Future of Class 15x units

[4REP]

Air conditioning is not always a good thing because germs can spread easier and like previous post about being too warm etc.

 

[py_megapixel]

Air conditioning is not always a good thing because germs can spread easier and like previous post about being too warm etc.

The benefits must outweigh the downsides. Otherwise it wouldn't have been fitted to almost all mainline rolling stock built since the 1990s

 

[Rick1984]

AC much better off you've got bad hayfever too,.

 

[A0]

I’ve always thought, the issue at Northern was always that they were one generation of stock behind, especially when you compare with the likes of Scotrail and London Midland who are now cascading the next generation of stock along.

I know not everything in London is brand new but you’ve generally got modern stock dominating and then the likes of Networkers secondary.

The fact 150s don’t have air con will increasingly stand out if we are 10 years down the line and nothing has happened.

I don't think it's that clear cut - and to an extent you need to look at why some franchises, such as LM have ended up with new stock.

In LM's case if you go back to Silverlink it started out with 48 x 321s to cover London - Northampton - Birmingham services.

It's now running with 87 x 350s (across all variants) plus 15 x 319s.

Some of that is because they are running Birmingham - Liverpool services which were previously covered with DMUs by Central Trains, some of it is the Trent Valley Crewe service and some of it is to allow Euston to Birmingham trains to be at least 8 carriage where 4 used to be sufficient.

Building more Class 321s wasn't an option, so new trains were inevitable.

The decision of WMR / LNWR to go for a full fleet replacement is being done to add further capacity and also standardise the fleet on a single EMU type.

If you pick a different point in time - 1990 a good example - in the north you had new Sprinters and Super Sprinters as well as new EMUs in the Leeds area.

Whereas running into London you had - by terminus going anti-clockwise:

Fenchurch Street - Class 302 and 305 and 310 EMUs all at least 25 years old.

Liverpool Street - new 321s, 305, 309, 312, 315 EMUs between 15 and 30 years old.

Moorgate - 313s which were 15 years old and new 319s as Thameslink had not long opened.

Kings Cross - Class 317 between 3 and 10 years old cascaded from Midland to replace the 312s. The 365s didn't arrive until the mid 90s.

St Pancras - see Kings Cross / Moorgate.

Euston - new Class 321s which replaced Class 317s (see KX) which in turn had cascaded the 310s to Fenchurch Street. 313s per Moorgate.

Marylebone - Class 115 DMUs introduced in 1960 so 30 years old.

Paddington - Class 117 DMUs introduced 1959 so 30+ years old.

Southern had all the slam door EMUs - BEPs, CEPs, VEPs etc dating between 1960 and 1974, EPBs dating from the late 1950s, Thumpers dating from late 1950s and 455s dating from the 1980s.

So one, perhaps two lines had "new" trains at that time. Quite alot were getting hand-me-downs from other lines (LTS in particular).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The decision of WMR / LNWR to go for a full fleet replacement is being done to add further capacity and also standardise the fleet on a single EMU type.

Erm, no they're not. 350/1, /3 and /4 are staying.

 

[A0]

Erm, no they're not. 350/1, /3 and /4 are staying.

Fair point - misread on my part. But once the Aventras enter service the decision may be made to standardise the fleet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fair point - misread on my part. But once the Aventras enter service the decision may be made to standardise the fleet.

Unlikely in the current franchise. By the time any further order is placed, it won't be for something identical to the present Aventra.

 

[Neptune]

Unlikely in the current franchise. By the time any further order is placed, it won't be for something identical to the present Aventra.

You never know. The Turbostar/Electrostar production line was open for years.

 

[Energy]

You never know. The Turbostar/Electrostar production line was open for years.

Maybe, the later electrostars (387s and 379s) do share a lot income with the Aventras though.

 

[hst43102]

I know not everything in London is brand new but you’ve generally got modern stock dominating and then the likes of Networkers secondary.

I'd definitely disagree with this. London's stock is fairly average in age compared to most of the country - there are plenty of very elderly units about such as the 315s, 455, 456 etc. 158s, 357s, 458s, 168s etc aren't exactly new either.

 

[Richard Scott]

AC much better off you've got bad hayfever too,.

I get horrendous hayfever and sinus problems - give me droplight stock any day. AC is unbearable when all I want is fresh air. Know it sounds odd but being cooped up in an controlled atmosphere is hell. Worst I ever had was a long haul flight.

 

[Energy]

I'd definitely disagree with this. London's stock is fairly average in age compared to most of the country - there are plenty of very elderly units about such as the 315s, 455, 456 etc. 158s, 357s, 458s, 168s etc aren't exactly new either.

The difference is that the elderly units in the north are 150s and (used to be) pacers which are much worse than London's older trains

 

[A0]

The difference is that the elderly units in the north are 150s and (used to be) pacers which are much worse than London's older trains

Whilst you may have a point about the Pacers, there is little difference from a passenger perspective between a 455, 317 and a 150 - greater capacity and diesel engines being the only noticeable ones, and the former goes away if you have 2x150.

On Pacers, the reality is without them, some lines wouldn't have been viable. Even the quietest lines around London are far busier than the kind of lines Pacers were designed for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On Pacers, the reality is without them, some lines wouldn't have been viable. Even the quietest lines around London are far busier than the kind of lines Pacers were designed for.

That's a common misconception. There are plenty of quiet lines in the SE that would be perfectly suitable for Pacers. The Marston Vale for one, St Albans for another (if it hadn't been electrified), and probably the quieter Thames Valley branches too, as well as Aylesbury-Risborough.

People have this idea that the South East is all really busy and long trains - it isn't.

 

[A0]

That's a common misconception. There are plenty of quiet lines in the SE that would be perfectly suitable for Pacers. The Marston Vale for one, St Albans for another (if it hadn't been electrified), and probably the quieter Thames Valley branches too, as well as Aylesbury-Risborough.

People have this idea that the South East is all really busy and long trains - it isn't.

The reason why Pacers weren't deployed on those branches though is because their operation was covered within their existing fleets and the units weren't 'dedicated' to those routes.

So the Thames Valley branches were covered with the 117 and 121 fleet which could be found operating any of the suburban services from Paddington. Ditto the 115s on the Aylesbury lines.

In the mid-80s BR LMR were maintaining a small pool of DMUs to cover Marston Vale, Abbey line and, I think, Gospel Oak-Barking. When the Abbey line was wired it was turned over to 313s which were already operating the Watford DC lines. Later the Bletchley units used on Marston Vale and Goblin were complete lash-ups, arguably worse than anything the North claims to be "suffering" from at present - hence the small number of Class 150s which were put in to replace them - though frankly Pacers would also have been fine - I'm guessing that as BR LM had Sprinters operating out of Tyseley it made more sense to send Sprinters down from the Midlands than Pacers from further afield.

So there would have been no point in deploying 2 or 3 Pacers to those areas when their existing fleets covered the requirement.

 

[43096]

The difference is that the elderly units in the north are 150s and (used to be) pacers which are much worse than London's older trains

Which is probably nothing to do with the trains themselves and more to do with how they are looked after by both operator and passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So there would have been no point in deploying 2 or 3 Pacers to those areas when their existing fleets covered the requirement.

I don't disagree (though with the unreliability of the 230s the Marston Vale is presently crying out for say 3 Pacers to be based at Bletchley). But that doesn't mean the lines weren't suitable for Pacers, they clearly are. It just didn't make sense to use them for other reasons.

 

[4REP]

That's a common misconception. There are plenty of quiet lines in the SE that would be perfectly suitable for Pacers. The Marston Vale for one, St Albans for another (if it hadn't been electrified), and probably the quieter Thames Valley branches too, as well as Aylesbury-Risborough.

People have this idea that the South East is all really busy and long trains - it isn't.

So if pacers were on routes in southern England, ticket prices go down too!!
We need to move on from this pacer scenario. Its called progress. This is 2020.
The pacers are going end of story.
So if you were a TOC and put a pacer on a small branch in southern England are you going to reduce the ticket cost too then?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So if pacers were on routes in southern England, ticket prices go down too!!
We need to move on from this pacer scenario. Its called progress. This is 2020.
The pacers are going end of story.
So if you were a TOC and put a pacer on a small branch in southern England are you going to reduce the ticket cost too then?

I'm not suggesting that there is actually any sense in putting Pacers on those routes now (though I do think 3 "e-Pacers" would be a sensible short term measure for the Marston Vale if the 230s, which are really little more than a bogied Pacer, aren't going to work reliably). I'm just pointing out that there's no key north-south difference between branch lines that renders one suitable for Pacers and one not (the reason it happened like that was political), and that the SE isn't a land of 12-car milk and honey on every route as some people think it is. (To be fair I had that impression until I moved here!)

 

[A0]

I don't disagree (though with the unreliability of the 230s the Marston Vale is presently crying out for say 3 Pacers to be based at Bletchley). But that doesn't mean the lines weren't suitable for Pacers, they clearly are. It just didn't make sense to use them for other reasons.

No, it makes no sense at all.

You have a dislike of the 230s and believe for some bizarre reason that deploying some life-expired Pacers to Bletchley will suddenly be more reliable. You seem to forget the last time Bletchley was trying to run that service with life-expired 40 year old units breakdowns were a daily occurrence - it got so bad they ended up running it top and tail with Class 31s. Bletchley has no experience of operating Pacers, LNW have no drivers trained on them - you seem intent on deploying a solution without properly identifying and fixing the problem, if anything your "solution" will create its own set of problems.

The most recent problems on the MV (Covid aside, which had a huge impact) was the level crossing problems which resulted in services being curtailed. That had nothing to do with the 230s. They had problems last year - which was their first full year in service - most new units have problems in the first year - see the Stadler's over on GA as evidence of that - owing to Covid you have no idea how the 230s would have performed this year, for the simple reason they've not been running - hardly the fault of the TOC or the unit.

 

[mmh]

Simple. Scrap them and replace them with new bimode or electric stock (not 769s or D78s or whatever conversions people want). Most of the 1xx range should go (168/170/171/172 are fine and obviously I'm not including new stock).

No, for most of them when they need to go replace them like for like, just with more of the same. The vast majority of their work is on unelectrified routes and the cost, complexity and use of resources of a I-mode shouldn't be automatic just because they're fashionable. Bi-modes are useful for electrified routes with substantial diesel "branches" off them; they don't make sense for diesel routes which occasionally share a few miles with an electrified line.

 

[A0]

No, for most of them when they need to go replace them like for like, just with more of the same. The vast majority of their work is on unelectrified routes and the cost, complexity and use of resources of a I-mode shouldn't be automatic just because they're fashionable. Bi-modes are useful for electrified routes with substantial diesel "branches" off them; they don't make sense for diesel routes which occasionally share a few miles with an electrified line.

To be fair it also depends where they're running into - the challenge you'll be facing with some of the cities (London, Manchester etc) will be the crackdown on emissions being led by their commissars sorry, Mayors. The example in Manchester could be that everything running into / out of Piccadilly is doing so using the wires - so somewhere like Buxton, something like a 769 would make sense where south of Hazel Grove it could run on diesel but then 25kv for the bit in Manchester.

 

[mmh]

You have a dislike of the 230s and believe for some bizarre reason that deploying some life-expired Pacers to Bletchley will suddenly be more reliable. You seem to forget the last time Bletchley was trying to run that service with life-expired 40 year old units breakdowns were a daily occurrence - it got so bad they ended up running it top and tail with Class 31s. Bletchley has no experience of operating Pacers, LNW have no drivers trained on them - you seem intent on deploying a solution without properly identifying and fixing the problem, if anything your "solution" will create its own set of problems.

To be fair I think it's pretty clear his position doesn't come from any instinctive dislike of the 230s, but rather a judged view after experiencing them. He has notably been supportive of the concept and defending it to others (including me) who did have a somewhat knee-jerk dislike of it. I know from his and DarloRich's reports that they're very suited to the line in terms of size and passenger accommodation. They have however proved themselves to be unforgivably unreliable. Maybe that will be fixed one day, maybe it won't but I suspect the line's passengers don't care and just want a usable service.

That usable service was for many years provided by life expired units of the sort that fo the same all over the country. That Pacers (or whatever) would be a new traction type for drivers is irrelevant - so are the 230s, or the class 31s, or anything else that would end up on it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, for most of them when they need to go replace them like for like, just with more of the same. The vast majority of their work is on unelectrified routes and the cost, complexity and use of resources of a I-mode shouldn't be automatic just because they're fashionable. Bi-modes are useful for electrified routes with substantial diesel "branches" off them; they don't make sense for diesel routes which occasionally share a few miles with an electrified line.

Most of Northern's routes run partly under wires. So yes, they do need bi-modes. In the order that produced classes 195 and 331, I'd have gone for one fleet of bi-modes, not a fleet of DMUs and a fleet of EMUs.

The other option is you split routes up, but that would be considerably inconvenient in most of Northern's cases.

 

[mmh]

They had problems last year - which was their first full year in service - most new units have problems in the first year - see the Stadler's over on GA as evidence of that - owing to Covid you have no idea how the 230s would have performed this year, for the simple reason they've not been running - hardly the fault of the TOC or the unit.

Yes it is true that they were only breaking down while they were running.

"You have to wait til the second year to judge" is far too apologist. You really don't. There's no real excuse for a tiny, simple fleet to be so unreliable. I'm sure the low-tech simplicity of them was supposed to be a selling point. On-site maintenance without a costly depot, anyone?

It's not true that such unreliability is inevitable in a new fleet. I lived in the south east while all the mark 1 stock was replaced. Hundreds upon hundreds of basic, simple units replaced with modern electrostars and desiros without needing to shut the network down for days on end.

 

[4REP]

British Rail when developing the sprinter should have only designed one type instead of 5 and instead of 158s they should have designed stock like today's loco /mark 5/DVT

 

[mmh]

So if pacers were on routes in southern England, ticket prices go down too!!
We need to move on from this pacer scenario. Its called progress. This is 2020.
The pacers are going end of story.
So if you were a TOC and put a pacer on a small branch in southern England are you going to reduce the ticket cost too then?

The Pacers are going but not because they're a cheap train. Other than their age and their notoriety as the "bus trains" you could have put them on numerous branch lines and nobody would have batted an eyelid. Here, they wouldn't have been terribly bad, wheel screech aside, on the Conwy Valley line.

 

[4REP]

Scotrail could of had intercity stock on its core routes as well as transpennine and other regional long distance.
Then only one type of sprinter for the rest of the regional network what they were intended for. Transpennine has had many upgrades eg 150/156/158/185 which could of been avoided in favour of intercity stock.

 

[Rick1984]

I get horrendous hayfever and sinus problems - give me droplight stock any day. AC is unbearable when all I want is fresh air. Know it sounds odd but being cooped up in an controlled atmosphere is hell. Worst I ever had was a long haul flight.

Interesting as for my wife opening windows are the worst, letting in all the pollen etc. and setting her off something horrendous! She's had to sit in the toilet on Sprinters it's been that bad

 

[mmh]

British Rail when developing the sprinter should have only designed one type instead of 5 and instead of 158s they should have designed stock like today's loco /mark 5/DVT

They designed different types because different routes were, err, different though. If it were one it'd probably have looked something like a 90mph version of the 150.

158s have long shown the usefulness of a small, longer distance DMU. Very versatile, they allowed loco running around to be removed in numerous places but can substitute almost anywhere with no problem.