"No new DMU orders in CP5"

[IanXC]

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.

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

I must admit the 3 times figure was based on a resident of Middleborogh telling me the population is just over 100,000 and comparing that with the Hull City Council proposed boundary which would give a population of approximatelt 320,000. Researching more solid figures reveals:

Hull City Council area: 256,000
Hull's Larger Economic Zone: 573,000

Middlebrough Borough Council area: 138,000
Teeside built up area: 376,000

None of which is conclusive, but demonstrates the broad situation.

 

[ainsworth74]

I must admit the 3 times figure was based on a resident of Middleborogh telling me the population is just over 100,000

I said 'over 100,000' there was no 'just' none at all!

Failing that I'll go for Redcar not being in Middlesbrough so I'm not actually a resident!

 

[ac6000cw]

If there are big problems in obtaining/fitting compliant 'horizontal' diesel engines under the floor, why not go for a version of the articulated Stadler 'GTW' design which uses a centre 'power module' to house the power equipment above floor level - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_GTW and http://www.stadlerrail.com/en/vehicles/gtw/

They've sold a lot of them in Europe and the US, so it's a well-proven basic design, which presumably uses standard 'vertical' diesel engines. I know the GTW is a low-floor design, but I'm sure you could adapt the basic concept to a high-floor UK design. The advantage of the power module is that it helps to isolate engine vibration and noise from the passenger accommodation.

Like some others on this thread, as an engineer I don't really buy the 'can't be done' line - it's just a design problem to solve, that's how engineers get motivated and earn their keep

 

[NotATrainspott]

If there are big problems in obtaining/fitting compliant 'horizontal' diesel engines under the floor, why not go for a version of the articulated Stadler 'GTW' design which uses a centre 'power module' to house the power equipment above floor level - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_GTW and http://www.stadlerrail.com/en/vehicles/gtw/

They've sold a lot of them in Europe and the US, so it's a well-proven basic design, which presumably uses standard 'vertical' diesel engines.

Like some others on this thread, as an engineer I don't really buy the 'can't be done' line - it's just a design problem to solve, that's how engineers get motivated and earn their keep

It's a well-proven basic design that can be used all around the world except in Great Britain and Ireland. Since our loading gauge is significantly smaller it would necessitate a complete redesign, which may then prevent the vertical diesel engine section entirely.

The challenge is not how to fit a compliant diesel engine in the loading gauge. The challenge is that any extra DMUs could quite quickly become unnecessary in only a few years once electrification has spread. The least bad technical solution is to buy bi-mode regional units and cascade their current diesel-only trains onto diesel routes, or to acquire specialised rolling stock that will live out their useful life on routes that will never be electrified.

 

[po8crg]

I'm increasingly of the view that the long-term solution for rural routes that will never be electrified will be LHCS. It will always be easier to build in filters and so on for an engine in a loco with a lot more space than an under-floor engine in a DMU. In extremis, there is even the option of attaching a tender to the loco and routing exhaust through the tender.

These rural routes will never have high demand (by definition - if they do have high demand, then they would justify electrification), so the trains are not going to be long enough that a loco will create problems with platform lengths. The rural stations will be fine to have the loco hanging off the end of the platform if they have very short platforms (and SDO if needed); there won't be points to foul and signalling is pretty basic and easy to move to allow that. These lines tend to run to a more major station at one end (e.g. West Highland into Glasgow, Far North and Kyle of Lochalsh to Inverness), where there will be room for three or four carriages and a loco (and, probably, a DVT/DBSO to allow push-pull operation) on a platform that's probably also taking six or eight coach EMUs.

Obviously, LHCS is not as efficient as DMU operation, but these lines are getting a handful of daily trains, not a multiple tph service, so they're having to be subsidised to exist anyway; balancing cheaper purchase against higher running costs is a perfectly reasonable decision.

For the rest of the network, the challenge is whether we can electrify the network faster than existing DMUs hit end-of-life. If we can, then that seems far more sensible than ordering custom, GB-only DMUs that will involve paying someone a lot of money to overcome the engineering challenges. If not, then DfT should lay out when the order will be required, put out an early ITT and give trainbuilders time to address the engineering difficulties in the design stage, issue one substantial order to amortise the design-cost, and then plan the electrification so these last DMUs can get a full life-span before being replaced by electrification. They could, of course, be planned to end their lives on the non-electric rural lines before being replaced by LHCS in the 2050s or 2060s.

 

[ac6000cw]

It's a well-proven basic design that can be used all around the world except in Great Britain and Ireland. Since our loading gauge is significantly smaller it would necessitate a complete redesign, which may then prevent the vertical diesel engine section entirely.

The challenge is not how to fit a compliant diesel engine in the loading gauge. The challenge is that any extra DMUs could quite quickly become unnecessary in only a few years once electrification has spread. The least bad technical solution is to buy bi-mode regional units and cascade their current diesel-only trains onto diesel routes, or to acquire specialised rolling stock that will live out their useful life on routes that will never be electrified.

It is the GTW concept that I think is innovative (I'm well aware that the existing design is not usable in the UK !).

I agree that we shouldn't be buying new DMUs if we can possibly avoid it, and should be electrifying busier routes as quickly as possible to enable cascading of existing DMUs down the food chain (pushing Pacers off the end, if possible).

 

[Wolfie]

It is the GTW concept that I think is innovative (I'm well aware that the existing design is not usable in the UK !).

I agree that we shouldn't be buying new DMUs if we can possibly avoid it, and should be electrifying busier routes as quickly as possible to enable cascading of existing DMUs down the food chain (pushing Pacers off the end, if possible).

my bold

No, no... Pacers have a valuable role in the food chain.....

Housing chickens!

 

[ac6000cw]

my bold

No, no... Pacers have a valuable role in the food chain.....

Housing chickens!

Need to be careful though - they might hatch some new ones (but I suppose they could be battery hens, useful for hybrid Pacers ? )

 

[HSTEd]

I'm increasingly of the view that the long-term solution for rural routes that will never be electrified will be LHCS. It will always be easier to build in filters and so on for an engine in a loco with a lot more space than an under-floor engine in a DMU. In extremis, there is even the option of attaching a tender to the loco and routing exhaust through the tender.

These rural routes will never have high demand (by definition - if they do have high demand, then they would justify electrification), so the trains are not going to be long enough that a loco will create problems with platform lengths. The rural stations will be fine to have the loco hanging off the end of the platform if they have very short platforms (and SDO if needed); there won't be points to foul and signalling is pretty basic and easy to move to allow that. These lines tend to run to a more major station at one end (e.g. West Highland into Glasgow, Far North and Kyle of Lochalsh to Inverness), where there will be room for three or four carriages and a loco (and, probably, a DVT/DBSO to allow push-pull operation) on a platform that's probably also taking six or eight coach EMUs.

Obviously, LHCS is not as efficient as DMU operation, but these lines are getting a handful of daily trains, not a multiple tph service, so they're having to be subsidised to exist anyway; balancing cheaper purchase against higher running costs is a perfectly reasonable decision.

At which point I would support simply closing these lines.
LHCS is never going to be an affordable option.
Could probably pay for services by bush planes for less than running that railway.

In the end the options are electrification or closure.
And WHL electrification would be cheap due to the light nature of the traffic (a handful of short EMUs and maybe the occasional pway/short goods train).
Single end feeding from the south would almost certainly be sufficient.

 

[Olaf]

Useful background reading regarding the current long term strategy:
http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/downloads/Rolling Stock Strategy February 2014.pdf

 

[deltic08]

At which point I would support simply closing these lines.
LHCS is never going to be an affordable option.
Could probably pay for services by bush planes for less than running that railway.

In the end the options are electrification or closure.
And WHL electrification would be cheap due to the light nature of the traffic (a handful of short EMUs and maybe the occasional pway/short goods train).
Single end feeding from the south would almost certainly be sufficient.

Single ended feeding of 160 miles of route is very risky. As the WHL passes extremely close to three hydro stations, I would imagine the line would be fed from these.

Electrifying the WHL is a good idea being mostly single track with very few overbridges but I don't know how it would be installed over Rannoch Moor to maintain registration of the overhead wire.

 

[starrymarkb]

The same way the Swiss build over their exposed mountains Closer supports Could even go for a solid rail

 

[HSTEd]

Additionally since it is mostly single track it should be possible to arrange for the supports to always be placed on the 'less scenic' side.

 

[bangor-toad]

Hi there,
I think that the only solution will be to eventually manufacture a new batch of DEMUs. This isn't going to be a short term choice but one that'll be forced in about 8 to 10 years as the Pacers and 153/5/6's finally wear out.

As compliant diesel engines no longer fit under the body then the decision will be made to bring them back into the main body. I can see the class 210 as being the conceptual model for this.

The differences would be that there would be a passenger walkway past the engine to allow for multiple unit to be connected and that there would be a relatively simple way to remove the engine to convert it to an EMU by replacing it with a transformer at some point in the future if required. Designed right you could even have a multi function engine bay that could take combinations of a diesel engine, OHLE equipment, 3rd rail stuff or some new fangled battery technology that'd work with discontinuous electrification...

Modern engines are smaller than the old beasts in the 205, 207 or 210's. There's no reason this couldn't happen right but the idea of ordering D(E)MU's is currently still very uncertain...

Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[starrymarkb]

Hi there,
I think that the only solution will be to eventually manufacture a new batch of DEMUs. This isn't going to be a short term choice but one that'll be forced in about 8 to 10 years as the Pacers and 153/5/6's finally wear out.

As compliant diesel engines no longer fit under the body then the decision will be made to bring them back into the main body. I can see the class 210 as being the conceptual model for this.

The differences would be that there would be a passenger walkway past the engine to allow for multiple unit to be connected and that there would be a relatively simple way to remove the engine to convert it to an EMU by replacing it with a transformer at some point in the future if required. Designed right you could even have a multi function engine bay that could take combinations of a diesel engine, OHLE equipment, 3rd rail stuff or some new fangled battery technology that'd work with discontinuous electrification...

Modern engines are smaller than the old beasts in the 205, 207 or 210's. There's no reason this couldn't happen right but the idea of ordering D(E)MU's is currently still very uncertain...

Cheers,
Mr Toad

That's pretty much what a Stadler GTW is - though there isn't enough room in UK size for the Engines (Two MAN Truck engines driving generators) and a usable passenger walkway. (It's a tight squeeze in Continental Gauge)

 

[OxtedL]

Useful background reading regarding the current long term strategy:
http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/downloads/Rolling Stock Strategy February 2014.pdf

I was about to post a slightly older version of that (as discussed here at the time).

Your link is very useful. In particular it gives some statistics about electrification scenarios (p.10), lots of juicy tables about numbers of particular types of stock (p.15), and includes the rather helpful paragraph (p.19):

67. Assuming that the current policy of a rolling electrification programme continues in CP6, the analysis suggests that no new diesel vehicles (or other self-powered vehicles) would be required to be built in either CP5 or CP6.

and then on page 29:

117. The RSS forecasts that there would be no requirement for any new diesel or hybrid rolling stock whilst a long term electrification programme proceeds. It is possible that no more than 100 new self-powered vehicles may be required to be built in the 30 years to 2043 - probably in the second half of this period, and principally to serve routes that are unlikely ever to be electrified - if legislation permits the continued operation of DMUs built in the post-privatisation period.
Alternatively, further strengthening of emissions legislation might require up to 1,500 new self-powered vehicles over this 30 year period.

This, I think, conclusively demonstrates that the current lack of DMU orders and indeed DMU designs comes from strategy-based decisions, at a high level.

 

[apk55]

The figures in the report suggest that the self powered fleet in 30 years time will only be 20 to 25% of current fleet size in term of number of cars assuming electrification continues at the current rate. The number of units might be slighly higher as the the main requirment would be for small (2 or 3 car units).

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Could the engines still be underneath with the emissions stuff in the body?

 

[Olaf]

This, I think, conclusively demonstrates that the current lack of DMU orders and indeed DMU designs comes from strategy-based decisions, at a high level.

Exactly. As it stands, there is deemed to be no requirement in the near future for additional DMUs.

 

[Haydn1971]

Exactly. As it stands, there is deemed to be no requirement in the near future for additional DMUs.

A tightening of emissions regulations would soon change that - not beyond the realms of fantasy....

 

[NotATrainspott]

A tightening of emissions regulations would soon change that - not beyond the realms of fantasy....

The precedent that would set would be difficult though on the railways. Buses could manage, when each bus costs a tenth of what a carriage costs and they become life-expired after only a decade or so. Trains, with their 30 to 40 year life, would have very significant difficulties. More importantly though the vast majority of diesel trains will pollute comparatively similar amounts (per kilowatt of power), as the rules on their emissions have only relatively recently come into force. Therefore banning non-compliant trains would mean that the vast majority of all diesel trains would have to go at exactly the same time, which would clearly be cataclysmic for the railways.

What is possibly more probable is that diesel-only trains will be in some way restricted from serving relatively enclosed stations. At worst that could mean an outright ban but it's possible that at major stations like Waverley they would be limited in number and they would not be able to spend any more time idling under the canopies than is absolutely necessary. Pollution from diesel trains here is not as much an environmental problem as a health problem for the people who work at the station. Improving air quality and reducing noise will make major stations more attractive places for businesses so there's a commercial benefit to NR and the TOCs by doing this. It also makes it easier to fit in over-site development if there's no need for massive ventilation systems, which makes me feel that the post-HS2 Euston will have an outright ban on diesel trains.

 

[po8crg]

Improving air quality and reducing noise will make major stations more attractive places for businesses so there's a commercial benefit to NR and the TOCs by doing this. It also makes it easier to fit in over-site development if there's no need for massive ventilation systems, which makes me feel that the post-HS2 Euston will have an outright ban on diesel trains.

What diesels call at Euston at the moment? Is it just the Voyagers for Chester and North Wales?

Electrifying Crewe-Chester seems to be being talked about, but I doubt that the North Wales Coast Line will be a very high priority for the electrification programme, and there will certainly continue to be trains to Holyhead - I guess they could use Class 800s for those, though that does mean that they can't use HS2 for the London-Crewe segment of the journey.

 

[jopsuk]

Once EGIP is complete and the IEP SETs running the number of diesels using Edinburgh Waverly will be substantially reduced. I can see there at that time being an increased clamour to wire Fife, Aberdeen- and possibly Perth via all routes, though possibly not Perth-Inverness. If the borders line was then done as well, it may leave just Cross Country and Edinburgh-Inverness services using diesels. That much traffic could be easily handled by platforms 8 & 9 (outside the shed on the north side).

 

[northwichcat]

What diesels call at Euston at the moment? Is it just the Voyagers for Chester and North Wales?

There's also some London-Scotland via Birmingham Voyager services. Remember Virgin insisted on keeping Voyagers on Birmingham-Scotland services prior to it being tagged on to London-Birmingham due to diversionary routes not being electrified.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What diesels call at Euston at the moment? Is it just the Voyagers for Chester and North Wales?

Electrifying Crewe-Chester seems to be being talked about, but I doubt that the North Wales Coast Line will be a very high priority for the electrification programme, and there will certainly continue to be trains to Holyhead - I guess they could use Class 800s for those, though that does mean that they can't use HS2 for the London-Crewe segment of the journey.

The Virgin and First bids in the aborted 2012 franchise planned to use new locos to haul new 6-car Pendolinos off the wires west of Crewe/Wolverhampton.
Until the 2017 long WC franchise is let there won't be any change to the current Voyager operation.
There are very rare 57+390 workings Crewe-Holyhead during WCML closures, when they need the Voyagers elsewhere, but they are not being used during the current Watford blocks.
IEPs won't work regularly on the WCML, at least not before HS2, as they don't tilt and would be limited to 110mph.
Crewe-Chester and Warrington-Chester are on the list of northern lines being reviewed for early electrification.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Electrification of Chester and North Wales is a possibility for CP7 so that classic-compatibles may reach Holyhead as it's the sort of improvement that David Higgins is so keen on seeing HS2 Ltd and Network Rail work together to deliver benefits for the wider country. At the very least it would mean that North Wales would have direct HS2 services, so there's no justification to consider Barnett consequentials (if they still exist, that is).

 

[northwichcat]

The Virgin and First bids in the aborted 2012 franchise planned to use new locos to haul new 6-car Pendolinos off the wires west of Crewe/Wolverhampton.

The First bid was to introduce new 6 car EMUs, Roger Ford claimed a new untried CAF design was of interest to them more than the Pendolino. The order would have been smaller than the one proposed in the Virgin bid but First would have retained Voyagers as well to use on services to/from Shrewsbury, Chester and North Wales, whereas Virgin would have released all the Voyagers. Virgin also proposed ordering new diesel-electric locos to serve unelectrified destinations, while First didn't.

 

[Class83]

The First bid was to introduce new 6 car EMUs, Roger Ford claimed a new untried CAF design was of interest to them more than the Pendolino. The order would have been smaller than the one proposed in the Virgin bid but First would have retained Voyagers as well to use on services to/from Shrewsbury, Chester and North Wales, whereas Virgin would have released all the Voyagers. Virgin also proposed ordering new diesel-electric locos to serve unelectrified destinations, while First didn't.

Would 6 Car units be sufficient for this route. It's mostly double Voyagers or Pendolinos now so would probably need an order for either enough 5 car units to allow doubling or 9 car units (possibly 7+2 formation).

 

[The Ham]

Once EGIP is complete and the IEP SETs running the number of diesels using Edinburgh Waverly will be substantially reduced. I can see there at that time being an increased clamour to wire Fife, Aberdeen- and possibly Perth via all routes, though possibly not Perth-Inverness. If the borders line was then done as well, it may leave just Cross Country and Edinburgh-Inverness services using diesels. That much traffic could be easily handled by platforms 8 & 9 (outside the shed on the north side).

Even the number of XC services affected could be reduced by electrification elsewhere.

 

[northwichcat]

Would 6 Car units be sufficient for this route. It's mostly double Voyagers or Pendolinos now so would probably need an order for either enough 5 car units to allow doubling or 9 car units (possibly 7+2 formation).

Well Virgin proposed ordering 6 car 390s to replace the Voyagers so new 6 car trains replacing 5 car Voyagers was common in both bids.