East Anglia fleet future cascade options

[Harbornite]

The MK3 coaches where (sic) built 1975-1988 which yes, is around the same time as the HST, but the Mk3 was built not because of the HST as has been mentioned a few times within this forum.

What are you on about?

 

[RobShipway]

What are you on about?

Search on Mk3 discussions within this forum and you will see what I am on about.

 

[CosherB]

Search on Mk3 discussions within this forum and you will see what I am on about.

I've a funny feeling that I'd be none the wiser. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suggest that you do a search and find out how much it cost per carriage for each of the Chiltern carriage to be converted and what per carriage was the most costly part of teh conversion that needed to be done. Then equate that to what needs to be done with the MK3 coaches of the class 442 fleet excluding the guards coach in each set as that would certainly have to be scrapped.

I've neither the time nor the inclination to do such a search. I've no intention of getting into a bunfight over something that isn't even remotely thought through properly.

Common protocol in the real world is that proposals are fully specified and costed by the proposer to justify the project. The onus is not on others to comment on ideas that are just tantamount to wishful thinking - they get thrown out without a second thought. :roll:

 

[43096]

Yes, they would I believe from what others have posted on this forum before as they were built after 1960s.



I believe from what I have read within this forum and in other places on the internet that the accessibility act applies to all coaching stock built since 1970, as anything built after that year has been deemed that it can be converted to allow disability access.



Now, I maybe incorrect in the way that I am reading the details so quite happy to be corrected on this point, but that would mean Mk1 & Mk2 stock built prior to 1970 as long as used for charter work only, possibly would be exempt.



However, the same exemption does not apply to MK3 stock which I believe was built even before the HST trains where built that they were used within.



The MK3 coaches where built 1975-1988 which yes, is around the same time as the HST, but the Mk3 was built not because of the HST as has been mentioned a few times within this forum.

I am just finding this hugely funny. You clearly have no idea about what you are talking about.

 

[northwichcat]

The problem is lack of capacity per unit and the lack of two coach units.

The lack of seats per unit can easily be changed by changing the interior to a more high density regional interior - more like the EMT 158s. OK there will still be less seats than on the 3 car 159s but there will be wider doors and more standing space.

 

[Wolfie]

Search on Mk3 discussions within this forum and you will see what I am on about.

To explain very simply there are effectively two different types of Mk3 which have different wiring and supply voltage. One type was built specifically for loco haulage and the other for HST usage. There have been some conversions from one type to the other and serious money was involved to do so.....

Wholescale scrapping of Mk1 and Mk2 vehicles operated by the likes of WCRC and Riviera will not happen, despite your interpretation of the legislation you have selected to quote.

For example:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/east-lancashire-railway-wheelchair-carriage-11734302

I still maintain that some of the AGA Mk3s will find new homes after their release by Abellio.

If you are right about the Mk1 and Mk2s their operators better start saving their pennies to fund the fitting of retention toilets - there is no way on God's earth that the taxpayer should be asked to pay for that!

The lack of seats per unit can easily be changed by changing the interior to a more high density regional interior - more like the EMT 158s. OK there will still be less seats than on the 3 car 159s but there will be wider doors and more standing space.

I am cynically amused by the fact that someone who has constantly complained about the inadequacies of rolling stock in the North despite all of the subsidies now wants to foist its unwanted castoffs onto a franchise in the South that is paying a massive premium (even more cynically most likely so that the stock released as a result can go North!) and, in order to make those castoffs even superficially suitable, significantly degrade the interior and hence the passenger experience. That is a damned unfunny joke!

 

[adrock1976]

Since when has any TOC name fully reflected all the routes they run?

I believe that that honour falls to Scotrail, as they run all internal non-traditional Intercity services that start and end in Scotland.

Another one is Gatwick Express that operated the non-stop London Victoria - Gatwick Airport services, which was a Train Operating Company until 2008, when it got merged with the Southern TOC. In July 2015, both ceased to exist, and merged with Thameslink (operated by First Group under the brand First Capital Connect) to form Govia Thameslink Railway.

It is similar as to how Glasgow Rangers FC has not existed since the end of the season in 2012, when they went into liquidation when they were caught operating a tax dodging scheme/scam. The present outfit started out as Sevco 5088 and now go by the name of Rangers International Football Club. I'll save the rest for the Football thread in the General Discussion section.

 

[The Ham]

The lack of seats per unit can easily be changed by changing the interior to a more high density regional interior - more like the EMT 158s. OK there will still be less seats than on the 3 car 159s but there will be wider doors and more standing space.

27 extra seats for each 3 coach 185, 9 of which would need to be first class, is what is required to get an exact match with the 159's, which I would guess would be a fairly tall ask.

Although using some (say on the contra flow peak services and/or off peak services) to free up 159's to swap with 2 coach 158's to provide extra capacity elsewhere could be a solution. (but we are going off topic).

 

[anti-pacer]

I believe that that honour falls to Scotrail, as they run all internal non-traditional Intercity services that start and end in Scotland.

Another one is Gatwick Express that operated the non-stop London Victoria - Gatwick Airport services, which was a Train Operating Company until 2008, when it got merged with the Southern TOC. In July 2015, both ceased to exist, and merged with Thameslink (operated by First Group under the brand First Capital Connect) to form Govia Thameslink Railway.

It is similar as to how Glasgow Rangers FC has not existed since the end of the season in 2012, when they went into liquidation when they were caught operating a tax dodging scheme/scam. The present outfit started out as Sevco 5088 and now go by the name of Rangers International Football Club. I'll save the rest for the Football thread in the General Discussion section.

Northern pretty much sums up its catchment area too.

 

[adrock1976]

I forgot about that too!

Also Merseyrail Electrics that operate on the third rail DC system.

 

[Wolfie]

I forgot about that too!

Also Merseyrail Electrics that operate on the third rail DC system.

London Overground? Albeit that it obviously doesn't cover all rail services in London....

 

[northwichcat]

I forgot about that too!

Also Merseyrail Electrics that operate on the third rail DC system.

Is it an appropriate for Wirral line services as they all cross the Mersey between Hamilton Square and James Street. However, it's a bit more debatable for some Northern line services. Would Thamesrail be an appropriate name for all 3rd rail services ending in central London?

 

[Wolfie]

Is it an appropriate for Wirral line services as they all cross the Mersey between Hamilton Square and James Street. However, it's a bit more debatable for some Northern line services. Would Thamesrail be an appropriate name for all 3rd rail services ending in central London?

Euston DC??? Part of Sadiq's train set.....

 

[Harbornite]

Search on Mk3 discussions within this forum and you will see what I am on about.

You said that mark 3s were not built because of HSTs, this makes no sense. HSTs and mark 3s were built around the same time, the model of coach is the same but the electrics are different because the Mark 3s were built for conventional locomotive haulage.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've a funny feeling that I'd be none the wiser. :roll:
[

Indeed, I can't make sense of what is being said.

 

[anti-pacer]

Is it an appropriate for Wirral line services as they all cross the Mersey between Hamilton Square and James Street. However, it's a bit more debatable for some Northern line services. Would Thamesrail be an appropriate name for all 3rd rail services ending in central London?

Merseyrail fits the bill perfectly. It covers Merseyside, and although it also goes into Lancashire and Cheshire, the main river around there is the Mersey. I can't think of a better name.

 

[northwichcat]

Merseyrail fits the bill perfectly. It covers Merseyside, and although it also goes into Lancashire and Cheshire, the main river around there is the Mersey. I can't think of a better name.

Merseyrail came before Merseyside. Including Sefton and St Helens in Merseyside was controversial. The River Mersey goes through Stockport, Sale and Warrington but Southport is quite a distance from the Mersey.

 

[Master29]

Looks like they`re doing on the GE what they`ve done on Southern, South East and to a lesser extent SWT. A fairly standardised arc from the east to the southwest on London, although only within the franchises.

 

[dubscottie]

What are you on about?

The Mk3 was designed in the late 60's as a loco hauled coach. The first 2 prototypes were for the ER ordered in 1970 as loco hauled stock. That's why they had E12000 numbers in the loco hauled series.


The HST program came later and used the Mk 3 out of convenience to keep costs down.

 

[childwallblues]

Looks like the TOCs will be fighting over the DMUs

 

[northwichcat]

Just thinking about the Anglia 321s and Northern's 321s and 322s. The latter were supposed to be getting PRM mods and along with 5 x 319s they are due to be released in 2020 after the final batch of CAF EMUs arrive. If some of the released Anglia 321s will already comply could the Northern 321s and 322s be swapped for refurbished Anglia 321s, instead of Eversholt modifying units which may not have a long term future?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Looks like the TOCs will be fighting over the DMUs

Not necessarily. The TOCs which have franchise agreements which allow them to take on additional units would be able to snap them up before other franchise bidders for future franchises get the chance.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Just thinking about the Anglia 321s and Northern's 321s and 322s. The latter were supposed to be getting PRM mods and along with 5 x 319s they are due to be released in 2020 after the final batch of CAF EMUs arrive. If some of the released Anglia 321s will already comply could the Northern 321s and 322s be swapped for refurbished Anglia 321s, instead of Eversholt modifying units which may not have a long term future?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not necessarily. The TOCs which have franchise agreements which allow them to take on additional units would be able to snap them up before other franchise bidders for future franchises get the chance.

The Northern 321s and 322s have had PRM modifications, so as you say they'd be ideal to go anywhere that might need them. Once Northern send them off-lease I could imagine they might move around a bit covering for other units as they go in for the 2020 mods. Though only Anglia and Great Northern use 321s anyway, and AIUI crews that sign 321s don't automatically sign 322s.

 

[northwichcat]

The Northern 321s and 322s have had PRM modifications, so as you say they'd be ideal to go anywhere that might need them. Once Northern send them off-lease I could imagine they might move around a bit covering for other units as they go in for the 2020 mods. Though only Anglia and Great Northern use 321s anyway, and AIUI crews that sign 321s don't automatically sign 322s.

I didn't realise they had accessible retention toilets fitted. Northern are sending them off-lease until early 2020 as I mentioned above.

322s are the same as 321s. They were given a different class number as they were originally fitted with an Airport interior with 2+2 seating but Scotrail changed the interior to be more like the 321 interior, removing the main difference. Although as they are a different number crews do have to get 322s on their cards to be able to sign them.

 

[anti-pacer]

Merseyrail came before Merseyside. Including Sefton and St Helens in Merseyside was controversial. The River Mersey goes through Stockport, Sale and Warrington but Southport is quite a distance from the Mersey.

Very true but most people consider the Mersey with Liverpool where it is very wide, rather than South Manchester where it is a minor river.

It's the same with the Thames. Most people associate it with London rather than Lechlade.

 

[Harbornite]

The Mk3 was designed in the late 60's as a loco hauled coach. The first 2 prototypes were for the ER ordered in 1970 as loco hauled stock. That's why they had E12000 numbers in the loco hauled series.


The HST program came later and used the Mk 3 out of convenience to keep costs down.

I know what they are, thanks, but Robbie's post was badly worded. I think he meant to say that mark 3s were not built for HSTs but the coach designs are pretty much the same, save for the buffers and electrics.

 

[ABB125]

Perhaps the Class 170s could go to CrossCountry so that they could extend one of the services that pass by Leicester to somewhere like Cardiff, which I believe was recommended by the East Midlands Route Study (all trains calling at Ashchurch, thus greatly improving the service at one of my local stations ). This would require around 5 units. Alternatively, the Cardiff-Nottingham service could be extended to Lincoln, also suggested in the Route Study. This would require around 3 units. This would result in a need for an additional 8 units in total, plus spares. With 12 being released, would this work?

 

[northwichcat]

Very true but most people consider the Mersey with Liverpool where it is very wide, rather than South Manchester where it is a minor river.

It's the same with the Thames. Most people associate it with London rather than Lechlade.

Pre Greater Manchester and Merseyside people saw the Mersey as the rough boundary between Cheshire and Lancashire, in the same way as a long section of the Severn is seen as a rough boundary between Wales and England

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Perhaps the Class 170s could go to CrossCountry so that they could extend one of the services that pass by Leicester to somewhere like Cardiff, which I believe was recommended by the East Midlands Route Study (all trains calling at Ashchurch, thus greatly improving the service at one of my local stations ). This would require around 5 units. Alternatively, the Cardiff-Nottingham service could be extended to Lincoln, also suggested in the Route Study. This would require around 3 units. This would result in a need for an additional 8 units in total, plus spares. With 12 being released, would this work?

Good ideas if the 170's aren't used elsewhere, but as the XC franchise isn't being re-let till 2019 I think they will be taken by then. The only other problem with extending the Cardiff-Nottingham to Lincoln is the flat crossing at Newark. Unless that is grade separated then the is a risk that a service delayed around in the west could miss its slot crossing over the ECML.

 

[43074]

Good ideas if the 170's aren't used elsewhere, but as the XC franchise isn't being re-let till 2019 I think they will be taken by then. The only other problem with extending the Cardiff-Nottingham to Lincoln is the flat crossing at Newark. Unless that is grade separated then the is a risk that a service delayed around in the west could miss its slot crossing over the ECML.

The proposal for Nottingham to Lincoln was that the trains would take up the same number of paths as they do now, it's just that the trains will run through to Birmingham via Derby rather than Leicester. This also works in terms of paths West of Nottingham, albeit with a 10 minute dwell on the Westbound service.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Class 170101]

Scotrail could also do with a fleet of around 20 units to work the Cathcart Circle and Paisley Canal Lines. The refurbished fleet of 321s would certainly be more than suited to the job and would fit into Scotrail's fleet of 318s/320s well maintenance wise - the fact they are being refurbished inside out could also allow further 320s to go out for refurbishment and replace the ageing 318s in future. This would allow the 385s to be used on more suited routes as they were intended for.

I think you'll find Paisley Canal is not route cleared for 321s beyond Corkerwell TMD due to the electrification method used. Instead how about 321s operating between Edinburgh and North Berwick / Dunbar releasing the 380s for services in Ayrshire?

As for the rest of the GA fleet I can see some 170s at least going to London Midland or Chiltern, the 387s definitely on a Thames based route and the 90s on freight duties. The Mk3s and their based EMUs I can see going to the scrap or spare along with the 156s and 153s unless Northern or Arriva are looking to acquire additional units (unlikely).

Good ideas if the 170's aren't used elsewhere, but as the XC franchise isn't being re-let till 2019 I think they will be taken by then. The only other problem with extending the Cardiff-Nottingham to Lincoln is the flat crossing at Newark. Unless that is grade separated then the is a risk that a service delayed around in the west could miss its slot crossing over the ECML.

The proposal for Nottingham to Lincoln was that the trains would take up the same number of paths as they do now, it's just that the trains will run through to Birmingham via Derby rather than Leicester. This also works in terms of paths West of Nottingham, albeit with a 10 minute dwell on the Westbound service.

I had a look, as a result of discussions in another thread, it is not easy to find more paths for Newark Flat Crossing and they certainly aren't on a standard pattern. It would be useful though if it were possible for one service from Lincoln to Cardiff via Derby and Birmingham and a Lincoln to Leicester via East Midlands Parkway.

In the interim I agree the AGA 170s could go XC for an extra service between Birmingham and Cardiff and between Leicester and Cambridge (maybe Stansted in future).

 

[Clansman]

I think you'll find Paisley Canal is not route cleared for 321s beyond Corkerwell TMD due to the electrification method used. Instead how about 321s operating between Edinburgh and North Berwick / Dunbar releasing the 380s for services in Ayrshire?

Why is the electrification not suitable for Paisley Canal if 314s (and 380s) are cleared - what do the 320s (318s?) have different?

It's an idea Ill give you that. But there's slightly more capacity, albeit through more standing on a 380, compared to a 321 so it wouldn't really be a bonus for that route, considering the peak time loads they get. Class 380s have more superior acceleration and the slightly reduced timing loads could allow for a few more frequent services. Since Scotrail are looking to replace the 314s, the 321s (converted to 320s and able to form 6 coach units) they'd be far more suited to low speed, stop-starting diagrams operational and capacity wise on the Cathcart Circle - something which is unsuitable for a commuter designed 385, which will provide slightly less capacity than the 314s they are replacing.