Options For Additional Stock That Weren't Taken Up

[JamesT]

What was the thinking behind having that option? I can't see a scenario where anywhere close to that number of extra locos could have found use on the ECML at the time and for other electrified routes 90s were a better option.

Originally the Class 91 was going to be the common locomotive for both ECML and WCML. The 25 additional would have been the WCML fleet. https://www.railmagazine.com/news/rail-features/class-91spromise-unfulfilled

 

[Speed43125]

What was the thinking behind having that option? I can't see a scenario where anywhere close to that number of extra locos could have found use on the ECML at the time and for other electrified routes 90s were a better option.

Essentially WCML work, with tilt fitted Mk.4s, latterly intercity 250 was proposed to cascade the ECML fleet to the WCML by wholesale replacement.

EDIT: beaten to it

 

[Aictos]

Originally the Class 91 was going to be the common locomotive for both ECML and WCML. The 25 additional would have been the WCML fleet. https://www.railmagazine.com/news/rail-features/class-91spromise-unfulfilled

Would have been better having just one electric loco type for both WCML and ECML instead of a mix of Classes 86s, 87s, 90s and 91s.

Also the main reason it didn't go ahead was HM Treasury wouldn't finance both Intercity's plan for the Class 91s as well as Network South East's plan for what became known as the Class 365s, also the decision was politically driven as York Works were facing closure so HMG went with the Class 365 option.

 

[gg1]

Originally the Class 91 was going to be the common locomotive for both ECML and WCML. The 25 additional would have been the WCML fleet. https://www.railmagazine.com/news/rail-features/class-91spromise-unfulfilled

Essentially WCML work, with tilt fitted Mk.4s, latterly intercity 250 was proposed to cascade the ECML fleet to the WCML by wholesale replacement.

EDIT: beaten to it

Thanks, tilt enabled 225 sets make sense as a WCML option.

 

[hacman]

Not to mention back in 2009 (?) When 2 of the ex Silverlink/Overground 508/3s were brought back north to be used as 6 car peak extras on Merseyrail, made it as far as Warrington Arpley where they sat for a few months before being taken back to Eastleigh and scrapped. Apparently as neither Merseyrail nor the leasing company were willing to foot the bill to refurbish them and couldn't come to an agreement.

That seems odd that they made it all the way from London to Warrington before the parties agreed on who'd pay for a refurb... but then this is the railway!

A family member of mine was involved in this from the MerseyTravel side of the situation, and the units were brought up to be assessed and to determine the viability of them and some of the other 508s that were down south being brought back into the Merseyrail fleet.

Inspections were needed as by this point the units of both operators had been refurbished to very different standards, and obviously, maintenance/milage wasn't consistent either.

In the end, the LO and ex-SouthEastern units were determined to be in far worse shape than hoped, and the cost of bringing them up to the standard required was deemed too high, given that plans were already starting for the replacement of the fleet (which as we know took longer than expected).

In hindsight, it's a shame this wasn't done even with the higher cost, given the time taken for the new trains to appear, but at the time there was confidence that the new fleet would have been forthcoming far sooner than where we are currently.

 

[prod_pep]

Indeed, should all 47 507's have existed, all the unused car numbers up to 64460/71388 would have been used up. As for the 58 intended 508's, they were listed in a RCTS stock book from the late 1970's (1978??) including the intended car numbers (up to 64764/71598). There was another gap between the end of the 314's and the start of the 508's, 64615 to 64648/71466-71482 were unused, which would equal 17 3 car units (more 314's or something else??)

Good spot regarding this gap and I believe it was indeed for unbuilt 314s. I'm sure it was planned for a larger fleet of 314s (i.e. 33 units) to provide all Argyle Line workings and a number of the North Electric services from Queen Street low level, too. In the end, rationalisation of Strathclyde services and cooled ambitions allowed the bare minimum of 16 sets to be constructed with 303s and 311s drafted in to cover some Argyle Line diagrams from day one. It wasn't long before the 303s, 311s and 314s became common across all low level workings; the 314s had a lot of work via Queen Street before the 320s arrived.

The same is true of the 507s to an extent. The plan for 47 was shelved long before a measly 30 were ordered by BR in a last-minute scale back from 38, hence the 64400-64404 gap. Reportedly PTE pressure (and possibly extra funding) permitted an additional three to be built, but after the 508s. For a while it was planned to retain a number of 502s (17 I seem to recall, to cover for the unbuilt 507s) and tart them up, keeping them for Kirkby-Garston and peak Southport and Ormskirk runs until additional replacement stock was sought. Ultimately a combination of Class 503s on Kirkby-Garston, the additional 507 trio and the early arrival of the first 508s from the south put paid to this idea and the 502s bowed out in 1980.

There is also some confusion over the 508s always being intended for Merseyside. I think the class designation itself was envisaged as Wirral Line replacement stock, before a change of plan saw them built for the Southern. However, once delivered to Wimbledon as four car sets, it was uncertain for some time whether they would actually end up in Liverpool.

There were talks between BR and Merseyside PTE to negotiate before, wisely, the 508s did end up fulfilling their previously anticipated role of seeing off the 503s. The 455/7 fleet was then ordered as a direct replacement for the 508s and incorporated the redundant 508 trailers. A proposal to fit passenger door controls to the 507s to mirror the 508s was, yet again, kyboshed on cost grounds, the 508s instead having their door controls plated over on transfer. It's a shame because the lack of passenger door controls was always one of the main criticisms of Merseyrail's fleet.

Looking at the planned service intervals for the Picc-Vic project, many more than 17 units would have been required. It was seemingly never confirmed whether the 316s were to be 3 car, 4 car or a combination of both. With Picc-Vic already shelved by 1977, the numbering gap is much more likely to have been for unbuilt 314s than 316s.

Apologies for going slightly off-subject but I hope the above is of interest to some.

 

[gka472l]

I believe this gap was indeed for the proposed Class 316 PEP-derived units for the Pic-Vic scheme. Whilst city centre tunneling and modernisation schemes did go-ahead on Merseyside and Tyne & Wear I think the fact that replacing life-expired stock played a part kept those schemes in place, whilst the Pic-Vic scheme would have replaced 1960s stock I believe? Mind you, what a "what if?" thread we could have on service patterns today if the tunnel had been built!

Ah, never though of the Picc-Vicc proposed 316's, I wonder if 17 units would have been enough had it ever happened though......

 

[tbtc]

The Class 316 would have looked like Classes 313-315/507/508. I guess enough differences envisaged that they didn't warrant just being a further batch of 314s.

The Class 210 was a DEMU, looking like the original 317s albeit a third of the Driving Motor was taken up with the above floor engine room. They were prototypes for replacing first generation DMUs, but ultimately Pacers and Sprinters fulfilled this role.

A family member of mine was involved in this from the MerseyTravel side of the situation, and the units were brought up to be assessed and to determine the viability of them and some of the other 508s that were down south being brought back into the Merseyrail fleet.

Inspections were needed as by this point the units of both operators had been refurbished to very different standards, and obviously, maintenance/milage wasn't consistent either.

In the end, the LO and ex-SouthEastern units were determined to be in far worse shape than hoped, and the cost of bringing them up to the standard required was deemed too high, given that plans were already starting for the replacement of the fleet (which as we know took longer than expected).

In hindsight, it's a shame this wasn't done even with the higher cost, given the time taken for the new trains to appear, but at the time there was confidence that the new fleet would have been forthcoming far sooner than where we are currently.

Good spot regarding this gap and I believe it was indeed for unbuilt 314s. I'm sure it was planned for a larger fleet of 314s (i.e. 33 units) to provide all Argyle Line workings and a number of the North Electric services from Queen Street low level, too. In the end, rationalisation of Strathclyde services and cooled ambitions allowed the bare minimum of 16 sets to be constructed with 303s and 311s drafted in to cover some Argyle Line diagrams from day one. It wasn't long before the 303s, 311s and 314s became common across all low level workings; the 314s had a lot of work via Queen Street before the 320s arrived.

The same is true of the 507s to an extent. The plan for 47 was shelved long before a measly 30 were ordered by BR in a last-minute scale back from 38, hence the 64400-64404 gap. Reportedly PTE pressure (and possibly extra funding) permitted an additional three to be built, but after the 508s. For a while it was planned to retain a number of 502s (17 I seem to recall, to cover for the unbuilt 507s) and tart them up, keeping them for Kirkby-Garston and peak Southport and Ormskirk runs until additional replacement stock was sought. Ultimately a combination of Class 503s on Kirkby-Garston, the additional 507 trio and the early arrival of the first 508s from the south put paid to this idea and the 502s bowed out in 1980.

There is also some confusion over the 508s always being intended for Merseyside. I think the class designation itself was envisaged as Wirral Line replacement stock, before a change of plan saw them built for the Southern. However, once delivered to Wimbledon as four car sets, it was uncertain for some time whether they would actually end up in Liverpool.

There were talks between BR and Merseyside PTE to negotiate before, wisely, the 508s did end up fulfilling their previously anticipated role of seeing off the 503s. The 455/7 fleet was then ordered as a direct replacement for the 508s and incorporated the redundant 508 trailers. A proposal to fit passenger door controls to the 507s to mirror the 508s was, yet again, kyboshed on cost grounds, the 508s instead having their door controls plated over on transfer. It's a shame because the lack of passenger door controls was always one of the main criticisms of Merseyrail's fleet.

Looking at the planned service intervals for the Picc-Vic project, many more than 17 units would have been required. It was seemingly never confirmed whether the 316s were to be 3 car, 4 car or a combination of both. With Picc-Vic already shelved by 1977, the numbering gap is much more likely to have been for unbuilt 314s than 316s.

Apologies for going slightly off-subject but I hope the above is of interest to some.

This is brilliant information - thanks all - I have nothing to add but my admiration for the collective knowledge on this Forum

 

[MCR247]

This is brilliant information - thanks all - I have nothing to add but my admiration for the collective knowledge on this Forum

It’s really something isn’t it?

 

[LOL The Irony]

323s, I think? Not all the extra optional batch on top of the original order were ordered in the end, i think cancelled for displaced ex-NSE stock instead?

Yes, they were intended for West Yorkshire PTE but the order got cancelled, with extra trains split between Centro and RR North West.

Class 185 were planned to be 4 car, hence why you have 511xx 531xx and 541xx but no 521xx car. The option to extend wasn't taken

DfT refused and deemed it unnecessary only for the passenger numbers to steadily climb years later leading to mass overcrowding

The story of the 185 procurement is one of could've been's. 56 were signed for, the SRA reduced that to 51. Then when TPE wanted more carriages, they were told no. Those 5 extra units could've allowed for some 6 car trains during the peaks.

 

[jonesy3001]

Didn't northern have an option to get extra carriages for the 195/0s or 331/0s or more 331s, is that dead in the water now?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Didn't northern have an option to get extra carriages for the 195/0s or 331/0s or more 331s, is that dead in the water now?

I don't know about that but I do know Arriva were trying to procure more by before the end of the franchise and DOR Northern were still down with that idea when they took over, but it has gone quiet since.

 

[507021]

I believe this gap was indeed for the proposed Class 316 PEP-derived units for the Pic-Vic scheme. Whilst city centre tunneling and modernisation schemes did go-ahead on Merseyside and Tyne & Wear I think the fact that replacing life-expired stock played a part kept those schemes in place, whilst the Pic-Vic scheme would have replaced 1960s stock I believe? Mind you, what a "what if?" thread we could have on service patterns today if the tunnel had been built!

Thanks for that.

 

[prod_pep]

Repeating myself but the numbering gap was definitely for unbuilt 314s, not the proposed 316s. British PTEs: Strathclyde by Alan Millar confirms that 30 Class 314s were originally planned with a 15 trains per hour frequency through the Argyle Line central section before plans were scaled back.