Future MML rolling stock?

[Kneedown]

"Due for re-mapping" - thats a bit pessimistic isn't it! Unless the DfT go for the "superfranchise" option and merge EMT with EC/XC/TPE I really can't see much changing about the East Midlands franchise. Seems to work pretty well in its current format.

Didn't mean to sound pessimistic, although it's a hard habit to break when talking about rail in the East Midlands.
I was merely pointing out the fact that the government is looking to reduce the number of franchises again, and it was recommended in the Jacobs report that the current EMT franchise be assimilated into one or more existing franchises....

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/rvfm-jacobs-franchising-march2011.pdf

It is also likely that future franchises will be over a much longer term than at present, and i believe that any decision on future MML rolling stock will be deferred until everyone knows for sure what is happening.

 

[IanXC]

Fair enough but I'm not convinced that better acceleration is a really a good enough reason to take what is true intercity stock and use it to replace what is essentially inter-regional/local stock. For instance my local line (Hull - Sheffield/Bridington/Scarborough) is run with 158s your proposal could see Voyagers on that line! An extreme example, but my point is a Voyager ≠ a Sprinter.

Having said what I did about 185s, how about Voyagers on South TPE, and 185s on Sheffield/Doncaster-Hull/Bridlington/Scarborough?

Didn't mean to sound pessimistic, although it's a hard habit to break when talking about rail in the East Midlands.
I was merely pointing out the fact that the government is looking to reduce the number of franchises again, and it was recommended in the Jacobs report that the current EMT franchise be assimilated into one or more existing franchises....

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/rvfm-jacobs-franchising-march2011.pdf

It is also likely that future franchises will be over a much longer term than at present, and i believe that any decision on future MML rolling stock will be deferred until everyone knows for sure what is happening.

You're probably right to be fair, I think when I read it I had the impression you were thinking of EMT being divided, but you clearly didnt say that so no idea where I got that from! Sorry!

I'm generally a fan of the Jacobs report, but whilst I can see the logic they follow I really can't agree that merging EMT, XC and EC would be wise. I would add South TPE to EMT, North TPE to XC and split Northern back into East and West. But I think thats enough of me going wildly off topic...

 

[ainsworth74]

Having said what I did about 185s, how about Voyagers on South TPE, and 185s on Sheffield/Doncaster-Hull/Bridlington/Scarborough?

Funilly enough I was thinking along those line myself earlier on (ironically enough whilst on the train to Hull ). Seems to me that the route is pretty much perfect for something in the inter-regional class like a 185 (though I think I would prefer the slightly more light weight 170 for the tracks sake).

 

[Kneedown]

You're probably right to be fair, I think when I read it I had the impression you were thinking of EMT being divided, but you clearly didnt say that so no idea where I got that from! Sorry!

No worries mate!

I'm generally a fan of the Jacobs report, but whilst I can see the logic they follow I really can't agree that merging EMT, XC and EC would be wise. I would add South TPE to EMT, North TPE to XC and split Northern back into East and West. But I think thats enough of me going wildly off topic...

I wouldn't have said it's going off topic myself, more like it's one piece of a big, big picture that nobody quite knows what it's going to look like yet!

 

[tbtc]

And you've just made a huge asumption that all passengers are going to London. Infact you see a considerable number of passengers get on at both stations heading to Leicester and the midlands.

By your definition of distance, Reading shouldn't have IC service. Nor Milton Keynes. Nor Stevenage. Nor Peterborough.

I'm basing this on seeing the number of people on northbound EMT services from London getting off at Luton Airport/ Luton/ Bedford...

...plus also the numbers using EMT to travel from London to other stations south of Leicester.

Speaking of Leicester, thats a fair comparison with Peterborough. Peterborough is where you connect from long distance services from the north to stations closer to London.

Peterborough is about eighty miles away from London, a lot further out than Luton/ Bedford (approx thirty to fifty miles away).

If you are using the ECML as an example then you'd have many long distance services stopping at Leicester/Peterborough and only a token service (every couple of hours?) for one station closer to London (Stevenage/ Luton), plus you'd have a FCC service running between Leicester/Peterborough and London (serving the small stations in between).

I accept that Reading is only about forty miles out of London (further than Luton/ closer than Bedford?), but its a big place, a busy interchange and has a big catchment population.

If TOCs are changing boundaries longer term then I'd suggest that Thameslink cover the stations between London/Bedford and Corby/Leicester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Having said what I did about 185s, how about Voyagers on South TPE, and 185s on Sheffield/Doncaster-Hull/Bridlington/Scarborough?

A four coach Voyager wouldn't be much of a difference (capacity wise) to a three coach 185. I honestly don't know whether the Voyagers would be suited to other lines (unless they have more coaches added)

 

[asylumxl]

I'm basing this on seeing the number of people on northbound EMT services from London getting off at Luton Airport/ Luton/ Bedford...

...plus also the numbers using EMT to travel from London to other stations south of Leicester.

That's fair enough.

Speaking of Leicester, thats a fair comparison with Peterborough. Peterborough is where you connect from long distance services from the north to stations closer to London.[

Peterborough is about eighty miles away from London, a lot further out than Luton/ Bedford (approx thirty to fifty miles away).

But it is like Bedford in the same way that it is the boundary with FCC services, so ideal for people changing from say a service from Huntingdon, to an EC service. How is this any different to someone from Flitwick changing at Bedford for a service further north? Luton is also like Stevenage in that people can change on to stopper services if they intend to go somewhere like Elstree & Borehamwood.

If you are using the ECML as an example then you'd have many long distance services stopping at Leicester/Peterborough and only a token service (every couple of hours?) for one station closer to London (Stevenage/ Luton), plus you'd have a FCC service running between Leicester/Peterborough and London (serving the small stations in between).

But Luton only gets one service an hour in each direction. It barely makes any difference to normal weekday services. On weekends, where there is usually some sort of engineering work causing one pair of lines to be out of use, it's worth stopping further south to make up for the reduction in capacity.

I accept that Reading is only about forty miles out of London (further than Luton/ closer than Bedford?), but its a big place, a busy interchange and has a big catchment population.

It's about 36 miles (giving 7 chains) so only about 6 miles more than Luton and 14 less than Bedford.

If TOCs are changing boundaries longer term then I'd suggest that Thameslink cover the stations between London/Bedford and Corby/Leicester.

In theory it makes sense to maybe run to Corby, but in reality it is just not workable IMO.

 

[heenan73]

Depending on the rate of MML electrification, ordering new electric stock and simultaneously adding a panto car to most of the 222s would allow early retirement of the HSTs - or cascade.

Then, as the need for diesel reduces and the electric fleet grows, pass the surplus 222s to XC - both bimode and diesel - allowing them to dispose of their HSTs, and use AC where possible.

Any surplus could logically go to TPE, allowing them to standardise on two types, cascading all the non-standard DMUs to Northern etc.

This would give MML, XC and TPE modern cohesive fleets, and take full advantage of AC wherever possible, and even allow for some expansion of XC.

 

[Nym]

Sooo what about the Great Western route, that has a bigger need for Bi Mode Stock, XC's fleet will become Bi Mode and grow anyway, making HSTs superfluous naturally, it would also give XC a microfleet by cascading them some 222.

Like I've said many a time, assuming a total displacment of the 222 fleet from the Midland Mainline Routes, I can see the logic in handing the whole fleet over to TPE, I can also see the logic (as I derived it!) in the GWML.

Right, time to sound horrible...

Surplus 222 to XC, no, just no, they don't need the 222 as a microfleet in addition to standard Voyager units, if these voyagers are grown by 1 or 2 cars each, there should be a lot less capacity issues within XC's routes.

TPE already standardize on two types, 170s and 185s, so you'd be adding another, and very different piece of stock to their fleet.

Giving XC, and TPE modern fleets? You'd be giving TPE Older units than what most of their fleet currently runs that would be less suited to their core services. And as for XC, it would be a micro fleet that is incompatible with their standard fleet, forgive me for saying this is a bad idea. There is a really easy way to get more capacity into XC, order some more 390s for ICWC, directly displacing ICWC's 221s to XC. Job done!

As I'm sure some of you have read above, there is a lot of merit to transfering the 222 fleet to ICGW after electrifying the Midland Mainline. Especially if this can be achieved before the new DDA regulations that may exclude HSTs from mainline use, that I don't believe anyone is actually clear on yet.

If HSTs can sit around until 2025 (that I think the DfT have in mind as they where going to keep HSTs on the B&H last I read) then the time fits too, No more new bi-mode units, cover the need for them by electrifying the Midland Mainline and sending the 222 units over in Electro-Diesel mode. Wires would need to reach Swansea for this to work though.

Finally, to the Above Poster, what would you do with the 185 fleet, there aren't many places they'd fit as a whole fleet. The only sensible places I can think of are either Scotrail or South West Trains. This would mean 156, 158 or 159 being displaced to the operator of the TPE South route (Proberbly palmed off on EMT and run to Liverpool L St via the CLC instead of Manc Airport) and Northern. With TPE North run by, well, 222 or electric stock, I favour the latter of course, and some of the other slack, non electric parts of TPE NW for example, picked up by NT with their new sprinters. But like I said, I'd prefer sending them to ICGW then...

IEP Bi Mode will be scrapped
No more LDPE Diesel Stock will be ordered, ever...

By the time 'self powered' LDPE stock is needed for another route, Highland Mainline, etc. Science should have finally caught up, and we won't be using Diesel any more. Hence, ordering new LDPE Diesel Stock that isn't needed with another Electrification project, that has a massive BCR is just plain thick...

PS: More inter-reigonal Diesels are unavoidable, but there are other awnsers there too.

 

[heenan73]

IEP Bi Mode will be scrapped

But that's the point; IEP bimode will not be scrapped.

It's not an economic or engineering issue; it's pure politics. DaFT have ignored all rational arguments to the point of ridicule (see Modern Railways' Informed Sources over many months).

Hence my suggestions above ignored the GW and EC.

TPE would still have a modern fleet with 22x and 185s, and 170s would be easy to cascade pretty much anywhere, esp as you point out, they are pretty new 170s.

The differences between the various 22x fleets aren't as huge as you seem to think, and they would displace the other 'microfleets' anyway, so no net gain in complexity for XC.

There's no question of transferring 222s to GW, as their electrification comes first, and they will be stuck with bimodes for a generation - OK, they could take a few to displace HSTs that remained - but I don't think that'll be many.

And it would be a waste. As 222s could so easily be given a panto car (and conceivably work to Derby), keeping them as diesel would be wasteful. And, of course, they could as easily lose the diesel completely when no longer needed.

But we're both speculating; I doubt DaFT's ideas will be better than yours or mine - and our major disagreement really hinges on IEP. Bet you £1 they get built!

 

[Nym]

But that's the point; IEP bimode will not be scrapped.

It's not an economic or engineering issue; it's pure politics. DaFT have ignored all rational arguments to the point of ridicule (see Modern Railways' Informed Sources over many months).

Hitachi have only been named as the prefered bidder and the confirmation of electrification of the MML could and proberbly would trigger a review of the IEP project. It has already been reviewed, and if the Midland Mainline where to be electrified, then it would not be too much hassle to review the project again to remove the need for Bi Mode units. And the MML can use the 'spare' specified units, as the number of units on order for use can remain the same, this will be a suitable and acceptable review.

Hence my suggestions above ignored the GW and EC.

TPE would still have a modern fleet with 22x and 185s, and 170s would be easy to cascade pretty much anywhere, esp as you point out, they are pretty new 170s.

The differences between the various 22x fleets aren't as huge as you seem to think, and they would displace the other 'microfleets' anyway, so no net gain in complexity for XC.

Yes, but 222s cannot couple to 220 or 221 units, as they are very electrically different. And I don't think you realise just how different these units are, they look the same and use the same mechanical coupling, they also share traction equipment and generators. But beyond that, there are a very different peice of kit. They are as different as the 380s are to the 350s.

Also, with the current calling and service patterns, the 222 fleet is not suitable for TPE North. If the calling pattern where to change to only calling at Victoria, Huddersfeild, Leeds, York etc. then the 222 units would be more suitable, but the majority of the fleet would remain to be too long to fit inside Oxford Road, this is to become one of the major stations on the TPE N Network with half of services calling here and the length limit on units being 6x23m. This can be changed around but will cost something of the order of £200mil.

Also, the additional speed capacity of the 222 fleet would only be able to be used north of York on the TPE network, somthing like a 110mph 350/380 unit would be more ideal for the TPE Network.

There's no question of transferring 222s to GW, as their electrification comes first, and they will be stuck with bimodes for a generation - OK, they could take a few to displace HSTs that remained - but I don't think that'll be many.

Yes, the GW is being electrified first, but not all of it is being electrified, as I'm sure you know, and the world of Bi Mode is best deployed on the Great Western and Cross Country routes, these are the only real LDPE routes that can benefit from bi-mode operation. If the Midland Mainline where electrified, what would be the point of keeping the 222 fleet there?

As for displacing HSTs, I worked the numbers based on Electrification to Swansea and current service patterns on non-electrified routes being retained, and the numbers fit quite nicely.

This would mean ALL HSTs would be displaced from the Great Western route and Midland Mainline when electrification of the Midland Mainline was completed. The remaining LDPE Diesel routes, not within the realm of the Great Western would be...

Euston - Holyhead
KX - Hull, Sunderland, Bradford, Aberdeen & Inverness.

Euston - Holyhead would be covered by the remains of the 221 fleet within ICWC
KX - Hull, Sunderland and Bradford, open access is already sorted with the 180 fleet.
KX - Aberdeen & Inverness can continue by hauling 91+LHCS+DVT with a locomotive off wires from EDB, and Electrification should reach the highlands by 2025.
KX - Hull Franchised covered in a similar way.

Additional capacity for XC would be provided by cascade of 221 from ICWC replaced by 390.

And it would be a waste. As 222s could so easily be given a panto car (and conceivably work to Derby), keeping them as diesel would be wasteful. And, of course, they could as easily lose the diesel completely when no longer needed.

Like I said before, why would you want to run these to Derby or do a half job of the Midland Mainline electrification? Diesel under wires is a waste when it's only a small amount on the end, it's even more of a waste hauling dead diesels under the whole route when the're not even providing power, so cascade them away to ICGW where they will operate as diesel for a significant amount of the route, and on electric for another significant part. The majority diesel routes of the ICGW network (Reading Taunton shuttle) is then covered by Inter-Reigonal Diesels.

But we're both speculating; I doubt DaFT's ideas will be better than yours or mine - and our major disagreement really hinges on IEP. Bet you £1 they get built!

Yes, but I'm speculating, and calculating weather the routes would cope with levels of stock, rather than just guessing the requirement of diagrams for a network. And assigning appropriate stock to appropriate routes...!

 

[heenan73]

Also, with the current calling and service patterns, the 222 fleet is not suitable for TPE North. If the calling pattern where to change to only calling at Victoria, Huddersfeild, Leeds, York etc. then the 222 units would be more suitable, but the majority of the fleet would remain to be too long to fit inside Oxford Road, this is to become one of the major stations on the TPE N Network with half of services calling here and the length limit on units being 6x23m. This can be changed around but will cost something of the order of £200mil.

Now you are being silly. 222s can be reformulated to any length from 3 to 9 cars; depending where the fleet is cascaded to, the TOC can reallocate as the mood takes them.

Yes, but I'm speculating, and calculating weather the routes would cope with levels of stock, rather than just guessing the requirement of diagrams for a network. And assigning appropriate stock to appropriate routes...!

Up to a point; you are making the standard error of trying to set service patterns according to stock, rather than allocate stock according to need.

Just because the numbers fit is not a good enough reason to justify a particular solution. Start with service needs, THEN decide where the stock could/should go.

And you really need to get real with IEP; short of open warfare with Japan, it' gonna happen. So far, they've spent £45m+ on the deal, and have ignored all arguments (good, very good and impeccable) against it. Hitachi have rejigged their offer at DaFT's behest 3 times (or is it 4? I tend to drift off) - at UK gov's expense.

Give us one clue as to why, after all that, the government should suddenly come to their senses? They've all but promised a new factory, there'd be riots in the North East if it gets cancelled now.

IEP bimode will NOT be scrapped; get over it!

 

[T163R]

Meridians will probably be sufficient. But we will need more, so, good news for Bombardier...

 

[Nym]

Now you are being silly. 222s can be reformulated to any length from 3 to 9 cars; depending where the fleet is cascaded to, the TOC can reallocate as the mood takes them.

It's really not that simple, you could end up with half of the remainder as 12 car formations.

Up to a point; you are making the standard error of trying to set service patterns according to stock, rather than allocate stock according to need.

Just because the numbers fit is not a good enough reason to justify a particular solution. Start with service needs, THEN decide where the stock could/should go.

OK then lets assume that I can't send any to GW or EC, lets do some more numbers here...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well, assuming a maximum 10 car formation and that you can shouehorn a transformer big enough into a 5 car formation to make it 6 car, there is space within the 222 fleet for...

21 6 car EDMU
2 9 car EDMU
4 8 car EDMU

Or with more sensible transformer sizes, requiring two per formation, would yeild...

17 7 car EDMU
6 10 car EDMU
4 5 car EDMU

Or with a bit of shuffling...

18 8 car EDMU and 9 5 or 6 car EDMU depending on transformer specs.

Now, working on my 'silly idea' for re-moddeling Oxford Road going though...

Post Northern Hub and NW Electrification one assumes TPE will need 48 daily diagrams

MIA - NCL = 8
MIA - MBR = 8
MAN - HUL = 5, Assuming extention to LIV/CTR = 7
LIV - SCA = 8

TPE N = 31

Add on the extra 2tph between MAN and LDS as part of the Northern Hub, 4 or 5 diagrams, assuming some slack, 5.

TPE N = 36 dia.

TPE S = 8

TPE NW Diesel (MIA-BIF/WDM) = 6/7

Thats about 51 diagrams to cover with Diesel units, assuming no doubling up of services, that fits quite nicely. Now lets inject the 222 fleet into the equation.

Assuming a 6 car max formation (and ignoring for the moment that a 6 car 222 has less capcity than a 6 car 185)

Sending all the 6 car units over to TPE would mean being able to convert all of the High end ECML (NCL and MBR) services to 222 operation where they can make use of their higher top speed. Allowing another 16+ diagrams to be doubled up out of the 185 fleet. I'm thinking peak hour diagrams through Bolton, Leeds, and some of the extra 2tph. And all turbostars would say bye bye to another TOC.

The remaining 8 and 9 car units, well keep them with EMT to run off wires services to say, Lincoln and York/Scarbrough.

If we go for the 8 car option that would mean my hairbrain scheme of rebuilding oxford road station going thorough, one could not only send all 222 units to TPE, TPE could also take on an additional route, or again, keep the remaining 5/6 car units with EMT to run off wires services.

Adding the extra route into TPE would be Liverpool - Norwich, run either by 185 or 222 units, but with an extra 11 units floating around in the fleet ontop of what is needed for the rest, even with a load of slack and doubled up diagrams through the core, would take over Liverpool - Norwich quite nicely.

When TPE N is electrified, TPE would gain a fleet of 4, 6 or 8 car units to operate the core route.

The 185 fleet could then leave TPE wholesale and they would continue to use their 222 fleet for off wires services including TPE South. And windermere / barrow.

This would be with a fleet of 27 units, plenty to run TPE South, Liverpool - Scarbrough and possibly Liverpool - Norwich aswell.

The 51 185s would be able to find a nice home either with SWT, Scotrail or ATW.

So the numbers work nicely for TPE, work much nicer with platform extentions (or extensive use of SDO at Oxford Road on all services)

 

[Kneedown]

Meridians will probably be sufficient. But we will need more, so, good news for Bombardier...

If it's still possible to build new Meridians it won't make a blind bit of difference to Derby as they were built in Bruges which is where all the jigs etc will be if they're still in existence. I can't see all the bits and bobs being shipped over to Derby.

 

[ainsworth74]

If it's still possible to build new Meridians it won't make a blind bit of difference to Derby as they were built in Bruges which is where all the jigs etc will be if they're still in existence.

If they're anywhere it's not going to in Bruges (which by the by is the name of a rather good film) as the factory that built them closed down a while ago now.

 

[sprinterguy]

Sending all the 6 car units over to TPE would mean being able to convert all of the High end ECML (NCL and MBR) services to 222 operation where they can make use of their higher top speed. Allowing another 16+ diagrams to be doubled up out of the 185 fleet.

It's worth noting though that the bay platforms at Newcastle usually used by TPE can only take a maximum of 5 x 23 metre carriages (and platform 12 can only handle 4 x 23 metre carriages with the barrier in its' current position), and I don't think that it would be possible to "fiddle" the platform allocations sufficiently given TPEs' long layovers at present.

 

[Nym]

Thanks sprinterguy, I only really know the core of the route. It would of course be possible to run the TPE services through Newcastle and onto somwhere else though. Pathing north of Newcastle permitting, perhaps a new siding or platform at MetroCentre?

As you can tell, I'm ignoring terminal capacity with what I'm working out here, two 8 car diagrams terminate at Manchester Airport on platforms that currently stack, so there would need to be more platforms provided there. Although from what I can tell, it's only Newcastle, Manchester Airport, possibly Liverpool L St and Middlesbrough that would have capacity constrains for terminal services. Paragon Interchange and Scarbrough have plenty of spare platforms.

 

[sprinterguy]

Thanks sprinterguy, I only really know the core of the route. It would of course be possible to run the TPE services through Newcastle and onto somwhere else though. Pathing north of Newcastle permitting, perhaps a new siding or platform at MetroCentre?

You could run the unit down into Forth Sidings; used to be a regular occurence back in HST days for the Crosscountry services that terminated at Newcastle, and it continued into the early days of Voyager operation, but seems to have fallen from favour since the introduction of Operation Princess.

I think any such consideration for any units longer than the west end bays at Newcastle would require a degree of cooperation from the terminating XC services and careful planning of the arrival and departure times of the two sets of services, although many of the terminating XC services now themselves make use of the bay platforms due to the puny length of the Voyagers.

Running to the Metrocentre would require a run round the bridges if a reversal in the platform was to be avoided. I don't know how plentiful the available spare paths on the east end of the Tyne Valley, but I reckon that it would be possible, with some redevelopment of the north side of the Metrocentre station, to fit in a single, or perhaps even squeeze in a pair of, bay platform on the north side of the station.

Overall though, using bi-mode 222s on TPE North pending electrification of the route doesn't seem like a bad idea.

 

[Nym]

Whats your opinion on the cascade of 185 units post electrification with 222s retained for ED routes (TP South, Scarborough and possibly Middlesbrough)? 27 units for them and possibly Liverpool Norwich would seem to be plenty.

TP South being 7 diagrams, Scarborough - Liverpool being 8 and Liverpool Norwich I'm not too sure on, but there'd be 27 long units, probably enough for 22 diagrams.

Obviously with EMUs on the pure leccy routes, something like a 380...

Any ideas on where could use 51 lardbutt DMUs? All I could think of was ATW, SWT or ScotRail.

ATW replacing all their long distance fleet
ScotRail doing similar
and SWT replacing all 158 and 159 units so they can come play with Northern or FGW.

 

[sprinterguy]

Whats your opinion on the cascade of 185 units post electrification with 222s retained for ED routes (TP South, Scarborough and possibly Middlesbrough)? 27 units for them and possibly Liverpool Norwich would seem to be plenty.

TP South being 7 diagrams, Scarborough - Liverpool being 8 and Liverpool Norwich I'm not too sure on, but there'd be 27 long units, probably enough for 22 diagrams.

Liverpool-Norwich would require basically twelve units. So quite irritatingly, that overall total comes to just slightly more diagrams than the 222 fleet would be able to provide.

Any ideas on where could use 51 lardbutt DMUs? All I could think of was ATW, SWT or ScotRail.

ATW replacing all their long distance fleet
ScotRail doing similar
and SWT replacing all 158 and 159 units so they can come play with Northern or FGW.

I've been firmly of the opinion that the fleet of fifty one 185s should move to ATW if TPE is electrified ever since tbtc first suggested it some months ago. That would allow ATW to lose all of their 158s and 175s: The 175s could go to Northern to work the likes of the Calder Vale services, or to FGW, but I am presuming that FGW will gain 165s in the Bristol and West Country area following Oxford/Newbury electrification and placing them with Northern could mean that they could possibly continue to be maintained at their dedicated Chester depot.

Usually I suggest that a number (probably most, if not all) of the displaced ATW 158s should go to EMT to ensure that all of the Liverpool-Norwich trains can be doubled up and to allow EMT to take over operation of the TPE South service (Also using doubled up 158s on many services), but of course in this scenario where the 222s would be working TPE South and Liverpool-Norwich then this is not required.

Scotrail would be the other logical destination for the 185s, but I see more merit in sending them to Wales.

 

[Nym]

Liverpool-Norwich would require basically twelve units. So quite irritatingly, that overall total comes to just slightly more diagrams than the 222 fleet would be able to provide.

Scotrail would be the other logical destination for the 185s, but I see more merit in sending them to Wales.

Thats anoying, but if the route onto Middlesbrough is Electrified then it's only Liverpool - Scarborough (7 or 8 diagrams) TPE S (7 or 8) that IMO should be diverted to Liverpool via the CLC instead of Airport. and Liv - Nor, that would be as many diagrams as units though. Would be looking tight. Depending on how much of each route is electrified obviously could decide on one route having 158s stay on the route instead of getting some 222s to run it, I get the feeling that Liverpool - Norwich would keep 158s throughout by just not handing it over to TPE. But, Some TPE S Services (if run by 185s could split at Sheffeild with one half proceding to Nottingham) to improve capacity there.

 

[IanXC]

A four coach Voyager wouldn't be much of a difference (capacity wise) to a three coach 185. I honestly don't know whether the Voyagers would be suited to other lines (unless they have more coaches added)

I think that when Voyagers move from their current routes the logical home is the kind of fast dash on a mainline followed by a secondary route that 158s were designed for. This would hopefully help with pathing (thinking of congested routes like the WCML approaches to Manchester), and also be suitable for the secondary routes having RA2.

I take the point that they might not really be best for North TPE, but seeing as that route now seems to be in Network Rail's top 4 new electrification schemes its hopefully academic. In addition panto cars for the XC Voyagers probably mean that they have a longer life with the XC franchise anyway. How about 222s to ATW for all their services which involve Manchester and the North-South services? 27 units for 27 units - 2 and 3 car 175s to 5 and 6 car 222s would seem to be a nice hefty increase, and help to spread the load on the North Wales route which could allow ICWC services to be altered.

Whats your opinion on the cascade of 185 units post electrification with 222s retained for ED routes (TP South, Scarborough and possibly Middlesbrough)? 27 units for them and possibly Liverpool Norwich would seem to be plenty.

TP South being 7 diagrams, Scarborough - Liverpool being 8 and Liverpool Norwich I'm not too sure on, but there'd be 27 long units, probably enough for 22 diagrams.

Obviously with EMUs on the pure leccy routes, something like a 380...

Any ideas on where could use 51 lardbutt DMUs? All I could think of was ATW, SWT or ScotRail.

ATW replacing all their long distance fleet
ScotRail doing similar
and SWT replacing all 158 and 159 units so they can come play with Northern or FGW.

I'd keep them in the North, routes like Blackpool North-York-Scarborough, Leeds-Carlisle and Nottingham-Leeds, where they'd maintain stock quality into Scarborough following withdrawal of Liverpool services post electrification. They'd also be able to make use of their hill climbing abilities on that route and on the Settle and Carlisle.