A Sensible plan for rolling stock

[metrocammel]

Why is DfT not seeing this?! Alternatively, stick an electric loco one end, a diesel the other! Same design, just different engine! Joisus...

Mk4s are a brilliant example of IC travel and how it should be IMO.

Well, if you read last month Rail Express, Porterbrook have suggested very similar. So I would presume as Porterbrook are making noises in that direction, the DfT should take some sort of notice.

 

[Sir_Clagalot]

If you upgrade and electrify the Durham Coast, you would then have to upgrade the entire Tyne & Wear Metro system as it runs on 1500V DC as opposed to 25kv AC... might speed them up a bit tho...

 

[theblackwatch]

Well, if you read last month Rail Express, Porterbrook have suggested very similar. So I would presume as Porterbrook are making noises in that direction, the DfT should take some sort of notice.

The article was personal view by Porterbrook's MD, not an official company view!

 

[bluenoxid]

I think it's ovious to everyone that the Pacers are life-expired, and that the 150/3/6s soon will be. They are the nadir of rolling stock that give the railways a bad name, and need replacing.

When we look around the country, we fid these trains are concentrated in 3 main areas-Bristol & the south west, South Wales and Leeds. We need a vision to take this stock out of the system-something that Labour should have done when they first came to office.

1)IEP-make it electric only and wire Paddington-Bristol and Bedford-Wakefield. 10 coaches, it will cascade 222s andHSTs of the MML & GWML

2)Build more Pendos for the WCML, allowing 221s to be cascaded off services that are entirely under wires.

3)Wire Liverpool-Scbro/Mbro/Hull and build new EMUs for TPE services. These need to be 6-8 cars, with full first class & restaurant facilities.

4)Wire Doncaster-Selby, with 225s serving Hull.

the Results:

-222s (7 car) & HSTs cascaded onto XC & Exeter-Waterloo
-222s (4/5 car) & 221s onto Leeds-Glasgow via S&C, Cardiff-Holyhead, Birmingham-Cardiff, Cardiff-Swansea, Norwich-Liverpool, Stansted-Birmingham & Bristol-Penzance
-185s onto Caldervale Line (Leeds-Victoria & York-Blackpool North)
-170s onto Birmingham, Leeds & Cardiff local services
-158s/59s onto SW local services e.g. Exeter-Exmouth, Penzance-Plymouth etc.

-142s, 143s, 150s, 156s, all sent for scrap.

Right so you're going to cascade life expired stock on to Cross Country and Exeter - Waterloo to replace stock that is up to 10 - 15 years younger.

You have to be pulling my leg?

There are 96 142's, 25 143's and 23 144's (which ironically don't make it into your plan or haven't been mentioned by anyone else) so I guess 144 fleet is staying whilst the 156 fleet goes to the torch.

I love how everyone is pushing for Newcastle - Middlesborough to be electrified yet they haven't thought of the small matter of the incorrect supply for the Metro that would have to be dealt with first

As for the replacement of the northern DMUs, I believe there is nothing in the pipeline, the best can be hoped for is cascading of 158s and 156s from Trans-pennine and other duties replaced by Turbostars and 185s.

Only a mixture of 200 extra carriages/trains between Northern, Transpennine and FGW to be conveniently ignored.

You have some good ideas and they will probably be achieved eventually but not before the current fleets have long gone.

The plans are likely to be

1) Electrify Preston - Blackpool. This mini project will allow NR to practice OHLE installation and allow VWC terminators (at Preston) to serve Blackpool. Note that this will give this city a direct but sparse link to London.

2) Electrify Preston - Manchester. This will bring a number of ex 142 services to a close.

3) Electrify Manchester - Liverpool (both ways). This begins to really cut a swathe into the NW 142 fleet

4) Electrify York - Leeds then on to Manchester. Now this begins to boost Transpennine capacity as at least 2tph across the Pennines become electric.

Electrifying Morpeth - Bedlington and Newcastle - Metrocentre would (with the separation of diagrams) cascade 2-3 units and give Northumberland a real rail service

Now this is the point where the fun begins. Either electrify the MML north or electrify the GW west. The MML would be best done in stages with it reaching Leicester, then Nottingham, then Derby, then Sheffield before reaching the Wakefield line. Then attention would need to be paid to lines off such as Nottingham - Sheffield, Sheffield - Leeds via Barnsley and Derby - Birmingham. The GW would probably reach Bristol first then head for Exeter and Cardiff next. A Bristol suburban scheme and Bedwyn would probably come next.

 

[ed1971]

I think it's ovious to everyone that the Pacers are life-expired, and that the 150/3/6s soon will be. They are the nadir of rolling stock that give the railways a bad name, and need replacing.

I cannot agree that Pacers and 150/3/6s are life expired just yet. I have been on well and truly life expired DMUs and EMUs in the 1980s. The worst of them were the old class 104s with their decrepid wooden stained filthy interiors, the awful engine vibrations, poor ride quality (far worse than a Pacer) and the exhaust fumes that found their way into the interiors as depicted on this video: -

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=rmeMKaR-TJU

The Pacers are brilliant in comparison.

 

[43021HST]

Pacers are not life expired they were only built 20 years ago. They will probably replaced by some ugly futeristic thing. There are trains that are older than that and still running (just).

Yours klambert

 

[The_Rail_WAy]

I still think its slightly premature to say that the 150/3/6's are life expired. Even some of the pacer units have still got a few years left in them. I'm not against modernisation by all means but you've got to be realistic.

 

[TEW]

HSTs are definatly not life expired, they have just be modernised to ensure they stay longer.

 

[bluenoxid]

HSTs are definatly not life expired, they have just be modernised to ensure they stay longer.

They are 30 years old and this thread is wanting to get rid of stock that is only 20 years old.

 

[ed1971]

I remember reading around the time that they were built that the class 150 steel bodies had a design life of 30 years.

 

[jonhewes]

They are 30 years old and this thread is wanting to get rid of stock that is only 20 years old.

While the HSTs may be 30 years old, they have had a great deal more investment and maintenance then the majority of 15x DMU stock we have floating around the network. As a result a large swathe of the 15X DMU family is percieved as being more life expired than HSTs because they are subjected to minimal maintenance and cleaning regeimes.

The difference in cleanliness between Intercity and local commuter stock is quite shocking. To give you an accurate comparison. I live in Newark which is served by EMT on the Notts-Lincoln line and NXEC on the ECML. If I catch a train between Newark and Peterborough (NXEC), I get a clean, quiet and comfortable travelling environment. There are no high-revving engines under the floor, the coach is cool during the summer, warm in the winter, and the ambience of the coach is highly pleasant.

In comparison if I commute to Lincoln via EMT. On boarding the train(usally 153 or 156) I am confronted by dirty carpets, shabby, torn and dirty upholstery , dirty windows and a lot of engine noise. To add further insult to injury there are often unsavoury looking marks on the backs of the seats (where the little tables fold out), and general assorted gunk in the corners of the window (on the inside)... When the train finally wheezes into action it sounds like it is going to take off.... the engine noise level is unacceptable and it is often difficult to hold conversations on the train. On a lot of units the heating also appears to be very inefficient in certain areas of the train, and even when you do get a seat near a heater, this appears to cut out when the engine revs up.

I am convinced..... in fact I know that EMT (and their predecessors Central) don't clean the trains on a daily basis. There was a dead bird in one of the vestibules that I noticed a few weeks ago. I then got the same unit four days later and the bird was still in situ!!!

If 153 and 156 DMUs were subjected to a major overhaul which included a new interior, new glazing, heating and insulation to mask the sound of the engine they could be a vialble proposition and encourage more passengers onto the railways. This is of course providing that a suitable cleaning and maintenance regeime was put in place. I am pretty much conditioned to how dirty the trains are, however when I've been on leave and not had to commute for a while, on returning I do find it pretty shocking.

Intercity rail operators and bus/coach companies manage to keep their stock clean, modern and well maintained. Why is it so hard for operators of "Provincial/Regional" type trains?

 

[ed1971]

Hi,

You make some valid points. Regional Railways always seemed to keep their units clean and tidy. The 156s were refurbished by them in 1992 with new seats and carpets. They were just 4 years old then.

It needs to be borne in mind too though, that the engine noise levels on classes 150s, 153, 155, 156 and 158s (except Perkins powered ones), was unacceptable even when they were brand new.

 

[A0]

Right so you're going to cascade life expired stock on to Cross Country and Exeter - Waterloo to replace stock that is up to 10 - 15 years younger.

You have to be pulling my leg?

There are 96 142's, 25 143's and 23 144's (which ironically don't make it into your plan or haven't been mentioned by anyone else) so I guess 144 fleet is staying whilst the 156 fleet goes to the torch.

Agree - I thought it a bit odd to be pushing for some of the 15xs to be scrapped before the 144s....

I love how everyone is pushing for Newcastle - Middlesborough to be electrified yet they haven't thought of the small matter of the incorrect supply for the Metro that would have to be dealt with first

Perhaps they're going to suggest de-electrifying Tyneside local services - wouldnt be the first time that's happened

Only a mixture of 200 extra carriages/trains between Northern, Transpennine and FGW to be conveniently ignored.

You have some good ideas and they will probably be achieved eventually but not before the current fleets have long gone.

The plans are likely to be

1) Electrify Preston - Blackpool. This mini project will allow NR to practice OHLE installation and allow VWC terminators (at Preston) to serve Blackpool. Note that this will give this city a direct but sparse link to London.

Nope - highly unlikely, can't see there being a benefits case for the infrastructure changes to justify this one.

2) Electrify Preston - Manchester. This will bring a number of ex 142 services to a close.

More likely as it would also aid diversions from the WCML

3) Electrify Manchester - Liverpool (both ways). This begins to really cut a swathe into the NW 142 fleet

Again, can't see a benefits case stacking up for this one. New DMUs would probably be cheaper

4) Electrify York - Leeds then on to Manchester. Now this begins to boost Transpennine capacity as at least 2tph across the Pennines become electric.

Given they've just put new units on TPE, I can't see this one making a benefits case for electrification, particularly since the TPE stuff tends to start / end beyond York / Manchester

Electrifying Morpeth - Bedlington and Newcastle - Metrocentre would (with the separation of diagrams) cascade 2-3 units and give Northumberland a real rail service
Again, probably cheaper to new build suitable DMUs than electrify


Now this is the point where the fun begins. Either electrify the MML north or electrify the GW west. The MML would be best done in stages with it reaching Leicester, then Nottingham, then Derby, then Sheffield before reaching the Wakefield line. Then attention would need to be paid to lines off such as Nottingham - Sheffield, Sheffield - Leeds via Barnsley and Derby - Birmingham. The GW would probably reach Bristol first then head for Exeter and Cardiff next. A Bristol suburban scheme and Bedwyn would probably come next.

Not sure I agree with your GW logic. More logical would be to do Oxford and Bedwyn first since the biggest benefit would be replacing 16x DMUs with EMUs on the stoppers / semi fasts to London, much more so than replacing the long distance diesel units.

On MML, the most likely option would be do Bedford-Corby and transfer that service to FCC. I'm not convinced a benefits case for MML electrification stands up

 

[bluenoxid]

You have to remember that the Blackpool plan would put the Manchester - Blackpools to EMU's if the Manchester - Preston was followed by it. The Blackpool project would be isolated enough to make an excellent starter project for NR's electrification team but deliver some benefits rather than standing on its own for a few years whilst other routes wait to be converted. It would not require any EMU purchases too.

Liverpool - Manchester is a busy route. Electrification will cost money but EMU's will do a lot to a pair of routes that currently have Pacers and Sprinters struggling to provide an intensive rail service. It will help reduce the Pacer fleet and deliver a better quality railway service.

185's don't have to stay with TPE. They can be moved around the country. With their 5th path and the likelihood that the Yorkshire Regional Transport Board wanting to do Hull and York, it is likely that 2-3 trains per hour across TPE would become electric.

Giving the Metrocentre electrification would give Heaton an electric fleet. This could also be used to aid a Newcastle - Edinburgh local service

Being honest, GW area is not my area of expertise and I agree with you that Oxford would be better served first.

 

[ed1971]

If Blackpool to Manchester was electrified, then Wigan to Liverpool Lime street ought to be too. It would then enable an electric Liverpool to Blackpool service.

You have overlooked one small problem though. Double decker buses on Blackpool Transport's service 14 to Fleetwood cross Carleton Crossing on the outskirts of Blackpool. They wouldn't clear the 25KV overhead wires. Probably a bridge would need constructing here.

The problem could be overcome by electrifying Manchester to Blackpool by third rail and using dual AC/DC EMUs. Preston to Ormskirk could be electrified too.

 

[The_Rail_WAy]

I there were plans to elecrify the Manchetser Blackpool line using overhead wires but apparently the decision to elecrify to Manchester Liverpoool route jepordised any real possibilities of that happening. Sad really because the Manchester Blackpool route is one of the busiest in the country and it obviously serves as a link to the WCML and serves as an important diversionary route.

 

[A0]

If Blackpool to Manchester was electrified, then Wigan to Liverpool Lime street ought to be too. It would then enable an electric Liverpool to Blackpool service.

You have overlooked one small problem though. Double decker buses on Blackpool Transport's service 14 to Fleetwood cross Carleton Crossing on the outskirts of Blackpool. They wouldn't clear the 25KV overhead wires. Probably a bridge would need constructing here.

The problem could be overcome by electrifying Manchester to Blackpool by third rail and using dual AC/DC EMUs. Preston to Ormskirk could be electrified too.

No way you'll get 3rd rail to Blackpool. Outside the Southern region the only place you're likely to see extensions to the third rail would be the Merseyrail network - now that could be to Preston, but highly unlikely onto Blackpool. More likely to do Wrexham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You have to remember that the Blackpool plan would put the Manchester - Blackpools to EMU's if the Manchester - Preston was followed by it. The Blackpool project would be isolated enough to make an excellent starter project for NR's electrification team but deliver some benefits rather than standing on its own for a few years whilst other routes wait to be converted. It would not require any EMU purchases too.

Liverpool - Manchester is a busy route. Electrification will cost money but EMU's will do a lot to a pair of routes that currently have Pacers and Sprinters struggling to provide an intensive rail service. It will help reduce the Pacer fleet and deliver a better quality railway service.

185's don't have to stay with TPE. They can be moved around the country. With their 5th path and the likelihood that the Yorkshire Regional Transport Board wanting to do Hull and York, it is likely that 2-3 trains per hour across TPE would become electric.

Giving the Metrocentre electrification would give Heaton an electric fleet. This could also be used to aid a Newcastle - Edinburgh local service

Being honest, GW area is not my area of expertise and I agree with you that Oxford would be better served first.

On the Blackpool one, still not convinced. You might get Manchester - Preston on the grounds some Manchester local services could move to EMUs which GMPTE would probably support. But they won't be interested once it goes outside their area.

 

[ed1971]

No way you'll get 3rd rail to Blackpool. Outside the Southern region the only place you're likely to see extensions to the third rail would be the Merseyrail network - now that could be to Preston, but highly unlikely onto Blackpool. More likely to do Wrexham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


On the Blackpool one, still not convinced. You might get Manchester - Preston on the grounds some Manchester local services could move to EMUs which GMPTE would probably support. But they won't be interested once it goes outside their area.

Why would it not be feasible to electrify the Blackpool line by third rail? It would save the cost of building a bridge at the Carleton Crossing. I would think that 3rd rail electrification would be cheaper than overhead?

 

[bluenoxid]

It does depend on the governments policy at the end of the day. If an about turn is made regarding it, then electrifying to Blackpool will make sense, otherwise there will be few benefits as the vast majority of trains will remain as diesels. It will be up to NR in the end.

Preston - Ormskirk would be better served by extending the electrification towards the Southport - Wigan line terminating the trains at Burscough Bridge using a new chord and then running the diesel from Preston towards Southport, using the same chord. This would require an additional train

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Carleton_level_crossing_05C303.jpg

http://blackpool-transport.fotopic.net/p39855123.html

ed1971. If this is the bus and crossing you are talking about, then you are incorrect. The wires will be 16'6" at the crossing and the bus will pass under them with no problem. The thing that is most likely to change is the crossing box disappearing

 

[ed1971]

Hi bluenoxid,

Yes this is the crossing and the type of buses I'm talking about. Whilst you say the bus would clear the overhead wires, I'd still be worried about the possibility of the 25KV jumping across. I know all too well about this ,as I used to be a TV engineer and the EHT from a cathode ray tube could jump and give you a nasty shock...ouch! A TV tube only uses very low current, railway OLE would be much higher.

This is how I'd rather remember the 14 though! http://blackpool.fotopic.net/p2261125.html

 

[The_Rail_WAy]

why not just ban double decker buses on that route.

Although alot of these electrification projects sound great in principle, but I just don't see any real hope for electrification on routes other than the Manchester - Liverpool route.

Manchester - Preston: Greatest chance but not in near future
Liverpool - Wigan: Unlikeley
Manchester - Wigan - Southport: Highly unlikely

 

[90019]

why not just ban double decker buses on that route.

Maybe because they need the capacity of a double decker on the route.

 

[ed1971]

Maybe because they need the capacity of a double decker on the route.

Correct, the service is often very busy despite a 15 minute daytime frequency.

 

[ukrob]

Why would it not be feasible to electrify the Blackpool line by third rail? It would save the cost of building a bridge at the Carleton Crossing. I would think that 3rd rail electrification would be cheaper than overhead?

Because 3rd rail is not allowed to be built other than short extensions to existing systems.

 

[bluenoxid]

Hi bluenoxid,

Yes this is the crossing and the type of buses I'm talking about. Whilst you say the bus would clear the overhead wires, I'd still be worried about the possibility of the 25KV jumping across. I know all too well about this ,as I used to be a TV engineer and the EHT from a cathode ray tube could jump and give you a nasty shock...ouch! A TV tube only uses very low current, railway OLE would be much higher.

This is how I'd rather remember the 14 though! http://blackpool.fotopic.net/p2261125.html

We put doubledeckers under those wires every day in many parts of the country. The risk of it jumping is minimal. The first example I can think of is the school buses serving Skipton Schools. They put at least one through Cononley and that is an LC with wires.

http://noxid.digimig.co.uk/p40985913.html

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3215/2972838540_f01d8ffdda.jpg?v=0

and none of the little kiddies have been frazzled so we're safe

 

[90019]

I know all too well about this ,as I used to be a TV engineer and the EHT from a cathode ray tube could jump and give you a nasty shock...ouch! A TV tube only uses very low current, railway OLE would be much higher.

Because it's 25kV, the current is probably going to be fairly low, and i would hazard a guess that trains have down transformer in them to decrease the voltage and increase the current.

I say this because, logically, they would use an up transformer to increase the voltage to 25kV whilst decreasing the current, to reduce the power loss on the cables;
P=IV, V=IR; substitute in to get P=I*IR or P=I²R, meaning that a smaller current exponentially reduces the power loss
The same process is used on power lines (hence substations to decrease the voltage closer to towns, cities, etc.)

 

[route:oxford]

Correct, the service is often very busy despite a 15 minute daytime frequency.

Isn't a 15 minute frequency fairly poor in an urban environment?

There are two companies operating a service every 6 minutes on the route near me in Oxford. They essentially deliver a service every 3 minutes into town. Generally all single deckers.

Should take the opportunity to close LCs wherever possible and replace them with a bridge both to protect the railway and improve road traffic flow.

 

[90019]

Should take the opportunity to close LCs wherever possible and replace them with a bridge both to protect the railway and improve road traffic flow.

I have to disagree with that; in many cases, on lines with less trains running, or roads with little traffic, i don't see how you can justify spending huge amounts building a bridge, when it wont make much difference to traffic flow, and it can be made safer by improving the crossing.

 

[A0]

I have to disagree with that; in many cases, on lines with less trains running, or roads with little traffic, i don't see how you can justify spending huge amounts building a bridge, when it wont make much difference to traffic flow, and it can be made safer by improving the crossing.

Quite agree - there are many cases where the volume of traffic is sufficiently light that LCs don't cause a problem.

It's also adding huge costs to any national rail reinstatements - take a look at the costs which were being quoted for the reinstatement of Uckfield - Lewes (it was on one of the local authority's websites) - building bridges where previously there were LCs makes this scheme more expensive.

 

[ed1971]

Because it's 25kV, the current is probably going to be fairly low, and i would hazard a guess that trains have down transformer in them to decrease the voltage and increase the current.

I say this because, logically, they would use an up transformer to increase the voltage to 25kV whilst decreasing the current, to reduce the power loss on the cables;
P=IV, V=IR; substitute in to get P=I(IR) or P=I²R, meaning that a smaller current exponentially reduces the power loss
The same process is used on power lines (hence substations to decrease the voltage closer to towns, cities, etc.)

This is probably correct and explains why people trespassing on the railways, who have received 25KV shocks have lived to tell the tale. People who have got a shock from a third rail, have usually been electocuted. Despite the voltage being lower at about 750VDC, the current will be much higher and as it's DC is more lethal. The OLE on the former 1500VDC Woodhead route was a lot more substantial than a modern 25KV installation, probably due to the fact that it carried higher current.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Isn't a 15 minute frequency fairly poor in an urban environment?

A 15 minute frequency is very good actually. In Wigan where I live, many direct routes between towns have been curtailed or axed with many frequencies being 30 mins or only every hour.