LM and Northern may benefit from 317s released.

[northwichcat]

Then North TPE long distance could use IEP electric units.

They could but I doubt they will.

IEP could cover a lot more routes than it will do. It could replace all 22xs, allowing the 22xs to be cascaded to other routes to add capacity - Manchester to South Wales and Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes could be 2 such routes.

With the amount of Pacer and Sprinter stock that will become life expired over the next 10 years and with a lot of routes being short of capacity, I don't think we have to worry about 175s and the like being surplus to requirements.

 

[34D]

Of course, if you take the TSOs from half (43) of the fleet, to use the 3 cars on the Northern City, you can then put them into the other 43 to create some useful 5 car sets.

Very true there, yes. I suppose the only flip side is adverse performance when compared with a 4 car set - though if part of a 9 or 13 car rake then less noticeable.

 

[LE Greys]

Good idea. And arguably their 'standee' layout would offer more capacity for those journeys in the peaks too (notwithstanding that there is an hourly Moorgate-Letchworth via Hertford which is around 70 mins).

Mark 1 and 2 coaches go down the drain (test train, with a class 73) a couple of times a year, so if a class 378 conforms to the C1 profile it should be fine.

At one point, FCC had suggested/assumed that class 319s would go to operate these services, though as platforms are 6 coaches long they would need to loose the toilet coach.

Agreed here. Should keep Derby busy for a few years.

 

[jon0844]

The 313s and their equivalents seem pretty bullet proof.

As a long-term user, a proper refurbishment inside (and I'd argue the addition of a toilet, given a lot of people are using them to commute the whole distance, not just hopping on and off along the line as on the tube or even London Overground) could keep them going for many more years. They really don't look that old at all, certainly not to Joe Public.

Of course, some people will just pick out the fact that they're ancient (usually when wanting to knock the railway or an individual TOC). However, age aside, they're pretty accessible and look modern enough inside. They're not like Pacers! They're either rock solid mechanically, or well treated at Hornsey, but either way they don't HAVE to be replaced. They show that we could at one time build things to last.

However, if they are going to be replaced - you couldn't go far wrong with a 378 with wide open spaces for standing, and seating that is perhaps like the S-Stock in other places - as well as tip-down seating. I'd still say you need a toilet though. If they were made in fixed 6-car formations, you could probably make do with two accessible toilets near an area set up for standing room.

 

[Nym]

Exactly, the 455s don't need replacing and after their fantastic refurb by SWT, I don't see any reason TO replace them, if a similar job was done with the likes of other similar age stock, I see no reason why they can't soldier on for another 20 or 30 years...

PS: The same goes for doing a deep refurb of class 15x stock...

 

[34D]

PS: The same goes for doing a deep refurb of class 15x stock...

Indeed, I was on 158792 the other day and it was virtually in original condition (less moquette colour, some carpet, and exterior livery). Great for preservation but not great for passengers.

 

[Nym]

I'm more thinking the 150 fleet to be honest, if the leasing companies get in with the DfT, kick some backside and get their act together, the DDA Modifications and refurb can take place at the same time. And I'd go for an interior to pretty much match the SWT455 units, 2+2 17" seating (As apposed to the standard 2+2 19" seating) to keep more standing space.

Like that for those that don't know what I mean.

If you have the 150 units being processed properly (same as the 455 and 313) basically stripped back to the bodyshell, patched, re-sealed, re-vinaled (interior flooring) etc. If we're stipping back basically to the chassis and interior shell, the DDA modifications can be included from the ground up, placing the lavatory in the space between the non driving end doors and non driving end of one carriage, and making said space into a multi purpouse area for a wheelchair with accessable lavatory and tip up seating. The remainder in the 17" 2+2 seating formation. Yes, you'd loose seats, but you'd gain a lot of standing space. And that matters on the routes that 150s, 313s, and 455s etc. run.

Round here for example... Wigan - Manchester via Atherton or Bolton, Marple - Manchester in peaks, etc. etc.

If people saw that interior and a nice exterior paint job, then so what if the units are old, they feel nice, are comfy, and do the job!

 

[tbtc]

Add to that 314s, 315s and any other stock of that age, perhaps including the 455s and 318s/320s. Basically, what BR tried to do with the PEP-based stock in the first place.

I agree - a big order of a dual voltage EMU to replace the 313/ 314/ 315/ 318/ 320/ 507/ 508s would be big enough to give economies of scale (compared to the high cost of eighty coaches discussed recently (the additional 350s).

Taking the figures from Wiki...

• 313 = 64x3
• 314 = 16x3
• 315 = 61x4
• 318 = 21x3
• 320 = 22x3
• 507 = 33x3
• 508 = 43x3

...you have over eight hundred coaches (assuming a like for like replacement, though some routes that these units run on could do with four coaches).

 

[Nym]

I agree - a big order of a dual voltage EMU to replace the 313/ 314/ 315/ 318/ 320/ 507/ 508s would be big enough to give economies of scale (compared to the high cost of eighty coaches discussed recently (the additional 350s).

Taking the figures from Wiki...

• 313 = 64x3
• 314 = 16x3
• 315 = 61x4
• 318 = 21x3
• 320 = 22x3
• 507 = 33x3
• 508 = 43x3

...you have over eight hundred coaches (assuming a like for like replacement, though some routes that these units run on could do with four coaches).

But who would you give this order to?

The Canadians? The Germans? The French? The Spanish? or the Swiss?

 

[ukrob]

You don't 'give' an order to anyone.

 

[jon0844]

But who would you give this order to?

The Canadians? The Germans? The French? The Spanish? or the Swiss?

The best company for the job, hopefully. Take out politics and just go with a company capable of doing the job, on time, and with a high level of reliability. Allow concerns over these things to be considered when choosing the winner, not just the total price, and seek assurances and guarantees that they won't happen again (with strict penalties if it does). A certain amount of teething trouble can be expected, but not serious schoolboy errors that seem so common (and shoddy build quality with loose fitting panels and seals, that make me wonder how some of these new trains could ever 10 years, let alone 20, 30 or 40 years).

It would be nice to also ensure that the tender makes it quite clear what the trains need to do, so we don't get manufacturers saying 'We don't want to do that, but we can give you this...'!

 

[Nym]

The only way I can see to satisfy that is to bring rail vehicle production in house again, and no leasing companies in the UK or even UK firms for that matter, short of Eastleigh and Doncaster have anything near the skills to build units. Although if ABB got involved we could have a very nice automated line to build them all.

Actually for that matter, ABB could technically build units, the company makes everything (pretty much) needed...

 

[tbtc]

But who would you give this order to?

The Canadians? The Germans? The French? The Spanish? or the Swiss?

You don't 'give' an order to anyone.

The best company for the job, hopefully. Take out politics and just go with a company capable of doing the job, on time, and with a high level of reliability. Allow concerns over these things to be considered when choosing the winner, not just the total price, and seek assurances and guarantees that they won't happen again (with strict penalties if it does). A certain amount of teething trouble can be expected, but not serious schoolboy errors that seem so common (and shoddy build quality with loose fitting panels and seals, that make me wonder how some of these new trains could ever 10 years, let alone 20, 30 or 40 years).

It would be nice to also ensure that the tender makes it quite clear what the trains need to do, so we don't get manufacturers saying 'We don't want to do that, but we can give you this...'!

Agreed - put the 800/900 coaches out to tender and go for the best bid (based on quality/ price/ various other factors - not *just* price).

I don't care about the nationality of the HQ of the winning bidder, as long as we get the best deal (based on a number of factors)

 

[Eagle]

But who would you give this order to?

The Canadians? The Germans? The French? The Spanish? or the Swiss?

The Chinese?

 

[swt_passenger]

...Given that the journey time for these services is in the region of forty minutes, would a batch of 378s not be suitable? Assuming there are no gauging issues in the Moorgate tunnel then they would offer a step change from the 313s, which could be retired.

378s could also then be a viable alternative for Merseyrail. This could keep Derby works open for a good few years!

But only if they won competitively. There's no way of writing an ITT that guarantees that a future order could only be met by 378s. Even if an ITT expressly required the units to be built in the UK there'd be little or nothing to stop a competitor setting up an assembly plant, especially if the order was big enough.

 

[Nym]

The Chinese?

How much do you want them to crash?

 

[northwichcat]

A certain amount of teething trouble can be expected, but not serious schoolboy errors that seem so common (and shoddy build quality with loose fitting panels and seals, that make me wonder how some of these new trains could ever 10 years, let alone 20, 30 or 40 years).

The Pacers were a shoddy build but people defend them on the basis that at the time there wasn't a lot of money for new trains and say they weren't expected to last as long as the more expensive 150s.

If we now had £180M to spend on Pacer replacement and the two options were:

Option 1: 100 new 2 x 23m carriage trains with 25 year expected life.
Option 2: 70 new 2 x 23m carriage trains with 35 year expected life.

Which one should we go for? Option 1 gets more new longer carriages in to operation quicker, which is something most passengers want. However, they'll need replacing sooner.

 

[150222]

The Pacers were a shoddy build but people defend them on the basis that at the time there wasn't a lot of money for new trains and say they weren't expected to last as long as the more expensive 150s.

If we now had £180M to spend on Pacer replacement and the two options were:

Option 1: 100 new 2 x 23m carriage trains with 25 year expected life.
Option 2: 70 new 2 x 23m carriage trains with 35 year expected life.

Which one should we go for? Option 1 gets more new longer carriages in to operation quicker, which is something most passengers want. However, they'll need replacing sooner.

You'd go for the 100 new carriages as the ROSCO's are already winging about the life expectancy of the 172's.

 

[jon0844]

While it's not good to have a modern plastic train break in a few years, I don't have much sympathy for the ROSCOs either.

There should be a maximum period that the stock can be loaned for, before they're considered end-of-life and no ROSCO can continue to ask for silly amounts of money for (and by being able to do so, have no incentive to replace them).

The Pacers should now be considered paid for (many times over, I might add) and sold for a nominal value to any operator that wants them - and will be fully responsible for maintaining. I'm sure that with a final facelift and good maintenance, there are certain routes where they could run - but at a much lower cost.

 

[150222]

Wern't the class 483's (1938 tube stock) on the Island Line bought outright for by Stagecoach for 1 pound after it was discovered the ROSCO was heavily overcharging. Maybe it's time to do the same with pacers as their days are numbered?

 

[northwichcat]

The Pacers should now be considered paid for (many times over, I might add) and sold for a nominal value to any operator that wants them - and will be fully responsible for maintaining. I'm sure that with a final facelift and good maintenance, there are certain routes where they could run - but at a much lower cost.

In my opinion the following should be done:

* 120 new 2 and 3 car DMUs for Northern ordered ASAP.
* All 142s are withdrawn, save the exception below.
* ATW take on the FGW 143s, plus some 150s from Northern to replace their 142s. ATW may opt to keep 2 x 142s to use on the Cardiff Bay shuttle.
* FGW also take on some 150s from Northern as 143 replacement.
* The Northern 144s are cascaded to EMT. This allows EMT to use 144s to replace single car 153 operation. EMT may send some 153s in the opposite direction, or alternatively to ATW or FGW.
* The 143s and 144s can then be withdrawn by 2019, hopefully indirectly replaced by EMUs.

 

[Class185]

Can someone clarify for me, currently there are two LM services Liverpool to Birmingham NS per hour. I have read that there is a proposal to extend the Euston Crewe serve to Liverpool and divert a Liverpool service to Birmingham. Will that still mean two services by LM, for example...

Liverpool - Birmingham
Liverpool - Euston

With the other Preston to Birmingham or will Liverpool only be served by the Euston train on an hourly basis?

 

[Eagle]

Yes. That.

1tph London–Liverpool
1tph Birmingham–Liverpool
1tph Birmingham–Preston

(plus possibly some fiddling about with trains going via Stoke or Crewe)

 

[cle]

Yeah I think the London Liverpool will be via Stoke (all trains via Crewe).

The Manchester - Stoke stopper is being extended to Birmingham via Stafford, which will cover an XC Birmingham Manchester train being re-routed via Crewe and running a bit faster.

 

[Eagle]

Yeah I think the London Liverpool will be via Stoke (all trains via Crewe).

No it won't. It'll run direct from Stafford to Crewe. (Stone will only be served by the Birmingham to Manchester stopper, and Alsager only by EMT.)

 

[Batman]

No it won't. It'll run direct from Stafford to Crewe. (Stone will only be served by the Birmingham to Manchester stopper, and Alsager only by EMT.)

Didn't Northern consider extending the hourly Manchester - Crewe stopper to Stoke via Alsager and Kidsgrove using the 323's freed up by no longer operating the hourly Manchester - Stoke stopper?

And I thought EMT were getting extra 156's from Northern as a result of Northern gaining 150's from LM? So won't that main that the 153's that operate the hourly Crewe - Derby service get replaced with 156's? That will mean that Aslsager will still have 5 cars per hour calling there.

 

[tbtc]

I thought EMT were getting extra 156's from Northern as a result of Northern gaining 150's from LM? So won't that main that the 153's that operate the hourly Crewe - Derby service get replaced with 156's?

No.

The extra 156s have replaced 158s that worked on the Matlock and Skeg services (where they were wasted) - the 158s went to double up the Norwich - Liverpool service (west of Nottingham).

There's been no real benefit to the "local" EMT services