Class 153 after 2020

[northwichcat]

But since a 153 only has one coach its power to weight ratio is almost identical to that of a 156 so in theory the acceleration should be the same.

Does having 2 cabs per carriage and a toilet in every carriage affect things?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

But since a 153 only has one coach its power to weight ratio is almost identical to that of a 156 so in theory the acceleration should be the same.

However in practice 153s do seem to be slower off the mark, which seems to be something to do with the brakes being slower to release.

Does having 2 cabs per carriage and a toilet in every carriage affect things?

Would extra weight actually help with initial accelleration due to the increase in down-force and thus grip?
The real test would be to compare 2x153 with one of the remaining 7 155s. I suppose there may occasionally be a 'race' between the two heading out of Leeds/York/Bradford Interchange!

 

[DXMachina]

But since a 153 only has one coach its power to weight ratio is almost identical to that of a 156 so in theory the acceleration should be the same.

You forget wind resistance. Among flat fronted vehicles, 2 units with twice the power and twice the weight will be faster than one unit, as the 2nd unit has near zero wind resistance against it and helps propel the first..

Thats why multiple-units make sense - because the more powered vehicles you add, the better the fuel efficiency.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes there is a benefit from less wind resistance with a longer unit only having two ends, though I think it would be small below 75mph. As far as I'm aware sectional running times don't take account of the length of a unit - proportionately less resistance probably cancels out the effect of having to run slow for longer when leaving a speed restriction (can't accelerate until the whole train is clear).

Just checked and the 153 weighs 41 tonnes but the 2 cars of a 156 are slightly less than double this at 78 tonnes. This would mean a bit less acceleration over most of the speed range where the engine power limits acceleration (same power accelerating more weight). At slow speeds extra adhesion from the extra weight cancels out the extra weight that needs to be accelerated so there is no difference - unless the balance of the weight between powered and unpowered bogies is different.

Incidentally a 155 weighs the same as a 156 so also less than two 153s. It seems the extra weight of a 153 car is due to the extra cab, half a toilet and any other equipment that had to be added on conversion, not from differences in the original design.

 

[Bevan Price]

I can't vouch for the actual numbers but EMT 158s certainly appear on services from Nottingham other than the Liverpool-Norwich.



But since a 153 only has one coach its power to weight ratio is almost identical to that of a 156 so in theory the acceleration should be the same.

Incorrect. Class 153 coach weight increased by about 3 tons when they were rebuilt from Class 155 coaches, and so Class 153 has a lower power to weight ratio than a 156.

A further complication is "air friction / wind resistance " - the front coach of a train has a higher resistance to motion through air than the second & subsequent coaches. So - a pair of 153s ought to perform a bit better than a single 153.

 

[edwin_m]

Incorrect. Class 153 coach weight increased by about 3 tons when they were rebuilt from Class 155 coaches, and so Class 153 has a lower power to weight ratio than a 156.

A further complication is "air friction / wind resistance " - the front coach of a train has a higher resistance to motion through air than the second & subsequent coaches. So - a pair of 153s ought to perform a bit better than a single 153.

As noted in my further post above.

 

[Kneedown]

Not East of Leicester they cant!

East of Ely. The Liv - Nor doesn't touch Leicester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't vouch for the actual numbers but EMT 158s certainly appear on services from Nottingham other than the Liverpool-Norwich.

One is diagrammed on the Crewe line, and they regularly turn up on Lincoln's, Robin Hood's and Skeggy's.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also EMT see both 156s and 158s as superior than 153s (without taking into account the extra coach offered by the former), so I'd be very surprised if they would accept any 'solution' which meant them losing the 156s and 158s.

Unfortunately, EMT will have to accept whatever the Dft tell them to accept.

As for your pacer suggestion, I can't think of a single EMT line which a 153 is consistently enough capacity for. The Matlock branch for example may be 'rural' but it has 2 heritage railways, Crich tramway and Matlock bath, making a 2 car very comfortable at certain times of year.

Indeed. On the Matlock line passenger loadings have risen by up to 10% in the last year, with a 144% increase in loadings at Belper since 2007/8.
Watch out for Lincoln - Peterborough too when all resignalling phases are completed. I can see an aspiration for the current Spalding - P'boro shuttle turning into a through service.

 

[ryan125hst]

I thought Liverpool to Norwich used around 18 of the 25 x 158s in the EMT fleet meaning there's 4-5 available for use on other lines

Does that included the units that are doubled up between Nottingham and Liverpool?

A 155 and 156 both have 1 engine per carriage which is a Cummins NT855-R5 Diesel, so in theory a 155 can do anything a 156 can do. A 153 only has a single engine which limits it's acceleration significantly.

But as a 153 is only one carriage, surely this won't make any difference? A 156 has double the number of carriages but double the number of engines, so the acceleration and top speed should be the same, unless there are mechanical differences in some way?

 

[northwichcat]

Does that included the units that are doubled up between Nottingham and Liverpool?

Yes. (There's also a service doubled up throughout.)

But as a 153 is only one carriage, surely this won't make any difference?

Look at some of the other posts in the thread. The conclusion is that a pair of 153s would be 6 tonnes more than a 155 or a 156 due to having 2 toilets and 4 cabs opposed to 1 toilet and 2 cabs but the pair of 153s wouldn't have any more engine power than the 155 or 156.

 

[ryan125hst]

Yes. (There's also a service doubled up throughout.)

That's surprising as I wouldn't have thought that they would have so many spare units- 7 spares in a fleet of 25 seems quite high.

Sorry, I must have missed that.

 

[northwichcat]

That's surprising as I wouldn't have thought that they would have so many spare units- 7 spares in a fleet of 25 seems quite high.

18 units for Liverpool-Norwich is an estimate allowing for 4 car operation. Remember initially only around half the EMT 158s were used on Liverpool-Norwich but now the refurbishment work is complete and EMT have received 4 x 156s from Northern it means that only a few 158s needed to be used on diagrams which don't include Liverpool-Norwich services and a lot more Liverpool-Norwich services can operate as 4 car.

 

[Class 170101]

The last I heard a Class 222 was tested between Nottingham and Norwich. It lost 15 minutes of time between Norwich and Peterbrough due to the slower loco hauled speeds requiring to be used.

The 05:52 Norwich to Liverpool is four cars throughout. Though I do wonder why there is a 20:52 Norwich to Nottingham on Sunday night but not for tye rest of the week so perhaps some improvement required there.

As for the 153s I would agree with pairing them up to be 155s again and keep them in service for a few more years carrying out the PRM TSI modifications.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Careful what you wish for. Given no new single car trains are to be built and some EMT lines are very rural the option of making 143s and 144s accessible may be taken up to be used as replacement for 153s.

I have been saying this for a while about the Pacers and those who want them scrapped shoot me down every time. No new DMUs will be built and use will need to be made of what already exists.

 

[northwichcat]

I have been saying this for a while about the Pacers and those who want them scrapped shoot me down every time. No new DMUs will be built and use will need to be made of what already exists.

There are still options for dual-powered DEMUs to be built and also EMUs which can do the final leg on battery power. However, I seem to recall it being said that due to the costs involved such units would be built for regional routes which have a good business case for new stock e.g. XC routes which would allow regional DMUs like 170s to be cascaded down to longer rural locals e.g. the Cumbrian Coast line.

 

[HSTEd]

If a 222 was run on the Norwich Liverpool leg it would pick up ten minutes between Grantham and Peterborough so losing 15 between Norwich and Peterborough does not sound so severe.

And 222s are hardly track wreckers so it might be that suitable minor improvements to the trackwork would enable a differential other than the loco hauled one to be used.

 

[dk1]

The 05:52 Norwich to Liverpool is four cars throughout. Though I do wonder why there is a 20:52 Norwich to Nottingham on Sunday night but not for tye rest of the week so perhaps some improvement required there.

It's all down to unit & crewing issues. The 05.50 Norwich to Liverpool only became 4-cars throughout as there is no balancing return once the 13.52 from Liverpool was extended through to Norwich a couple of years ago breaking up the 2hr gap on the Eastern leg at a busy time of day. All the arrivals into Norwich from 19.19 Monday-Saturday are worked by Norwich crews with some drivers then tripping them to Crown a Point for a wash, fuel & light maintainence.

 

[43074]

Way off topic, but as it's been brought up: The use of 222s on Norwich to Liverpool has been discussed on here before (and by EMT who actually use the things) and there are a number of conclusions that have been reached:

• Linespeeds: West of Nottingham these are not an issue, but East of Nottingham they would lose significant amounts of time East of Peterborough. Having said that, HSTEd has already pointed out a Meridian could save 10 minutes between Grantham and Peterborough which would mitigate the loss.
• Capacity: A 4-car 158 has more seats than a 5-car 222 - the 4-car 158 having 292 seats and the 222 having about 200. The replacement of 4-car 158s with 5-car 222s would actually reduce capacity on the busiest section of the route, although it would be overprovision East of Nottingham. (see below)
• Operational Flexibility: 2-car 158s operate between Norwich to Nottingham where they couple to another unit for the stretch to Liverpool (and vice versa on the Eastbound). A 2-car 158 provides ample room between Norwich and Nottingham, but a 222 would be overkill. Also, a 5-car 222 would not enable this flexibility to split and join, unless you reform them (to say - 3 cars) and provide even less capacity.
• Money: A 222 has 750 hp engines (although downrated to 700hp) - this of course requires more fuel compared to the 350 - 450 hp of a 158, and thus costs more to run. In addition, 222s have higher track access costs due to the extra weight compared to a 158 increasing costs even further. There is also the issue of crew training for the Norwich crew who work the route

Yes EMT do use 7-car 222s to Liverpool for special events, so it can be done, it just doesn't look ideal on paper.

That's surprising as I wouldn't have thought that they would have so many spare units- 7 spares in a fleet of 25 seems quite high.

There are 19 Diagrams on Norwich to Liverpool: 7 of which are used to strengthen trains to 4-coaches and 12 of which run between Norwich and Liverpool, i.e. over the whole route. So jcollins' estimate of 18 was not far off at all.

Elsewhere 3 units are also used on Nottingham to Skegness and Leicester to Lincoln services, which is a fleet requirement of 22 from 25, i.e. 3 maintenance/spare; 88% fleet requirement.

EDIT: Liverpool to Norwich rolling stock options have been discussed in this thread. There's also something about 153s and DDA mods there somewhere is well.

 

[158722]

Way off topic, but as it's been brought up: The use of 222s on Norwich to Liverpool has been discussed on here before (and by EMT who actually use the things) and there are a number of conclusions that have been reached:

• Linespeeds: West of Nottingham these are not an issue, but East of Nottingham they would lose significant amounts of time East of Peterborough. Having said that, HSTEd has already pointed out a Meridian could save 10 minutes between Grantham and Peterborough which would mitigate the loss.
• Capacity: A 4-car 158 has fewer seats than a 5-car 222 - the 4-car 158 having 292 seats and the 222 having about 200. The replacement of 4-car 158s with 5-car 222s would actually reduce capacity on the busiest section of the route, although it would be overprovision East of Nottingham. (see below)
• Operational Flexibility: 2-car 158s operate between Norwich to Nottingham where they couple to another unit for the stretch to Liverpool (and vice versa on the Eastbound). A 2-car 158 provides ample room between Norwich and Nottingham, but a 222 would be overkill. Also, a 5-car 222 would not enable this flexibility to split and join, unless you reform them (to say - 3 cars) and provide even less capacity.
• Money: A 222 has 750 hp engines (although downrated to 700hp) - this of course requires more fuel compared to the 350 - 450 hp of a 158, and thus costs more to run. In addition, 222s have higher track access costs due to the extra weight compared to a 158 increasing costs even further. There is also the issue of crew training for the Norwich crew who work the route

Yes EMT do use 7-car 222s to Liverpool for special events, so it can be done, it just doesn't look ideal on paper.



There are 19 Diagrams on Norwich to Liverpool: 7 of which are used to strengthen trains to 4-coaches and 12 of which run between Norwich and Liverpool, i.e. over the whole route. So jcollins' estimate of 18 was not far off at all.

Elsewhere 3 units are also used on Nottingham to Skegness and Leicester to Lincoln services, which is a fleet requirement of 22 from 25, i.e. 3 maintenance/spare; 88% fleet requirement.

EDIT: Liverpool to Norwich rolling stock options have been discussed in this thread. There's also something about 153s and DDA mods there somewhere is well.

Getting rather off-topic here, but I honestly believe we will see the 222s shuffled off to GW, once displaced on the MML by electrification and a mix of 91s and 387s, to replace the residual HST services to Devon and Cornwall.

 

[455driver]

[*]Capacity: A 4-car 158 has fewer seats than a 5-car 222 - the 4-car 158 having 292 seats and the 222 having about 200. The replacement of 4-car 158s with 5-car 222s would actually reduce capacity on the busiest section of the route, although it would be overprovision East of Nottingham. (see below)

More seats!

EMTs 158s have 350hp engines.

 

[Qwerty133]

Getting rather off-topic here, but I honestly believe we will see the 222s shuffled off to GW, once displaced on the MML by electrification and a mix of 91s and 387s, to replace the residual HST services to Devon and Cornwall.

Really, I'd much rather keep the meridians on the MML than get 91/mk4 sets. As for the 387s it'd look stupid thatvNR has just increased line speeds to 125mph if 110MPH stock is then used.

 

[northwichcat]

More seats!

Yes. However, 'about 200' should read 'just under 200 standard class seats not including the 50 First Class seats'. If the FC seats was converted to 2+2 standard class seating then we'd be talking about similar seating capacity but with the 158 having a higher density seating pattern.

EMTs 158s have 350hp engines.

Do they all have the same type? EMT finished up with a mix of ex-CT, ex-TPE and ex-Wessex 158s. I thought FGW wanted to get rid of the Wessex 158s they acquired from the outset and keep TPE 158s in lieu due to the better engines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As for the 387s it'd look stupid that NR has just increased line speeds to 125mph if 110MPH stock is then used.

Stupid in the same way that TPE don't have 125mph stock for Liverpool-Newcastle and Manchester Airport-Scotland services?

 

[455driver]

Do they all have the same type? EMT finished up with a mix of ex-CT, ex-TPE and ex-Wessex 158s. I thought FGW wanted to get rid of the Wessex 158s they acquired from the outset and keep TPE 158s in lieu due to the better engines.

No of course not, that would be sensible and this is the railways we are talking about!
Ones numbered up to and including 158813 have the normal Cummins NTA855R1 (350hp).
158846,847,852,854,856,857,858 and 862 have Perkins2006-TWH (350hp).
158863 to 866 have Cummins NTA855R3 (400hp).

 

[LowLevel]

The Perkins engined ones are total rubbish regardless - much louder in the saloon and much more unreliable.

 

[158722]

Really, I'd much rather keep the meridians on the MML than get 91/mk4 sets. As for the 387s it'd look stupid thatvNR has just increased line speeds to 125mph if 110MPH stock is then used.

Really, then NR must be stupid as they have already referred in RUS (I think) to the use of 387s on Corby services from St Pancras...

 

[Qwerty133]

Really, then NR must be stupid as they have already referred in RUS (I think) to the use of 387s on Corby services from St Pancras...

Have to admit I don't see Corby as MML, so had forgot all about these services which 387s would be suitable for. Was thinking of services to Sheffield and Nottingham, which as I've said before are at least as far from London as Birmingham which will never have commuter trains in its fasted service from the capital.

 

[Class 170101]

Really, I'd much rather keep the meridians on the MML than get 91/mk4 sets. As for the 387s it'd look stupid thatvNR has just increased line speeds to 125mph if 110MPH stock is then used.

100mph Class 319s already run on the fast lines of the MML despite then being upgraded upto 125mph.

 

[Bevan Price]

As noted in my further post above.

Sorry, I must have missed that post. (Or, occasionally, there sometimes seems to be a time lapse before messages appear on this computer.)

 

[cjmillsnun]

Really, I'd much rather keep the meridians on the MML than get 91/mk4 sets. As for the 387s it'd look stupid thatvNR has just increased line speeds to 125mph if 110MPH stock is then used.

Sadly DaFT are the ones who make the decisions...

What really would be better for MML is for some 125MPH EMUs.

 

[northwichcat]

Sadly DaFT are the ones who make the decisions...

What really would be better for MML is for some 125MPH EMUs.

How much difference would 125mph stock make on the local service between Corby and London or on the slow Nottingham to London services (which has an average time between stops of around 15 minutes)?

Looking at the exact wording from the Network Rail CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan for the MML:

Key assumptions
 Sufficient clarity is provided on the DfT’s rolling stock strategy in time to complete GRIP 3, to date only 10 x 26m vehicles have been assessed.
 The AFC is currently based upon 10 x 26m vehicles, should this assumption change there will be an impact on cost, scope and outputs.
 The following rolling stock is being assumed;
– Class 377 up to 12 cars, multiple pantographs (London to Corby);
– 10 x 26m vehicles, multiple pantographs; and
– electric locomotive, single pantograph and 23m coaches (1 dvt & 9 cars).
 This project does not include associated ancillary works necessary to enable the introduction and operation of electric trains (e.g. rolling stock clearance, depots or stabling works as a result of the operation of electric trains).
 This project does not address station capacity and depot capacity, other than the platform accommodation of the lengthened trains.
 If works are required at London St. Pancras (platforms 1 – 4) the buffer stops will remain in their current location due to significant costs/disruption being envisaged.
 Excluded are any improvements to Route Availability above RA5 for loco hauled stock or gauging requirements for any of the suggested rolling stock types. Platform canopies are excluded from the scope and AFC.
 No structural strengthening or alteration will be required.
 No major junction remodelling or re-signalling will be required.
 Planning consents will not be required.

 

[edwin_m]

How much difference would 125mph stock make on the local service between Corby and London or on the slow Nottingham to London services (which has an average time between stops of around 15 minutes)?

Possibly quite a bit, depending on the service pattern. If the first/last stop is Bedford then that's 50 miles of non-stop running, much of which is cleared for more than 100. I agree it probably doesn't make much difference further north.

 

[northwichcat]

Possibly quite a bit, depending on the service pattern. If the first/last stop is Bedford then that's 50 miles of non-stop running, much of which is cleared for more than 100.

The slow services call at Luton Airport Parkway in both directions, which is less than 20 minutes from St Pancras, then there's only 13 minutes between Luton Airport Parkway and Bedford.