Additional Carriages

[dickdarlington]

Now then. New to the board. So apologies if this has come up before.

With everyone seemingly moaning about capacity, what are the major problems (other than cost) of building additional carriages to add to existing trains?

Obviously, gone are the days of uniform carriages which can be placed at the end when needed.

But how much would it cost to build additional carriages for the voyagers for example taking some sets up to 6-7 carriages. And how long would it take for the TOCs to recover the outlay?

This would need no additional paths to be created and could carry significantly greater volumes of passengers.

Some platforms may be too short to handle the longer trains, but you just don't open certain doors.

 

[tbtc]

Its something I've argued for. Whilst the production lines have closed for new coaches, and some designs are no longer permitted due to new legislation (e.g. I don't think you could build any more 185 coaches as they don't meet current environmental regulations, though you could put "non-standard" coaches into a 185 that had the right electronics to be compatible)...

...there have been a couple of threads about building unengined coaches for 220/221/222s with panotgraphs in, to allow trains to use the electricity on sections like Manchester to Birmingham or Edinburgh to York.

I agree with your main point though - we need longer trains (not more shorter ones)

 

[DarloRich]

agreed tbtc - but as you say the production lines have closed and there is no money for extra stock - look at TPE! I doubt there will be anymore stock coming any time soon.

I think we need both longer trains and more trains!

 

[sprinterguy]

New software systems have often been developed that means that extra carriages would be unable to “communicate” with the existing carriages in a train which use older systems, and as is mentioned above, the production lines for certain train designs often close immediately following completion of the build, precluding further builds without the great expense of reopening the production line: It’s a big problem of the fragmented rail industry ordering small batches of trains completely separate from the other operators.

The arrangement of privatisation is not conducive to building new trains: The train builders will only build new trains if they are sure of guaranteed funding for the train order from the ROSCOs, and the ROSCOs will only fund the train costs if they can guarantee that the trains will make a return on their initial costs through leasing charges from the TOCs, and the TOC franchises are too short to ensure that any new trains or carriages built will not be out of work within five years as stock is moved around by the DfT and franchises are reshaped. There’s no room for a bit of entrepreneurial flair from the train builders, as there are just too many different new train designs around to ensure that a new tranche of additional coaches will all find homes.

Platform lengths sometimes limit the number of carriages that can be added to a train, and not all trains are fitted with selective door opening to allow them to call at stations shorter than the train.

Adding extra carriages will also often mean modifying the depot facilities, especially at the more recent purpose built or adapted traincare depots, which have been set up for trains of a particular length.

And I think most importantly, micromanagement of the train operators by the DfT that control exactly how much is spent on new trains in a franchise. I know the OP asked for reasons other than cost, but in the end it principally boils down to money.

 

[Tomnick]

There might be a slight problem (taking the example of the Voyagers) with just lengthening units without altering the surrounding infrastructure. I'd understood that the more intensive XC timetable, when first introduced, wouldn't work unless reversing Voyagers at New Street shared a platform with another unit. Similarly, I know some use a bay platform at Reading - not sure whether there's capacity available in a through platform instead. A third example is Doncaster, where (solely from my occasional observations) a number of southbound XC services now use the shorter platform 3b before crossing to the Sheffield lines via the ladder through the middle of the station - which logically seems to be rather less disruptive than trying to fit another one into the busy platforms on the Down side (as a full-length set would have to).

I'm not saying these problems are insurmountable - just that it's not simply a case of lengthening trains and carrying on as normal!

 

[Hydro]

Plus it's a pain in the backside having to have new build carriages built from the ground up as modern classes seem to be bespoke made nowadays with no inter-unit working due to incompatible electrical or computer management systems.

25 years ago: "We need longer EMU's for Brighton" "Rewire a Mk1 trailer and stick it in there" or "WCML needs longer trains!" "Sweep out those Mk2, hoover the carpets and tag them on the end. If the trains too long, then they'll have to use the front 8"

Now: "Dickie Branson wants longer Pendos" "OK, well we'll have to get Alstom to dig their production jigs out of the attic, build them from the ground up and stick them into the sets. Oh, and they have to be built in Italy, because the UK plant they were originally built in has been bulldozed."

A lot of flexibility has been lost in the railways, something that really compounded on me when I had the SR multiple working system explained to me, and just how easy it was to slap just about anything together to create a longer train, an electric train that with a few pipes and control circuits could run with any compatible loco to turn it into a push/pull non-electrified service, then at the flick of a switch go back to electric. Dual-mode trains? They've been around for years with the SR and their ED's, and compatible EMU stock. No complicated electric doors or SDO needed, if your train was too long, the guard told you and you walked up the train. Different EMU's could just be coupled together, hook a few brake pipes and jumpers up and voila, a longer train. These standard ways of working were all over the network, MU codes, Sprinters and Pacers using the same control methods and couplings, you could literally knock anything together from spare compatible stock. Nowadays, everythings bespoke, and there are no spares.

 

[jopsuk]

Was anything actually used off the 3rd rail in push mode other than TC units?

The safety restrictions of central locking and SDO were brought about because there were safety incidents due to non-locked doors- not common, but made (barring systems failure) impossible with the complicated systems.

 

[Geezertronic]

Now: "Dickie Branson wants longer Pendos"

Unless I am mistaken, I think you'll find that "Dickie Branson" has nothing to do with the day to day running of VT

"OK, well we'll have to get Alstom to dig their production jigs out of the attic, build them from the ground up and stick them into the sets. Oh, and they have to be built in Italy, because the UK plant they were originally built in has been bulldozed."

The 390s were assembled at Washwood Heath, not built there - and the plant is still intact not bulldozed (as I was corrected in a previous thread)

 

[Oswyntail]

If the ROSCOS got their act together, they would have enough clout to bring about a vast improvement. Sod the different control systems, couplings, etc. A ROSCO that said "we want to order a couple of billion squids worth of new trains, interoperable, to eight standard designs (electric or diesel, inner- outer- and inter city, and rural), capable of use anywhere on the system" would have the major suppliers falling over themselves to get the contract. The ROSCOs would not be worried about their stuff being redundant, because it would be being used all over the system and could be moved as desired. Besides, a big order like that would drive down prices.
All this needs is for the ROSCOs to do what they were set up to do, be entrepreneurial and take what little risks there were - DfT wouldn't get a look in!

 

[Hydro]

Unless I am mistaken, I think you'll find that "Dickie Branson" has nothing to do with the day to day running of VT

OK, a vaguely humorous reference not quite needed it seems. I didn't think he sat there ordering trains, planes and blank CD's from behind his desk.

It smacks of pain-in-the-arsery to keep piecemeal reordering coaches from builds long completed to top up existing stock. Someone must be laughing all the way to the bank over the existing situation.

 

[Geezertronic]

If they really wanted true value for money, they should order 104 new 390 vehicles and add an extra two to the existing 52 sets - in addition to an extra 8 or so sets of 11 carriages to totally remove the Super Voyagers from the Birmingham to Scotland runs.

Of course, someone has to pay for all this and in the current climate, who would? VT said they would pay to add an extra 2 carriages to existing 390 set but is that just words to add weight to their franchise renewal bid?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

It's definitely worth considering building two car, unpowered trailers, to provide extra capacity in the peak on some DMU routes. I'm not an operator, but I'm sure there are some routes, especially in the North, where, for example, a 185 could work into a city with five cars, leave the "2TC" on the buffers in a bay (say at York) and continue operation, returning in the evening peak to operate from the city. The spec. would be reasonably simple: -

• 23 metres long
• 1/3 & 2/3 doors
• Driving cab on outer ends with auto-couplers
• One accessible toilet (necessary without through gangways)
• Cab air con
• Small gen set to power auxiliaries

The benefits are obvious, especially given that 185s are clearly over powered, apart from on the Pennine grades.

This is a way to reduce the carbon footprint of diesel powered stock and get more seats at relatively low cost (whoever the manufacturer is - doesn't necessarily need to be Siemens, as coupler compatibility is easy!)

 

[MCR247]

Even on the Pennine grades, they are overpowered, but that looks like a good idea

 

[rail-britain]

Obviously, gone are the days of uniform carriages which can be placed at the end when needed

Even when I was interested in the railways in the 1980s, this was a very rare occurance as by then "fixed formations" were in use
Rather than extend a set it was more common to run additional services or to swap sets so that those with more capacity were used as required

Ironically, with sprinters the same principle applied

As for adding additional coaches to the Voyagers, this would be up to the DfT
As things stand this is very unlikely
Equally, the TOC would not recoup any costs, as these would be fairly fixed, and in some cases the costs would be higher than the revenue

 

[142094]

Not sure how much room there are in depots as well for new units - take TPE, York depot can't hold that many 3 car 185s so if they were increased to 5 as has been suggested it probably could not happen.

 

[The Engineer]

As for adding additional coaches to the Voyagers, this would be up to the DfT
As things stand this is very unlikely

Wait for the IEP decision. If IEP does not go ahead, at least in its main form, a number of refurb and conversion jobs are waiting in the wings. The extra paantograph cars for 22x is a leading contender in this job list. It has been concepted, tendered and just awaits an order.....

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Wait for the IEP decision. If IEP does not go ahead, at least in its main form, a number of refurb and conversion jobs are waiting in the wings. The extra paantograph cars for 22x is a leading contender in this job list. It has been concepted, tendered and just awaits an order.....

I think it would be more accurate to say that it has been "proposed" (by Bombardier), not tendered, as I don't believe at a "tender" has been launched, by either DfT, a ROSCO or a TOC.

On this occasion, I hope common sense prevails and that there is no tender process, as it makes no sense, given that the only logical supplier for these vehicles is Bombardier. That said, I hope Bombardier does not take advantage of the situation by hiking the vehicle price too much.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not sure how much room there are in depots as well for new units - take TPE, York depot can't hold that many 3 car 185s so if they were increased to 5 as has been suggested it probably could not happen.

So how were extra units ever going to be accommodated, when they were proposed under the 202 vehicle HLOS, or, indeed, prior to that, the extra vehicles to strengthen the 3-car 185s to 4-car?

 

[telstarbox]

And I think most importantly, micromanagement of the train operators by the DfT that control exactly how much is spent on new trains in a franchise. I know the OP asked for reasons other than cost, but in the end it principally boils down to money.

So if the DfT need to micro-manage franchises so much, what's the point in having a competitive tendering process for a franchise in the first place? Why don't the DfT just work out every last detail, write it all in a big list and give it to the chosen company?

 

[sprinterguy]

So if the DfT need to micro-manage franchises so much, what's the point in having a competitive tendering process for a franchise in the first place? Why don't the DfT just work out every last detail, write it all in a big list and give it to the chosen company?

Part of the reason the franchising process is currently being rewritten to produce rail franchising version 3 is to allow more autonomous decisions to be taken by the franchise holder to decide how they want to run the franchise.

Whilst it is necessary for the DfT to set some basic standards in the rail franchises to avoid the private TOCs, which are largely bus operators, doing to the railways what they have done to the bus network since deregulation and concentrating most of their efforts onto the profitable corridors, there also needs to be room for the TOC to show a bit of entrepreneurial flair if there are to be any real benefits to privatisation.

 

[Class 33]

They do need to get more carriages for various services throughout the network to ease overcrowding. Instead of spending godknows how much money on this HS2 London-Birmingham high speed line which isn't really needed yet. There are allready two London-Birmingham lines, and the Chiltern mainline route will have journey times reduced to 1 hour 40 minutes when the line is upgraded next year. Just what is the point of a third London-Birmingham line? Invest in more carriages throughout the network first to inprove the travelling experience for passengers all over the UK, then perhaps think about building this new high speed London-Birmingham line.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Was anything actually used off the 3rd rail in push mode other than TC units?

The safety restrictions of central locking and SDO were brought about because there were safety incidents due to non-locked doors- not common, but made (barring systems failure) impossible with the complicated systems.

Perhaps you don't remember or know of the Glasgow - Edinburgh class 27 operated push-pull sets?

 

[tbtc]

Perhaps you don't remember or know of the Glasgow - Edinburgh class 27 operated push-pull sets?

The good old days with the 27/1s and 27/2s

 

[jopsuk]

Perhaps you don't remember or know of the Glasgow - Edinburgh class 27 operated push-pull sets?

Ah, I wasn't clear enough- I meant any Southern EMU stock- I know about the E-G push-pull services- and indeed the Great Eastern Mainline (formerly 47s and Mark 2s), East Coast Mainline (the Mark 4+91 sets), West Coast Mainline (90+mrk3, now mainly on the GEML) and WSMR (67+mrk3) push-pull. I was wondering if any REPs etc were ever pushed away from 3rd rails by the 33s- I'd have though they'd try to avoid doing so, but strange things happen.

 

[Geezertronic]

They do need to get more carriages for various services throughout the network to ease overcrowding. Instead of spending godknows how much money on this HS2 London-Birmingham high speed line which isn't really needed yet. There are allready two London-Birmingham lines, and the Chiltern mainline route will have journey times reduced to 1 hour 40 minutes when the line is upgraded next year. Just what is the point of a third London-Birmingham line? Invest in more carriages throughout the network first to inprove the travelling experience for passengers all over the UK, then perhaps think about building this new high speed London-Birmingham line.

HS2 is not just about London-Birmingham is it....

 

[ainsworth74]

HS2 is not just about London-Birmingham is it....

It will be until at least the mid 2030s.

 

[sprinterguy]

It will be until at least the mid 2030s.

Well, the West Coast main line was only electrified as far as Weaver Junction for a few years, and nobody these days would dream of suggesting that it should never have been done because it was initially "only going to Manchester and Liverpool". Big projects like HS2 have to be carried out in stages to make them managable financially and logistically, HS2 is certainly not just about a Birmingham to London commuter shuttle.

Construction of HS2 won't begin until 2017 at the earliest, so it is not the case that money that could be spent on additional carriages is currently being spent on "building HS2". We’ll be under a completely different government and in a completely different economic situation by the time HS2 is under construction. And if HS2 were to be withdrawn the funding committed to it wouldn’t be spread over other railway projects anyway. It would go elsewhere, or just be lost altogether.

 

[yorksrob]

Ah, I wasn't clear enough- I meant any Southern EMU stock- I know about the E-G push-pull services- and indeed the Great Eastern Mainline (formerly 47s and Mark 2s), East Coast Mainline (the Mark 4+91 sets), West Coast Mainline (90+mrk3, now mainly on the GEML) and WSMR (67+mrk3) push-pull. I was wondering if any REPs etc were ever pushed away from 3rd rails by the 33s- I'd have though they'd try to avoid doing so, but strange things happen.

Well, various electric units have been pulled around the place on the Southern often carrying passengers. As for actual proper multiple unit operation as opposed to just dragging, the only other examples I can think of are the MLV's which can pull any 2nd generation Southern unit on battery power away from the 3rd rail on short distances, and there was a prototype TC which worked in push-pull mode on the Oxted line in the 60's. I think that this was basically a 2BIL with various redundant Bullied SUB trailers sandwiched inbetween.

 

[Geezertronic]

It will be until at least the mid 2030s.

So where has the current Governments plans to extend the Y North of Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds gone then? Plus if legacy stock can utilise the links, journey times would decrease to Northern destinations regardless?

 

[ainsworth74]

So where has the current Governments plans to extend the Y North of Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds gone then?

Nowhere, but last I head London-Birmingham was supposed to open until 2025, so I'm not expecting anything in the Leeds/Manchester region until at least 2030 and being a bit pessimistic about the whole thing I'm expecting it later rather than sooner.

Plus if legacy stock can utilise the links, journey times would decrease to Northern destinations regardless?

As far as I'm aware no legacy stock will be using HS2, new build stock will be compatible with the current infrastructure however. Journey times will reduce yes, but so what? Manchester and Glasgow will see some benefit, but rail already has the lions share of Manchester to London, and I'm not sure the time saved will be tempting that many off airplanes to Glasgow at least until HS2 gets to Manchester proper. As for Leeds there won't be much benefit as the connection will be to the WCML not the ECML so unless your also planning on electrifying the cross country route (which I'm all in favour of) Leeds won't see any benefit until HS2 actually arrives same goes for Newcastle and York.

Look I think we've argued about HS2 before, so I will say my peace and be done. Personally I don't think we should be investing in HS2 until we've sorted the classic lines out with wider reaching electrification (GWML and MML), more capacity on existing services and better links between cities such as Hull-Leeds-Manchester-Sheffield with each other as just a few examples. Once we've done that then I would like to see HS2.

 

[MCR247]

HS2 will almost make connecting flights from Manchester- Heathrow redundant, if there was a terminal for HS2 in Manchester where you an check your bags in and not see them until the destination of your flight. The station would be given an IATA code, and then bags can be checked in abroad for the destination of Manchester say