Any more DMUs?

[northwichcat]

Personally I think the rolling stock numbers might be a bit shakey as I suspect if we got 'sparks effect' growth and the growth we saw in the 90s/00s in real life there would actually need to be even more vehicles than this report suggests (it's being written in 80/81 so passengers numbers are only just bottoming out let alone growing).

For that effect you really need more carriages to start with e.g. 3 car EMUs replacing 2 car Pacers or a 3 car EMU every 20 minutes instead of a 3 car DMU every 30 minutes.

I'm not sure the Snow Hill lines would have any 'sparks growth' effect if they got new EMUs of the same length as the current 172s running the same timetable. If you cascaded 323s on to the class 172 routes and didn't refit the 323s with new seats and air conditioning people might actually be put off by the electric trains - given you'd replace 2+2 seating with 3+2 seating and the trains would get hot if you don't open the windows (doing so increases noise and external smells.)

 

[tbtc]

The "sparks effect" belongs in the Railway Myths thread - increase the number of services/ number of carriages and more people use the train. A three coach 308 wasn't amazing on the Airedale/ Wharfdale lines twenty years ago, but was still a great leap forward from a 30m long Pacer.

Same applies for a four coach 317/319 replacing Pacers in "Lancashire". Nothing to do with the type of power or anything.

(and no complaints about the younger Pacers being replaced by the older ex-London stock back then either?)

 

[ainsworth74]

True you could achieve similar levels of growth using DMUs (arguably 22xs achieved that on XC) but things like, better journey times, higher frequency, higher capacity, passenger environment improvements often tend to come with electrification. The effect is perhaps overstated but it certainly exists thanks to the other factors electrification normally brings into play.

 

[Kneedown]

I suggest we forget about cascading Voyager type trains to services like Liverpool ( or Nottingham) - Norwich, etc. . Apart from them being far too fuel-hungry for such services, many of them are likely to be getting a bit knackered by 2025 / 2030, having run at 100+ mph for around 30 years.

But will they be much more fuel hungry IN PRACTICE on the route? A Voyager/Meridian will get to speed quickly and so the Driver will ease off the power quite soon. A 158 on the other hand spends the majority of the journey at full power. For the 22x to be more fuel hungry than the 158 it needs to consume more diesel at low power/idle, than a 158 at full power. I don't know if this is the case in practice or not and i would be interested to know the actual fuel consumption figures, but we shouldn't discount this option before we know the equation.
I would suggest that 158's are a lot more knackered now than 22x's are.

 

[northwichcat]

Same applies for a four coach 317/319 replacing Pacers in "Lancashire". Nothing to do with the type of power or anything.

When we get to the Hazel Grove-Preston and Victoria-Blackpool services going over to EMU some already are 4 car Sprinters so 319s entering service on that lines without a prior refurbishment or being reformed in to 3 car trains to allow 6 car operation then passengers won't see much of a benefit.

 

[JamesRowden]

But will they be much more fuel hungry IN PRACTICE on the route? A Voyager/Meridian will get to speed quickly and so the Driver will ease off the power quite soon. A 158 on the other hand spends the majority of the journey at full power. For the 22x to be more fuel hungry than the 158 it needs to consume more diesel at low power/idle, than a 158 at full power. I don't know if this is the case in practice or not and i would be interested to know the actual fuel consumption figures, but we shouldn't discount this option before we know the equation.
I would suggest that 158's are a lot more knackered now than 22x's are.

The output energy required to accelerate is equal to the kinetic energy when up to speed 'E=0.5*m*v^2.' Therefore, if we assume that the engine/transmission efficiency of the two trains is the same (I am not saying that this is the case) the energy used to accelerate to a certain speed is determined by the mass of the train:

158: 38 T per car, 136 seats (559 kg per seat) (derived from 2-car set)

220: 46.5 T per car, 200 seats (930 kg per seat) (derived from 4-car set)

A 22X should have a lower drag coefficient than a 158 which would make it more economical while cruising (once again assuming that the engine/transmission efficiency of the two trains is the same)

 

[edwin_m]

The output energy required to accelerate is equal to the kinetic energy when up to speed 'E=0.5*m*v^2.' Therefore, if we assume that the engine/transmission efficiency of the two trains is the same (I am not saying that this is the case) the energy used to accelerate to a certain speed is determined by the mass of the train:

158: 38 T per car, 136 seats (559 kg per seat) (derived from 2-car set)

220: 46.5 T per car, 200 seats (930 kg per seat) (derived from 4-car set)

A 22X should have a lower drag coefficient than a 158 which would make it more economical while cruising (once again assuming that the engine/transmission efficiency of the two trains is the same)

The amount of extra energy needed to climb a hill is also proportional to the mass, and being a DMU this energy can't be recovered by regeneration going down the other side. The electric transmission of the Voyager/Meridian is probably a bit more efficient than the hydraulic one of the 158, and it is possible that the larger engine spends more of its time near the economical middle of its operating range than running flat out, but I don't think these factors would outweigh the weight difference.

 

[Buttsy]

As far as the West Highland and Far North lines, there may be a case for electrifying using hydro-electric generated power, particulalrly if the railway owned the power stations as surplus juice could be fed into the national grid.

I believe this was an idea in the late 50s, early 60s, but not followed up.

Thoughts?

 

[Kneedown]

, and it is possible that the larger engine spends more of its time near the economical middle of its operating range than running flat out, but I don't think these factors would outweigh the weight difference.

It's more than possible, it is what actually happens, as is proved when we take 222's to Liverpool on Aintree race days. As regards the extra weight, this is surely only a big factor when starting off. When on the move it's less of an issue? I know 222's can't take Sprinter differential speeds due to their weight, but the extra acceleration more than makes up for this, again proved on race day Meridian runs.

 

[edwin_m]

It's more than possible, it is what actually happens, as is proved when we take 222's to Liverpool on Aintree race days. As regards the extra weight, this is surely only a big factor when starting off. When on the move it's less of an issue? I know 222's can't take Sprinter differential speeds due to their weight, but the extra acceleration more than makes up for this, again proved on race day Meridian runs.

So do the 222s actually use less fuel on this run than 158s? And if so how is this measured, per train per coach or per seat?

The weight makes a difference when accelerating but also when climbing hills. The amount of energy needed to lift something through a given height is directly proportional to its mass.

 

[Kneedown]

So do the 222s actually use less fuel on this run than 158s?

The weight makes a difference when accelerating but also when climbing hills. The amount of energy needed to lift something through a given height is directly proportional to its mass.

I don't honestly know whether they use less fuel or not, hence my interest in knowing the actual consumption figures for both class's at different power settings (I can't find any data of use on Cummin's website)
I have, however, worked several 222's on this route, and whatever the weight difference, can say that a 222 performs the task, even on the hilly Hope Valley section, at low power settings after initial acceleration, whereas a 158 is at full power for most of the way, reaching permitted speeds only infrequently.
Would a 5 car 222 use less fuel than a 4 car 158? As i said, I don't know for certain, but it suspect it may possibly be the case.

 

[AndyLandy]

Regarding the original question, I think it's highly unlikely that we'll have a fully-wired railway by the time the current DMUs are all life-expired. Even assuming the Turbostars and their classmates make it to 2050. The issue is exacerbated by whether there'll even be enough CP5 electrification to do away with the Pacers by 2020, never mind beyond then.

I certainly envisage the majority of the 150 and 156 fleets being made PRM-TSI compliant and still in-use beyond 2020, with many units potentially making it to about 2030.

The trick is not to curtail DMU purchases prematurely. It makes every sense to go electrification-crazy, but not replacing life-expired DMUs just in case seems like a losing strategy to me. It's not the end of the world if we've a few DMUs running under-the-wires for the last couple of years of their life if they're still serviceable.

On the other hand, I do wonder whether we might be able to make better use of stock we already have. I know it's a popular enthusiast thing to suggest more LHCS, but in this case I reckon there's some genuine scope for consideration.

There's going to be a lot of Mk3 vehicles lying around in the non-too-distant future, stock which could potentially go on for another 15-20 years. Given that political will is against more diesel purchases, and emissions regulations are making it harder anyway, maybe using diesel locos on passenger services isn't an entirely daft idea, particularly since there'll be plenty of places where there aren't capacity constraints with platform lengths and soforth.

What if a newer better fuel method comes in to play or we have an electric shortage? Although, I suppose our country will continue to invest in the outdated method like they did with building faster steam locomotives when other countries had moved on to diesel.

If a better fuel method comes along, that's great. If we can discover a cheap, plentiful and clean energy source for self-propelling trains, that'd be marvellous. We could replace DMUs with it and potentially stop buying new EMUs as well. If it's really that good, we could use it to feed the OHLE, or possibly even retro-fit it to existing electric traction. Odds are it'll be convertible to electrical energy. Of course, that still doesn't preclude the possibility of an even more efficient fuel that could feed OHLE, so it may not even kill off electric traction.

 

[The Ham]

Regarding the original question, I think it's highly unlikely that we'll have a fully-wired railway by the time the current DMUs are all life-expired. Even assuming the Turbostars and their classmates make it to 2050. The issue is exacerbated by whether there'll even be enough CP5 electrification to do away with the Pacers by 2020, never mind beyond then.

I certainly envisage the majority of the 150 and 156 fleets being made PRM-TSI compliant and still in-use beyond 2020, with many units potentially making it to about 2030.

The trick is not to curtail DMU purchases prematurely. It makes every sense to go electrification-crazy, but not replacing life-expired DMUs just in case seems like a losing strategy to me. It's not the end of the world if we've a few DMUs running under-the-wires for the last couple of years of their life if they're still serviceable.

On the other hand, I do wonder whether we might be able to make better use of stock we already have. I know it's a popular enthusiast thing to suggest more LHCS, but in this case I reckon there's some genuine scope for consideration.

There's going to be a lot of Mk3 vehicles lying around in the non-too-distant future, stock which could potentially go on for another 15-20 years. Given that political will is against more diesel purchases, and emissions regulations are making it harder anyway, maybe using diesel locos on passenger services isn't an entirely daft idea, particularly since there'll be plenty of places where there aren't capacity constraints with platform lengths and soforth.

Even if many of the Mark 3's don't quite last that long there are good number of Mark 4's, which would provide a fairly good fleet for someone.

you could run them as:
30 x 5 coach rakes with a loco and DVT
19 x 8 coach rakes with two locos

Maybe Scotland would like to have them, as with a bi-modal loco they are likely to be cheaper to run and have better capacity than a voyager. And although it is no where near as many as the current fleet size (in numbers of sets - 39 compared with 151), they are due to be redusing their fleet size as electrification carries on and a 5 coach rake would only be a small reduction in capcity over a pair of 3 coach DMU's.

 

[Julia]

The "sparks effect" belongs in the Railway Myths thread - increase the number of services/ number of carriages and more people use the train.

...but also, increase the reliability of services, and more people use them. And as EMUs consistently have way higher miles-per-casualty figures than DMUs, it's to be expected that usage will increase post-electrification. Maybe not immediately, but over time.

 

[northwichcat]

...but also, increase the reliability of services, and more people use them. And as EMUs consistently have way higher miles-per-casualty figures than DMUs, it's to be expected that usage will increase post-electrification. Maybe not immediately, but over time.

You need to remember that while EMUs have a lower casualty rate that the EMU can be working perfectly but is unable to run due to a failure with the overheads.

It's also sometimes harder for an EMU to divert if the diversionary route has no overheads. If, for example, Crewe to Chester was electrified and the line floods (which has happened on numerous occasions) the alternative route is Crewe-Sandbach-Northwich-Chester with Sandbach-Chester not electrified and Sandbach-Northwich has no scheduled passenger movements and I think only an occasional freight movement and a Virgin ECS working (for route retention purposes) use the line so the cost:benefit ratio of electrifying the diversionary route would be extremely poor.

What can be said about electrification though is once the funds for installing the overheads have been spent the cost of running additional services will be cheaper than on a diesel line.

 

[HSTEd]

You need to remember that while EMUs have a lower casualty rate that the EMU can be working perfectly but is unable to run due to a failure with the overheads.

Despite what some people believe on this forum, the casualty rate for OLE is effectively negligible compared to the other sources of service failures on the railway.

It's also sometimes harder for an EMU to divert if the diversionary route has no overheads. If, for example, Crewe to Chester was electrified and the line floods (which has happened on numerous occasions) the alternative route is Crewe-Sandbach-Northwich-Chester with Sandbach-Chester not electrified and Sandbach-Northwich has no scheduled passenger movements and I think only an occasional freight movement and a Virgin ECS working (for route retention purposes) use the line so the cost:benefit ratio of electrifying the diversionary route would be extremely poor.

Diversionary routes are relatively rarely used these days.
It is cheaper to simply truncate and put on buses.

 

[tbtc]

...but also, increase the reliability of services, and more people use them. And as EMUs consistently have way higher miles-per-casualty figures than DMUs, it's to be expected that usage will increase post-electrification. Maybe not immediately, but over time.

I'm all for electrification, don't get me wrong, I just doubt that most passengers will notice the things that we enthusiasts do

 

[northwichcat]

Diversionary routes are relatively rarely used these days. It is cheaper to simply truncate and put on buses.

I just gave an example of where a very lightly used line is used as a diversionary route.

Yes it's cheaper to put on buses but it would be even cheaper to not run the train service at all and have a bus all the way.

Despite what some people believe on this forum, the casualty rate for OLE is effectively negligible compared to the other sources of service failures on the railway.

They might be rare but when they do happen with electrified lines tending to have a high service frequency in results in delays and cancellations which can last for 2 or 3 hours which could affect something like 40 or 50 services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm all for electrification, don't get me wrong, I just doubt that most passengers will notice the things that we enthusiasts do

I think I've said this before but when I was travelling on a Renfe MD Class 599 (diesel) train which had only just entered service on recently relaid track between Algeciras and Ronda, a British man who had boarded the train commented on it being very quiet and smooth so it must be an electric train. Then he realised there were no electrics for the train to run off and seemed very surprised.

 

[snowball]

What if a newer better fuel method comes in to play?

I gather that for years up to 2009, when Adonis took charge, one or two senior civil servants at the DfT used this as an excuse for not electrifying anything. Roger Ford of Modern Railways satirised it as "bionic duckweed".

 

[Peter Sarf]

It is cheaper to simply truncate and put on buses.

NEVER NEVER - do not go there please.

Replacement buses are awful. Its only convenient for the operator. A diversion is better for the passenger going from one junction station to another. I would rather have a slower journey by train but not have to get off with luggage get on an cramped and possibly old bus then meander around and get on another train. A replacement bus means people with push chairs get left behind (as they apparently will not take them). We have to zig zag around the roads to reach each intermediate station even if we are going to the other end of a section.

If I want to go by bus I will pay less and book a coach in the first place. I avoid travel by train if I know there is a replacement bus due to engineering works. Obviously its not always possible to go around the possession by another route and there are the intermediate stations to cater for. But in many cases its just the railway operators taking the easy route - naive.

Sorry for rant - pet hate of mine.

That's why btw there will always be a need for some self propelled haulage (diesel) until everything is electrified. But then every route being electrified is probably unobtainable as the temptation will be to close some lesser routes. They could only justify a pacer last time investment was needed on some lesser routes (I am not saying that is where the pacer ended up though !). We will need some kind of self propelled trains and that will probably be second hand diesels until an alternate power source comes along. That alternative way of getting power will very likely work better on a large scale - as in a power station. So the hope of an alternative to diesel (eg bio, fuel cells etc etc) will not change the justification for electrification.

 

[The Ham]

I just gave an example of where a very lightly used line is used as a diversionary route.

Yes it's cheaper to put on buses but it would be even cheaper to not run the train service at all and have a bus all the way.

Cheaper to run, yes, but (as was found post Beaching) many of those who use trains do not change to use the buses.

 

[AndyLandy]

If, for example, Crewe to Chester was electrified and the line floods (which has happened on numerous occasions) the alternative route is Crewe-Sandbach-Northwich-Chester with Sandbach-Chester not electrified and Sandbach-Northwich has no scheduled passenger movements and I think only an occasional freight movement and a Virgin ECS working (for route retention purposes) use the line so the cost:benefit ratio of electrifying the diversionary route would be extremely poor.

With that specific route, it wouldn't surprise me if the optimal strategy is to double the Sandbach-Northwich line and electrify into Chester that way instead.

 

[tbtc]

With that specific route, it wouldn't surprise me if the optimal strategy is to double the Sandbach-Northwich line and electrify into Chester that way instead.

Interesting idea - it gets round the flooding/ bridges problems (and there are no intermediate stations between Crewe and Chester on the current routethat would lose out) - would this also require less electrification?

Or just a new chord at Hartford (and electrification of Hartford - Chester)?

 

[AndyLandy]

Interesting idea - it gets round the flooding/ bridges problems (and there are no intermediate stations between Crewe and Chester on the current routethat would lose out) - would this also require less electrification?

Or just a new chord at Hartford (and electrification of Hartford - Chester)?

You've hit the nail on the head as to why I don't think it's a significant loss to simply close the existing CRE-CTR line. It would likely require more route miles of electrification than the existing line (but probably not by much), but the BCR is improved if it's looked at alongside the rest of the MCR.

As for whether you join the MCR at Hartford or Northwich, I don't think it makes a great deal of difference. Hartford is closer, but it means punting more trains along the twin-track section between Winsford and Hartford. Northwich will require doubling of the line, but the alignment is already there. I'm not sure what capacity is like between Crewe and Sandbach though.

Personal preference would be via Hartford, if only for the chance that more services might just call there. But that's only because I have cause to travel there!

 

[northwichcat]

Interesting idea - it gets round the flooding/ bridges problems (and there are no intermediate stations between Crewe and Chester on the current routethat would lose out) - would this also require less electrification?

Or just a new chord at Hartford (and electrification of Hartford - Chester)?

With the line through Hartford and Winsford being double track not quadruple track and there being subsidence issues in the Winsford area which may prevent quadrupling the track, I'm not sure if there might be pathing issues with trying to send all the Chester to Crewe services that way.

Electrifying and doubling the track on the Middlewich branch would also allow an alternative option for a proposed Preston to Birmingham stopper.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not sure what capacity is like between Crewe and Sandbach though.

My understanding is additional services could run on that bit but not if it results in an additional train from the North terminating at Crewe. So, for instance, running trying to add in a Northwich-Crewe service at present would create difficulties. However, if you first extend the Piccadilly-Airport-Crewe service to Stoke then it would be easier to fit in a Northwich-Crewe service.

Personal preference would be via Hartford, if only for the chance that more services might just call there. But that's only because I have cause to travel there!

Careful what you wish for. Hartford may get a slow Preston to Birmingham service and a slow Liverpool to London service stopping there every hour in a few years time. If you have Crewe-Chester shuttles calling at Hartford then it may decrease the business case for the proposed Preston-Birmingham service stopping at Hartford and increase the business case for it calling at Winsford instead. (Winsford would likely get only the hourly Liverpool-London service stopping there currently if those plans progress.)

 

[swt_passenger]

Cheaper to run, yes, but (as was found post Beaching) many of those who use trains do not change to use the buses.

The effect of closure of lines following Beeching's report, with supposed permanent replacement by buses, is not really comparable with random short term bustitution following day to day problems though, is it...

 

[northwichcat]

The effect of closure of lines following Beeching's report, with supposed permanent replacement by buses, is not really comparable with random short term bustitution following day to day problems though, is it...

In the case of some Staffordshire stations what was supposed to be a temporary replacement bus service became a permanent replacement bus service.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Interesting idea - it gets round the flooding/ bridges problems (and there are no intermediate stations between Crewe and Chester on the current route that would lose out) - would this also require less electrification? Or just a new chord at Hartford (and electrification of Hartford - Chester)?

Steady on. You will be getting those in the Middlewich Rail Link Campaign all of a lather with all this positive news. They will think that all their Christmases have come at once.

 

[swt_passenger]

In the case of some Staffordshire stations what was supposed to be a temporary replacement bus service became a permanent replacement bus service.

Still nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion though, which was about what you do when there's a random day to day fault with the OHLE...

 

[AndyLandy]

With the line through Hartford and Winsford being double track not quadruple track and there being subsidence issues in the Winsford area which may prevent quadrupling the track, I'm not sure if there might be pathing issues with trying to send all the Chester to Crewe services that way.

Whichever way you cut it, there's always issues, eh?

Quad-tracking that section is going to be a pain. You'd have to widen Winsford and Hartford stations, which isn't going to be easy.

What services run along that section of track? I know it's at least three Liverpool trains (VT fast, LM semi, LM stopper) and two north fast trains (VT EUS-GLC, VT BHM-GLC/EDB); there'll obviously be some freight paths, too.

Electrifying and doubling the track on the Middlewich branch would also allow an alternative option for a proposed Preston to Birmingham stopper.

How would it re-connect to the WCML at the north end? The existing chord in Hartford?

My understanding is additional services could run on that bit but not if it results in an additional train from the North terminating at Crewe. So, for instance, running trying to add in a Northwich-Crewe service at present would create difficulties. However, if you first extend the Piccadilly-Airport-Crewe service to Stoke then it would be easier to fit in a Northwich-Crewe service.

At the moment, I'm only proposing shifting the existing services off the existing CRE-CTR line and via the MCR instead. Of course, if there's a case for more services along that way, that's even better.

Careful what you wish for. Hartford may get a slow Preston to Birmingham service and a slow Liverpool to London service stopping there every hour in a few years time. If you have Crewe-Chester shuttles calling at Hartford then it may decrease the business case for the proposed Preston-Birmingham service stopping at Hartford and increase the business case for it calling at Winsford instead. (Winsford would likely get only the hourly Liverpool-London service stopping there currently if those plans progress.)

I guess that depends on what's most useful for Hartford. Certainly a Chester service isn't all that useful, since there's already one from Greenbank station. In my ideal world, it'd get all three (VT fast EUS-CTR; LM slow EUS-LIV and LM slow BHM-PRE) but realistically, I'd be happy enough with the two slow services. It bugs me no end that you can't currently get between Hartford and Warrington without changing at Crewe and doubling back.

LM have been touting this as a possible service pattern for some time now, but last I heard was it had been squashed by the ORR. Is it likely it'll get approval any time soon?