Class 142 to Buxton?

[luke1420]

Does anyone know why there was a 142 connected to the back of the 150 working the 16:49 to Buxton today? Units are ex Chester, so that would explain why there is a 142 on the back but 142 are not cleared to Buxton.Anyone know what is heppering hear?!?!

 

[northwichcat]

The other day when Newton Heath were a couple of DMUs down the rear unit on the 16:49 Piccadilly-Buxton was detached at platform 1 at Stockport and was used on the 16:58 Stockport-Chester. Maybe Northern did the same today? The 16:58 Stockport-Chester is showing as having departed Stockport 5 minutes late so it's possible.

The journey check website is saying

16:49 Manchester Piccadilly to Buxton due 17:45
Will be formed of 2 coaches instead of 4.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Looks like what I suggested initially has happened:

5D41 1615 Newton Heath T.M.D. to Stockport cancelled.

2H92 1649 Manchester Piccadilly to Buxton departed from platform 1 (at 17:01) instead of platform 0.

2D41 1658 Stockport to Chester departed from platform 1 (at 17:03) instead of platform 2

 

[Northerner]

I think it's northerns attempt at increasing seats. But still providing a disabled toilet on the other set

 

[1D53]

Jcollins is correct.

142's remain uncleared beyond Hazel Grove.

 

[northwichcat]

Just wondered have Northern ever cancelled a Buxton service between Hazel Grove and Buxton due to a Sprinter failing and the only replacement unit available being a 142?

 

[Emyr]

The Buxton-Bolton service which calls at Stockport 18:44 was a single 150 last night. I assume this is the return path for 2H92.

 

[1D53]

Just wondered have Northern ever cancelled a Buxton service between Hazel Grove and Buxton due to a Sprinter failing and the only replacement unit available being a 142?

Probably.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'd always though the reason 142s weren't permitted to Buxton was due to them not being able to cope with gradients, as opposed to being out-of-gauge.
In which case I'd have thought there'd be no reason (other than paperwork, or lack of) they couldn't work there if in multiple with a sprinter.

 

[northwichcat]

I'd always though the reason 142s weren't permitted to Buxton was due to them not being able to cope with gradients, as opposed to being out-of-gauge.
In which case I'd have thought there'd be no reason (other than paperwork, or lack of) they couldn't work there if in multiple with a sprinter.

There's a clearance issue on a tunnel as well, I think it's due to the 142s being 6cm taller than the Sprinters.

 

[Dunc108]

I'd always though the reason 142s weren't permitted to Buxton was due to them not being able to cope with gradients, as opposed to being out-of-gauge.
In which case I'd have thought there'd be no reason (other than paperwork, or lack of) they couldn't work there if in multiple with a sprinter.

I don't know they seem to cope with Miles Platting and thats quite a climb! Maybe it's more the tunnel clearance issue that stops them?

 

[edwin_m]

Sprinters and Pacers have very similar power:weight ratios and both have half their axles motored so I can't see that their hill climbing abilities will be much different.

 

[northwichcat]

Sprinters and Pacers have very similar power:weight ratios and both have half their axles motored so I can't see that their hill climbing abilities will be much different.

Pacers tend to be slower to accelerate and a crush loading seems to affect their ability to accelerate, a lot more than on a 150.

 

[Emyr]

Class 142:
Cummins LTA10-R 6-cylinder 10-litre, 225 hp (168 kW) at 2100 rpm
48.23 t per trainset (I'll assume this is for a 2 car formation)
4.7 hp/t

Class 150:
Cummins NT855R5 Diesel (1 unit per car), 213 kW (286 hp) (per engine) @ 2100 rpm
35.8 tonnes (per car?)
4.0 hp/t

Class 150 has a little over 25% more power, but weighs almost 50% more. Once you add in a heavy load, it's possible the sprinter has a better power-to-weight ratio.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Sprinters and Pacers have very similar power:weight ratios and both have half their axles motored so I can't see that their hill climbing abilities will be much different.

Though that would leave 142s with 2 motored axles as opposed to 4 on a 150, which would affect adhesion on climbs, especially in wet/icy/leaf-fall conditions.

 

[northwichcat]

Though that would leave 142s with 2 motored axles as opposed to 4 on a 150, which would affect adhesion on climbs, especially in wet/icy/leaf-fall conditions.

The 142s are very poor in leaf-fall season in the Delamere area (Delamere station serving Delamere Forest), the 150s are poor in that area but not as bad as the 142s.

 

[Greybeard33]

The 142s are very poor in leaf-fall season in the Delamere area (Delamere station serving Delamere Forest), the 150s are poor in that area but not as bad as the 142s.

I guess differences in the transmission/gearing might also be a factor. When heavily laden, the 142 seems to accelerate from a stand in a rather jerky fashion.

To return to topic, Realtime Trains gives the reason for cancellation of 5D41 on both days as "an issue with the train crew (TG)", not shortage of units. However, Northern's cancellation codes often seem rather random, e.g. "Planning error" on a couple of occasions the previous week when the same service was cancelled due to crew shortage (according to their website).

 

[northwichcat]

To return to topic, Realtime Trains gives the reason for cancellation of 5D41 on both days as "an issue with the train crew (TG)", not shortage of units. However, Northern's cancellation codes often seem rather random, e.g. "Planning error" on a couple of occasions the previous week when the same service was cancelled due to crew shortage (according to their website).

Well a Victoria driver is required to do the Newton Heath-Stockport run but if one is unavailable a Piccadilly driver could still work the service if a unit can be got to Stockport.

Really there should be a way of running booked portion workings so that a through service between Manchester and Chester via Altrincham with a split at Stockport. It probably wouldn't work in the morning going towards Manchester but should work in the evening if they have the Stockport departure time a few minutes after the arrival time, which wouldn't be ideal but would be better than a risked missed connection.

 

[edwin_m]

Though that would leave 142s with 2 motored axles as opposed to 4 on a 150, which would affect adhesion on climbs, especially in wet/icy/leaf-fall conditions.

It's still got half its weight on motored axles so adhesion will be similar in good rail conditions. However a single motored axle is probably more likely to lose grip than the two axles on a Sprinter bogie which are geared together.

 

[156441]

Just returning to one of the original arguments. 142's are out of gauge as they are to WIDE to get through one of the tunnels on the return from Buxton. They are quite a lot wider than a sprinter class train.

 

[Beveridges]

When you leave Buxton, the 2nd Tunnel after Dove Holes is the one that's causing 142's to banned from the route.

 

[northwichcat]

Just returning to one of the original arguments. 142's are out of gauge as they are to WIDE to get through one of the tunnels on the return from Buxton. They are quite a lot wider than a sprinter class train.

Well Sprinters vary in width. The 150s are wider than the other types, while the 153s had a modification meaning they are more likely to have clearance issues than other Sprinters.

 

[PHILIPE]

Just returning to one of the original arguments. 142's are out of gauge as they are to WIDE to get through one of the tunnels on the return from Buxton. They are quite a lot wider than a sprinter class train.

Or do you mean they shake so much they would hit the sides of the tunnel.

 

[craigwilson]

When you leave Buxton, the 2nd Tunnel after Dove Holes is the one that's causing 142's to banned from the route.

Eaves tunnel?

 

[Geeves]

I just checked the railway data base.



142 - Width - 2.80m. Height - 3.86m
150/1/2 Width - 2.82m. Height - 3.77m
156 - Width - 2.73m. Height - 3.81m

So you can put to bed the rumor that 142s are too wide as its obviously another urban myth!! If anything perhaps its the roof pods?

I had heard that one reason was the combination of poor adhesion and severe gradients that 142s would be unable to rescue another unit if it was in trouble. No idea if this is true or not.

 

[edwin_m]

I just checked the railway data base.



142 - Width - 2.80m. Height - 3.86m
150/1/2 Width - 2.82m. Height - 3.77m
156 - Width - 2.73m. Height - 3.81m

So you can put to bed the rumor that 142s are too wide as its obviously another urban myth!! If anything perhaps its the roof pods?

I had heard that one reason was the combination of poor adhesion and severe gradients that 142s would be unable to rescue another unit if it was in trouble. No idea if this is true or not.

It may well be that the 142s are wider at some part of the body profile that coincides with a tight structure on the Buxton line. For example the lower bodyside of the 150/156 curves in but the 142 has an angle here, so in the vicinity of that angle the are probably slightly wider.

Another, contradictory, suggestion picking up on your final point: a 142 may be able to rescue another 142 but could it rescue a considerably heavier 150 or 156?

 

[northwichcat]

Another, contradictory, suggestion picking up on your final point: a 142 may be able to rescue another 142 but could it rescue a considerably heavier 150 or 156?

When a 142 rescued a failed 150 on the Mid-Cheshire line it was limited to 20mph and had to travel without passengers in either unit. (2 services were terminated short - one because of the failed 150 and one because the 142 on another service was used to rescue the 142.)

 

[156441]

A 142 is capable of rescuing a 150/156. If it was restricted to 20mph it will be because one or more safety systems had been isolated not because of the power of the 142.

If it is that a 150 is 0.02m wider than a 142 then it must be something to do with the way the body rides on the rails as I can assure you the reason 142's do not goto Buxton (and this is according to official Northern documentation and not theory of enthuiasts on a rail forum) is the width of the unit. Not height, width.

 

[northwichcat]

A 142 is capable of rescuing a 150/156. If it was restricted to 20mph it will be because one or more safety systems had been isolated not because of the power of the 142.

On digging out a blog article written about the rescue it was due to a cock up by staff at Stockport. Northern requested the loan of a headlamp from Virgin to fit to the failed unit (as the failed unit was the front unit) but when a Northern driver (of the unit that was to become the rescue train) collected it he was given a bardic lamp instead and didn't realise the mistake until he presented it to the driver of the failed unit.

 

[Greybeard33]

Really there should be a way of running booked portion workings so that a through service between Manchester and Chester via Altrincham with a split at Stockport. It probably wouldn't work in the morning going towards Manchester but should work in the evening if they have the Stockport departure time a few minutes after the arrival time, which wouldn't be ideal but would be better than a risked missed connection.

Currently the 08:56 arrival from Chester occupies Stockport Platform 4 for 11 minutes, waiting for its ECS path across Heaton Norris Junction to Newton Heath. So there would be plenty of time to couple it to a Piccadilly-bound unit instead. Northern has a path to Piccadilly at 09:07, but unfortunately that is used by the 09:04 arrival from Alderley Edge, which is a 323 diagram.

Around 17:00 and 18:00 the three southbound platforms at Stockport are heavily utilised, and I doubt that extra dwell time for splitting could be accomodated on a regular basis. There are six southbound departures in 15 minutes, the xx:51 to Alderley Edge/Crewe (Platform 1), xx:54 to Norwich/Nottingham (Platform 0), the xx:55 to Stoke (Platform 1/2), the xx:58 to Chester (Platform 2/1), the 16:58/18:00 to Buxton (Platform 0) and the xx:04 to Euston (Platform 2).

The signallers' priority is, of course, to get the Chester train out the way, across Edgeley Junction, in time to avoid delay to the following Virgin express. The May timetable recast advanced the Stoke service by 3 minutes and gave it a Fast line path from Piccadilly, while the Buxton service has a Slow line path and the Chester unit arrives ECS from Heaton Norris Junction. The pathing conflicts have resulted in frequent last minute platform interchanges between the Stoke and Chester services. These confuse passengers, many of whom seem deaf to the PA announcements and unable to distinguish a 142 from an 323. Sometimes passengers have already boarded before the PIDs catch up with the change, so there is an increased risk of people having to wait an hour at Navigation Road for the next service back to Stockport.

 

[northwichcat]

The pathing conflicts have resulted in frequent last minute platform interchanges between the Stoke and Chester services. These confuse passengers, many of whom seem deaf to the PA announcements and unable to distinguish a 142 from an 323.

There is a morning peak 'extra' service between Macclesfield and Manchester operated by a 142 so for some Macclesfield line passengers boarding a 142 is something they do every day.