Pacers for ever

[47802]

I understood it also to be a political issue at the time as the bodies would be built in Belgium and not Derby and thus not safeguarding / creating British jobs at the height of the recession.

Wasn't it was more that the cost was high and potentially with the electric spine some XC services could go electric.

Of course we already have an existing BI Mode in IEP it would seem to me that a small fleet should be considered for XC enough to allow the elimination of XC HST's some capacity increase and a possible cascade of Voyagers onto the Nottingham - Cardiff route freeing up some 170's.

I suspect a regional BI mode DMU will be regarded as to expensive even for the likes of TPX as will IEP for XC.

 

[fowler9]

Wasn't it was more that the cost was high and potentially with the electric spine some XC services could go electric.

Of course we already have an existing BI Mode in IEP it would seem to me that a small fleet should be considered for XC enough to allow the elimination of XC HST's some capacity increase and a possible cascade of Voyagers onto the Nottingham - Cardiff route freeing up some 170's.

I suspect a regional BI mode DMU will be regarded as to expensive even for the likes of TPX as will IEP for XC.

Sorry, I wasn't aware we already had an existing Bi Mod! I must have missed that memo! I thought it was an idea and there wasn't even a prototype made!

 

[NotATrainspott]

Sorry, I wasn't aware we already had an existing Bi Mod! I must have missed that memo! I thought it was an idea and there wasn't even a prototype made!

Since the concept of bi-mode will exist in practice in the Class 800 series it therefore isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the same technology could be fitted to regional trains. Hitachi are building a factory and they wouldn't do that if they weren't going to compete for orders after the IEPs and if they can produce a suitable regional unit derived from it, they would likely have quite an order book building up. I've said it before but if they fitted a flat cab onto their 26m IEP design and were able to detune the traction package down to 180km/h (and possibly remove a proportion of the diesel engines so that it tops out at 160km/h in self-powered mode) they would have a winner. In electric-only guise this train would be the fabled 'AC 444' which would be perfect for Norwich runs and quite likely for the Manchester-Reading XC runs after electrification as well. In bi-mode guise it would be perfect as one of the 'ScotRail InterCity' trains required by the ITT, or as a general-purpose replacement for the 158/159s on long-distance regional runs.

 

[47802]

Since the concept of bi-mode will exist in practice in the Class 800 series it therefore isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the same technology could be fitted to regional trains. Hitachi are building a factory and they wouldn't do that if they weren't going to compete for orders after the IEPs and if they can produce a suitable regional unit derived from it, they would likely have quite an order book building up. I've said it before but if they fitted a flat cab onto their 26m IEP design and were able to detune the traction package down to 180km/h (and possibly remove a proportion of the diesel engines so that it tops out at 160km/h in self-powered mode) they would have a winner. In electric-only guise this train would be the fabled 'AC 444' which would be perfect for Norwich runs and quite likely for the Manchester-Reading XC runs after electrification as well. In bi-mode guise it would be perfect as one of the 'ScotRail InterCity' trains required by the ITT, or as a general-purpose replacement for the 158/159s on long-distance regional runs.

Well except IEP isn't exactly a cheap train, and expect there are alternate 100mph Electric only trains which are cheaper. You can not have a flat cab like a 444 under up coming crash regulations hence the more curved fronts on the Desiro City and new Aventra, I doubt you would want a 26 metre train on regional routes anyway, and if you wanted a version with suburban style doors you would have a problem because the flooring on IEP is raised 4 inches on the non driving trailer cars in order to accommodate the rather large MTU lump and will slope down towards the door ends apparently. The driving trailers can not have an engine due to lower floors, so I guess minimum length would be a 4 car unit with 2 engines.

Given there's a question mark on justifying IEP for south west intercity services how are you going to justify for regional services?

 

[The Ham]

Fiven that (AIUI) IEP (9 coaches) will be ale to run at 40mph with just one engine, it shouldn't be too hard to build a bi-modal train which could run at 75mph or evan a little faster with just 3 coaches (as the train has dropped in length by 1/3 whilst the speed wouldn't have even doubled). Therefore it would mean that although on coach would still require end doors the other two wouldn't. Even so the "end doors" do not have to be hard up one end, nor do they have to be single doors which mean that they could achive some of the benefits of the 1/3 and 2/3 doors.

If a DC/AC/diesel train could be developed where it could run at 100mph/110mph/90mph, then I would have thought that SWT's maybe up for looking to replace their 159's and 158's. I would imagine that they would want such a unit to be 5 coaches long, as although it would mean over provission for some routes it would mean that they could run all their services into Waterloo as 10 coach services without faffing about with 4 sets forming a train. As they would probably need to up the number of coaches and have some works done to allow for a half hourly service to Exeter, it could well be an order for getting on for 200 coaches.

That would then free up 112 coaches of DMU's to be used elsewhere (other than by Northern as no-one there wants London's casts off). This on it's own would likely remove a lot of pacers from the network, as a 3 coach 159 has nearly double the number of seats as some of the existing configerations of pacers (2 coaches).

Add in a few extra for other suitable services (Reading - Gatwick) and some 3 coach versions for use elsewhere and Pacers would be a thing of the past even allowing for providing for growth.

Once proved it could be the choice of train for many partly electrified services. Although it would mean that such routes where less likely to be electrified in the short term it would enable the electrification of the network to keep going at a steady pace without needing to rush to avoid the need for more pure DMU's to be purchaed.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Well except IEP isn't exactly a cheap train, and expect there are alternate 100mph Electric only trains which are cheaper. You can not have a flat cab like a 444 under up coming crash regulations hence the more curved fronts on the Desiro City and new Aventra, I doubt you would want a 26 metre train on regional routes anyway, and if you wanted a version with suburban style doors you would have a problem because the flooring on IEP is raised 4 inches on the non driving trailer cars in order to accommodate the rather large MTU lump and will slope down towards the door ends apparently. The driving trailers can not have an engine due to lower floors, so I guess minimum length would be a 4 car unit with 2 engines.

Given there's a question mark on justifying IEP for south west intercity services how are you going to justify for regional services?

You can still buy trains with flat cabs that are compliant with the crash regs and there's no reason why you couldn't fit it to an IEP carriage. If you want a through corridor, you have something like a Class 380 and if you don't, you have something that looks like a 345 or a 700. Simple.

As I said earlier in the thread these bi-mode units would work on routes where end doors are the best option, with the Turbostars or 15x trains that are used currently being sent to replace the Pacers instead. As a result there's no need to think about putting in suburban layout doors. That shouldn't ever be required anyway because suburban door layout trains should end up on routes short enough to be electrified all at once to be run by bog standard EMUs; these bi-mode trains would be for routes like Central Belt - Aberdeen/Inverness or Waterloo-Exeter-(?Plymouth via Okehampton?) which are long routes done partly under the wires/over the third rail that will take many years to electrify completely. These units therefore make it far easier to concentrate electrification on the short-distance runs that will actually free up Pacers.

 

[northwichcat]

Agree with these points too but I should add it would be possible to get 3 car EMUs - see 313s or newer 323s or even newer 380s on Scotrail. I guess it might be potentially possible to move 319s onto 323s diagrams subject to the timetable still working and move the 323s on to routes previously used by 2 car DMUs so the capacity increase is evenly spread.

Don't forget a 4 car 319 replacing a 3 car 323 is like a 4 car 350/4 replacing a 3 car 185. A 3 car 323 is 70.2m long while a 4 car 319 is 79.2m long.

 

[47802]

You can still buy trains with flat cabs that are compliant with the crash regs and there's no reason why you couldn't fit it to an IEP carriage. If you want a through corridor, you have something like a Class 380 and if you don't, you have something that looks like a 345 or a 700. Simple.
.

I wouldn't exactly call those a flat cabs but ok they are not as big as IEP and allegedly you can still have a corridor connection, although I suspect that's one of the reasons for going increasingly going for fixed formations such as the 6 car formations on such as the new 313 GN replacement trains etc.

As I said earlier in the thread these bi-mode units would work on routes where end doors are the best option, with the Turbostars or 15x trains that are used currently being sent to replace the Pacers instead. As a result there's no need to think about putting in suburban layout doors. That shouldn't ever be required anyway because suburban door layout trains should end up on routes short enough to be electrified all at once to be run by bog standard EMUs; these bi-mode trains would be for routes like Central Belt - Aberdeen/Inverness or Waterloo-Exeter-(?Plymouth via Okehampton?) which are long routes done partly under the wires/over the third rail that will take many years to electrify completely. These units therefore make it far easier to concentrate electrification on the short-distance runs that will actually free up Pacers.

So your basically suggesting a modified version of an expensive and heavy intercity train for regional routes. That might be justifiable on profitable intercity routes but on regional routes its another matter. Possibly the manufacturers including Hitachi could come up with a cheaper bi-mode, but I suspect the costs are still going to be expensive compared to a straight emu in terms of purchase cost and running costs in terms of maintenance and higher fuel costs due to the extra weight, so really you would only want to use them on services where you really need them. The same arguments of course that many people have against IEP. In the case of IEP it was judged a better option than Diesel Dragging, in the case of a regional Bi-mode you would have to judge against possibly more DMU running under the wires and a cascade to replace railbuses.

Somehow I think a more realistic option is to extend the life of the Railbuses until they can be eliminated or see if any manufacturers can produce a compliant cheap and cheerful DMU, and minimise DMU running over electrified routes.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I wouldn't exactly call those a flat cabs but ok they are not as big as IEP and allegedly you can still have a corridor connection, although I suspect that's one of the reasons for going increasingly going for fixed formations such as the 6 car formations on such as the new 313 GN replacement trains etc.

I think the fixed formation trains are more for the extra capacity required on London routes rather than any intrinsic problem with the crashworthiness of corridor connections. The Class 350, with its non-compliant corridor connection, is now allowed to run up to 180km/h so I can't see there being any problem whatsoever at all.

So your basically suggesting a modified version of an expensive and heavy intercity train for regional routes. That might be justifiable on profitable intercity routes but on regional routes its another matter. Possibly the manufacturers including Hitachi could come up with a cheaper bi-mode, but I suspect the costs are still going to be expensive compared to a straight emu in terms of purchase cost and running costs in terms of maintenance and higher fuel costs due to the extra weight, so really you would only want to use them on services where you really need them. The same arguments of course that many people have against IEP.

In effect, yes. Due to the lower maximum design speed of ~180km/h compared to 225km/h+ for the Class 80x series there could be real cost and weight savings from only needing around 2/3rds of the IEP traction package. The headline costs of the Class 80x come from the PFI deal attached but there is no reason why Hitachi could not construct these Class 7xx trains in a standard ROSCO deal. The costs of a bi-mode regional unit have to be compared against the full costs of alternatives: a bi-mode train (or all but most of the diesel engines) is guaranteed to have a full economic life ahead of it whereas any new DMUs would have a far shorter lifespan for the ROSCO to make back their construction cost. Even with the extra weight of the bi-mode equipment the trains would still be far more energy-efficient than diesel-only trains because they wouldn't ever have to run all engines at full power to keep up on 200km/h mainlines like the 185s have to do now.

Somehow I think a more realistic option is to extend the life of the Railbuses until they can be eliminated or see if any manufacturers can produce a compliant cheap and cheerful DMU, and minimise DMU running over electrified routes.

The Chinese would still have the problems of the EU emissions regulations and they are unlikely to be able to meet this without suffering all the same issues that the European manufacturers are.

 

[47802]

I think the fixed formation trains are more for the extra capacity required on London routes rather than any intrinsic problem with the crashworthiness of corridor connections. The Class 350, with its non-compliant corridor connection, is now allowed to run up to 180km/h so I can't see there being any problem whatsoever at all.



In effect, yes. Due to the lower maximum design speed of ~180km/h compared to 225km/h+ for the Class 80x series there could be real cost and weight savings from only needing around 2/3rds of the IEP traction package. The headline costs of the Class 80x come from the PFI deal attached but there is no reason why Hitachi could not construct these Class 7xx trains in a standard ROSCO deal. The costs of a bi-mode regional unit have to be compared against the full costs of alternatives: a bi-mode train (or all but most of the diesel engines) is guaranteed to have a full economic life ahead of it whereas any new DMUs would have a far shorter lifespan for the ROSCO to make back their construction cost. Even with the extra weight of the bi-mode equipment the trains would still be far more energy-efficient than diesel-only trains because they wouldn't ever have to run all engines at full power to keep up on 200km/h mainlines like the 185s have to do now.



The Chinese would still have the problems of the EU emissions regulations and they are unlikely to be able to meet this without suffering all the same issues that the European manufacturers are.

Well yes obviously, but possibly the Chinese might come up with something particularly as the European manufacturers are mainly interested providing EMU's. The argument about life expectancy of DMU's built now well ok if bought loads then you might have a problem eventually, but given a moderate size fleet, are we going to electrify the whole network in the next 25 years somehow I doubt it, and there's a whole fleet of sprinters which are already nearly 30 years old it would seem are likely to be kept even more forever than the Railbuses.

Basically you are saying that you stick a flatter front on and IEP and remove an engine its going to become a whole lot cheaper, somehow I doubt that. If your going to design a regional hybrid then I think you need to look at new design suited to the job, but either way I don't think its going to be particularly cheap.

Yes a Bi-Mode might use less energy than a Diesel under the wires but that depends on how much you are going to do that long term, and that really depends on how quickly Network Rail can continue to progress the electrification program's and how long the government are prepared to continue bank rolling it.

 

[The Ham]

Basically you are saying that you stick a flatter front on and IEP and remove an engine its going to become a whole lot cheaper, somehow I doubt that. If your going to design a regional hybrid then I think you need to look at new design suited to the job, but either way I don't think its going to be particularly cheap.

Yes it will save money. Based on the IEP engine contract (worth over 200 million Euros for 250 engines) for every engine you no longer need the cost goes down by about 1 million Euros. Likewise the number of the fuel tanks is reduced. All of which is then likely to have an impact on the track access charges. All in all the costs will be less.

It could be worth looking at a new design, however that could reduce other costs (see Desiro city vs Desiro as an example of this) which may offset the extra costs of the redesign.

If as has been said before the extra cost of the trains enable other lines to be electrified in time for when the DMU's become life expired then the extra cost could be worth it. For instance lines could you wire up if Basingstoke to Exeter is pushed to near the back of the queue? It is better to wire up a lot of short lines to remove a lot of under the wire running than one longer line where it is fairly profitable route and could cope with a few extra running costs if needed.

It should be noted that the running costs of the trains under the wires (or on 3rd rail sections) would be noticeably less than running them as diesel trains. As such the extra cost of dragging the engines and fuel around is less wasteful than the train dragging their own engines and fuel around all the time.

Before anyone suggests it, no it is unlikely to be viable to drag the trains from Basingstoke. As just to run an hourly service to Exeter and back and an hourly service to Salisbury would require at least 7 locos, which when you are looking at millions per loco wouldn't leave you much difference between that and having the trains as bi-modal. Also good luck in finding the platform space to couple/decouple the trains.

 

[deltic08]

The whole principle of bi mode is barking. Carrying all that unnecessary weight of power unit, switchgear and fuel for short extensions off wire together with vehicle strengthening to take that additional weight is very costly in energy consumption above that of running diesels under the wires.

By the time IEP is introduced on East Coast, electrification will have been started if not completed to Harrogate and Hull leaving only Newark-Lincoln and Edinburgh-Inverness/Aberdeen. That is only 5 trains a day at current frequency. Same or cross platform changes would not be that inconvenient at Edinburgh.

As for bi mode short journey local trains, these should not be encouraged for the reasons stated earlier about deterring in-fill electrification.

 

[The Ham]

The whole principle of bi mode is barking. Carrying all that unnecessary weight of power unit, switchgear and fuel for short extensions off wire together with vehicle strengthening to take that additional weight is very costly in energy consumption above that of running diesels under the wires.

By the time IEP is introduced on East Coast, electrification will have been started if not completed to Harrogate and Hull leaving only Newark-Lincoln and Edinburgh-Inverness/Aberdeen. That is only 5 trains a day at current frequency. Same or cross platform changes would not be that inconvenient at Edinburgh.

As for bi mode short journey local trains, these should not be encouraged for the reasons stated earlier about deterring in-fill electrification.

Which is why I am suggesting it for the Waterloo to Exeter route where it is only electrified to Basingstoke, even if the wires made it to Salisbury that would still only be about 1/2 way and would still be a near half hour service beyond there.

 

[NotATrainspott]

As for bi mode short journey local trains, these should not be encouraged for the reasons stated earlier about deterring in-fill electrification.

That's why I have been banging on about bi-modes being acquired to run only routes that are ideal for it: medium to long distance with significant proportions with and without electrification. That means that no bi-modes would be used to run diesel Caldervale services because they would be far better served by being electrified properly from the start and no bi-modes would run the Cumbrian Coast, Whitby or Kyle of Lochalsh/Wick lines because their electric capability would be entirely wasted. In my opinion bi-mode would be ideal for ScotRail InterCity, especially since not long after they would be introduced on the route the direction of electrification will point upwards towards Perth, Dundee, Inverness and Aberdeen so their electric capability will be used more and more in their lives but it will still take many years for the diesel engines to become completely unnecessary. The 170s freed up from these duties could be sent down south to help rid Northernland of Pacers, either directly replacing them in the Northern fleet or causing additional cascades around England to replace the Pacers.

 

[47802]

That's why I have been banging on about bi-modes being acquired to run only routes that are ideal for it: medium to long distance with significant proportions with and without electrification. That means that no bi-modes would be used to run diesel Caldervale services because they would be far better served by being electrified properly from the start and no bi-modes would run the Cumbrian Coast, Whitby or Kyle of Lochalsh/Wick lines because their electric capability would be entirely wasted. In my opinion bi-mode would be ideal for ScotRail InterCity, especially since not long after they would be introduced on the route the direction of electrification will point upwards towards Perth, Dundee, Inverness and Aberdeen so their electric capability will be used more and more in their lives but it will still take many years for the diesel engines to become completely unnecessary. The 170s freed up from these duties could be sent down south to help rid Northernland of Pacers, either directly replacing them in the Northern fleet or causing additional cascades around England to replace the Pacers.

Well in order to do that I think you would need a Daft led procurement and cascade program which Daft seem to be backing away from, Unless the next Scotrail franchise winners propose Bi-Mode. I know there was some suggestion that Daft were looking at a regional Bi-Mode although I suspect they took a look at the costs and thought twice about it. If it was in their plans then I would have thought it would be indicated in the Northern and TPX consultation Doc's. I doubt bidders for Northern will come up with Pacer replacement option which asks Scotrail to buy some Bi-Modes so Northern can have some 170's.

The benefit Bi-Modes for Scotrail I think it depends on electrification plans, if the plan is to move electrification from Perth to Aberdeen fairly quickly I don't see much point in Bi-Modes, Inverness electrification wise I suspect would be much further off but as the majority of the route would still be under diesel power the benefit of a Bi-Mode would be limited anyway.

I'm not totally against Bi-Mode by any means but there are advantages and disadvantages, I know many people disagree with Bi-Mode for East Coast I personally think its not a bad option, as I think there will be more off wire destinations in the next franchise, Ok some might get electrified but if and when is still not clear for many, while the East Coast has less electrified diversionary options than the West Coast and can not just stick a DMU on there like a regional franchise probably could, you would have to go back to quaint 20th century idea of Diesel Dragging which some people like.

 

[The Ham]

Depending on how long the South Western franchise is let for the new TOC could well be looking to replace the 158's and 159's as they may not last the full length of the franchise (potentially meaning new rolling stock towards the end of a franchise which they tend not to like doing).

As such, depending on whether electrification is on the table, the new franchise holder maybe looking for new trains. In which case if someone comes up with a reasonable option for a bi-modal unit (taking on board whole life costs).

Either way it would free up several pure DMU's with up to about 10 years of life left (depending on when the new trains/electrification comes along) which I'm sure there would be many takers for.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Bi mode has possibilities.
My thoughts are to have a relatively small generator & boost batteries on board. Then to have partial electrification. Eg install OHE on steep inclines, the 1st mile after a station, severe speed restrictions etc.
Speeding up electrification is the long term answer.
The government needs to spend far more money on the railways. This would benefit the whole Nation.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Bi mode has possibilities.
My thoughts are to have a relatively small generator & boost batteries on board. Then to have partial electrification. Eg install OHE on steep inclines, the 1st mile after a station, severe speed restrictions etc.
Speeding up electrification is the long term answer.
The government needs to spend far more money on the railways. This would benefit the whole Nation.

The flipside of your suggestion would probably work better - electrification of everything but the areas where it is particularly difficult, where onboard batteries or a diesel generator would be used to keep moving. The costs of electrification are from doing works to tunnels and bridges which would only take up a small proportion of the total works but at very large cost.

 

[rebmcr]

Depending on how long the South Western franchise is let for the new TOC could well be looking to replace the 158's and 159's as they may not last the full length of the franchise

Really? The Express Sprinters only have about 20 years on them so far, and are perhaps the best DMUs on the network!

 

[northwichcat]

The next SWT franchise starts in 2019. There's talk about the 150s have a life extension program to last until around 2024, so it could be that the next SWT franchise keeps the 158s and 159s for the entire franchise duration, unless their diesel routes are electrified.

 

[The Ham]

the 158's and 159's will be between 21 and 25 years old this year, add 5 years to get to 2019 and they'll be between 26 and 30 years old. Even with a 40 year life that means that a franchise of more than 10 years will see some of them reaching this.

There then comes the question, even assuming electrification happens does this get done soon, so as to allow other lines to use the 158's/159's, or does it happen just in time but with th risk that SW get more DMU's to cope with demand (and they are likely to be able to pay for it without increaing their subsidy).

Is electrifying 126 miles (166 miles if you include Southampton to Salisbury) the best use of resorces to free up DMU's, when it would require a lot of electrification before any units could be moved elsewhere. When there are shorter routes which would remove more under the wire running.

 

[northwichcat]

Even with a 40 year life that means that a franchise of more than 10 years will see some of them reaching this.

Is there any evidence SWT will have a longer next franchise? The next Thameslink, TPE and Northern franchises are going to be 7-8 years with options for 12 month extensions. If the SWT franchise is the same then it could well be the franchise after the next one has the job of acquiring rolling stock to replace the 158s and 159s as one of it's first jobs, assuming no diesel routes are converted to electric traction before that.

Is electrifying 126 miles (166 miles if you include Southampton to Salisbury) the best use of resorces to free up DMU's, when it would require a lot of electrification before any units could be moved elsewhere. When there are shorter routes which would remove more under the wire running.

Well it seems to be strongest business case that's usually used as the reason for wiring lines, not for freeing up most DMUs. The Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester line sees a lot more diesel carriages than the Liverpool-Earlestown-Manchester line but wiring the latter had the stronger business case as it allows Virgin more options for diverting services while remaining 100% under the wires.

 

[The Ham]

Is there any evidence SWT will have a longer next franchise? The next Thameslink, TPE and Northern franchises are going to be 7-8 years with options for 12 month extensions. If the SWT franchise is the same then it could well be the franchise after the next one has the job of acquiring rolling stock to replace the 158s and 159s as one of it's first jobs, assuming no diesel routes are converted to electric traction before that.

No evidance, just an observation. However if the franchise is less than 10 years then it is likely that unless electrification happens early on then it is unlikely to be happening until the franchise after (CP7).

Well it seems to be strongest business case that's usually used as the reason for wiring lines, not for freeing up most DMUs. The Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester line sees a lot more diesel carriages than the Liverpool-Earlestown-Manchester line but wiring the latter had the stronger business case as it allows Virgin more options for diverting services while remaining 100% under the wires.

The line through Salisbury has no advantage for electrification for diversionary purposes, so it is entirely about how many DMU's can be used elsewhere (with that business case being based on the fact that no new DMU's need to be purchased). In which case, its either new bi-modal stock for the line this next franchise (which would provide a lot of DMU's for others to use), poaching more DMU's from elsewhere to boost capcity in this next franchise (and as the franchise is one of the more profitable ones then they would be able to pay over the odds to ensue they get them) or a lot of electrification early on in CP6.

 

[northwichcat]

Well one thing that seems to be a common conscious is ordering new dual-powered stock for Northern to directly replace older Pacers and 150s isn't a viable option but there are various options for franchises to order dual-powered stock and then cascade DMUs to Northern. It's not like the only option is for XC to obtain dual-powered stock and they could release 29 x Turbostars and if that fails then we've got no chance of happening.

 

[47802]

Well one thing that seems to be a common conscious is ordering new dual-powered stock for Northern to directly replace older Pacers and 150s isn't a viable option but there are various options for franchises to order dual-powered stock and then cascade DMUs to Northern. It's not like the only option is for XC to obtain dual-powered stock and they could release 29 x Turbostars and if that fails then we've got no chance of happening.

May not be the only option but XC strikes me as being the one that makes the most sense and the most viable.

However I have seen it suggested on another forum from somebody supposedly in know, that HST's are seriously being considered for some more major regional routes in formations from 2 + 3 to 2 + 5, so maybe it will be the HST's that go on forever.

 

[johnnyp_360]

May not be the only option but XC strikes me as being the one that makes the most sense and the most viable.

However I have seen it suggested on another forum from somebody supposedly in know, that HST's are seriously being considered for some more major regional routes in formations from 2 + 3 to 2 + 5, so maybe it will be the HST's that go on forever.

A HST doing a Whitby route would be quite something.

 

[NotATrainspott]

So then, the next challenge is to find out exactly which fleets of trains could be replaced by bi-mode and then sent to Northern.

• The entirety of TransPennine Express should do well with bi-mode capability but the door situation might be a problem unless all the suburban commuters were kicked off of them and onto the cascaded Northern trains. That's 51 3x23m Class 185s and 9 2x23m Class 170s, if none are sent to Chiltern.
• As I've been saying ScotRail InterCity routes from Edinburgh and Glasgow to Aberdeen and Inverness could do well with them since there will be electrification in future. At the moment ScotRail have 48 Class 156s, 48 Class 158s and 59 Class 170s. After CP5, and supposing that bi-modes were ordered for the InterCity services, the only remaining diesels would be on the RETB lines, the South Western line, the East Kilbride line, the Fife Circle, Dundee/Perth stoppers, the Aberdeen-Inverness line (which the ScotRail ITT does allow to have a different set of rolling stock than the rest due to its very different situation) and the Borders Railway. That should be a good chunk of the DMU fleet freed up, and if the Fife Circle is electrified early at the start of CP6 then there would be another chunk of good DMUs freed up to replace Pacers down south.
• SWT have 11 Class 158s and 30 Class 159s that could all be replaced with bi-mode (well, tri-mode when including a third rail shoe).

 

[northwichcat]

• The entirety of TransPennine Express should do well with bi-mode capability but the door situation might be a problem unless all the suburban commuters were kicked off of them and onto the cascaded Northern trains. That's 51 3x23m Class 185s and 9 2x23m Class 170s, if none are sent to Chiltern.

Well based on the DfT illustrative options and the consultation on the next franchise we could see TPE running:
* A half-hourly Liverpool-Newcastle Intercity service
* An hourly Manchester Airport to Scotland service, possibly with Liverpool portions added to some services, possibly 2 out of every 3 services going to Edinburgh and 1 out of 3 to Glasgow.
* A half-hourly Manchester Airport-York express service
* A half-hourly Manchester-Selby/Hull semi-fast
* A half-hourly Liverpool-Sheffield service, one extended to Nottingham, the other to Doncaster & Hull, with the option for additional Manchester-Sheffield fast services.

So there could well be a case for introducing a mixture of Intercity style stock and Regional style stock. Virgin carry a significant number of local commuters to their Pendolinos, so carrying some commuter flows on Intercity trains can work.

 

[47802]

So then, the next challenge is to find out exactly which fleets of trains could be replaced by bi-mode and then sent to Northern.

• The entirety of TransPennine Express should do well with bi-mode capability but the door situation might be a problem unless all the suburban commuters were kicked off of them and onto the cascaded Northern trains. That's 51 3x23m Class 185s and 9 2x23m Class 170s, if none are sent to Chiltern.
• As I've been saying ScotRail InterCity routes from Edinburgh and Glasgow to Aberdeen and Inverness could do well with them since there will be electrification in future. At the moment ScotRail have 48 Class 156s, 48 Class 158s and 59 Class 170s. After CP5, and supposing that bi-modes were ordered for the InterCity services, the only remaining diesels would be on the RETB lines, the South Western line, the East Kilbride line, the Fife Circle, Dundee/Perth stoppers, the Aberdeen-Inverness line (which the ScotRail ITT does allow to have a different set of rolling stock than the rest due to its very different situation) and the Borders Railway. That should be a good chunk of the DMU fleet freed up, and if the Fife Circle is electrified early at the start of CP6 then there would be another chunk of good DMUs freed up to replace Pacers down south.
• SWT have 11 Class 158s and 30 Class 159s that could all be replaced with bi-mode (well, tri-mode when including a third rail shoe).

TPX route needs suburban style doors this has discussed at length previously, and I don't think there is an especially strong case Bi-Mode especially not the whole fleet, I suspect potential bidders would go for a combination of off the shelf EMU's from the main manufacturer's and retained 185's.

Yes OK you could possibly put more Intercity style stock on the Newcastle and Scottish services, but suspect the Operators would prefer a one train fits all approach, i.e. a Suburban type train with more intercity style seating.

 

[northwichcat]

I suspect potential bidders would go for a combination of off the shelf EMU's from the main manufacturer's

There is no guarantee that new electric trains will be ordered for TPE and even if they are they might need to be add-on to another operator's order or another operator may add-on to TPE's order.