DMUs currently off lease?

[northwichcat]

Ok cheers , I knew nothing about diagrams etc only noticed the recent influx of TPE 350s on the northern end of the WCML and assumed this might possibly have released some 185s for use elsewhere

Previous government admitted it was a mistake to make TPE run Scottish services without additional stock so said they would get 10 x 4 car DMUs to supplement their fleet, which got changed to 10 x 4 car 350s following electrification. However, despite the arrival of the 350s TPE still have the highest seat occupancy rate of any operator, so still need additional carriages as well as replacements for the Chiltern bound 170s. With electrification of Manchester-Selby/York not guaranteed for December 2018: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=109150 the bidders of the next TPE franchise may be looking to secure additional DMUs (or DEMUs.)

 

[DarloRich]

What routes did the surplus 185s end up on that were replaced by the 350s on TPE anglo scottish services

doubling up other TPE services where possible. That or covering a failed 350

In fact TPE are in the market for DMUs as their current 170s are destined for Chiltern in the next 12 months or so.....

The 170's will still stay with TPE - they wont end up with Chiltern for a few years. A deal will be done I am sure.

 

[ReeceEmmitt]

As a related question, are there any other assets that could be utilised to reinforce services? Loco's, carriages, DVTs etc?

 

[alexl92]

As a related question, are there any other assets that could be utilised to reinforce services? Loco's, carriages, DVTs etc?

In theory loco-hauled services could be used - BR MK2s + DBSOs or MK3s + DVTs- would work. However, I think the difficulties would be two-fold - first of all, finding enough surplus locos in RHTT season to operate services (37s/47s can work with a DBSO but not with a DVT so you'd have to have a pair on a mk3 set or use something like a 57 or 67) as I imagine it wouldn't just be one or two sets needed but quite a few if they were to do this.
Secondly, the DfT have repeatedly refused requests to fund loco-hauled services for Northern so it's unlikely they'd do it for this either.

There could also be pathing issues - the quickest 47s (and 57s I think) are 90mph which could cause problems on the WCML for example.

EDIT: Realised I never thought about electric traction. In theory 90s or revived 86/87s could work on extra services between Man Picc and Scotland. Switching them to loco-hauled could be a great idea if someone would pay for it.

 

[RobShipway]

In theory loco-hauled services could be used - BR MK2s + DBSOs or MK3s + DVTs- would work. However, I think the difficulties would be two-fold - first of all, finding enough surplus locos in RHTT season to operate services (37s/47s can work with a DBSO but not with a DVT so you'd have to have a pair on a mk3 set or use something like a 57 or 67) as I imagine it wouldn't just be one or two sets needed but quite a few if they were to do this.
Secondly, the DfT have repeatedly refused requests to fund loco-hauled services for Northern so it's unlikely they'd do it for this either.

There could also be pathing issues - the quickest 47s (and 57s I think) are 90mph which could cause problems on the WCML for example.

EDIT: Realised I never thought about electric traction. In theory 90s or revived 86/87s could work on extra services between Man Picc and Scotland. Switching them to loco-hauled could be a great idea if someone would pay for it.

Could you not use any spare class 67 or class 68? II think the class 67, would be better as they have 124mph top speed, but I don't think they are allowed to use on the WCML pulling carriages?

 

[sprinterguy]

Could you not use any spare class 67 or class 68? II think the class 67, would be better as they have 124mph top speed, but I don't think they are allowed to use on the WCML pulling carriages?

There's nothing stopping class 67s being used on passenger workings on the WCML. They frequently are, in the railtour market. They would be limited to 110mph, of course, but then again, the vast majority of loco hauled coaching stock has a maximum at or less than this speed.

 

[NSEFAN]

Could you not use any spare class 67 or class 68? II think the class 67, would be better as they have 124mph top speed, but I don't think they are allowed to use on the WCML pulling carriages?

I don't think 67s have ever run at 125mph in normal service?

 

[sprinterguy]

As a related question, are there any other assets that could be utilised to reinforce services? Loco's, carriages, DVTs etc?

There are, particularly for DB owned TOCs, as DB own the majority of the available spare mark 3s and DVTs: Arriva Trains Wales have been having additional mark 3s converted for use in passenger service come the December timetable change.

Direct Rail Services are also a good source locos and rolling stock for spot hire. However, one of the main problem lies in funding additional loco-hauled coaching rakes. Many of the TOCs just don't allow for such things on more than a one-off basis in their financial models.

 

[RobShipway]

I don't think 67s have ever run at 125mph in normal service?

Yeah, the most I have seen them run at on the GWML, is about 100 - 110mph but that is normally when they are not pulling any freight or carriages and just running on their own.

 

[TheEdge]

Are light locos not limited to something like 70 or 75mph?

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Are light locos not limited to something like 70 or 75mph?

'light' = alone

it;s due due to braking and adhesion issues , add half a dozen other vehicles (coaches +dvt ) and the issues disappear ... the limit then is the rated / cleared speed of the stock being hauled in the case of 67s

 

[TheBigD]

There's some 141s up for grabs. They're rotting away in sidings in Iran if London Overground want to go and search for them.

I think there are 3 on preserved lines in this country... No idea what whether they are all operational though... I know the Weardale line used one for a couple of years around 2010/11...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think there are 3 on preserved lines in this country... No idea what whether they are all operational though... I know the Weardale line used one for a couple of years around 2010/11...

I think a total of 4 units (5 including the one written off in a collision at Huddersfield in 1989) avoided the Persian odyssey... 2 went to Butterley where one became a spares donor for the other. I think at least one of those vehicles has been cut up with the other being heavily stripped. The other survivors are at Colne Valley and Weardale respectively.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Yeah, the most I have seen them run at on the GWML, is about 100 - 110mph but that is normally when they are not pulling any freight or carriages and just running on their own.

Are light locos not limited to something like 70 or 75mph?

'light' = alone

it;s due due to braking and adhesion issues , add half a dozen other vehicles (coaches +dvt ) and the issues disappear ... the limit then is the rated / cleared speed of the stock being hauled in the case of 67s

TheEdge's answer was correct.

 

[455driver]

TheEdge's answer was correct.

But not for 67s which (I think) have sufficient brake force when running alone to run at full line speed up to 110mph.

I dont sign them (or any locos) but believe this to be correct.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are there any routes around the UK currently operated by DMUs that would be suitable for being loco-hauled (top&tailed or with a DVT), to free up a few DMUs?

Who is going to pay the increased track access and leasing costs?

As with most things, yes it can be done but who pays is normally the stumbling block!

 

[northwichcat]

I think a total of 4 units (5 including the one written off in a collision at Huddersfield in 1989) avoided the Persian odyssey... 2 went to Butterley where one became a spares donor for the other. I think at least one of those vehicles has been cut up with the other being heavily stripped. The other survivors are at Colne Valley and Weardale respectively.

Two went to the Netherlands and were presumably scrapped as they haven't been seen in years.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Two went to the Netherlands and were presumably scrapped as they haven't been seen in years.

Oh yes, I forgot about those two!

It's a shame the two 151 units got wrecked by vandals, though had they survived long enough to be brought back into service (as was the plan, I believe) they'd probably already be spoken for.
Even now they've got as much chance of coming back as any of the Iranian 141s!

 

[northwichcat]

It's a shame the two 151 units got wrecked by vandals, though had they survived long enough to be brought back into service (as was the plan, I believe) they'd probably already be spoken for.

Apparently they had 232 seats across 3 carriages, so bringing those in to passenger service could have provided the same capacity increase as 4 x 142s.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Oh yes, I forgot about those two!

It's a shame the two 151 units got wrecked by vandals, though had they survived long enough to be brought back into service (as was the plan, I believe) they'd probably already be spoken for.
Even now they've got as much chance of coming back as any of the Iranian 141s!

I was just thinking about those two units last night when I saw this thread. Didn't realise they had been scrapped though, they were the Met-Cam built versions were they not?

 

[TheBigD]

I was just thinking about those two units last night when I saw this thread. Didn't realise they had been scrapped though, they were the Met-Cam built versions were they not?

http://www.traintesting.com/Class151.htm