"No new DMU orders in CP5"

[deltic08]

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

Yes, most definitely.

 

[yorksrob]

But do we really, in our heart of hearts, think that we will electrify enough mileage so that if we don't build any more non-InterCity DMU's the current ones will be able to be replaced on life expiry without there being a shortage ?

I'm highly sceptical

 

[HSTEd]

Well we certainly won't if we keep throwing money at gimmick solutions.

We have a proven solution.
We have plenty of spare electric units that will do in a pinch, so the budget for near term diesel purchases can instead go to electrification.

 

[yorksrob]

Well we certainly won't if we keep throwing money at gimmick solutions.

We have a proven solution.
We have plenty of spare electric units that will do in a pinch, so the budget for near term diesel purchases can instead go to electrification.

So putting the engine somewhere else on the train is going to require having more money thrown at it than absolutely massive infrastructure expenditure on thousands of miles of routes that all Governments have been notoriously squeamish about coughing up for. Not convinced on that one.

From what I understand from this thread, regulations mean that we can't fit an engine under the floor within our loading gauge, so a sensible solution would be to put the engine somewhere else. Call it a gimmick if you like, I call it problem solving.

 

[The Ham]

Although I would love to see a 100% network, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

First off there are a lot of lines to electrify, even doubling the rate of electrficiation it will take a very long time to do it all (given we were at about 33% of the network having been electrified in 2012). There is a total of about 15,000km of rail network in the UK, of which less than 6,000 is currently electrified, leaving us with over 9,000km to wire up. CP5 will take about 1,500km of this, leaving 7,500km. Even allowing for double this in CP6 and CP7 and we are down to about 2,000km (as it's not quite 1,500km per control period and it is over 9,000km to start with).

Linked with the above as more of the network is electrified you start getting dimminishing returns on your electrification teams, as less and less can be done using factory trains and more and more become those lines with tricky features to overcome and more bridge works are required. Meaning that even with double the teams CP7 could be back to about 1,500km. This could then mean that the start of CP8 could still see about 5,000km still to wire up even with throwing double the manpower at it (and probably tripple the cost).

Secondly there are a several lines which only see a few services a day, electrfying these is unlikely to be viable until basicly the rest of the network is electrified (or at least there are few other lines nearby so as to make a DMU fleet wasteful with a high percentage of spare sets needed). Given during CP5 there are lines which are not being wired up with a fairly strong case I doubt that there would be time to wire up enough of the network before a lot of our current DMU's retire in CP6 and CP7 to not purcahse any more DMU's.

If we have to purchase more DMU's anyway as we can not wire up enough of the network, then there is a case not to electrify too fast so as to provide work for said DMU's for a fair length of their lifespan.

However this can be overcome in part by using battery powered trains on short lengths of lines which otherwise would justify early electrification, so as to allow them to be electrified at a later date. As the life span of a battery is less than that of a train, meaning that an new EMU(B) would be able to be converted to a straight EMU at the end of the batteries lifespan as electrification came around to electrifying the line.

It can be further overcome by the use of bi-modal trains (on a potentially longer cycle), which leaves some of the longer lengths of wiring for the factory train(s) to do at a later date whilst focusing on doing lines which free up regional DMU's.

 

[Haydn1971]

From what I understand from this thread, regulations mean that we can't fit an engine under the floor within our loading gauge, so a sensible solution would be to put the engine somewhere else. Call it a gimmick if you like, I call it problem solving.

The "regulations" don't actually mean that an engine can't be fitted under the floor of a new train. What's being assumed is that manufacturers are dragging their feet on providing a solution to the emissions regulations, which is more to do with a lack of orders from the DfT - there are always solutions, repackage the diesel power unit, move parts around, look at revised solutions for exhaust systems and so on - manufacturers aren't going to invest in doing this work without any indication of orders.

The day a regulation says explicitly what I can or can't do will be truly be an amazing day that will go down in the history books - I'll be damned if I can make sense of any statutory instrument the first time I read them

 

[yorksrob]

The "regulations" don't actually mean that an engine can't be fitted under the floor of a new train. What's being assumed is that manufacturers are dragging their feet on providing a solution to the emissions regulations, which is more to do with a lack of orders from the DfT - there are always solutions, repackage the diesel power unit, move parts around, look at revised solutions for exhaust systems and so on - manufacturers aren't going to invest in doing this work without any indication of orders.

The day a regulation says explicitly what I can or can't do will be truly be an amazing day that will go down in the history books - I'll be damned if I can make sense of any statutory instrument the first time I read them

Ah well, if the technical chaps come up with a workaround, that is of course, even better.

 

[IanXC]

There's also a possibility that if Selby-Hull isn't electrified in CP5 that what's shown as the Hull semi-fast in the HLOS will get terminated at Leeds/Selby and run as an EMU service with a diesel Leeds-Hull service and Hull retaining it's direct Manchester service via a diversion of South TPE.

The consultation doesn't include removal of the Manchester via Leeds service. Its purely talking of an additional Manchester service via Sheffield (remember i'll take about 30 minutes longer, and that North TP traincrew will need to retain knowledge of DMU stock for diversionary purposes).

That said, in the likely case Hull-Selby electrification does go ahead I think given the operational issues with terminating at Selby it much more likely to be extended to Hull - potentially picking up the stopping calls off various services which won't be going electric any time soon.

The "regulations" don't actually mean that an engine can't be fitted under the floor of a new train. What's being assumed is that manufacturers are dragging their feet on providing a solution to the emissions regulations, which is more to do with a lack of orders from the DfT - there are always solutions, repackage the diesel power unit, move parts around, look at revised solutions for exhaust systems and so on - manufacturers aren't going to invest in doing this work without any indication of orders.

The day a regulation says explicitly what I can or can't do will be truly be an amazing day that will go down in the history books - I'll be damned if I can make sense of any statutory instrument the first time I read them

Quite - IEP has found a way... More sloping floors anyone!

 

[northwichcat]

The consultation doesn't include removal of the Manchester via Leeds service.

Ending Manchester-Leeds-Hull direct services is an option included if Hull is not electrified.

The route between Hull and Selby is not included in current
electrification plans. However, the evaluation of the case for
Hull-Selby electrification is progressing and a decision is
expected to be taken late 2014 or early 2015. Current demand
to/from Hull is shown in Figure 4.2. This shows the main travel
demand is to towns in East Yorkshire, and to Leeds and
London. If the decision is taken to electrify this route, we would
expect through services between Hull and Manchester to
continue and to be operated with electric rolling stock. If a
decision is made not to electrify the route, the train service
options include:
 A Hull – Leeds diesel service that allows connections to be
made at Leeds for electric services to Manchester and
beyond;
 A through Hull service via the North TransPennine route,
which would require the operation of diesel services ‘under
the electric wires’ to Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester
Airport, Liverpool or Chester.

additional Manchester service via Sheffield (remember i'll take about 30 minutes longer

Don't forget if 6tph on Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds goes ahead then 2tph will become semi-fasts. The DfT HLOS for CP5 (which pre-dates the franchise consultation document) indicates that the semi-fasts would be Manchester to Selby/Hull services which would have 5 calls between Manchester and Leeds (Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury and 2 stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield.) Someone on here claimed Metro were pushing for them to stop at some stations between Huddersfield and Leeds as well as those 5 calls.

 

[IanXC]

Ending Manchester-Leeds-Hull direct services is an option included if Hull is not electrified.

Don't forget if 6tph on Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds goes ahead then 2tph will become semi-fasts. The DfT HLOS for CP5 (which pre-dates the franchise consultation document) indicates that the semi-fasts would be Manchester to Selby/Hull services which would have 5 calls between Manchester and Leeds (Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury and 2 stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield.) Someone on here claimed Metro were pushing for them to stop at some stations between Huddersfield and Leeds as well as those 5 calls.

Indeed, my apologies! I was thinking in the context of the South TP changes - there's no automatic one would replace the other. That's very true about timings, I'm genuinely surprised Hull City Council haven't been more vocal about the potential for journey times to increase. I suppose given the likelihood of electrification any time penalty is likely to be absorbed.

 

[northwichcat]

Indeed, my apologies! I was thinking in the context of the South TP changes - there's no automatic one would replace the other. That's very true about timings, I'm genuinely surprised Hull City Council haven't been more vocal about the potential for journey times to increase. I suppose given the likelihood of electrification any time penalty is likely to be absorbed.

What I was thinking if they announce North TPE will no longer include a Manchester-Hull service, they would announce any South TPE changes at the same time so a news of a new Hull-Sheffield-Manchester service would soften the blow of losing a direct Hull-Leeds-Manchester service.

I'd guess that if Hull isn't electrified in CP5 North TPE will include a Chester-Manchester-Hull diesel service, with Chester-Warrington and Selby-Hull then becoming CP6 electrification projects.

I also think saying the option for cutting Hull services at Leeds isn't the option DfT want to take forward but they've included it so people in Middlesbrough, Scarborough, Barrow and Windermere don't say "What's so special about Hull?"

 

[IanXC]

What I was thinking if they announce North TPE will no longer include a Manchester-Hull service, they would announce any South TPE changes at the same time so a news of a new Hull-Sheffield-Manchester service would soften the blow of losing a direct Hull-Leeds-Manchester service.

I'd guess that if Hull isn't electrified in CP5 North TPE will include a Chester-Manchester-Hull diesel service, with Chester-Warrington and Selby-Hull then becoming CP6 electrification projects.

I also think saying the option for cutting Hull services at Leeds isn't the option DfT want to take forward but they've included it so people in Middlesbrough, Scarborough, Barrow and Windermere don't say "What's so special about Hull?"

Yes I see your point, that would make sense in the unlikely outcome that Hull electrification does not go ahead.

Of course what is different about Hull is that it is at least 3 times larger than any of the other places.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The "regulations" don't actually mean that an engine can't be fitted under the floor of a new train. What's being assumed is that manufacturers are dragging their feet on providing a solution to the emissions regulations, which is more to do with a lack of orders from the DfT - there are always solutions, repackage the diesel power unit, move parts around, look at revised solutions for exhaust systems and so on - manufacturers aren't going to invest in doing this work without any indication of orders.

The day a regulation says explicitly what I can or can't do will be truly be an amazing day that will go down in the history books - I'll be damned if I can make sense of any statutory instrument the first time I read them

Does a DMU necessarily have to use a drive shaft, gears, etc? Could the engine be used to run a generator which would generate power for traction motors (like a normal diesel-electric loco) or would there not be the room underneath to do it (or would it be too heavy)?

 

[edwin_m]

Does a DMU necessarily have to use a drive shaft, gears, etc? Could the engine be used to run a generator which would generate power for traction motors (like a normal diesel-electric loco) or would there not be the room underneath to do it (or would it be too heavy)?

No problem technically to do this - Voyagers do for example - but DMUs have mostly used mechanical or hydraulic rather than electric transmission so it is probably considered to be more economical. However the Diesel Electric Multiple Unit could become more attractive in future for several reasons:

- It is basically an EMU with added diesel engine so bi-mode or even conversions from diesel to electric or vice versa become much easier.
- Related to the above, it may be more economical to produce in small numbers because it is mostly a standard design.
- As you say the engine can go anywhere so it will be possible to fit it above the floor if there is no room for one with the latest emission control equipment underneath. This takes passenger space of course, but may be less of an issue on lightly-used routes.
- Developments in power electronics due to technical progress and particularly the future widespread use on road vehicles may make electric transmissions cheaper while mechanical ones stay about the same price.

 

[ac6000cw]

Could the engine be used to run a generator which would generate power for traction motors (like a normal diesel-electric loco) or would there not be the room underneath to do it (or would it be too heavy)?

Yes - that's exactly how the 220/221/222s work, and the IEP bi-modes on diesel power.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Does a DMU necessarily have to use a drive shaft, gears, etc? Could the engine be used to run a generator which would generate power for traction motors (like a normal diesel-electric loco) or would there not be the room underneath to do it (or would it be too heavy)?

It's not unheard of, see the thumpers, 210, 22x units. You'd probably struggle to fit the compliant engines and all the other gubbins under the floor without the IEP 'sloping floors' solution which strikes me as a bit of a camel-type situation. An engine above the solebar would eat into the saloon space and might create issues for multiple-working (would passengers be permitted to walk through past the engine compartment, for example?). In short, if and when new self-powered units are required, whatever shape it takes will have to be a compromise.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm getting a tad tired of this "trouble fitting under the floor" twaddle - power packs currently fit under the DMU's, I've yet to see anything that adequately explains why power packs have grown bigger in the rail market, yet engine sizes in the road power market have got smaller and more powerful - I don't really but into the emissions argument either, there's plenty of space inside a 23x2.5x3.5 box that typically form a railway carriage. Sloping floors in IEP ? How much so, is that a result of the A Train bodyshell technology or because extra large power packs are being used to allow the potentially never 140mph operation ? Or other bizarre reasons

 

[northwichcat]

Of course what is different about Hull is that it is at least 3 times larger than any of the other places.

Really? The unitary authority of Hull had a population of 256,000 in the 2011 census while unitary authority of Middlesbrough had a population of 138,400. So unless Hull has seen a 61% population increase in just 3 years then it's much closer in size to the other places than you think.

Also, don't forget it's just Brough and Hull that would be affected by ending Manchester-Hull services (assuming Selby-Manchester electric services remain), while truncation of Middlesbrough-Manchester Airport services would affect a total of 5 places. In the case of the Barrow-Manchester services some of the intermediate stops between Barrow and Lancaster are very popular with tourists.

 

[yorksrob]

Really? The unitary authority of Hull had a population of 256,000 in the 2011 census while unitary authority of Middlesbrough had a population of 138,400. So unless Hull has seen a 61% population increase in just 3 years then it's much closer in size to the other places than you think.

Also, don't forget it's just Brough and Hull that would be affected by ending Manchester-Hull services (assuming Selby-Manchester electric services remain), while truncation of Middlesbrough-Manchester Airport services would affect a total of 5 places. In the case of the Barrow-Manchester services some of the intermediate stops between Barrow and Lancaster are very popular with tourists.

I don't know about Middlesbrough, but the conurbation of Hull includes rather a large suburban catchment area which falls within East Yorkshire.

 

[Haydn1971]

Hull "urban area" is about 315,000 based on 2011 census data, that probably doesn't include Beverley which is another 20k, plus maybe another 10k from the nearby villages

 

[northwichcat]

The 256,000 figure for the unitary authority of Hull seems to include just 1 station - Hull. The 138,400 figure for Middlesborough also seems to include just 1 station - Middlesbrough.

A very fair comparison I think!

If you compare station usage then Hull gets 37% more usage than Middlesbrough.

I don't know how you can come up with a fair way to make Hull sound 3 times bigger than Middlesbrough.

 

[Haydn1971]

Well to be fair, Teeside using the same measure as Hull at 315k would have the Teeside Urban Area at 377k, so just as deserving, perhaps a tad more so

 

[ainsworth74]

Perhaps they're equally deserving but Hull has a better service pattern for conversion, is easier to install and has significant local backing unlike Middlesbrough/Teesside...

 

[Class 170101]

And private funding.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm getting a tad tired of this "trouble fitting under the floor" twaddle - power packs currently fit under the DMU's, I've yet to see anything that adequately explains why power packs have grown bigger in the rail market, yet engine sizes in the road power market have got smaller and more powerful - I don't really but into the emissions argument either, there's plenty of space inside a 23x2.5x3.5 box that typically form a railway carriage. Sloping floors in IEP ? How much so, is that a result of the A Train bodyshell technology or because extra large power packs are being used to allow the potentially never 140mph operation ? Or other bizarre reasons

There was a RSSB research project some years ago called (I think) "The future of the diesel engine" - which I can't link to as the site needs registration but I think anyone can register. This was the first time I saw mention of the extra emissions measures making the engine (or the engine plus external equipment to scrub exhaust or whatever) being too big to fit under the floor.

The coach itself may be 23x2.5*3.5 but there's no problem fitting an engine etc in there if you don't mind losing passenger space. The underfloor area is maybe 10x2x0.8m for a 20m vehicle.

The Voyager floor is much higher than that of most other DMUs - this is partly due to the tilt but may also be down to the larger engine needed for 125mph running. The IEP engine must be a similar rating (but to latest emissions standards) but I don't have details to hand of either the engine type used or the actual floor heights.

To answer someone else's point, if it is OK to walk over an underfloor diesel engine then I'm sure a solution can be devised for a gangway past an above-floor engine compartment. The noise and vibration suppression issues are the same and the fire hazard would be less with the engine off to one side than underneath.

 

[tbtc]

The 256,000 figure for the unitary authority of Hull seems to include just 1 station - Hull. The 138,400 figure for Middlesborough also seems to include just 1 station - Middlesbrough.

A very fair comparison I think!

If you compare station usage then Hull gets 37% more usage than Middlesbrough.

I don't know how you can come up with a fair way to make Hull sound 3 times bigger than Middlesbrough.

Rather than worrying about political boundaries or station usage figures (what proportion of Middlesbrough's passenger numbers are for short distance services versus long distance services, same goes for Hull), I think that the more pressing question is what the passenger numbers for a direct service to Manchester are like.

I'd guess that Hull to Manchester is probably a larger market than Middlesbrough to Manchester - partly because a reasonable proportion of travel from Middlesbrough is going to be northbound (to Hartlepool, Sunderland, Newcastle, Metro Centre) plus a reasonable local service (to Darlington, Saltburn etc), whereas Hull has lower demand north (an irregular service to York) and fewer "local" trains.

Plus a chunk of demand from "Greater Teesside" to "Greater Manchester" is going to have a half hourly service from Darlington to Greater Manchester, so anyone living east of Middlesbrough may find it just as easy.

Pure guesswork, of course, as ever...

But do we really, in our heart of hearts, think that we will electrify enough mileage so that if we don't build any more non-InterCity DMU's the current ones will be able to be replaced on life expiry without there being a shortage ?

I'm highly sceptical

Once IEP is introduced we'll have so many high speed diesel trains (180, 220, 221, 222, 800, 801) that we'll be able to withdraw most of the HSTs.

Once we've electrified the CP5 commitments (GWML, MML, Transpennine etc) we'll free up maybe a hundred "regional railways" DMUs - for example the current of peak Valley Lines frequencies require 33 diagrams, so that'll be fortysomething by the time you factor in spare units/ peak extras/ doubling up.

IF CP6 sees a similar amount of electrification (not guaranteed, I know) then we'll see a lot of the "gaps" between these electrified main lines wired up (e.g. once the main Transpennine line is wired then the wiring Calder Valley becomes much more attractive, once the MML is wired to Sheffield then the various lines to Doncaster/ Moorthorpe/ Leeds via Barnsley become more attractive) then I think we'll have enough post-1990 DMUs to run the remaining unelectrified lines come 2024.

So, we wouldn't need to build any new DMUs until maybe 2035 (though by this time the electrification may have continued far enough to allow us to get away with just using post-millenium DMUs).

Of course in the long term everything will be scrapped (to misquote Keynes), but I think that we'll have enough DMUs come 2024 to get away without needing new ones (with the caveat that we'll probably still need some Pacers beyond 2019 for a couple more years).

Although I would love to see a 100% network, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

First off there are a lot of lines to electrify, even doubling the rate of electrficiation it will take a very long time to do it all (given we were at about 33% of the network having been electrified in 2012). There is a total of about 15,000km of rail network in the UK, of which less than 6,000 is currently electrified, leaving us with over 9,000km to wire up. CP5 will take about 1,500km of this, leaving 7,500km. Even allowing for double this in CP6 and CP7 and we are down to about 2,000km (as it's not quite 1,500km per control period and it is over 9,000km to start with).

Linked with the above as more of the network is electrified you start getting dimminishing returns on your electrification teams, as less and less can be done using factory trains and more and more become those lines with tricky features to overcome and more bridge works are required. Meaning that even with double the teams CP7 could be back to about 1,500km. This could then mean that the start of CP8 could still see about 5,000km still to wire up even with throwing double the manpower at it (and probably tripple the cost).

Secondly there are a several lines which only see a few services a day, electrfying these is unlikely to be viable until basicly the rest of the network is electrified (or at least there are few other lines nearby so as to make a DMU fleet wasteful with a high percentage of spare sets needed). Given during CP5 there are lines which are not being wired up with a fairly strong case I doubt that there would be time to wire up enough of the network before a lot of our current DMU's retire in CP6 and CP7 to not purcahse any more DMU's.

If we have to purchase more DMU's anyway as we can not wire up enough of the network, then there is a case not to electrify too fast so as to provide work for said DMU's for a fair length of their lifespan.

However this can be overcome in part by using battery powered trains on short lengths of lines which otherwise would justify early electrification, so as to allow them to be electrified at a later date. As the life span of a battery is less than that of a train, meaning that an new EMU(B) would be able to be converted to a straight EMU at the end of the batteries lifespan as electrification came around to electrifying the line.

It can be further overcome by the use of bi-modal trains (on a potentially longer cycle), which leaves some of the longer lengths of wiring for the factory train(s) to do at a later date whilst focusing on doing lines which free up regional DMU's.

I don't doubt your figures, but I think that there needs to be the context that the 41% quoted in this 2009 document (www.networkrail.co.uk/networkrus_electrification.pdf) provided two thirds of "passenger vehicle miles".

I don't know the percentages, but the final 10% of "passenger vehicle miles" may require the final 20/25% to be electrified, and the economics of wiring the West Highland Line/ Far North/ Heart of Wales etc are going to be very hard to justify (especially as they'll be quite awkward to wire up as they are in tricky geographic terrain).

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

Leaving the EU won't be a magical cure for getting away from many of the kind of things that people complain about the EU for - countries like Norway are outside the tent, have no vote in EU directives, but still have to fit in - plus we've agreed to various international things on emissions (Kyoto and what not).

Plus, who'd build such stock? Nobody in the EU could build it, so we couldn't even import parts from Spain/ Slovakia/ Germany for them to be assembled in Derby/ Newton Aycliffe - we'd have to build every part ourselves.

I'm getting a tad tired of this "trouble fitting under the floor" twaddle - power packs currently fit under the DMU's, I've yet to see anything that adequately explains why power packs have grown bigger in the rail market, yet engine sizes in the road power market have got smaller and more powerful - I don't really but into the emissions argument either, there's plenty of space inside a 23x2.5x3.5 box that typically form a railway carriage

Agreed - low floor buses seem to manage with "cleaner" engines without huge problems - there are reasons not to build DMUs in the short term (electrification will free up enough DMUs to keep us going for a few years), any new build for DMUs is going to be so small that it may not be economical, but I don't buy the "its not physically possible" argument.

 

[jopsuk]

There isn't a current suitable engine that will fit because no-one has built one, it's that simple.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The complication we have here on the Cambrian is etcs, whilst were probably not going to be wired anytime before I retire the Class 158's will be 30 years old in 2021 and life expired not long afterward and whilst in theory there could be some 170/172/175/185 available whose going to stick etcs in them?

 

[Haydn1971]

The coach itself may be 23x2.5*3.5 but there's no problem fitting an engine etc in there if you don't mind losing passenger space. The underfloor area is maybe 10x2x0.8m for a 20m vehicle.

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting putting the engine in the body, I was suggesting that extra space required for emissions cleaning "devices" could be accommodated in the body, leaving the engine underneath.

 

[northwichcat]

I'd guess that Hull to Manchester is probably a larger market than Middlesbrough to Manchester - partly because a reasonable proportion of travel from Middlesbrough is going to be northbound (to Hartlepool, Sunderland, Newcastle, Metro Centre) plus a reasonable local service (to Darlington, Saltburn etc), whereas Hull has lower demand north (an irregular service to York) and fewer "local" trains.

P 47 and P 48 shows current demand to/from Hull & Middlesbrough: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...320806/northern-transpennine-consultation.pdf

The problem is 32% of Middlesbrough's demand is classed as 'other' and 25% of Hull's demand is other, so we don't know how much of the 'other' includes destinations which involve going via Manchester such as Liverpool and Manchester Airport.