New trains are needed now!

[ainsworth74]

Seeing as people keep saying the Nottingham to Liverpool route needs more capacity, why don't we put the Irish mk3s as loco hauled on there allowing the redeployment of 158's to either other EMT services or to Northern, ScotRail or FGW?

 

[MCR247]

Because it would slow it down a lot and it doesn't need LHCS, it's pointless

 

[ainsworth74]

Fair enough, it was just an idle thought.

 

[MCR247]

Fair enough, it was just an idle thought.

It's more of an inter regional service than intercity which is what LHCS is more suited for. It doesn't need stuff like what 220s 222s etc have just a simple 158 or 170 or newer versions of these

 

[Invincibles]

£27,000? None. How much do you think its costs to run that service? Fuel, paths, track access charge? Maintenance?

Also, if other train companys run along the same route, then that money will be split

That was the point I was making, even without any costs at all it would be hard to buy new stock. When you take costs into account then there really is not a lot of money. The OP was suggesting that TOCs were somehow making loads of money by charging passengers so much.

 

[tbtc]

Seeing as people keep saying the Nottingham to Liverpool route needs more capacity, why don't we put the Irish mk3s as loco hauled on there allowing the redeployment of 158's to either other EMT services or to Northern, ScotRail or FGW?

Nice idea, but you need to reverse at Sheffield, which would mean two locos and the additional costs incurred (e.g. dragging a second loco). The alternative is that you run round at Sheffield, but this may be complicated for pathing etc. Plus, you'd reduce the number of platforms at Liverpool you could serve

Could some of the Irish coaches be put into the Exeter - London SWT service? I was thinking that since some of these are much much longer, the effect of one unpowered coach would be less "impacting" than putting one in a two coach 156

 

[TrainBrain185]

Seems to me that since privatisation, massive under-investment on the actual rail infrastructure has caught up to bite us on the shins somewhat? Whilst largely state controlled railways, DB, SNCF, TrenItalia as the big player examples, have invested on as much electricification as possible, the UK, on the other hand, has remained dormant.
Thus bringing in the question of new rolling stock, overcrowding problems etc etc. Germany, France and Italy operate a lot of long rake push-pull operations using electric traction in interurban operation whilst here in the UK? Well just make do with a Sprinter or as worst a Pacer.
Under UK privatisation, the TOC's are out purely for profit and therefore need to operate the cheapest, though by far, not the best option, so as a result we see Voyagers operating from Scotland to the South-West (ouch) as a good example replacing loco hauled, Class 185 units replacing loco hauled on Trans-Pennine/NW-UK to Scotland services, again replacing loco haulage.
When BR was still a nationalised entity, yes, Pacers were introduced just for the services intended, "urban" and their life span was planned a maximum of 25 years, thus making them candidates for retirement as of now. Sprinters were intended to take up the slightly wider radius urban services, again intended 25-30 years of use.
If anything has to be brought to account for the current rolling stock problems, the root cause must come down to privatisation and taking away BR's intended future plan of mass electrification.
Today, we sadly have limited rolling stock to suit the profit margins of the TOC's, a Network Rail that is only maintained, not improved, again under control of cost measures.
No good the ordinary guy moaning about it because with regret, its beyond his control whichever Government is in power.
Just have to live with it...........

 

[MCR247]

Class 185s replaced 158s on TPE, which replaced Class 124s

 

[ainsworth74]

Class 185s replaced 158s on TPE, which replaced Class 124s

I thought 45s + Mk2s also worked alongside 124s on North Transpennine services? Though broadly Transpennine has been a multiple unit route in the last couple of decades.

 

[87015]

That was the point I was making, even without any costs at all it would be hard to buy new stock. When you take costs into account then there really is not a lot of money. The OP was suggesting that TOCs were somehow making loads of money by charging passengers so much.

Some TOCs make annual profits approaching £50m, is that enough profit for you?

 

[ukrob]

Some TOCs make annual profits approaching £50m, is that enough profit for you?

Hardly enough to spend on a fleet of new trains and still have a worthwhile profit, no.

 

[TrainBrain185]

Class 185s replaced 158s on TPE, which replaced Class 124s

Class 124?? Cannot remember anything like that running out of Newcastle to Manchester and Liverpool? Was generally loco hauled, with a Gateshead based Class 45 or 47 with Mk2 coaches.....What operated TransPennine from other than Newcastle, I don't know?

 

[Oliver]

Some TOCs make annual profits approaching £50m, is that enough profit for you?

Which TOC(s) is that, and how much is it as a margin on sales?

 

[TrainBrain185]

Class 185s replaced 158s on TPE, which replaced Class 124s

Perhaps I should have made myself a bit clearer.Trans Pennine running out of Newcastle.

 

[LE Greys]

You are right, it doesn't. Here's the maths:

Mk3 TSO = 34.3 tonnes.

Cl 156 DMS = 36.1 tonnes.
Cl 156 DMSL = 38.6 tonnes.

Class 156 engines are 285hp.

So... the power to weight ratios would be:

Class 156 running normally: 570hp / 74.7 tonnes = 7.63hp / tonne.
Class 156 running on one engine: 285hp / 74.7 tonnes = 3.82hp / tonne.

Class 156 + hypothetical trailer: 570hp / 109 tonnes = 5.23hp / tonne.
Class 156 + trailer, one engine out = 285hp / 109 tonnes = 2.61hp / tonne.

We can conclude from this that yes it is theoretically possible, albeit with a slight loss of performance, but if you lose an engine on a trailer fitted unit you'll really be in trouble as it would be extremely sluggish to get it to somewhere out of the way.

I remember once travelling on a 150 from Truro to Plymouth on one engine. While fine on the flat, going up the various inclines was very slow, dropping to about 20 mph several times. Carrying a trailer as well, I think we would have been rolling backwards down the hill.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Seems to me that since privatisation, massive under-investment on the actual rail infrastructure has caught up to bite us on the shins somewhat? Whilst largely state controlled railways, DB, SNCF, TrenItalia as the big player examples, have invested on as much electricification as possible, the UK, on the other hand, has remained dormant.
Thus bringing in the question of new rolling stock, overcrowding problems etc etc. Germany, France and Italy operate a lot of long rake push-pull operations using electric traction in interurban operation whilst here in the UK? Well just make do with a Sprinter or as worst a Pacer.
Under UK privatisation, the TOC's are out purely for profit and therefore need to operate the cheapest, though by far, not the best option, so as a result we see Voyagers operating from Scotland to the South-West (ouch) as a good example replacing loco hauled, Class 185 units replacing loco hauled on Trans-Pennine/NW-UK to Scotland services, again replacing loco haulage.
When BR was still a nationalised entity, yes, Pacers were introduced just for the services intended, "urban" and their life span was planned a maximum of 25 years, thus making them candidates for retirement as of now. Sprinters were intended to take up the slightly wider radius urban services, again intended 25-30 years of use.
If anything has to be brought to account for the current rolling stock problems, the root cause must come down to privatisation and taking away BR's intended future plan of mass electrification.
Today, we sadly have limited rolling stock to suit the profit margins of the TOC's, a Network Rail that is only maintained, not improved, again under control of cost measures.
No good the ordinary guy moaning about it because with regret, its beyond his control whichever Government is in power.
Just have to live with it...........

Is it really a problem of privatisation, or just short-termism, working from bidding process to bidding process? Any organisation, private or public, has to move on at a reasonable pace. You don't see Vauxhall still churning out Novas and Cavaliers because they were easy to make. Progress at the moment seems to place costs before quality, but that may be a fault of the franchise system as well. Airlines, which mostly own their own aircraft, constantly replace or upgrade them, because there is a competitive advantage in having a modern, efficient fleet. There is also an advantage in having a big fleet, since you can either expand you current market or lease aircraft to other people. However, airlines are in it for the duration, not just until the next bidding process.

Franchising has the railway system stymied. Development has tailed off since the boom of the 1990s, and will continue to do so until we change the system to something much more workable.

 

[mallard]

Personally, I think it's ridiculous how we have a major shortage of DMUs, yet are still sending recoverable locomotives and stock for scrap!

I was think about this the other day, particularly wrt to Northern. How many relatively modern Class 66s are currently "in store"? How many are active but underutilized? How much would it cost to fit them with ETS and rebuild some Mk2s to similar standard to those shipped to New Zealand? Surely this would be significantly cheaper than new-build DMUs and could be achieved significantly more quickly.

Sure, I'm sure operators and passengers would prefer new-build stuff, the Cl66s are not ideal for passenger use and some routes may require work to accept them, but in this era of austerity, it could give much-needed extra capacity to operators that most need it (e.g. Northern).

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not sure that would be all that much cheaper. You've to fit the ETS gear on an already cramped locomotive, you've got to carry out one hell of a refurb on the Mk2's to get them to NZ standards even if you were to aim to a lower standard it's still going to be quite an expensive piece of work (and besides how many Mk2's are left?). Altering routes to accommodate 66s+Mk2s is going to be eye wateringly expensive I'm sure. Then operationally its going to be hard, lower acceleration than existing DMU's so pathing is going to have to be re-thought. Not many terminals have the ability to release trapped loco's any more so that's going to mean topping and tailing so more loco's and probably crew needed to man the rear unit at all times as well unless you install the gear to allow one driving cab to control both locos (expensive).

So by the end of it you may as well just buy some more DMU's, it will probably be cheaper!

 

[TrainBrain185]

Is it really a problem of privatisation, or just short-termism, working from bidding process to bidding process? Any organisation, private or public, has to move on at a reasonable pace. You don't see Vauxhall still churning out Novas and Cavaliers because they were easy to make. Progress at the moment seems to place costs before quality, but that may be a fault of the franchise system as well. Airlines, which mostly own their own aircraft, constantly replace or upgrade them, because there is a competitive advantage in having a modern, efficient fleet. There is also an advantage in having a big fleet, since you can either expand you current market or lease aircraft to other people. However, airlines are in it for the duration, not just until the next bidding process.

Franchising has the railway system stymied. Development has tailed off since the boom of the 1990s, and will continue to do so until we change the system to something much more workable.

In my opinion, it "is" privatisation of the "complete" nature that has come to todays problems with "cheapest option" new rolling stock replacing older, but more fit for purpose stock. Electrification of the ECML under BR was just the beginning of a wider plan to branch off it onto secondary lines which justified electrification. Alas, just the ECML alone was done and the limitations which we now have are apparent. British Rail should have been allowed to operate as public owned operation with control of its own rolling stock and infrastructure. But the alternative should have been given to allow any private passenger or freight operators who wish to operate their own vehicles if they so wanted too, as what we see in Germany, where using a good example, Arriva "TRAX" and Arriva operated suburban lines (pre DB takeover) operate on lines shared with state owned DB rolling stock etc etc.
The idea of returning to locomotives and comfortable coaches for UK interurban is now a non starter and push-pull with DVT's is way beyond a dream. I would love to see it, but a loco and coaches would be an accountants and Shareholders nightmare, whilst a tiddley little Sprinter with human versions of sardines? Well thats another story, though perhaps the lucky ones in the South East being exceptions.

 

[mallard]

I'm not sure that would be all that much cheaper. You've to fit the ETS gear on an already cramped locomotive, you've got to carry out one hell of a refurb on the Mk2's to get them to NZ standards even if you were to aim to a lower standard it's still going to be quite an expensive piece of work (and besides how many Mk2's are left?). Altering routes to accommodate 66s+Mk2s is going to be eye wateringly expensive I'm sure. Then operationally its going to be hard, lower acceleration than existing DMU's so pathing is going to have to be re-thought. Not many terminals have the ability to release trapped loco's any more so that's going to mean topping and tailing so more loco's and probably crew needed to man the rear unit at all times as well unless you install the gear to allow one driving cab to control both locos (expensive).

So by the end of it you may as well just buy some more DMU's, it will probably be cheaper!

Well, I'f go with push-pull sets to eliminate the need for two locos and since you're doing significant work on the locos anyway, you could modify them for better acceleration at the expense of tractive effort and possibly even decommission one of the cabs and use the space for ETS. I'd expect a maximum of 5 coaches to be in each set (they are standing in for a lack of DMUs after all), so derating the engine could also be beneficial. If 66s aren't suitable then there are 60s, 58s, 47s, 37s and even 20s that could be tried.

As for cost, the loco work would be expensive, but if the NZ railways chose to ship Mk2s half way around the world and modify them extensively rather than go with new-build stock, there must be some cost advantage to it!

EDIT:
Here is a picture of one of the NZ ex-Mk2 sets: http://citytransport.info/NotMine/SD_mastertona.jpg

 

[ainsworth74]

In which case we need DVT's or DBSO's I'm not aware of many spares lying around so were going to have to convert some of Mk2s into DBSO which is adding to the cost of the modernisation. Such extensive modifications of the 66s is not something that any FOC is going to allow to their stock (it isn't going to be so useful for freight any more) so were going to need to persuade them to sell it to a ROSCO for modifications which equals £££. We could use 47 or 37 but them we need to modify them for push-pull by equipping with TDM's so again £££.

Another point, just how many Mk2's are left? NZ bought most of the Mk2s that were running on the GEML so there out. I don't think there are exactly dozens sat around in sidings gathering dust. Even if there are enough left, how much life have they got left? There older than the Mk3s and were talking about replacing them in about 10-15 years, so is it even cost effective?

Finally if it was easy and cost effective, then by now I'm sure industry would be talking about it or even doing it!

I just don't see it being any better than spending money on new DMU's.

 

[Shrub Hill]

TOC's are in the industry purely and simply to make money! they are not going to be interested in unreliable ageing locos however romantic the dream is, they want reliability and efficiency and you are not going to get that by using ageing stock, give them the longer franchises, give them the freedom to invest as they see fit and let them make there money. Then we will see rolling stock improved, if not we will just have to make do with what we have! which will end up being one massive preserved railway!

 

[Oswyntail]

..... give them the longer franchises, give them the freedom to invest as they see fit and let them make there money. ....

This is often stated and may well be true. BUT what are the ROSCOs doing here? They have the equivalent of limitless franchises, and it was originally envisaged that THEY would be the ones investing in stock renewal. Instead they are acting almost as financiers, waiting for TOCs to come to them. If a ROSCO were to take the risk (unlikely!) and order a fleet of a couple of hundred, go-anywhere DMUs, I am sure that they and the TOCs could make a decent profit.

 

[tbtc]

This is often stated and may well be true. BUT what are the ROSCOs doing here? They have the equivalent of limitless franchises, and it was originally envisaged that THEY would be the ones investing in stock renewal. Instead they are acting almost as financiers, waiting for TOCs to come to them. If a ROSCO were to take the risk (unlikely!) and order a fleet of a couple of hundred, go-anywhere DMUs, I am sure that they and the TOCs could make a decent profit.

Exactly what I've been saying; all units are "on hire" at the moment. Previous "speculative" orders (the Porterbrook 170s) have been snapped up quickly (by Central Trains). I'm confident that any ROSCO which took a risk by extending the production line of a "generic" DMU (like the 172) that the'd fund a market very quickly. Look at how operators are scrambling over the crumbs of a couple of "spare" 180s etc (by "spare" I mean "East Coast won't be taking them on").

Sadly the three ROSCOS are all acting the same, playing the same conservative game, like banks, none has shown any initiative or speculative streak in recent years.

Can you imagine a world in which Wimpey only built new houses once they had secured an order from customers? Or where Garages only ordered new cars from vehicle manufacturers if they could get drivers to agree to pay for them?

 

[route:oxford]

If a ROSCO were to take the risk (unlikely!) and order a fleet of a couple of hundred, go-anywhere DMUs, I am sure that they and the TOCs could make a decent profit.

Just wait until the German Government creates "DB ROSCO (UK) Ltd" (or similar)...

There'll be plenty of smiles at Siemens.

 

[Kneedown]

East Midlands trains class 158s arn't bad at allthey have all been refurbished

You could put new seats and carpets in a Pacer and they wouldn't be bad by that reasoning.
The 158 refurb has done nothing for actual performance. In fact they are even more sluggish than before.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because it would slow it down a lot and it doesn't need LHCS, it's pointless

I agree that LHCS won't work, but the reality is that replacing Sprinters on this major route wont slow things down greatly, if at all. Why do you think 156's with a 75mph max speed can keep time? The fact is that although there are plenty of 90mph Sprinter differential limits on the route over the Hope Valley, actually getting to 90mph with a 158 is a different matter completely. In reality there are only one or two areas where you can actually get much more than 75mph for any meaningful length of time. Meridians and 180's would be a much more suitable form of traction for the route.

 

[Drsatan]

In which case we need DVT's or DBSO's I'm not aware of many spares lying around so were going to have to convert some of Mk2s into DBSO which is adding to the cost of the modernisation. Such extensive modifications of the 66s is not something that any FOC is going to allow to their stock (it isn't going to be so useful for freight any more) so were going to need to persuade them to sell it to a ROSCO for modifications which equals £££. We could use 47 or 37 but them we need to modify them for push-pull by equipping with TDM's so again £££.

Another point, just how many Mk2's are left? NZ bought most of the Mk2s that were running on the GEML so there out. I don't think there are exactly dozens sat around in sidings gathering dust. Even if there are enough left, how much life have they got left? There older than the Mk3s and were talking about replacing them in about 10-15 years, so is it even cost effective?

Finally if it was easy and cost effective, then by now I'm sure industry would be talking about it or even doing it!

I just don't see it being any better than spending money on new DMU's.

Don't forget that TOCs these days are averse to running loco hauled services due to the higher track access charges they encounter.

The ROSCOs do not accept that over a long period of time the construction cost of a locomotive, carriage or multiple unit will be written off. For instance, Mk2 coaches, which are over 30 years old, have written off their construction cost several times yet the leasing charges are ridiculously high (if someone could provide exact figures I'd be grateful). The class 483 (formerly 1938 sock) EMUs in use on the Island Line used to cost over £1million a year to lease (even though they're worth almost nothing), until SWT purchased them from HSBC rail for the nominal sum of £1

The ex IE Mk3s, which are currently being scrapped, would be very useful but none of the ROSCOs would want to buy them and convert them to standard gauge. This is because no ROSCO would be sure whether any of the TOCs would be interested in them; no ROSCO would want to be saddled with 100 old Mk3s rusting away in a field.

What's needed is a coherent national rolling stock program combined with an electrification program to determine which routes would be electrified, what new rolling stock will be ordered and where existing trains will be cascaded to.

 

[TrainBrain185]

Don't forget that TOCs these days are averse to running loco hauled services due to the higher track access charges they encounter.

The ROSCOs do not accept that over a long period of time the construction cost of a locomotive, carriage or multiple unit will be written off. For instance, Mk2 coaches, which are over 30 years old, have written off their construction cost several times yet the leasing charges are ridiculously high (if someone could provide exact figures I'd be grateful). The class 483 (formerly 1938 sock) EMUs in use on the Island Line used to cost over £1million a year to lease (even though they're worth almost nothing), until SWT purchased them from HSBC rail for the nominal sum of £1

Yep, you said it. Great stuff privatisation!!!

 

[ainsworth74]

Don't forget that TOCs these days are averse to running loco hauled services due to the higher track access charges they encounter.

Yeah that was another point I thought of after I posted the above, I just couldn't be bothered to edit my post

Your bang on with saying me need a coherent rolling stock policy, the sort of policy we might have in a nationalised industry :roll:

 

[Drsatan]

Yeah that was another point I thought of after I posted the above, I just couldn't be bothered to edit my post

Your bang on with saying me need a coherent rolling stock policy, the sort of policy we might have in a nationalised industry :roll:

So, why not renationalise the railways? I'd like to see that happen but no-one will take it seriously. Possibly because of the cost

I think the higher track access charges levied for LHCS sets is one reason why FGW is desperate to stop leasing 67s and Mk2s from DB for Cardiff-Taunton services and the daily Cardiff-Paignton train. Although FGW are supposed to receive enough 150s from LOROL to hand back the 142s and eliminate LHCS moves entirely, I think FGW should continue to run LHCS services to allow some Gloucester - Weymouth trains to be formed of two 150s. Unfortunately, although this would result in fewer passengers standing, this won't happen because of the cost.

 

[MCR247]

I agree that LHCS won't work, but the reality is that replacing Sprinters on this major route wont slow things down greatly, if at all. Why do you think 156's with a 75mph max speed can keep time? The fact is that although there are plenty of 90mph Sprinter differential limits on the route over the Hope Valley, actually getting to 90mph with a 158 is a different matter completely. In reality there are only one or two areas where you can actually get much more than 75mph for any meaningful length of time. Meridians and 180's would be a much more suitable form of traction for the route.

Well LHCS would slow things down due to slower acc/decelaration, and would also be awkward with the reversing and meridians cannot go over 30mph I think on some parts near Ely

I'm probably wrong though