"No new DMU orders in CP5"

[LNW-GW Joint]

What has happened to Manchester-Middlesbrough?

Not mentioned in the HLOS (now 2 years old).
The expectation is that Middlesbrough/Scarborough services will be cut back to diesel services from Leeds/York.
The Northern/TPE consultation included proposals to transfer Scarborough services from TPE to Northern in 2016.
All to be confirmed in the December ITT.

 

[northwichcat]

Not mentioned in the HLOS (now 2 years old).
The expectation is that Middlesbrough/Scarborough services will be cut back to diesel services from Leeds/York.
The Northern/TPE consultation included proposals to transfer Scarborough services from TPE to Northern in 2016.
All to be confirmed in the December ITT.

The consultation does include options for occasional through diesel services to/from Manchester, although the expectation is that regular services won't continue beyond Leeds and maybe not even beyond York.

Middlesbrough-York is under consideration as a future route to be wired so if that gets done then the chopping up of Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough may only be temporary.

 

[deltic08]

The consultation does include options for occasional through diesel services to/from Manchester, although the expectation is that regular services won't continue beyond Leeds and maybe not even beyond York.

Middlesbrough-York is under consideration as a future route to be wired so if that gets done then the chopping up of Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough may only be temporary.

Did you mean Middlesbrough-Northallerton?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The consultation does include options for occasional through diesel services to/from Manchester, although the expectation is that regular services won't continue beyond Leeds and maybe not even beyond York.

Middlesbrough-York is under consideration as a future route to be wired so if that gets done then the chopping up of Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough may only be temporary.

AIUI, it has been proposed/suggested to divert the Cross-Country Newcastle terminators to Middlesbrough to ensure Teesside retains some longer-distance services.

 

[Manchester77]

Think Middlesborough was also a proposed ICEC destination with bi-mode IEPs

 

[The Ham]

Think Middlesborough was also a proposed ICEC destination with bi-mode IEPs

Would be logical for Middleborough to see an improvement in terms if through service (i.e. more than just local services with a few going slightly further afield). As the one time I went there passenger loadings (non peak hour) were fairly good.

 

[D6975]

Therefore 48 2 car Class 156 units to be displaced would seem reasonable.

It may seem reasonable, but it's not possible.

Scotrail require 156s for the West Highland lines - about 10 sets-ish.
Unless the panoramic DMUs materialise, there's nothing else that's allowed up there and is suitable.

 

[Manchester77]

Would be logical for Middleborough to see an improvement in terms if through service (i.e. more than just local services with a few going slightly further afield). As the one time I went there passenger loadings (non peak hour) were fairly good.

Hopefully it would be seen as an adequate replacement for the TPE services.

 

[ainsworth74]

AIUI, it has been proposed/suggested to divert the Cross-Country Newcastle terminators to Middlesbrough to ensure Teesside retains some longer-distance services.

That, I think, was a suggestion on the forum not from an official source. Though I'm happy to be corrected.

 

[cf111]

It may seem reasonable, but it's not possible.

Scotrail require 156s for the West Highland lines - about 10 sets-ish.
Unless the panoramic DMUs materialise, there's nothing else that's allowed up there and is suitable.

I suppose the only alternative would be do perform the required work to allow 158s or 170s to run on the WHL. I think the issue is with doors striking platforms so goodness knows how much that would cost but I suppose it'd need to be done because the 156s aren't going to last forever. Of course not an issue if the shiny new tourists trains appear, like you say.

 

[northwichcat]

Unless the panoramic DMUs materialise, there's nothing else that's allowed up there and is suitable.

And if they do materialise then they would give an up-to-date diesel traction system, the lack of which is one of the reasons given for not ordering new DMUs.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The rumours were that it would be loco hauled stock of some description. The same TSI-PRM and retention toilet requirements apply across the entire rail network so the same work would need to be done to the ex-HST/LHCS Mk3s for scenic routes as with any other line. Since the concept of having 'scenic trains' has been floating around for a while I do wonder if CAF's decision to open a production line for the sleeper carriages (compromising low-density restaurant/day carriages as well) was also based on the idea of getting 'scenic trains' orders.

 

[158722]

I suppose the only alternative would be do perform the required work to allow 158s or 170s to run on the WHL. I think the issue is with doors striking platforms so goodness knows how much that would cost but I suppose it'd need to be done because the 156s aren't going to last forever. Of course not an issue if the shiny new tourists trains appear, like you say.

I've mentioned this before, but whilst 158s are not currently cleared for the WHL, it is a paperwork only issue, with physical clearance works already done. Interestingly, the restrictions were on the North Clyde network, not the WHL itself.

 

[D6975]

The rumours were that it would be loco hauled stock of some description. The same TSI-PRM and retention toilet requirements apply across the entire rail network so the same work would need to be done to the ex-HST/LHCS Mk3s for scenic routes as with any other line. Since the concept of having 'scenic trains' has been floating around for a while I do wonder if CAF's decision to open a production line for the sleeper carriages (compromising low-density restaurant/day carriages as well) was also based on the idea of getting 'scenic trains' orders.

I agree, reverting to LHCS is the best answer. It also partly avoids the diesel/electric/bimode question as the coaches could be in sets rather like a TC unit, cabs both ends but traction provided by a loco - diesel or electric. Maybe a small generator in the unit for lighting etc when not connected up to a loco. The problem with getting compliant engines under the floor is no longer relevant.
A new medium power Bo-Bo anyone?

 

[AM9]

I agree, reverting to LHCS is the best answer. It also partly avoids the diesel/electric/bimode question as the coaches could be in sets rather like a TC unit, cabs both ends but traction provided by a loco - diesel or electric. Maybe a small generator in the unit for lighting etc when not connected up to a loco. The problem with getting compliant engines under the floor is no longer relevant.
A new medium power Bo-Bo anyone?

If there are any suitable locos around, would they still have grandfather rights to run polluting engines?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If there are any suitable locos around, would they still have grandfather rights to run polluting engines?

Yes. The emissions standards only apply to new stock, thankfully... Otherwise we'd need to replace the 66s, 150s, 170s, 185s even! Though also the voyagers which wouldn't be a bad thing other than for the cost!

 

[edwin_m]

If there are any suitable locos around, would they still have grandfather rights to run polluting engines?

Existing engines can continue to be operate and be maintained, including the manufacture of new spare parts, without being upgraded to meet subsequent emissions regulations. But any new engines must comply with the latest standards. This is partly why we've seen a mini-flurry of new 66 orders recently, as this design can no longer be produced after the drop-dead date.

 

[Class 170101]

I've mentioned this before, but whilst 158s are not currently cleared for the WHL, it is a paperwork only issue, with physical clearance works already done. Interestingly, the restrictions were on the North Clyde network, not the WHL itself.

I understood 156s were used on the WHL due to unit maintenance and driver training issues with 158s running on the Far North they cycle around between Inverness and Haymarket with the 156s cycling around Glasgow depots.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Existing engines can continue to be operate and be maintained, including the manufacture of new spare parts, without being upgraded to meet subsequent emissions regulations. But any new engines must comply with the latest standards. This is partly why we've seen a mini-flurry of new 66 orders recently, as this design can no longer be produced after the drop-dead date.

Assuming Cameron doesn't get his way and we leave the EU, presumably then we could stuff the emmissions regulations if we so wished.

 

[AM9]

Assuming Cameron doesn't get his way and we leave the EU, presumably then we could stuff the emmissions regulations if we so wished.

Of course, nitrogen oxide and particulates all round then.

 

[edwin_m]

Assuming Cameron doesn't get his way and we leave the EU, presumably then we could stuff the emmissions regulations if we so wished.

Scotland is much more pro-EU than England, so (assuming they reject independence this year) a British exit from the EU could be the trigger for them to break from the UK to stay in the EU. So any train that would or might operate in Scotland would still have to comply. Manufacturers and leasing companies would be loath to split the already small "UK-standard" rolling stock market into Scotland and the rest, so in the same way as most of our EMUs are specified for either electrification system any new DMUs would still be specified to run in Scotland.

[post somewhat tongue-in-cheek, not intended to start an independence debate!]

 

[D6975]

If there are any suitable locos around, would they still have grandfather rights to run polluting engines?

They would.
Wouldn't it be great to have 37s going up the WHL again?

 

[ac6000cw]

They would.
Wouldn't it be great to have 37s going up the WHL again?

....although given that DRS is looking into re-engining their 37s, I suspect the days of EE 12CSVTs are numbered (as are Sulzer 12LDA28-Cs)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Assuming Cameron doesn't get his way and we leave the EU, presumably then we could stuff the emmissions regulations if we so wished.

Not necessarily.
We have signed up to global targets to reduce emissions.
The EU scheme is just the one we are in at the moment.

 

[NotATrainspott]

If there were enough re-engined 73s to do the job it would be great, especially if coupled to new CAF stock that were simply more of the day sleeper coach designs. The 67s are a bit overpowered for any regular passenger duties on the RETB lines, especially when they're capable of pulling the full load 16 rake to/from London.

 

[Class 170101]

Not necessarily.
We have signed up to global targets to reduce emissions.
The EU scheme is just the one we are in at the moment.

Global targets just seem less of an issue to the railway it seems compared the EU targets, reference Stage 3B engines which only the news DRS Class 88 locomotive will comply with.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They would.
Wouldn't it be great to have 37s going up the WHL again?

Interestingly in RAIL 754 the front page editorial (by Richard Clinnick) talks about this and actually makes the comment that older locos 'retired' in the 1990s are now being restored to use as they aren't covered by the regulations even though these will be dirtier than the 3A regulatuions currently permitted, and perversely still legal.
(Snipped from RAIL).

 

[edwin_m]

Aren't the 73s having new engines? If so they will have to comply with latest emissions regulations. However they would probably retain grandfather rights on a range of railway standards.

 

[jopsuk]

Global targets just seem less of an issue to the railway it seems compared the EU targets, reference Stage 3B engines which only the news DRS Class 88 locomotive will comply with.

I don't think you quite understand- there are global targets that are then implemented by countries or unions of countries in slightly different ways- though the standards used are being gradually harmonised- eventually EU and US regulations will almost certainly be in alignment. But because the regulations in each area started off wildly different they end up taking a different path to the same end.

Even if the UK (or the remaining UK, potentially) leaves the EU it would become an international pariah if it decided to leave international emissions reduction agreements. Plus, the only non-compliant engines that anyone would be able to get would be built in the UK and would have almost zero export market.

 

[yorksrob]

So if the problem is that we can't build an underfloor engine to fit in with our loading guage that meets modern emmissions targets, perhaps we should reconsider the idea of a power car with an engine compartment. (Hopefully this wouldn't need to take up half a carriage as with the thumpers). Short platforms could be overcome with SDO.

 

[HSTEd]

Or just invest that development money in the aforementioned wiring trains.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Interestingly in RAIL 754 the front page editorial (by Richard Clinnick) talks about this and actually makes the comment that older locos 'retired' in the 1990s are now being restored to use as they aren't covered by the regulations even though these will be dirtier than the 3A regulatuions currently permitted, and perversely still legal.(Snipped from RAIL).

Could we see heritage DMUs being fitted with central locking and TPWS and being used again on branch lines?