Is 195/331 running possible?

[Doomotron]

I think this all comes down to "it's such a pity Northern didn't buy a fleet of bi-modes".

Those mechanical DMUs are going to be a source of irritation and regret for years, given that the North is progressively being wired (unlike say Wales, where 197s will likely not see many wires for their lifetime).

Although I think I read on here they are designed to be converted to electric later on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although I think I read on here they are designed to be converted to electric later on.

They're not, they don't even have pantograph wells.

You're probably thinking of the FLIRT bi-modes. I'm fairly sure even the FLIRT DEMUs have omitted a pantograph well, which is utterly silly. Making structural alterations later is very difficult; even pretty much all third rail EMUs down South have pantograph wells for ease of later conversion to 25kV if needed.

 

[mightyena]

You're probably thinking of the FLIRT bi-modes. I'm fairly sure even the FLIRT DEMUs have omitted a pantograph well, which is utterly silly. Making structural alterations later is very difficult; even pretty much all third rail EMUs down South have pantograph wells for ease of later conversion to 25kV if needed.

Looking at an image of a 231, it looks like it does have a pantograph well (well there's a little cutout in the roofline where the 755 panto would sit, the flirts don't really have "wells" as such, the panto just sort of sits on top of the roof)

 

[DanNCL]

Compatability between 195s and 331s is the same as between 171s and 377s and between 380s and 385s - mechanical compatibility to make rescue of one type by the other quicker and easier, but no electrical compatibility.

The mistake with the 195s wasn't so much that they're diesel only as there are still many routes that have little/no under the wires running, but rather that they have mechanical instead of electric transmission. With electric transmission conversion to bi-mode in the future would only have required the insertion of a pantograph/transformer vehicle and as the Civity UK design is still in production this wouldn't have had the issues that the abandoned Voyager bi-mode conversion project had.

A 195 (and for that matter a 196 or 197 too) can still be converted to bi-mode however it would be expensive and time consuming, but probably still cheaper than buying completely new units. In addition to inserting a pantograph/transformer vehicle, the current mechanical transmission would have to be removed and replaced with electric transmission, and the couplers would have to be changed to the 110v standard for EMUs.

With regards to the 80xs there are three groups of compatible subclasses, which includes bi-modes and electrics working together. 800/0+800/3+802/0+802/1 are compatible, 800/1+800/2+801 are compatible, and 802/2+802/3+803 are compatible. There has been an instance of an 802/2 working with an LNER 80x on an Eastleigh move, however I think software updates now make this impossible.

You're probably thinking of the FLIRT bi-modes. I'm fairly sure even the FLIRT DEMUs have omitted a pantograph well, which is utterly silly. Making structural alterations later is very difficult; even pretty much all third rail EMUs down South have pantograph wells for ease of later conversion to 25kV if needed.

231s have got pantograph wells and can quickly and easily be converted to bi-modes. They are effectively 756s with a higher top speed and without the pantograph.

 

[tomuk]

The mistake with the 195s wasn't so much that they're diesel only as there are still many routes that have little/no under the wires running, but rather that they have mechanical instead of electric transmission.

That isn't a mistake if they were DEMU they would have been considerably more expensive to purchase. There would either be less of them or we would be pating higher fares\taxes to keep the same number.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That isn't a mistake if they were DEMU they would have been considerably more expensive to purchase. There would either be less of them or we would be pating higher fares\taxes to keep the same number.

Short-termism at its finest.

 

[tomuk]

Short-termism at its finest.

Why is it shortermism? We aren't going to electrify the entire network within the 'normal' life of the 195s plus there are options for a conversion hybrid or full electric. The Voyagers for example have a body mounted motors with cardan shafts and final drives on the bogies just like a mechanical DMU rather than a normal EMU layout.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why is it shortermism? We aren't going to electrify the entire network within the 'normal' life of the 195s

I'd rather hope we will have electrified most of the North West's network, either with OHLE or batteries, in the next 40 years or so, that being the typical life of a train. Look at how all but one route out of Lime St has been done in a shorter time period than that, for instance.

It is very likely that burning fossil fuels for transport purposes will be banned outright on that sort of horizon. But even if it isn't, the railway's environmental credential will be destroyed if it is still burning diesel at a time when all road transport will be electric, and quite possibly some smaller aircraft, too. It would cause a series of cuts that would make Beeching look minor in favour of electric buses and coaches.

I maintain that the purchase of mechanical DMUs is now very short-sighted and stupid, and will cost in the long term given how badly most conversions have gone. Classes 195, 196 and 197 should have been DEMUs with passive provision for a pantograph and transformer (plus a few delivered with them for Southport, Barrow and Windermere).

 

[tomuk]

Great idea cripple the franchise with the extra costs of purchasing and maintaining overly complicated stock whose extra features you won't need for a number of years if ever. Northern are still running a larger number of older diesels across their network so if the North West is fully electrified they can be cascaded within the franchise or elsewhere.

I'm all for electrification but I don't believe you'll get there any quicker by wasting money on pointless future proofing or other intermediate tech like too many bimodes and battery stock. Just get on and electrify.

Regards conversions 230s and 769s are DMU to EMU conversions they are the opposite and both carried out by organisations with little experience or a lack of financial backing. So I'm not clear they are representative case studies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Great idea cripple the franchise with the extra costs of purchasing and maintaining overly complicated stock whose extra features you won't need for a number of years if ever.

Northern has a number of routes suitable for bi-modes now.

 

[tomuk]

Northern has a number of routes suitable for bi-modes now.

Bimodes? I thought we were talking about 195s running with 331 like the defunct 317\210 idea or 195 to EMU conversion. Anyhow any examples of bimode routes? Windemere should have been electrified. Southport to Hazel Grove? Do this need to travel across the Castlefield corridor?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bimodes? I thought we were talking about 195s running with 331 like the defunct 317\210 idea or 195 to EMU conversion. Anyhow any examples of bimode routes? Windemere should have been electrified. Southport to Hazel Grove? Do this need to travel across the Castlefield corridor?

Barrow and Windermere. Windermere might have been wired but Barrow will not be for a long time yet and the two routes interwork.

Yes, Southport. I'm not revisiting the Castlefield debate again as it's been done to death, but with wiring via Westhoughton it'd use the wires even to Vic.

Blackpool North to wherever it goes in Yorkshire now is another, the wires exist for a fair bit of that route.

 

[skyhigh]

and the couplers would have to be changed to the 110v standard for EMUs.

No. The couplers on 195s and 331s are identical. They only pass the control voltage which is present on the train. To make a 195 compatible with a 331, you'd have to replace pretty much all the control electronics, not just the coupler.

 

[43301]

No. The couplers on 195s and 331s are identical. They only pass the control voltage which is present on the train. To make a 195 compatible with a 331, you'd have to replace pretty much all the control electronics, not just the coupler.

Nearly all modern units use Dellner / Scharfenberg couplers and have done for quite a few years. As I understand it the Pendolinos and 22x are at a non-standard height, but the rest are mostly consistent and can physically couple for emergency clearing of the line, but that's about it - very little provision for classes to work in multiple.

 

[tomuk]

Barrow and Windermere. Windermere might have been wired but Barrow will not be for a long time yet and the two routes interwork.

It's only 28 miles from Carnforth to Barrow if you can electrify Walsall to Rugeley I don't see why you can't do Barrow.

Yes, Southport. I'm not revisiting the Castlefield debate again as it's been done to death, but with wiring via Westhoughton it'd use the wires even to Vic.

Is this another example of the blackhole that is Southern Lancashire transport policy along with the Merseyrail stubs and poor old Skem.

Blackpool North to wherever it goes in Yorkshire now is another, the wires exist for a fair bit of that route.

That can surely be tackled as part of a wider Calder Valley electrification.

I'm very much for a rolling program of electrification but very much against wasting time and resources on temporary intermediate solutions such as bimodes and battery trains. If it is such an emergency surely we need to get on with electrification.

 

[Starmill]

Even if they were specifically designed to be electronically compatible, they would probably be pretty rubbish. An 801 being hauled by an 800 is one thing, on a 65 mile / hour route with no or only one intermediate stop. The performance of a 195 hauling a 331 on a stopping service would be dreadful.

 

[Goofle]

What’s a ‘swinger’ please? I’m guessing it’s not what I’d know the term to mean as a rule…

 

[Starmill]

It's only 28 miles from Carnforth to Barrow if you can electrify Walsall to Rugeley I don't see why you can't do Barrow.

The Rugeley to Walsall corridor can easily support 35 or so services per day, 2tph. The Barrow-in-Furness to Lancaster corridor can only has enough demand currently for about half of that, 17 or so.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2022 ==

Blackpool North to wherever it goes in Yorkshire now is another, the wires exist for a fair bit of that route.

The only complete section is between Blackpool North and Preston. Outside Church Fenton to York is under construction. So I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at? Perhaps it's the IRP commitment to electrify Bradford Interchange to York, although that's not going to be delivered for a decade or so yet.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I'm very much for a rolling program of electrification but very much against wasting time and resources on temporary intermediate solutions such as bimodes and battery trains. If it is such an emergency surely we need to get on with electrification.

It's about working with what you've got while the government decides whether it wants to have a rolling programme of electrification in the North. Some bi modes, perhaps funded or agreed on by TfN, would solve a lot of issues with lengthly diesel running under the wires as with Barrow, Windermere, Buxton, Chester to Leeds, Leeds to Morecambe/Carlisle; as I can't see any more electrification in the North pre-2030 sadly.

 

[Starmill]

Yes, Southport. I'm not revisiting the Castlefield debate again as it's been done to death, but with wiring via Westhoughton it'd use the wires even to Vic.

Why would it? 2tph between Southport and Manchester via Atherton would be a more efficient service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2022 ==

Some bi modes, perhaps funded or agreed on by TfN, would solve a lot of issues with lengthly diesel running under the wires as with Barrow, Windermere, Buxton, Chester to Leeds, Leeds to Morecambe/Carlisle; as I can't see any more electrification in the North pre-2030 sadly.

TfN don't even have any money to run an office so I'm not sure where they'd get anything to spend on rolling stock from.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Why would it? 2tph between Southport and Manchester via Atherton would be a more efficient service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2022 ==


TfN don't even have any money to run an office so I'm not sure where they'd get anything to spend on rolling stock from.

They might provide some political leverage to secure some decent leasing prices off Roscos at least.

 

[Efini92]

What’s a ‘swinger’ please? I’m guessing it’s not what I’d know the term to mean as a rule…

A train with all its brakes isolated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would it? 2tph between Southport and Manchester via Atherton would be a more efficient service.

So now the disdain for Southport extends to not only removing its Castlefield connection but also that to Bolton, with connections involving walking to North Western, just so Northern doesn't have to order the correct rolling stock.

I'm sorry, but no. I could compromise on Vic via Bolton for quality same platform connections to Castlefield at Bolton. But NOT the low quality interchange environment at Salford Crescent, seriously overcrowded now and about to get even worse by involving walking over a bridge due to the on-the-cheap improvements planned when two islands (paired by direction) is the proper way to do it for quality cross platform interchange.

The correct answer for Atherton is Metrolink, for Kirkby is Merseyrail (by running into the Wallgate bay this would have a quality connection to Manchester on the Southports, giving a doubled service overall and improved evenings plus a Sunday service), and for Southport is 2tph via Bolton, be they both to Vic or one to Castlefield. Which means bi-modes for the foreseeable, but hopefully eventual electrification.

 

[Starmill]

So now the disdain for Southport extends to not only removing its Castlefield connection but also that to Bolton, with connections involving walking to North Western, just so Northern doesn't have to order the correct rolling stock.

I'm sorry, but no. I could compromise on Vic via Bolton for quality same platform connections to Castlefield at Bolton. But NOT the low quality interchange environment at Salford Crescent, seriously overcrowded now and about to get even worse by involving walking over a bridge due to the on-the-cheap improvements planned when two islands (paired by direction) is the proper way to do it for quality cross platform interchange.

The correct answer for Atherton is Metrolink, for Kirkby is Merseyrail (by running into the Wallgate bay this would have a quality connection to Manchester on the Southports, giving a doubled service overall and improved evenings plus a Sunday service), and for Southport is 2tph via Bolton, be they both to Vic or one to Castlefield. Which means bi-modes for the foreseeable, but hopefully eventual electrification.

A half-hourly service via Atherton would be entirely fine. As long as there's a good Liverpool service, which there is, and people can get directly to Wigan (for London, Birmingham) and to Manchester that's all that's really necccesary for somewhere like Southport. It's got nothing to do with disdain. Bolton to Southport isn't a critical flow. You've just made that up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A half-hourly service via Atherton would be entirely fine. As long as there's a good Liverpool service, which there is, and people can get directly to Wigan (for London, Birmingham) and to Manchester that's all that's really necccesary. It's got nothing to do with disdain. Bolton to Southport isn't a critical flow. You've just made that up.

Castlefield is.

If it isn't being done direct, it needs to be a quality connection. Salford Crescent cannot provide that and the proposed third platform will make it worse.

 

[Starmill]

They might provide some political leverage to secure some decent leasing prices off Roscos at least.

If you want new build you have to pay for it. If you want new build bi-mode you pay more. No political leverage is going to change that.

 

[AlastairFraser]

If you want new build you have to pay for it. If you want new build bi-mode you pay more. No political leverage is going to change that.

It might push leasing costs down for a newer fleet.

 

[Starmill]

Castlefield is.

If it isn't being done direct, it needs to be a quality connection. Salford Crescent cannot provide that and the proposed third platform will make it worse.

Again this is your view and it's very silly. It's not some kind of law. There's nowhere of any significance you can get to from Southport in one change at Manchester Oxford Road but not Salford Crescent. It's only things like Urmston to Southport which are ~zero.

 

[Goofle]

A train with all its brakes isolated.

Thanks!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again this is your view and it's very silly. It's not some kind of law. There's nowhere of any significance you can get to from Southport in one change at Manchester Oxford Road but not Salford Crescent. It's only things like Urmston to Southport which are ~zero.

The University area is the reason for wanting easy access to Castlefield.