Future DMU Orders

[MCR247]

As I've argued a number of times, we need something "basic" to replace Pacers.

Most people's plans involve:

(1) Electrifying lots of lines
(2) New High Speed trains allowing Voyagers/ Meridians to replace 170s (etc etc) so that you end up with 158s on "local" routes
(3) Both of the above

Whilst that's nice, it'll be years away before we can wire everything up, and stock like 158s aren't suitable for low speed services that stop a lot (where you need big doors to deal with the station dwells)

I know it won't be popular with some (who want the railways to concentrate on 150mph flashy trains), but a lot of routes just need something "simple" for bread and butter routes. No buffet cars, no wi-fi, no 100mph capabilities...

Exactly, just sending trains along the 'food chain' is no good, ie xxx replaces 170s which replace 158s which replace 156s which replace 150s which replace pacers.

 

[tbtc]

Exactly, just sending trains along the 'food chain' is no good, ie xxx replaces 170s which replace 158s which replace 156s which replace 150s which replace pacers.

Cheers.

I like the idea of cascades, to an extent, since it gives some routes an "upgrade", but we can't end up with Meridians on the Penistone line!

 

[ainsworth74]

Got to say I agree with you also tbtc, I've been thinking something along the lines of a 144 with bogie's and some sort of actual suspension system would fit the bill.

 

[142094]

Looking at the plan for the Tees Metro, one of the first things is that they want to replace 142s with 156s, then 156s with something like 170s. What we need is a gradual replacement of Pacers/Sprinters with new but similar stock, that have all the improvements and upgrades needed but still are not too expensive. Would be ideal to have a factory in the UK to do it but since most of them have closed down, not likely to happen.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not a political statement on my behalf, but sorry, no they were not crazy - in Andrew Adonis we finally had a transport secretary who had a grasp of what was important on the railways and came up with sensible plans to electrify certain parts of the network, allied with building new electric units allowing a series stock cascades resulting in reductions in the least attractive parts of the UK fleets - logically Pacers.

He said all that without checking if there was any CASH available...

 

[Lampshade]

They may not be as safe as some of the more modern stock, but I would still count them as safe. If they were not deemed to be safe, they would have been withdrawn years ago, otherwise the TOC or DfT would be liable for any loss of life.

They were deemed as being safe by a one Geoff Hoon, the same Geoff Hoon that said "We know Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction"

 

[YorkshireBear]

have had 158's on stopping hallam lines and it wasn't fantastic, agree with those who say a modern day equivalent of pacer needs to be built. Something with big doors mazimum capacity and quick acceleration but not a particularly high top speed for stop start services.

 

[Lampshade]

Surely it's common sense that all future diesel orders should be DEMUs, then they could take advantage of future electrification.

Anyway, the class 242:

- Bogies
- 23m coaches
- Two coaches as standard, can be extended by any number of centre cars
- Four sets of doors each side per coach, more doors = faster boarding/alighting á la the slammers
- 2+3 seating throughout, no first class
- One DM to have a pantograph
- Energy storage system for continued electric power off the wires, can be charged with diesel engines

It's basic but advanced, it's superior in every way to Pacers, build that train and you replace all Pacers and 150s in service (287 trains), but what do I know, I'm just a student

 

[starrymarkb]

I'm not sure I would call this particularly safe, anyone in the driving cab and by the looks of it the vestibule would have been killed even if Geoff Hoon says there is no unsafe rolling stock.

(Sorry for image size, best I could find)

TBH most sprinters would sustain similar damage when up against a loco+8 at that sort of speed. If you look its only the cab and door area that have crumpled, the bodyshell was shunted down the underframe, but the seating area is still intact.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think something like the GTW would be a good idea.

They are basic, cheap but well built and very customisable (Stadler build a lot of stock for the Swiss mountain railways so building one to UK size isn't an issue). It should be possible to swap the self contained power module (only the fuel tanks are carried under the passenger cars) for an electric version

And the interior (again seat layout is specified by the operator)

 

[jopsuk]

As noted elsewhere, 500 days and counting since the last passenger rolling stock order in the UK.

 

[222666]

We could build on the third gen fleets we have now, adding coaches (powered or unpowered) to improve capacity without going through the ordering of fourth gen units (in the near future anyway).

Where TOCs have mixed fleets, say they have Turbostars & 150s, either get some more Turbostars in, or just add more coaches (as above), this will make their fleet more uniform & 150s will replace Pacers elsewhere. Seating plans could also be reworked in Turbostars seeing as how they're not on "Intercity" routes anymore like they were on the MML!

XC should get more coaches especially now the clock is ticking on HSTs.

I do despair at how the door slams firmly shut after building a set number of brand new units & the whole process has to start again. Just top-up the good trains we have now!

 

[Geezertronic]

have had 158's on stopping hallam lines and it wasn't fantastic, agree with those who say a modern day equivalent of pacer needs to be built. Something with big doors mazimum capacity and quick acceleration but not a particularly high top speed for stop start services.

Wouldn't something like the Class 378 now being used by London Overground be a good candidate (but in diesel form)?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Wouldn't something like the Class 378 now being used by London Overground be a good candidate (but in diesel form)?

Well yes but with a better seating arragement.

I do despair at how the door slams firmly shut after building a set number of brand new units & the whole process has to start again. Just top-up the good trains we have now!

Maybe that will come up in value for money report, larger more standard orders save millions then we might nto break the record for no stock orders.

 

[MCR247]

We could build on the third gen fleets we have now, adding coaches (powered or unpowered) to improve capacity without going through the ordering of fourth gen units (in the near future anyway).

Where TOCs have mixed fleets, say they have Turbostars & 150s, either get some more Turbostars in, or just add more coaches (as above), this will make their fleet more uniform & 150s will replace Pacers elsewhere. Seating plans could also be reworked in Turbostars seeing as how they're not on "Intercity" routes anymore like they were on the MML!

XC should get more coaches especially now the clock is ticking on HSTs.

I do despair at how the door slams firmly shut after building a set number of brand new units & the whole process has to start again. Just top-up the good trains we have now!

No, because 170s can't replace 150s, 170s have s*** acceleration and high top speeds (higher geared) whereas 150s need quick acceleration and low high speeds (lower geared)

 

[jopsuk]

Well yes but with a better seating arragement.

Perhaps more like the 376 then? Has the same wide sliding doors as the 378, though doesn't have the wide open intra-unit gangways. Front end is similar to the 378, but without the emergency door. Has transverse seating. Used by Southeastern on "Metro" routes.
To be honest, I'm actually suprised the GOBLIN new stock (LO 172s) didn't get 376/378 style doors.

 

[YorkshireBear]

bit more like that, allows room for the thousands of prams the use the barnsley meadowhall stratch aswell. :/

150's do a good job but from 3 p.m onwards need to be 4 car

 

[starrymarkb]

Perhaps more like the 376 then? Has the same wide sliding doors as the 378, though doesn't have the wide open intra-unit gangways. Front end is similar to the 378, but without the emergency door. Has transverse seating. Used by Southeastern on "Metro" routes.
To be honest, I'm actually suprised the GOBLIN new stock (LO 172s) didn't get 376/378 style doors.

They are dealer spec. Designed to be easily re-homed when the wires go up (TfL have been arguing with DfT over cost shares for a while now hence 172s)

 

[142094]

One thing that should be compulsory for new stock is through gangways for multiple working. Why the 185s were not built with them I do not know. No wonder sometimes you see them working out of Leeds where the front end nearest to the escalator is packed and the back is less so.

 

[LE Greys]

We could build on the third gen fleets we have now, adding coaches (powered or unpowered) to improve capacity without going through the ordering of fourth gen units (in the near future anyway).

Where TOCs have mixed fleets, say they have Turbostars & 150s, either get some more Turbostars in, or just add more coaches (as above), this will make their fleet more uniform & 150s will replace Pacers elsewhere. Seating plans could also be reworked in Turbostars seeing as how they're not on "Intercity" routes anymore like they were on the MML!

XC should get more coaches especially now the clock is ticking on HSTs.

I do despair at how the door slams firmly shut after building a set number of brand new units & the whole process has to start again. Just top-up the good trains we have now!

No, because 170s can't replace 150s, 170s have s*** acceleration and high top speeds (higher geared) whereas 150s need quick acceleration and low high speeds (lower geared)

More or less what I was going to say. The same applies to 175s and 185s. There's also the question of weight. A Super Sprinter weighs 38 tons/vehicle (7.5 hp/ton), while a 170 is more like 44 tons/vehicle (10 hp/ton), a 175 is 50 tons/vehicle (9 hp/ton) and a 185 is 54 tons/vehicle (14 hp/ton). Annoyingly, I can't find any figures for the 172s. That all sounds good for the newer units, but I don't have any decent adhesion weight figures, so comparing there is impossible. I'm almost certain that 156s can out-drag pretty much all the newer units up to 50 mph (useful on a local stopper). Being lighter on the track is also useful for reducing maintenance requirements. Not sure how it affects hill-climbing, but I've been over Rannoch Moor in 156s and up from Dovey Junction in 158s, and I'd say the 156 did better.

Therefore, the only conclusion is that we need more 156s to replace everything else, with perhaps a 'short-body' version for lines where track curvature may be a problem. However, I am sure that it is possible to reduce the weight with by using modern materials to under 35 tons, and increase the power to around 350 hp. Modifying the gear ratios on a Turbostar (effectively producing a 172/1) might work, although I think it will still be too heavy. An end-gangway would be useful as well.

Still, we should extend at least some of the Turbostars. This would increase capacity at least. For instance, extending all of XC's 2-car units to 3-car with mini-buffets in the new centre cars and recommissioning the buffets in the 170/1s would make a lot of sense. Either way, they should also have mini-buffets. As for the 185s, make some of them longer (if they still run sections with one engine out, they can handle a trailer or two). Extend the 220s with pantograph coaches containing mini-buffets (maybe an extra TSO as well) and build 12 more of them to replace some of the 221s. Transfer the 221s to Trans-Pennine, for use on services up the WCML (reactivate the tilt systems to do so) and move sufficient 185s onto South TPX to replace the 170s (or reinforce services on North TPX). Nine 170/3s get freed up to transfer to the East Midland for Liverpool-Norwich services. All receive centre cars and mini-buffets. Doesn't shake much stock loose, but there should be enough to cascade out to FGW and replace any remaining 143s. The idea is to expand capacity and improve on-train facilities while not cascading much, using existing products with (hopefully) existing jigs and patterns.

Probably won't be possible for some silly reason, but it ought to work.

 

[MCR247]

172/1s are having Electrostar style cabs with gangways

 

[ukrob]

One thing that should be compulsory for new stock is through gangways for multiple working. Why the 185s were not built with them I do not know. No wonder sometimes you see them working out of Leeds where the front end nearest to the escalator is packed and the back is less so.

As I have said before, at the time of order, they were not allowed to be designed with gangways due to sharing track with 125mph stock. It wasn't that they just didn't want them.

 

[jopsuk]

That makes no sense, what with 350s, 317s, 158s and more all sharing track with 125mph stock.

 

[ukrob]

Hence the key phrase of "at the time of the order"

 

[starrymarkb]

I thought it was more to do with signal sighting, you'll notice they also have an extra side window for the driver.

 

[tbtc]

One thing that should be compulsory for new stock is through gangways for multiple working. Why the 185s were not built with them I do not know. No wonder sometimes you see them working out of Leeds where the front end nearest to the escalator is packed and the back is less so.

Agreed

Sloped ends make sense at 100mph+ speeds, but most trains don't need that, and do need corridor connections.

It may not look as pretty, but we can't afford that luxury

 

[sprinterguy]

172/1s are having Electrostar style cabs with gangways

That's the 172/2s and 172/3s for LM that are having end gangways. It's nice to see that sense has finally been seen and a walkthrough capability is finally going to be available on these units, given the needless complications of LMs regular 170+153 combinations, which could be through gangwayed if only the 170s had been fitted with them from the start!

More or less what I was going to say. The same applies to 175s and 185s. There's also the question of weight. A Super Sprinter weighs 38 tons/vehicle (7.5 hp/ton), while a 170 is more like 44 tons/vehicle (10 hp/ton), a 175 is 50 tons/vehicle (9 hp/ton) and a 185 is 54 tons/vehicle (14 hp/ton). Annoyingly, I can't find any figures for the 172s. That all sounds good for the newer units, but I don't have any decent adhesion weight figures, so comparing there is impossible. I'm almost certain that 156s can out-drag pretty much all the newer units up to 50 mph (useful on a local stopper). Being lighter on the track is also useful for reducing maintenance requirements. Not sure how it affects hill-climbing, but I've been over Rannoch Moor in 156s and up from Dovey Junction in 158s, and I'd say the 156 did better.

Therefore, the only conclusion is that we need more 156s to replace everything else, with perhaps a 'short-body' version for lines where track curvature may be a problem. However, I am sure that it is possible to reduce the weight with by using modern materials to under 35 tons, and increase the power to around 350 hp. Modifying the gear ratios on a Turbostar (effectively producing a 172/1) might work, although I think it will still be too heavy. An end-gangway would be useful as well.

Still, we should extend at least some of the Turbostars. This would increase capacity at least. For instance, extending all of XC's 2-car units to 3-car with mini-buffets in the new centre cars and recommissioning the buffets in the 170/1s would make a lot of sense. Either way, they should also have mini-buffets. As for the 185s, make some of them longer (if they still run sections with one engine out, they can handle a trailer or two). Extend the 220s with pantograph coaches containing mini-buffets (maybe an extra TSO as well) and build 12 more of them to replace some of the 221s. Transfer the 221s to Trans-Pennine, for use on services up the WCML (reactivate the tilt systems to do so) and move sufficient 185s onto South TPX to replace the 170s (or reinforce services on North TPX). Nine 170/3s get freed up to transfer to the East Midland for Liverpool-Norwich services. All receive centre cars and mini-buffets. Doesn't shake much stock loose, but there should be enough to cascade out to FGW and replace any remaining 143s. The idea is to expand capacity and improve on-train facilities while not cascading much, using existing products with (hopefully) existing jigs and patterns.

So much good sense has rarely been spoken I agree that in 20 or 30 years or so the 185s will be useful for very little in the way of cascades onto other services as they are just too heavy and seriously overpowered for local work! Similar for the 175s.

And I also couldn't agree more that the 156s are perfectly suited to the sort of inter-regional, rural and local work that they are put to, in my view they are the most successful and versatile of the Sprinter classes. It's a shame that a batch wasn't built as 3 car units with a centre car.

Future cascades would work as far as 150s replacing the Pacers, and 156s replacing the 150s, with 170s replacing most of the currently 156 and 158 operated services. After that it comes unstuck though: As has been mentioned, the 158s will never be suitable for either rural or commuter use due to their poorer acceleration characteristics and narrow doors hindering loading times, and the 170s would be too heavy and too overpowered to wind up working the kinds of routes currently operated by Pacers and 150s.

As to the above Turbostar lengthening idea, I think that is an excellent scheme, and I would further that by constructing a few further trailer standards and insert them into the currently 3 car 170/1s to give four carriage units that would do away with the current pairs of XC two car 170s that operate some services-which might free up a couple more 170s.

I'd also like to see Greater Manchester receive a new fleet of lower geared, 75mph, gangway fitted 172s (Which sounds like the Turbostar "Traveller" concept that was floated for just such an eventuality about 10 years ago) to mirror the current West Midlands fleet renewal. That would free up a load of 142s and 150s from the Manchester area, which could be redeployed strengthening services in other areas of the Northern network. Might even be able to withdraw a few Pacers.

I think that a lightweight fleet of low geared 172s would be a reasonable replacement for the 142s and 150s: Something with wide double leaf, one third and two third position doors is definitely the best way forward for quick loading times on local commuter services, as has been learnt the hard way with the 142s and 143s with three doors per side, and even worse, the 141s with only two doors per side!

 

[tbtc]

That's the 172/2s and 172/3s for LM that are having end gangways. It's nice to see that sense has finally been seen and a walkthrough capability is finally going to be available on these units, given the needless complications of LMs regular 170+153 combinations, which could be through gangwayed if only the 170s had been fitted with them from the start!

Same with ScotRail and their 158 + 170 combinations (or doubled 170s)

So much good sense has rarely been spoken I agree that in 20 or 30 years or so the 185s will be useful for very little in the way of cascades onto other services as they are just too heavy and seriously overpowered for local work! Similar for the 175s.

The 175s and 185s are the "bendi-buses" of the railway world. They look good when new, and were built to do a job on a particular line, but will be useless for any other work and possily redundant after half the life alternative vehicles would have.

In the same way that bendi-buses are okay at running "flagship" routes in London, but would struggle to run round provincial housing estates at ten years old (a lot of London buses get sent to other cities once they are too old for London) , and are decidedly "non standard". A small fleet of 175s and 185s was a very short term fix by First that will be a long term nightmare. Due to common parts (etc), I wouldn't be surprised if 156s/ 158s outlive 185s (if the main Transpennine route is wired up, or gets new stock).

As to the above Turbostar lengthening idea, I think that is an excellent scheme, and I would further that by constructing a few further trailer standards and insert them into the currently 3 car 170/1s to give four carriage units that would do away with the current pairs of XC two car 170s that operate some services-which might free up a couple more 170s

Definately!

Currently 170s work coupled to 153s/ 158s/ other 170s. Sticking in additional carriages would free up a lot of Sprinters, and would also mean that a four/ five car 170 would be a good alternative to 180/220/221s on other routes (where you don't need to go over 100mph).

As I've said many times before, we don't need more trains, we need longer trains. Buying 100 extra centre cars for 170s would mean longer trains and free up (say) 50x* 153/158 carriages which could be used to lengthen other services to three coach (stick the 153s onto 156s and turn the 158s into three car in the way that FGW do)

* - sounds a lot, I know,but bear in mind that a 170 lengthened to four car would then free up a two/three car 170 currently coupled to another 170 etc etc

 

[YorkshireBear]

Bombardier need to be contacted because their turbostars and voyagers need centre cars Construction of both them would have major benefits.

As with the 185's they'll do a decent job for years to come as pennine will not get electrified any time soon.

 

[MCR247]

Voyager/turbostar centre cars would be not be powered because the engines aren't in production any more

 

[Geezertronic]

Voyager/turbostar centre cars would be not be powered because the engines aren't in production any more

They'd fit the Voyagers/SuperVoyagers with the electrical generator and traction motors though wouldn't they which I assume would work if the set was equipped with a pantograph?