"No new DMU orders in CP5"

[starrymarkb]

Perhaps the way the IEP project is going is the way forward, with bi-modal stock being made available in the future to TOCs with mixed lines. Is there a smaller, commuter version of these being offer by any train builders? If so it would at least mean that if diesel suddenly became harder to come by you would ramp up the electrification projects without having to worry about EMU stock being available.

Not UK but France is specifying new regional units as Bi-Bi (Bi-Mode & Bi Voltage). Their new units are *very* heavy and articulated so have axle loads that would give NR kittens - So any Bi-Unit would need a diet before being suitable for regional work in the UK.

 

[swt_passenger]

Meanwhile the TOCs have to get their heads round "maximising the utilisation of new electric routes".

Yes. Perhaps the DfT are more likely to order a few 're-opened bay platforms' at various potential interchange stations where the wires run out...

 

[NotATrainspott]

The 'scenic trains' initiative does provide one way of freeing up new DMUs. Another order of 172s is another order for trains that would could be used anywhere but aren't particularly suited to the routes that will not be electrified in their lifetime. Any new trains - whether a DMU design or a new rake of coaches to be hauled by some sort of light locomotive - designed for 'scenic routes' would be able to live out their entire life on such routes without their role needing to change at all. At the moment these routes are run with entirely standard trains that would be better used elsewhere as they are not particularly suited to the role they are doing and will be doing in future.

What sort of lines would be come under this description and how many trains are used on them at the moment? Off the top of my head I can think of:

• West Highland Line
• Kyle of Lochalsh Line
• Far North Line
• Glasgow South Western Line to Stranraer
• Cambrian Line
• Settle & Carlisle

 

[MidlandMainlie]

The 'scenic trains' initiative does provide one way of freeing up new DMUs. Another order of 172s is another order for trains that would could be used anywhere but aren't particularly suited to the routes that will not be electrified in their lifetime. Any new trains - whether a DMU design or a new rake of coaches to be hauled by some sort of light locomotive - designed for 'scenic routes' would be able to live out their entire life on such routes without their role needing to change at all. At the moment these routes are run with entirely standard trains that would be better used elsewhere as they are not particularly suited to the role they are doing and will be doing in future.

What sort of lines would be come under this description and how many trains are used on them at the moment? Off the top of my head I can think of:

• West Highland Line
• Kyle of Lochalsh Line
• Far North Line
• Glasgow South Western Line to Stranraer
• Cambrian Line
• Settle & Carlisle

Cumbrian Coast
Conway Valley

I would agree these lines are unlikely to see electrification in the short to medium term, if ever so new DMU's will be needed eventully

 

[Haydn1971]

Sorry to break your post down, but you raise some interesting points worthy of debate

I think you know that's nonsense.

I think you'll find that I don't Having sat through countless transportation discussions in South and West Yorkshire, had many an evening beer with ex-coworkers in local government and many a debate in the private sector office I work now about this, it's clear that everyone apart from the DfT minister holding the purse strings agrees that we need new DMU's now

The DfT is trying to wring the last farthing out of the DMU (mainly Regional) franchises, and ordering a vague number of expensive new DMUs with an uncertain life is not where they're at. It's called "sweating the assets".

The focus to be fair from the DfT is reducing running costs on high volume services, the DMU's typically in the north are running 30, even 60 minute frequencies, rather than the dozens per hour frequencies of the GWML and 5 express per hour on the MML so economies of scale push the business case for these schemes - the infills such as Swinton to Moorthorpe may never get Network Rail funding, so may rely indirectly on DfT local bids, which upset the longer term planning, just look at the farce over tram-train in terms of how long the DfT have taken to accept putting the cash up for a pilot scheme. Whilst I've every confidence in getting the mainlines and key infills done to programme, I foresee decades of debate over the lesser infills, leaving DMU's running under wires for some, but not all of their routes, which means DMU's will be a firm fixture for a long time, thus why so many people in the biz think we need new DMU's now[/QUOTE]

Schemes that might get a hearing are the conversion of D78 LU stock, and a low-cost loco-hauled solution with redundant Mk3/4s.

The D78 idea sounds like the fantasy of a loco fanatic, just as mad as running third rail stock between Leeds and Harrogate, I can however see some mileage in new electric locos for old Mk3/4 carriages, which won't please the new EMU's for MML mob, but will appeal to the bean counters in Great Minster House !

Meanwhile the TOCs have to get their heads round "maximising the utilisation of new electric routes".

The current TOC's won't care, most are up for renewal before benefits kick in, the prospective TOC's with great "in it together" money saving ideas will do very well in the next round of franchises

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think you'll find that I don't Having sat through countless transportation discussions in South and West Yorkshire, had many an evening beer with ex-coworkers in local government and many a debate in the private sector office I work now about this, it's clear that everyone apart from the DfT minister holding the purse strings agrees that we need new DMU's now

Unfortunately the DfT trumps anyone else, as they hold the purse-strings.
Local government will get a look-in with Rail North, but the PTE bosses all signed up to the NT/TP prospectus with subsidy reduction and fleet utilisation high on the agenda.

The focus to be fair from the DfT is reducing running costs on high volume services, the DMU's typically in the north are running 30, even 60 minute frequencies, rather than the dozens per hour frequencies of the GWML and 5 express per hour on the MML so economies of scale push the business case for these schemes - the infills such as Swinton to Moorthorpe may never get Network Rail funding, so may rely indirectly on DfT local bids, which upset the longer term planning, just look at the farce over tram-train in terms of how long the DfT have taken to accept putting the cash up for a pilot scheme. Whilst I've every confidence in getting the mainlines and key infills done to programme, I foresee decades of debate over the lesser infills, leaving DMU's running under wires for some, but not all of their routes, which means DMU's will be a firm fixture for a long time, thus why so many people in the biz think we need new DMU's now

Where's the business case for new DMUs? How many, running where?
Until Northen have got every last drop out of the new EMU fleet and the resultant cascades, DfT will not be listening.

The D78 idea sounds like the fantasy of a loco fanatic, just as mad as running third rail stock between Leeds and Harrogate, I can however see some mileage in new electric locos for old Mk3/4 carriages, which won't please the new EMU's for MML mob, but will appeal to the bean counters in Great Minster House !

I agree about D78 although some local authorities are said to be interested (Modern Railways, August).
I also don't mean e-locos and Mk4, I mean class 68 plus coaches on suitable diesel routes (if the cost can be got down relative to class 67).
This would have to wait till IEP beds in around 2020.

The current TOC's won't care, most are up for renewal before benefits kick in, the prospective TOC's with great "in it together" money saving ideas will do very well in the next round of franchises

Northern and TP are in a cleft stick on plans until their 2016 spec is published at Christmas (after consultation).
I imagine a battle is now raging (or is imminent) about that with Rail North.
It's not worth speculating how that will turn out, but deployment of DMUs/EMUs over 8-9 years from 2016 will be at the heart of it.

 

[Wavertreelad]

I'm not sure why but Liverpool South Parkway to Trafford Park seems to get overlooked each time electrification proposals come up.

Wasn't Merseytravel looking at electrifying the route as far as Warrington? This potentially could mean the use of dual voltage stock so could be a home for some more 319's if you wanted to reach Manchester under OHLE.

 

[sash5000]

Whilst there is no doubt a short term lack of capacity in terms of DMUs available I do think that over the next 5 years the situation will improve year on year as electrification schemes are completed and cascades happen. There will also be enough units displaced to allow for the scrapping of Pacers.

In broad terms I expect the following:

Thames Valley electrification will allow 37 Class 165 units to head south west, allowing First Great Western to dispense with its Class 143 (8 units) and Class 153 (14 units) fleets, and allow for capacity enhancements in the Bristol area.

Cardiff Valleys electrification will directly allow ATW to dispense with its Class 142 (15 units), 143 (15 units) and 153 (8 units) fleets.

EGIP / Dunblane / Alloa will allow Scotrail to release its Class 156 (48 units) fleet to Northern.

Trans Penine Electrification will allow TPE to release its Class 185 (51 units) fleet to Northern.

The influx of 99 units from Scotrail and TPE will allow Northern to scrap their Class 142 (79 units) and Class 144 (23 units) fleets. The North Western electrification will also release units to operate any services transferred from TPE.


Sascha

 

[AM9]

Is it possible that the DfT could weight subsidy against the unnecessary use of DMUs vs EMUs, to act as an incentive to TOCs?

 

[sash5000]

Is it possible that the DfT could weight subsidy against the unnecessary use of DMUs vs EMUs, to act as an incentive to TOCs?

Or count EMU as a quality enhancement and weigh this positively?

 

[Haydn1971]

Whilst cascades of DMU's sound sensible now, many of the cascades won't be realised for another 5 or more years, by which time these wonderful cascades will be over 30 years old - it's a ticking time bomb really

 

[deltic08]

I would have thought with the next TPE franchise likely to be a mixture of electric services (some of which may occasionally need to be diverted over non-electrified lines e.g. via Mirfield or Birghouse) and routes with a good case for electrification e.g. Manchester to Hull via Doncaster that ordering an entire new fleet of electric and bi-mode would have a good business case. It would also then leave a significant number of DMUs available for cascade.



So what's the solution for lines which won't be electrified? An expensive research project in to alternative methods of powering trains?

According to Northern's MD, Calder Valley route is being bumped up the list of electrification as an electric diversion route. That includes Mirfield to Sowerby Bridge. Plenty of 319s available for it.

 

[Class83]

EGIP / Dunblane / Alloa will allow Scotrail to release its Class 156 (48 units) fleet to Northern.

Trans Penine Electrification will allow TPE to release its Class 185 (51 units) fleet to Northern.

The influx of 99 units from Scotrail and TPE will allow Northern to scrap their Class 142 (79 units) and Class 144 (23 units) fleets. The North Western electrification will also release units to operate any services transferred from TPE.


Sascha

I don't think EGIP will free up 48 units, though there will certainly be some. Edinburgh-Glasgow is 16 units, not sure how many units Dunblane/Alloa will release.

Likewise, TPE south will remain Diesel and with the Nottingham-Liverpool service transferring from EMT to TPE that will need a number of 185s.

In all I suspect Northern will gain about 50 DMUs from Transpennine and Scotrail. Plus the units freed up by electrification should allow the Pacers to be retired, but it will be reasonably tight.

 

[Class 170101]

The 153s will almost certainly need to be re-formed back to Class 155s to make them suitable for latest DDA Regulations particularly since the DDA toilet takes up a lot of space.

How do people propose to square this circle in terms of DMU availability?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Whilst cascades of DMU's sound sensible now, many of the cascades won't be realised for another 5 or more years, by which time these wonderful cascades will be over 30 years old - it's a ticking time bomb really

There will be electrification in 2019, 2020, 2021 and so on and every extra kilometre of wiring makes more and more EMU service conversion possible. The wiring process will get faster as the crews become more skilled and the knowledge that electrification is coming will allow other works to be done beforehand (for example, the Kilmarnock line is almost a dead set for early CP6 so if there's ever a blockade in CP5 it would be an opportune time to do bridge replacement or track lowering works).

All this means is that the pre-privatisation DMUs cascaded to relieve the Pacers/153s wouldn't need to last for years and years after that time. To provide as much capacity as possible it is likely that the later Pacers may live longer than the DDA compliance deadline but only to strengthen otherwise-compliant services and even then this would only be for a couple of years.

As well as the 'scenic trains' initiative there may be other 'gimmicky' solutions to the problem. One example I would think would be the Blackpool South line, which could be removed from the National Rail network, converted to standard double-track 750V electrified low-floor tram operation and run with a larger fleet of Flexity 2 trams.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Could DMUs and EMUs be made very modular so that the diesel engine and traction packages (probably bogies included in that) are modules that could be swapped for AC traction packages?

How many years have the 14xs and the 15x got before they're completely life expired?

 

[Haydn1971]

How many years have the 14xs and the 15x got before they're completely life expired?

Looks at his watch haha

 

[edwin_m]

Could DMUs and EMUs be made very modular so that the diesel engine and traction packages (probably bogies included in that) are modules that could be swapped for AC traction packages?

IEP sort of does that.

 

[Domh245]

If it is a DEMU, then surely you wouldn't need any bogie changes, especially if when the bogies are designed, they are designed to take the higher weight of the Diesel Engine. The main problem that I could see with swapping out diesel engines and electric traction packages is the need for exhaust ducts - I'm assuming that the traction packages would be bolted underfloor, and the diesel engine put behind the drivers compartment (like a thumper) - most likely with a removable roof panel that can either be fitted for diesel engines (with air intakes and exhaust pipes etc) and one for EMU mode, where you could fit a small fridge, or just regular roofing

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not sure why but Liverpool South Parkway to Trafford Park seems to get overlooked each time electrification proposals come up.

Electrifying this route would allow the stopping services to be converted to EMU, although like Calder Valley there wouldn't be much running under the wires eliminated. This is unlike Wigan to Bolton for example, where DMUs are also replaced on the section between Bolton, Manchester and beyond.

A further problem with the CLC route is that the fast services either run through today onto non-electrified routes in the Hope Valley and beyond, or will do by the time TP electrification is completed. So effectively the benefits of electrifying this route are only half the benefits of electrifying a route where all the trains could be worked by EMUs. Conceivably it could be done at some future time, as a package with Hope Valley and Clay Cross to Nottingham.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

IEP sort of does that.

Isn't the space taken up by the diesel engines in the IEP just wasted when they're eventually removed?

 

[tbtc]

I suppose at its simplest we could consider the number of pre and post-privatisation DMUs in operation. There are probably a couple of misnomers in these totals, but to give a good sort of idea of the numbers that we are talking about:

Pre-privatisation DMUs: 754 trains (1545 carriages)
Post-privatisation DMUs: 300 trains (861 carriages)
Diesel Electric Multiple Units (Classes 220, 221 & 222): 105 trains (495 carriages)

Good stats - thanks.

I think that, if CP6 electrification follows on from CP5 electrification (e.g. after the MML is wired then that makes routes like Belper - Matlock, Sheffield - Moorthorpe/Doncaster, Erewash, Derby - Birmingham, Hope Valley more attractive) then those three hundred trains may be enough to run most of the remaining unelectrified services/lines in 2024.

Sounds fanciful right now, I appreciate, but after electrifying roughly a thousand miles of main lines (GWML, MML, Transpennine Main Line) in CP5 then a similar thousandish miles in CP6 could fill in a lot of gaps.

If you believe in the above then you're going to find it hard to justify building lots of DMUs in the short term (since, lets face it, any DMU commissioned today would take around three years to build, we're talking 2017/2018 before we saw any new DMUs in service), since they are going potentially to be surplus to requirements in around ten years time (giving them a lifespan of maybe seven years - nothing like long enough to warrant investing in).

Also, bear in mind that almost all DMU lines are heavily subsidised, so there's little incentive for a TOC to want to speculatively build some "173s".

Whilst there is no doubt a short term lack of capacity in terms of DMUs available I do think that over the next 5 years the situation will improve year on year as electrification schemes are completed and cascades happen

I think that you are right. We may have to chop/change a few routes to suit the electrification map, we may have a tight squeeze toward the end of this decade (when large numbers of DMUs need modification to bring them up to accessibility standards, which might mean we struggle for stock), we might have to get some gaffer tape out to eke a couple more years out of some 1980s stock, we might need a handful of rakes of loco hauled for a couple of years, but I think we'll be okay, we'll not need to build large numbers of DMUs.

Any "scenic" DMU order is going to be so small/ tokenistic that I can't see it affecting the overall figures very much.

Then, by 2024, bi-mode should be proven enough technology on UK trains so that we'll never need to build diesel-only trains.

 

[edwin_m]

Isn't the space taken up by the diesel engines in the IEP just wasted when they're eventually removed?

That's partly why I said "sort of". On the pantograph cars I think the transformer occupies at least some of the space that is used by the diesel engine on those cars that have one.

 

[Haydn1971]

If you believe in the above then you're going to find it hard to justify building lots of DMUs in the short term

As you'll recall, we've had this discussion before, my comments above about the local infills are perhaps my strongest basis for believing that we still need new DMU's now, time will tell I guess

 

[sash5000]

I don't think EGIP will free up 48 units, though there will certainly be some. Edinburgh-Glasgow is 16 units, not sure how many units Dunblane/Alloa will release.

Likewise, TPE south will remain Diesel and with the Nottingham-Liverpool service transferring from EMT to TPE that will need a number of 185s.

In all I suspect Northern will gain about 50 DMUs from Transpennine and Scotrail. Plus the units freed up by electrification should allow the Pacers to be retired, but it will be reasonably tight.

According to the info in this months informed sources (p23) I make it about 22 - 24 units for EGIP and another 22 - 24 units for Dunblane + Alloa (assuming 66 vehicles is for 3 car units and 96 vehicles for 4 car units). Therefore 48 2 car Class 156 units to be displaced would seem reasonable.

As I said my list was in broad terms given the lack of detail about who will operate what and what the final routes will look like, however, with about another 30 Class 319s to go to Northern after the current batch, that would free up enough stock for the TPE Hope Valley Services (Class 158s?).

 

[The Ham]

In the next few years as IEP comes online I could see HST's being used to allow DMU's to be used elsewhere and/or to allow works to be undertaken so that they can be used post 2020.

A class 43 and 4 trailer vehicles (including a DBSO) would work out the same sort of track access charges as a class 185, however could be cheaper to lease than the 17x's meaning that there could be a market for them on serval routes.

The costs for building a DBSO, although high for each unit, would be mostly offset by the low costs required for a refresh of the other coachs and the near zero cost of any works to the loco (asuming a new colour scheme only). They could then last in use for up to 10 years, in which time although a number of DMU's would need scrapping and a lot of wires could go up (offsetting each other).

Most of the CP5 electrification is for key intercity routes, CP6 could well see a number of infill schemes to release regional trains. A fairly easy win (if looking for a nice long run to get their teeth into, rather than lots of short bitty wiring jobs) would be something like the WofE Line, which even if it only made it to Yeovil (requiring a direct service to/from London every two hours west of there and a shuttle train to/from Exeter the other hours) could easily release 15 of SWT's 159's for use elsewhere.

It would then make doing the rest of the line in the early part of CP7 fairly easy to then allow the rest of SWT's DMU fleet to retire from there (maybe having run a few yeares longer than they should). Alternitively, depending on other eletrification projects removing the need for 22x's the direct trains from Exeter to Waterloo could be formed of 10 coach 22x's if there was a lack of use for them elsewhere on the network (would require the storage of some end coaches).

Battery technoligy would likely see the need for lines like the North Downs Line to be electrified to be reduced (although the Reading to Guildford section could be done to allow XC to use dual voltage trains south east of Birmingham, even on their diversion routes).

The next 5 years could be fairly tight, but post 2023 it coudl start getting easier.

It should also be noted that the order for new DMU's is wanted to be done as late as possible, so as to maximise their lifespan (i.e. DMU's ordered now would need replaceing in 2050, whilst those ordered in the 2020's may not need replacing until getting on for 2060).

 

[Class377/5]

Battery technoligy would likely see the need for lines like the North Downs Line to be electrified to be reduced (although the Reading to Guildford section could be done to allow XC to use dual voltage trains south east of Birmingham, even on their diversion routes).

The battery train or IPMU (Independantly Powered Multiple Unit) may have the ability to reduce the demand for DMUs where it mostly runs under the wires. This is going to be tested this year, so Hayden's fear of a issue in 5yrs could be less than he thinks. By using a 379 to do the test, Bombardier could be building new IPMU by the end of next year with the current 387 production line is finished building its 56 ordered unit which use the same bodyshell as a 379 so its not even hard to get production up and running (with only Bombardier having a working example of this type of unit, so would be a front runner to build the units).

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How well though would battery tech handle fully loaded trains and bad adhesion (leaves, snow, etc on the line)?

 

[edwin_m]

How well though would battery tech handle fully loaded trains and bad adhesion (leaves, snow, etc on the line)?

In terms of keeping the train moving, no better or worse than normal electric traction except that the train will be a bit heavier because of the batteries. There might also be a risk of the batteries running flat if the power consumption goes way above normal.

Calculations and tests will be needed to work out what duties a battery unit can comfortably handle, and if exceptionally it can't do so on a particular day it will be treated the same way as any other train failure.

 

[northwichcat]

Electrifying this route would allow the stopping services to be converted to EMU, although like Calder Valley there wouldn't be much running under the wires eliminated.

Looking at what DfT have proposed as potential future electrification schemes what's currently South TPE as far, west of Doncaster is included, as is Selby-Hull but not Trafford Park - Liverpool SP.

They are also proposing:
* Chopping Liverpool-Norwich at Nottingham
* Giving Liverpool a half-hourly service to Sheffield post-North TPE electrification
* Running additional Manchester-Sheffield services.
* Changing South TPE to go to Hull after Doncaster instead of Cleethorpes.

So there will be potential for electric services between Manchester and Nottingham and Manchester and Hull via Doncaster in the future but then what'll happen with the CLC line?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

According to Northern's MD, Calder Valley route is being bumped up the list of electrification as an electric diversion route. That includes Mirfield to Sowerby Bridge. Plenty of 319s available for it.

What about Ravensthorpe to Wakefield Westgate, given that's TPEs preferred route for diversions?

Calder Vale is listed as a proposed scheme in Rail North's vision but it seems they want to have proposals for all areas to keep all the local authorities happy. See page 72 of http://www.railnorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Draft-LTRS.pdf