electrify the Dorridge or Leamington to Worcester section then to perhaps free up the 172s (I'm not wishing them to go, I find them excellent) for Northern. Although a new EMU would be needed again to run this perhaps some sort of 172 electric design!

 

[Nym]

I can't see MBone being done any time soon.

However, I can see some inner parts of the Chiltern route to High Wycombe and/or Ammersham (via a curve near Harrow OTH) being handed over to Crossrail 1 Operation,