Future of the Intercity 125s

[tbtc]

Would an unpowered 150/156 being hauled by a loco be restricted to 75mph?

 

[D365]

Depends how much the body can take, I guess. And the paperwork etc.

 

[Drsatan]

Would an unpowered 150/156 being hauled by a loco be restricted to 75mph?

Since 150/156s have only ever been cleared for 75mph operation I can't envisage them being allowed to run at more than that, even when loco-hauled.

In fairness, I can't imagine unpowered 150s/156s being used as LHCS. As discussed on another thread, quite a few 150s are suffering from corrosion and I can't imagine any ROSCO wishing to spend large sums of money on corrosion prevention, given that they'd have to be fitted with DDA compliant toilets as well.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Not just a British thing, the Indians are getting rid of them, as by doing so it recovers the extra cost of MU after 3 years (leaving another 27 years of cost savings!)

One would need to look at the overall picture. Indian railways had EMUs in the days of the British.

There are IC routes where there are lengths where the trains run as stopping services at the ends (Cornwall for instance), so acceleration is important to UK IC trains.

Distances between stations are relative. Acceleration is certainly important when the stations are a mile or so apart. That is not the case in Cornwall, though there is a need for a decent power to weight ratio to get up the hills. But since these outer ends of the route are lightly loaded there is another case for removing a few carriages en route.

Also slowing trains (either acceleration and/or top speed) down only makes sense if the cost cost saving of the fuel is more than the cost of your staff remaining on board for longer and any extra stock you need to retain the same number of services.

Energy costs are only one of many costs that go up with speed. The infrastructure and rolling stock has to be designed for the higher speed, there is more wear and tear and there is a raft of regulations that kick in at 160kph with their associated compliance costs. It is not for nothing that stock has 160 painted on the sides.

 

[HSTEd]

There is more wear and tear and there is a raft of regulations that kick in at 160kph with their associated compliance costs. It is not for nothing that stock has 160 painted on the sides.

What regulations?

European TSIs don't kick in till about 270kph, not 160kph, and the regulations for cab signalling in the UK kick in at 125mph, not 100mph.

Also you have to account for the increased capital costs, and indeed staffing and maintenance costs, of having more trainsets to maintain the same service thanks to longer cycle times.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

What regulations?

European TSIs don't kick in till about 270kph, not 160kph, and the regulations for cab signalling in the UK kick in at 125mph, not 100mph.

Also you have to account for the increased capital costs, and indeed staffing and maintenance costs, of having more trainsets to maintain the same service thanks to longer cycle times.

Some EU regs kick in at 160. Saving in train-sets are only made when journey times go under a threshold particular to the route so that it becomes possible for the train to turn round and make another journey within a exact number of hours, assuming a clock-face timetable. Everything is less expensive if the train is designed for the lower speed as all the requirements are less demanding and there is less wear and tear.

 

[JamesRowden]

The way I see it, assuming that a train is of a resonable length (e.g. at least seven carriages), locamotive hauled trains have the advantage of having one single large drive system which should mean that the hardware to drive the train at a certain acceleration/top speed (assuming that acceleration is limited by power rather than grip [MUs have more grip per unit mass]) should have cheaper production/maintainance/running costs than multiple units). Also, it is possible to create a standard communication system and internal power system (powers the lights, power sockets and LED screens) between locamotives and carriages to make a variety compatable with each other and make each services its optimum length rather than being restricted by the length of sets (e.g. new IEP electric stock will be single 10 car sets which means there is no formation length flexibility at all).

The only three advantages that multiples units have that I can currently thonk of is one, that multiple units have is that a service can have sets split/join quickly and simply so that one path can run to two destinations and/or the train length can be made shorter where it will be less busy, two, that MUs make more efficient use of short platforms, and three, that having multiple drive systems means that a MU service might be able to continue if one failed.

The problem with the HSTs is that they do not have modern technology (automatic doors, LED destination boards, LED seat reservation screens and competitve acceleration). The frankly ancient system of paper reservation labels and stickers on the outside of the train showing the stops waste a lot of time at termini meaning that more stock is required to operate the service than would otherwise be needed. I think that it would be a very expensive job to upgrade the HSTs to the required level and that they should be replaced.

I think that it might have been a better option to have made the 10-car IEP sets Locamotive hauled services. A modern equivalent to the class 91 (225s) and a modern bi-mode equivalent to the class 43 (HSTs [125s]) could have been built that would share the same class of modern equivalent to the Mark 4 carriages (if one bi-mode locamotive was powefull enough when using its diesel engine the two train classes could share the same DVTs). The difference to the mark 4 carraiges would be all those useful things that modern intercity stock have (e.g. LED destination/carriage number boards on the outside). These would be ideal for intercity services where no splitting/joining is required (train stays the same length during the service). There would be no complication problem making a train a single carriage longer/shorter (trains stays same length while in service).

A wide range of locamotives / carriages could be built to suit a variety of lines with different strengths and weaknesses. Also if the inter-carriage-locamotive communication system and internal power system (powers the lights, power sockets and LED screens) became the one that every intercity locamotive hauled train used, the time that carriages would eventualy replaced (or extra are built) could be independant of when the locamotives are replaced.

 

[HSTEd]

Some EU regs kick in at 160. Saving in train-sets are only made when journey times go under a threshold particular to the route so that it becomes possible for the train to turn round and make another journey within a exact number of hours, assuming a clock-face timetable. Everything is less expensive if the train is designed for the lower speed as all the requirements are less demanding and there is less wear and tear.

You would put Manchester up back towards the 2hr30-2hr40 mark it was before the WCRM (if not longer as the journey would be even longer than the Cl90 Mark 3 formations of the 80s), Edinburgh-London would be something on order of 5hrs for the best run and numerous other journeys would become drastically longer.

You can't afford to surrender that kind of time without haemmoraghing custom.
(Especially once you include the conversion back to loco haulage with the attendant acceleration issues).
Putting travel times back into the pre HST era is not going to be popular with passengers.

In order to run the 3tph service from London to manchester you only need something like 14-15 sets, you would be looking at nearer 20 sets mark once you went back to loco haulage.

So you can have 15 multiple units built for 125mph, or 20 loco hauled formations built for 100mph... which will it be?

The same wear and tear argument can be made for 90mph as well as 100mph, or even for 75mph, why not slow everything down so you have nice uniform speeds on the line? The same people that don't care about journeys that took 2hr08 taking 2hr40 won't be concerned if they take 3hr or more.

 

[LE Greys]

The way I see it, assuming that a train is of a resonable length (e.g. at least seven carriages), locamotive hauled trains have the advantage of having one single large drive system which should mean that the hardware to drive the train at a certain acceleration/top speed (assuming that acceleration is limited by power rather than grip [MUs have more grip per unit mass]) should have cheaper production/maintainance/running costs than multiple units). Also, it is possible to create a standard communication system and internal power system (powers the lights, power sockets and LED screens) between locamotives and carriages to make a variety compatable with each other and make each services its optimum length rather than being restricted by the length of sets (e.g. new IEP electric stock will be single 10 car sets which means there is no formation length flexibility at all).

Well, yes and no. With regards to the power/acceleration issue, there is far too much data to go over, but adhesion is just as important a factor as raw horsepower, especially with starting. That's why MU operation suits frequent stops. Weight is another crucial factor at high speed.

AIUI, BR never got around to introducing a standard multiple working system, although they did standardise on the Pullman gangway and buckeye coupler originally introduced by the LNER for coaches. The only reason I can see for this is that they used so many outside contractors to build stock that it would require mass withdrawls to sort it all out. Introducing Tightlock and BSI on multiple units probably made it worse. Privatisation didn't help either, that produced Scharfenberg, Dellner and (insert whatever the 66s and 70s use).

The only three advantages that multiples units have that I can currently thonk of is one, that multiple units have is that a service can have sets split/join quickly and simply so that one path can run to two destinations and/or the train length can be made shorter where it will be less busy, two, that MUs make more efficient use of short platforms, and three, that having multiple drive systems means that a MU service might be able to continue if one failed.

The problem with the HSTs is that they do not have modern technology (automatic doors, LED destination boards, LED seat reservation screens and competitve acceleration). The frankly ancient system of paper reservation labels and stickers on the outside of the train showing the stops waste a lot of time at termini meaning that more stock is required to operate the service than would otherwise be needed. I think that it would be a very expensive job to upgrade the HSTs to the required level and that they should be replaced.

I think that it might have been a better option to have made the 10-car IEP sets Locamotive hauled services. A modern equivalent to the class 91 (225s) and a modern bi-mode equivalent to the class 43 (HSTs [125s]) could have been built that would share the same class of modern equivalent to the Mark 4 carriages (if one bi-mode locamotive was powefull enough when using its diesel engine the two train classes could share the same DVTs). The difference to the mark 4 carraiges would be all those useful things that modern intercity stock have (e.g. LED destination/carriage number boards on the outside). These would be ideal for intercity services where no splitting/joining is required (train stays the same length during the service). There would be no complication problem making a train a single carriage longer/shorter (trains stays same length while in service).

That was the original idea of HST-2 (as it was called once). I ran through quite a lot of speculation about the 'Class 63' diesel power car and possible revivals of Intercity 250 from BR days, including the MkV coach. That was an attempt to take Eurostar technology (or TGV technology, to be more precise) and translate it to British domestic railways by marrying it with Intercity 225. However, it didn't last because of privatisation . Unfortunately, they decided to go with an MU-based design instead.

A wide range of locamotives / carriages could be built to suit a variety of lines with different strengths and weaknesses. Also if the inter-carriage-locamotive communication system and internal power system (powers the lights, power sockets and LED screens) became the one that every intercity locamotive hauled train used, the time that carriages would eventualy replaced (or extra are built) could be independant of when the locamotives are replaced.

To a certain extent, that still happens. It's quite possible that the MkIVs will outlast the 91s for instance. HSTs are a unique case, since they have non-standard ETS systems using a 3-phase a.c. supply instead of the standard 1,000 V d.c. All other coaches have this (I've seen photos of 91s hauling MkIs, and MkIIIs do not seem to care if they are hauled by an 86, an 87 or a 90). It's just the multiple-working equipment that is only partly standardised. BR used something called time-division multiplex (please don't ask me how it works) as a semi-standard, but that applied only to a.c. electric locos and some 47s. Really, we needed to standardise that, but never got round to it.

 

[HSTEd]

TDM was originally meant to transmit the signal over the existing RCH lighting control jumpers which meant it could potentially work with any hauled rolling stock BR had. (This is why Mark 3 sleepers were able to be used as the test trains for the 91s)

Unfortunately it has proved to be annoyingly unreliable in service, otherwise even the Cobbler Rakes could have gone push-pull.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Correct me if I'm wrong- is RAGNARØKR suggesting that rather than buy new stock, the railways should be bringing back old locomotives and carriages that have been scrapped (and therefore don't exist), as his suggestions of buying new locos and carriages have been demonstrated to be crazy?

You are not reading carefully, are you? That's the problem with scanning stuff off the screen and bashing out an instant response without thinking about it.

On the argument you are putting forward, Bombardier, Vossloh and Siemens are crazy for offering locomotives for both passengers and freight, as well as vehicles for them to haul, and Continental European operators are crazy for getting as much life as they can out of their rolling stock before scrapping it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You would put Manchester up back towards the 2hr30-2hr40 mark it was before the WCRM (if not longer as the journey would be even longer than the Cl90 Mark 3 formations of the 80s), Edinburgh-London would be something on order of 5hrs for the best run and numerous other journeys would become drastically longer.

You can't afford to surrender that kind of time without haemmoraghing custom.
(Especially once you include the conversion back to loco haulage with the attendant acceleration issues).
Putting travel times back into the pre HST era is not going to be popular with passengers.

In order to run the 3tph service from London to manchester you only need something like 14-15 sets, you would be looking at nearer 20 sets mark once you went back to loco haulage.

So you can have 15 multiple units built for 125mph, or 20 loco hauled formations built for 100mph... which will it be?

Probably the latter because it is possible to prolong the life of existing stock.

An extra hour between London and Edinburgh is not necessarily going to lead to loss of traffic. It depends on other factors, such as ticket prices, the cost of a walk-on ticket, and the facilities on the train. Many railways have gone down the route of pushing up speeds, cutting down on space and comfort and having outrageously high walk-on/open tickets.

Paradoxically, the need for advance booking adds significantly to journey time as people have to turn up at the station well in advance so as to be sure of not missing the train they have paid to travel on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem with the HSTs is that they do not have modern technology (automatic doors, LED destination boards, LED seat reservation screens and competitve acceleration). The frankly ancient system of paper reservation labels and stickers on the outside of the train showing the stops waste a lot of time at termini meaning that more stock is required to operate the service than would otherwise be needed. I think that it would be a very expensive job to upgrade the HSTs to the required level and that they should be replaced.

Also if the inter-carriage-locamotive communication system and internal power system (powers the lights, power sockets and LED screens) became the one that every intercity locamotive hauled train used, the time that carriages would eventualy replaced (or extra are built) could be independant of when the locamotives are replaced.

One cannot say what is, and is not, expensive, until the matter is examined in detail and a quote obtained.

There are 1960s trams running around in this town with the latest PIS technology and power doors, fitted quite recently, the vehicles having been built with roller blinds and push-to-open doors.

An electronic seat reservation system does not need to have a little display at at every seat - a single display at each end of the vehicle could do the job. It might also be asked what the seat reservation system is actually FOR? (1) it guarantees a seat (2) it guarantees a particular seat, not necessarily one to the satisfaction of the passenger. A reservation system that satisfies requirement (1) is very much simpler than a system that satisfies requirement (2), which can end up as an annoyance for various reasons.

On your second point, precisely so. Rolling stock and its component systems wears out and becomes obsolescent at different rates. There needs to be better backwards compatibility and some future proofing so that refurbishment costs do not become prohibitive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Mk2s were slam door 1960s coaches (Mk1s date back to the 1950s). Are you seriously suggesting that we just buy some gaffer tape and try to patch them together for the modern railway?

Where was there for 87s to go when Virgin got 390s? The 90s moved over to the GEML, but can you suggest a practical home for the 87s?

The Mark 2 with Virgin had SDL, and were in reasonable condition. The later batch of CIGs were in good condition as they were fitted with anti-corrosion strips all over the outside. They did not need gaffa tape to hold them together. The trailer vehicles had another 15 years' life in them on light duties. A locking system under the control of the train crew was fitted to the pair that continued on the Lymington branch.

If there was joined-up thinking there would have been plenty of routes for the class 87 locomotives to run on by the time they were due for replacement on the WCML.

The malaise runs deep.

 

[tbtc]

The Mark 2 with Virgin had SDL, and were in reasonable condition. The later batch of CIGs were in good condition as they were fitted with anti-corrosion strips all over the outside. They did not need gaffa tape to hold them together. The trailer vehicles had another 15 years' life in them on light duties. A locking system under the control of the train crew was fitted to the pair that continued on the Lymington branch.

If there was joined-up thinking there would have been plenty of routes for the class 87 locomotives to run on by the time they were due for replacement on the WCML.

The malaise runs deep.

So you'd have kept the 87s and 1960s Mk2s for what? The Lymington branch?

 

[AndyLandy]

So, I think RAGNARØKR has a valid point that maybe we shed rolling stock earlier than we should, but conversely it's equally daft to assume we should run every vehicle into the ground before we scrap it.

I can't think of anywhere we could use the 87s, but it seems that Northern are desperate for more trains. There must be some routes that it would have been practical to run with Mk2s hauled by some diesel locomotives, freeing up Sprinters to increase capacity on other routes and services.

Just a thought. Maybe the Mk2s were far too worn out by then. Perhaps nobody ever expected there to be growth on the Northern franchise that would necessitate more trains. But right now, I'm sure if there were a fleet of Mk2s and diesel locos to haul them, they could find a home somewhere on the network.

 

[tbtc]

So, I think RAGNARØKR has a valid point that maybe we shed rolling stock earlier than we should, but conversely it's equally daft to assume we should run every vehicle into the ground before we scrap it.

I can't think of anywhere we could use the 87s, but it seems that Northern are desperate for more trains. There must be some routes that it would have been practical to run with Mk2s hauled by some diesel locomotives, freeing up Sprinters to increase capacity on other routes and services.

Just a thought. Maybe the Mk2s were far too worn out by then. Perhaps nobody ever expected there to be growth on the Northern franchise that would necessitate more trains. But right now, I'm sure if there were a fleet of Mk2s and diesel locos to haul them, they could find a home somewhere on the network.

There are coaches and engines out there (Arriva built a stockpile, FGW and ScotRail have utilised locos and coaches for token services, ATN and FNW used to run a couple - I think NXEA had a 47 hauled set for a short period?). The problem is that there's very few lines suitable - plus unless you are going to run a lot of them then you are going to have problems of "non standard" stock.

There's also the problem of requiring two engines to run a three coach train, dwell times being different from the regular DMU stock etc.

 

[AndyLandy]

There are coaches and engines out there (Arriva built a stockpile, FGW and ScotRail have utilised locos and coaches for token services, ATN and FNW used to run a couple - I think NXEA had a 47 hauled set for a short period?). The problem is that there's very few lines suitable - plus unless you are going to run a lot of them then you are going to have problems of "non standard" stock.

There's also the problem of requiring two engines to run a three coach train, dwell times being different from the regular DMU stock etc.

Some good points there. I don't think they're insurmountable, but it would have to be a case of actively running specific routes/services with LHCS, rather than having the odd set for cover. It could well be that even this adds significant additional complexity as to not be worth doing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Since 150/156s have only ever been cleared for 75mph operation I can't envisage them being allowed to run at more than that, even when loco-hauled.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. That would certainly be an influencing factor. If they can easily be approved for 100mph running as hauled stock, they'd be more valuable than if they couldn't.

Of course, the other (and probably far more likely) outcome for Sprinters with life-expired traction would be simply to replace the parts that are life-expired. Depending on what's fitted, it may even be possible to get some cleared for 100mph running (although I'd expect that to be unlikely)

In fairness, I can't imagine unpowered 150s/156s being used as LHCS. As discussed on another thread, quite a few 150s are suffering from corrosion and I can't imagine any ROSCO wishing to spend large sums of money on corrosion prevention, given that they'd have to be fitted with DDA compliant toilets as well.

I'm expecting they'll be made DDA compliant anyway, as they're likely to still be in service past 2020. It's going to be hard enough to replace non-compliant Pacers by 2020, there's no way we'll replace the entire Sprinter fleet as well in that timescale! I believe GA have already started DDA compliance work on their 156s.

 

[tbtc]

Some good points there. I don't think they're insurmountable, but it would have to be a case of actively running specific routes/services with LHCS, rather than having the odd set for cover. It could well be that even this adds significant additional complexity as to not be worth doing.

Agreed - I think you'd have to convert an entire route - the Fife Circle is one possibility as it's a fairly long service without requiring reversal en route if you run Newcraighall - Cardenden - Newcraighall "out and back" services (with the loop in the other direction being provided by DMUs running Waverley - Cardenden - Waverley) - that should be about an hour and a half diagrams, with a remote place (Newcraighall) to "run round" (something that would be impossible at Waverley etc!), so you could get away with single locos.

But trying to find routes feels like scraping the barrel to justify using a handful of spare old trains - there really aren't many services left that could require that kind of haulage nowadays.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

the other (and probably far more likely) outcome for Sprinters with life-expired traction would be simply to replace the parts that are life-expired. Depending on what's fitted, it may even be possible to get some cleared for 100mph running (although I'd expect that to be unlikely)

Genuine question - how hard would it be to convert a 150 into an EMU? Keep the body etc, but change the power supply etc.

 

[AndyLandy]

Agreed - I think you'd have to convert an entire route - the Fife Circle is one possibility as it's a fairly long service without requiring reversal en route if you run Newcraighall - Cardenden - Newcraighall "out and back" services (with the loop in the other direction being provided by DMUs running Waverley - Cardenden - Waverley) - that should be about an hour and a half diagrams, with a remote place (Newcraighall) to "run round" (something that would be impossible at Waverley etc!), so you could get away with single locos.

Or use DBSOs? Or convert some of the spare Mk3 DVTs to work with a Mk2 rake? Still, I think you're probably right that finding suitable routes is likely the biggest problem.

But trying to find routes feels like scraping the barrel to justify using a handful of spare old trains - there really aren't many services left that could require that kind of haulage nowadays.

To be fair, this isn't a practical idea now anyway. It would have had to happen a few years ago, probably when the Anglia Mk2s came off-lease. If routes for them could have been found with suitable diesel locos, we might have got some more life out of them. I certainly wouldn't expect DDA compliance to happen though, they'd be being withdrawn before 2020.

Genuine question - how hard would it be to convert a 150 into an EMU? Keep the body etc, but change the power supply etc.

It would likely require some fairly serious re-engineering. You'd need to modify a roof for a pantograph to be fitted. The diesel hydraulic transmission would probably all have to go. Presumably the difference in traction would require some significant changes to the cab controls too? I'd expect this will all end up in "prohibitively expensive" territory.

Now, if it's possible to convert the 455s to AC, that could be a very different matter. Certainly, I'd expect this to be easier than converting Sprinters.

 

[The Ham]

Genuine question - how hard would it be to convert a 150 into an EMU? Keep the body etc, but change the power supply etc.

Probably Hard enough that scrapping it and buying a new EMU would be better value.

 

[tbtc]

Or use DBSOs? Or convert some of the spare Mk3 DVTs to work with a Mk2 rake?

The problem with that would be a lot of wasted space/ weight for the sake of a few coaches I guess

Now, if it's possible to convert the 455s to AC, that could be a very different matter. Certainly, I'd expect this to be easier than converting Sprinters.

455s, eh?

Four coach 75mph trains? Sounds like just what we need plenty of for the Valley Lines/ Lancashire Triangle etc - good thinking
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Genuine question - how hard would it be to convert a 150 into an EMU? Keep the body etc, but change the power supply etc.

It would likely require some fairly serious re-engineering. You'd need to modify a roof for a pantograph to be fitted. The diesel hydraulic transmission would probably all have to go. Presumably the difference in traction would require some significant changes to the cab controls too? I'd expect this will all end up in "prohibitively expensive" territory

Probably Hard enough that scrapping it and buying a new EMU would be better value.

Oh well, worth a question - cheers for the answer

 

[ainsworth74]

The problem with that would be a lot of wasted space/ weight for the sake of a few coaches I guess

And you'd still need some locomotives that are fitted with TDM of which there aren't very many (unless you're talking about locomotives in the 8x and 9x range).

 

[AndyLandy]

455s, eh?

Four coach 75mph trains? Sounds like just what we need plenty of for the Valley Lines/ Lancashire Triangle etc - good thinking

It all depends on how easily converted they'd be (and whether anyone will stump up for more Desiro/E* units for SWT/Southern to replace them.) Certainly, one vehicle in each set seemingly has a flat roof (anyone know why this is?) and that might just be ideal for fitting a pan. Put a transformer and rectifier in so you continue to feed the rest of the traction systems with 750VDC and you're most of the way there, I'd have thought.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It all depends on how easily converted they'd be (and whether anyone will stump up for more Desiro/E* units for SWT/Southern to replace them.) Certainly, one vehicle in each set seemingly has a flat roof (anyone know why this is?) and that might just be ideal for fitting a pan. Put a transformer and rectifier in so you continue to feed the rest of the traction systems with 750VDC and you're most of the way there, I'd have thought.

One of the subclasses of 455 running on South West Trains has a trailer out of the 508s - I think 455/8. This happened years ago. the resulting shortened 508s were sent from the South Western division of the BR Southern region to Mersyside. Where the, now 3car, 508s joined the three car 507s they allready had. they replaced the older units Mersyside already had.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Now, if it's possible to convert the 455s to AC, that could be a very different matter. Certainly, I'd expect this to be easier than converting Sprinters.

Oi hands of our 455s .

Doubt if SWT would give them up as they have been referbished. They are also receiving the 456s from Southern.

The remaining Southern 455s might be more of an option. I wonder if there is any connection with the invitation to tender Govia( iirc?) made for 110mph EMUs ?. I am going to have to find that thread and see where it has lead.

 

[jopsuk]

Certainly, one vehicle in each set seemingly has a flat roof (anyone know why this is?) and that might just be ideal for fitting a pan. .

Someone else has done the explanation, I'd add that if you look at the Class 313, 315 and 315 you'll see that even on that design the Pantograph equipment still has a shallow well (very noticable on Southerns 313 fleet which has had the pantographs removed). This can be seen clearly in this photo

 

[RAGNARØKR]

So you'd have kept the 87s and 1960s Mk2s for what? The Lymington branch?

With joined-up thinking there would have been electrified routes ready for the class 87s to operate on by the time they were surplus to WCML requirements.

Some mark 2 stock was running on odds and ends of routes topped-and-tailed by class 67s. But it could have run just about anywhere on secondary routes, which often fail to cope at busy periods.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are coaches and engines out there (Arriva built a stockpile, FGW and ScotRail have utilised locos and coaches for token services, ATN and FNW used to run a couple - I think NXEA had a 47 hauled set for a short period?). The problem is that there's very few lines suitable - plus unless you are going to run a lot of them then you are going to have problems of "non standard" stock.

There's also the problem of requiring two engines to run a three coach train, dwell times being different from the regular DMU stock etc.

If you are going to run a lot of anything then it is not non-standard. But why would you want two locos to run a three coach train?

When it is necessary to refer to dwell times except on suburban routes with stops every two minutes, it starts to look like a case of scraping the barrel for objections.

But the whole thing is theoretical as the mistake was made and the stock was scrapped and the locos shipped off to Bulgaria. Largely this was due to lack of joined-up thinking. There was no programme of cascade which would have required the rolling programme of electrification which is no commencing, 15 years late. And in the meantime the system has been saddled with a fleet of inadequate and unsatisfactory DMUs which will have to work out a reasonable lifetime.

 

[jopsuk]

But there wasn't such thinking. There was instead a rush show that the privatised railway was modern and forward thinking by replacing old stock, even if it wasn't actually life expired, with brand spanking new stock. Whatever the rights and wrongs, the "new stock" and the image of the railway that has then created has been one of (many) factors that have driven huge growth in passengers

 

[AndyLandy]

Oi hands of our 455s .

Doubt if SWT would give them up as they have been referbished. They are also receiving the 456s from Southern.

Well, OK, if you're sure. You keep the 455s, and we'll take the funding for new Desiro/E* trains for Valley Lines and Northern services.

 

[D365]

That would actually be easier..

 

[tbtc]

If you are going to run a lot of anything then it is not no-standard. But why would you want two locos to run a three coach train?

When it is necessary to refer to dwell times except on suburban routes with stops every two minutes, it starts to look like a case of scraping the barrel for objections

The biggest stock problem we have is on local DMU services (currently run by Pacers/ Sprinters). These are the kind of routes I'm referring to.

We've got pretty much sufficient stock for long distance/ high speed lines (though the HSTs will be withdrawn in a few years, obviously), so if there were a role for loco hauled stock then it'd be in the kind of stop/start route that I refer to.

Have you got any better idea for where to use loco hauled stock?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

The biggest stock problem we have is on local DMU services (currently run by Pacers/ Sprinters). These are the kind of routes I'm referring to.

We've got pretty much sufficient stock for long distance/ high speed lines (though the HSTs will be withdrawn in a few years, obviously), so if there were a role for loco hauled stock then it'd be in the kind of stop/start route that I refer to.

Have you got any better idea for where to use loco hauled stock?

Yes, longer-distance routes currently operated with DMUs. Then cascade those DMUs to the local services. Turbostars have no problem with dwell time. 158s are not great but could be improved by enlarging the lobby area to remove the pinch-points just inside the doorways. The railway might needs some smaller diesel locos, about 1800 hp, though half an HST is a possibility too, with a control trailer at the other end. Not rocket science.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes, longer-distance routes currently operated with DMUs. Then cascade those DMUs to the local services.

So 22xs on local services around Leeds? Nice in theory but a lot (basically everything other than 17xs) of the more modern DMUs aren't really suitable for local services.