Second hint from DfT at new DMUs being procured

[Bletchleyite]

Plan is for the 185s used on those services to be used to allow the enhancements to North TPE from December 2016. Then from December 18 (when North TPE wires should have been ready) the idea seems to be additional South TPE services and 185s running Liverpool-Nottingham.

The enhancements to North TPE to me beggar belief given the overcrowding - strengthening would have been better as an enhanced service will just mean yet more passengers.

As for the second bit - that could be covered by Northern getting a few more 3-car new DMUs, and a few 158s being released to EMT to allow them to retain the Liverpool-Nottingham service. Which, if dropped to being run using 3-car 185s rather than the present 4-car 158s, will regain its long-running overcrowding problem.

Neil

 

[Rhydgaled]

If TPE electrification is now delayed, what are the chances of Siemens building trailer cars to make the 185 fleet up to 4 cars?

Is it delayed? And if so, is it delayed by DfT cutbacks or just Network Rail running late? If the latter, it isn't going to be hugely late is it? In which case building DMUs for the route seems a bit unecessary. Cascade some 159s from SWT temporarily, until the TPE wires are ready, to boost TPE capacity in the meantime.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it delayed? And if so, is it delayed by DfT cutbacks or just Network Rail running late? If the latter, it isn't going to be hugely late is it? In which case building DMUs for the route seems a bit unecessary. Cascade some 159s from SWT temporarily, until the TPE wires are ready, to boost TPE capacity in the meantime.

What makes you think SWT have any spare?

There are *no* spare DMUs.

Neil

 

[ainsworth74]

What makes you think SWT have any spare?

There are *no* spare DMUs.

Well they seem quite happy to have a 158 trundling between Lymington Pier and Brockenhurst all day!

Yes I know why they do but I couldn't resist

 

[northwichcat]

Well they seem quite happy to have a 158 trundling between Lymington Pier and Brockenhurst all day!

Yes I know why they do but I couldn't resist

And while sending a single 313 or 508 to SWT isn't viable, SWT do have more Desiros on order so maybe they can free up that 158 in the foreseeable future? Of course there's no guarantee if it was freed up that SWT would release it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And while sending a single 313 or 508 to SWT isn't viable, SWT do have more Desiros on order so maybe they can free up that 158 in the foreseeable future? Of course there's no guarantee if it was freed up that SWT would release it.

And even if they did, it's one DMU. Northern/TPE need rather more than one.

Neil

 

[Rhydgaled]

What makes you think SWT have any spare?

There are *no* spare DMUs.

Neil

Sorry, maybe I should have repeated my suggestion a few pages back, whereupon the 159s would be released by new bi-mode units for Waterloo-Exeter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry, maybe I should have repeated my suggestion a few pages back, whereupon the 159s would be released by new bi-mode units for Waterloo-Exeter.

Ah. If we went down the route of bi-modes, that might be a good idea, as well as possibly ATW (for the Aber/Pwllheli route which runs Brum Int-Wolves under the wires) and Northern (for Barrow).

Neil

 

[edwin_m]

What makes you think SWT have any spare?

IIRC SWT is releasing one DMU to EMT to allow the service improvements on the Lincoln line. But by the time that happens there should be enough electrification to allow Northern to start moving DMUs onto the likes of the Todmorden-Burnley section.

 

[3141]

Sorry, maybe I should have repeated my suggestion a few pages back, whereupon the 159s would be released by new bi-mode units for Waterloo-Exeter.

Or, in the interim, 442s from Gatwick Express hauled west of Basingstoke by uprated class 73s.

 

[HSTEd]

I suppose one of those 1500hp Class 73s attached to a 442 would be more than capable of keeping up to the timetable on the third rail sections.
Would require third rail extension to Salisbury though to be really practical.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Or, in the interim, 442s from Gatwick Express hauled west of Basingstoke by uprated class 73s.

I suppose one of those 1500hp Class 73s attached to a 442 would be more than capable of keeping up to the timetable on the third rail sections.
Would require third rail extension to Salisbury though to be really practical.

If a 1500hp class 73 was to be used with a 442 it might as well haul it all the way given the fact the traction motors of the 442s are on borrowed time

 

[Rhydgaled]

If a 1500hp class 73 was to be used with a 442 it might as well haul it all the way given the fact the traction motors of the 442s are on borrowed time

Could a 73 haul two 442s? 10-car to Salisbury and 5-car from there. Presumably the platforms at Waterloo etc. can take a 240m 12-car 450 so ought to be able to take a 10-car 442 plus a 10m loco. The problem might be that the 73 is longer than 10m.

 

[The Ham]

Could a 73 haul two 442s? 10-car to Salisbury and 5-car from there. Presumably the platforms at Waterloo etc. can take a 240m 12-car 450 so ought to be able to take a 10-car 442 plus a 10m loco. The problem might be that the 73 is longer than 10m.

The more important question is can a 73 be controlled from with the cab of a 442? As if not it would require a lot of work so that it was (which would be cheaper than building infrastructure to enable the 73 to be able to run around so that it was always at the front), given how much work that involves it could then work out better (given the hassle that SWT's have had in trying to get their "new" trains) to go for new build bi-modal trains.

Then of course, where are all the required 73's going to come from? As to run an hourly service from London to Salisbury would require 3 locos and to run a further hourly service from London to Exeter would require a further 7 locos. Meaning that there would need to a be total of 10 available.

 

[HSTEd]

If a 1500hp class 73 was to be used with a 442 it might as well haul it all the way given the fact the traction motors of the 442s are on borrowed time

Good luck getting permission to run a Class 73 with ten trailers in formation on the modern railway.
Especially the line out of Waterloo.

More power is already good - in fact a pair of Class 442s and a 73 in formation would likely require motors isolated or th 73 to run under diesel power.....

Extension to Salisbury would allow the 442s to run the Salisbury terminators without the 73s.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Good luck getting permission to run a Class 73 with ten trailers in formation on the modern railway.
Especially the line out of Waterloo.

More power is already good - in fact a pair of Class 442s and a 73 in formation would likely require motors isolated or th 73 to run under diesel power.....

Extension to Salisbury would allow the 442s to run the Salisbury terminators without the 73s.

You seem to be missing the point that the motors on the 442s are life expired and on borrowed time

 

[HSTEd]

You seem to be missing the point that the motors on the 442s are life expired and on borrowed time

Half the railway is on borrowed time and always is.

There is no chance of new stock any time soon so you just have to make do - just like the Southern always has.

 

[Hophead]

Extension to Salisbury would allow the 442s to run the Salisbury terminators without the 73s.

There is often talk of electrification to Salisbury to convert terminating services. However, these only terminate there off-peak. At busy times, trains start back from Yeovil; in the new M-F timetable, there are Salisbury starts at 05:15, 05:43, then hourly from 10:47 - before that one, there are 9 trains from further west.

To justify electrification only to Salisbury, you'd either need to heavily alter the service pattern, come up with a regional bi-mode, or accept that it's just for the occasional freight.

 

[47802]

There is often talk of electrification to Salisbury to convert terminating services. However, these only terminate there off-peak. At busy times, trains start back from Yeovil; in the new M-F timetable, there are Salisbury starts at 05:15, 05:43, then hourly from 10:47 - before that one, there are 9 trains from further west.

To justify electrification only to Salisbury, you'd either need to heavily alter the service pattern, come up with a regional bi-mode, or accept that it's just for the occasional freight.

Or just make some of the Yeovil ones Yeovil Salisbury connectors, either way this 442 and class 73 stuff could best be described as ridiculous, I guess bi-mode might be a possibility long term.

 

[HSTEd]

If the Basingstoke-Salisbury conversion occurs they will never order third-rail/diesel bi-modes.
Which means you are stuck.

The rest of the SWML would likely be high up the conversion priority list to avoid having dual mode EMUs on South-Central and South-East, which means the mileage of third rail track that is actually going to be used by diesel units shrivels up.

Additionally if you some calculations on those start times you find out the cycle time for a Yeovil terminator is something approaching six hours - which means those peak trains are essentially dedicated peak sets as that is considerably longer than the length of the peak.

Which means that you can handle the offpeak hourly service with a separate pool of electric-only units if you only cut back some of those nine trains (or indeed add additional ones) to Salisbury.

Additionally the first working from Yeovil to Waterloo would be able to form the second service from Waterloo to Exeter, so you could have your trains start there before working on the Exeter route and then return to Yeovil from Waterloo at night after working their last London bound service.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Half the railway is on borrowed time and always is.

There is no chance of new stock any time soon so you just have to make do - just like the Southern always has.

The chances of "Damascene" moments where the truth of the matter appearing in a blinding flash of light upon those with blinkered fiscal vision does seem rather unlikely, especially when recent comments concerning post-electoral austerity Armageddon are concerned, appear to be less than England winning the next World Cup in either the fields of Cricket or Football...

 

[Rhydgaled]

Or just make some of the Yeovil ones Yeovil Salisbury connectors, either way this 442 and class 73 stuff could best be described as ridiculous, I guess bi-mode might be a possibility long term.

Given the title of this thread, why long-term? I raised the idea of bi-mode on Waterloo-Exeter as I think it would be the best way of bringing new 'DMU' stock onto the network. SWT has a fleet of good DMUs for cascade, which don't make best use of existing electrification or, in some cases, the type of DMU they have available (I'm thinking of Lymington and Salisbury - Romsey in particular). They also seem to be able to justify rolling stock investment more easily in the Southern/SWT/Southeastern patch than they do in other parts of England and Wales, and apparently the current use of DMUs is one of the factors limiting capacity into Waterloo. To maximise frequency requires an all-electric service into Waterloo if I recall the Modern Railways article correctly.

How about a cascade like this:

1. SWT aquire 175-like bi-modes with UEGs for Waterloo-Exeter
2. Salisbury - Romsey locals transfer to GW, using networker turbos cascaded from Thames Valley
3. SWT cascade 11x 2-car class 158 to GW to bolster Cardiff-Portsmouth services to 4-car
4. SWT cascade 22x class 159 to Northern
5. Cascade of 9x 3-car 158 to W&B (8x from Northern, 1x from GW)
6. SWT cascade 8x 3-car class 158 to TPE as stop-gap capacity measure
7. TPE aquire new EMUs similar to the 175-like bi-modes on SWT but without the diesel engines
8. TPE cascade 8x 3-car class 158 to W&B
9. W&B cascade 6x 2-car class 158 to GW

 

[northwichcat]

How about a cascade like this:

1. SWT aquire 175-like bi-modes with UEGs for Waterloo-Exeter
2. Salisbury - Romsey locals transfer to GW, using networker turbos cascaded from Thames Valley
3. SWT cascade 11x 2-car class 158 to GW to bolster Cardiff-Portsmouth services to 4-car
4. SWT cascade 22x class 159 to Northern
5. Cascade of 9x 3-car 158 to W&B (8x from Northern, 1x from GW)
6. SWT cascade 8x 3-car class 158 to TPE as stop-gap capacity measure
7. TPE aquire new EMUs similar to the 175-like bi-modes on SWT but without the diesel engines
8. TPE cascade 8x 3-car class 158 to W&B
9. W&B cascade 6x 2-car class 158 to GW

You'll need the new order to happen quickly as Chiltern have secured their 170s from next year.

Bi-modes for TPE would be useful as well if the proposed CP6 electrification goes ahead.

 

[47802]

Given the title of this thread, why long-term? I raised the idea of bi-mode on Waterloo-Exeter as I think it would be the best way of bringing new 'DMU' stock onto the network. SWT has a fleet of good DMUs for cascade, which don't make best use of existing electrification or, in some cases, the type of DMU they have available (I'm thinking of Lymington and Salisbury - Romsey in particular). They also seem to be able to justify rolling stock investment more easily in the Southern/SWT/Southeastern patch than they do in other parts of England and Wales, and apparently the current use of DMUs is one of the factors limiting capacity into Waterloo. To maximise frequency requires an all-electric service into Waterloo if I recall the Modern Railways article correctly.

How about a cascade like this:

1. SWT aquire 175-like bi-modes with UEGs for Waterloo-Exeter
2. Salisbury - Romsey locals transfer to GW, using networker turbos cascaded from Thames Valley
3. SWT cascade 11x 2-car class 158 to GW to bolster Cardiff-Portsmouth services to 4-car
4. SWT cascade 22x class 159 to Northern
5. Cascade of 9x 3-car 158 to W&B (8x from Northern, 1x from GW)
6. SWT cascade 8x 3-car class 158 to TPE as stop-gap capacity measure
7. TPE aquire new EMUs similar to the 175-like bi-modes on SWT but without the diesel engines
8. TPE cascade 8x 3-car class 158 to W&B
9. W&B cascade 6x 2-car class 158 to GW

Well first all if there is to be a new build of DMU's while it might be more difficult to get the things financed I suspect a straight DMU will be signifcantly cheaper than a Bi-mode. Any new bi-mode or DMU is probably going to be most versatile as a short/medium distance unit with a suburban door layout which of course you don't like and is probably not best suited to the longer distance Waterloo Exeter services
but would be fine for TPE as a bi-mode or pure electric, yes I know you would disagree on that but I use the North TPE frequently and the 185 arrangement is more suited to it, in any case I think it might be debatable as to whether there is a strong business case for bi-mode's on the TPE route particularly if Hull electrification goes ahead.

I don't see that releasing Exeter 158's will really be enough to solve the DMU problem. As far the Waterloo Exeter route goes then the economics of bi-mode I imagine work best when a substancial part of the route is electrified which it currently isn't your also likely to need a Diesel/AC/DC bi-mode as even if AC electrification didn't get extended to Salisbury or further, it would need to be AC capable for possible pending electrification.

I would be interested to know what the issue regarding Waterloo capacity is/ is it a performance issue or lack of enough units.

My own solution to Waterloo Exeter would be electrification to Salisbury, some of those early morning/evening Yeovil services which don't form an Exeter turn might be replaced by a shuttle to Salisbury, longer term might be a bi mode solution with electrification extension to Yeovil, or replacing the 158's with 220/221/222's.

Also any Bi-mode or Electric unit from the main suppliers eg Bombardier/Hitachi/Siemens is likely to be based on there current standard designs rather than any fanciful design you might propose.

 

[Murph]

You seem to be missing the point that the motors on the 442s are life expired and on borrowed time

If that's the only major issue limiting their life at present, it's not really limited at all. Electric motors can be rebuilt fairly easily, as long as the heavy bits are all in reasonable shape (the casing and rotor — it's normally the insulation breaking down that's the problem, not the heavy bits). They very likely can be rewound and given new bearings, and would last for many more decades if need be.

 

[eastwestdivide]

At the risk of straying further off-topic from new DMUs...
Aren't the traction motors on the 442s (originally on the 4-REPs/432s) and 73s basically the same motors (EE546), and of the same vintage (mid-1960s) in any case?
Are the motors on the 73s equally life expired? Are they doing anything with the motors in the current the 73/9 rebuild programme?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Well first all if there is to be a new build of DMU's while it might be more difficult to get the things financed I suspect a straight DMU will be signifcantly cheaper than a Bi-mode.

I suppose a straight DMU would be cheaper, but you have to weigh that against the chance of electrification making them redundant. If the engines in a bi-mode are leased for 15yrs and then they can be converted to EMUs it may or may not be a safer bet than a straight DMU. In the case of some of the IEP routes I would hope for electrification in less than 10yrs, but a slightly less high-end train could well find non-electrified homes for a good while yet.

Any new bi-mode or DMU is probably going to be most versatile as a short/medium distance unit with a suburban door layout

I disagree there. I think the routes less likely to be electrified throughout are longer distance services like Cardiff-Portsmouth, which may cut across regions with electrification but traverse sections of track with no electrification. Also, there is a short-medium term prospect of suburban-door stock being cascaded in the form of Scotrail 170s and TPE 185s, but no large source of regional express units to boost capacity on regional express routes like Manchester-Swansea.

course you don't like and is probably not best suited to the Waterloo Exeter route but would be fine for TPE yes I know you would disagree on that but I use the North TPE frequently and the 185 arrangement is more suited to it.

I don't see that releasing Exeter 158's will really be enough to solve the DMU problem. As far the Waterloo Exeter route goes then the economics of bi-mode I imagine work best when a substancial part of the route is electrified which it currently isn't your also likely to need a Diesel/AC/DC bi-mode as even if AC electrification didn't get extended to Salisbury or further, it would need to be AC capable for possible pending electrification.

Of course the unit would need AC capabilty too, all 3rd rail units built since privatisation have had pantograph wells I think. If releasing SWT's diesel fleet isn't enough to solve the DMU shortage (and given some of us are/were convinced that the electrification cascades alone would be sufficient to avoid buying any new diesel stock) then the bi-mode (or should that be tri-mode) 175-alike units could also be ordered for Cardiff-Portsmouth as well, and/or possibly EMT's Liverpool-Norwich and/or the TPE south route which isn't yet earmarked for wires.

I would be interested to know what the issue regarding Waterloo capacity is/ is it a performance issue or lack of enough units.

In the article on the class 707s on page 11 of the Oct 2014 Modern Railways, it describes the 707s as 'Plan C'. 'Plan D' does not appear to be clearly defined yet, but it says ETCS "would make 30tph possible, but that is only feasible with an all-electric fleet, implying electrification of the Salisbury route." I interpreted that as 'DMU performance isn't good enough' although that isn't there in black-and-white.

My own solution to Waterloo Exeter would be electrification to Salisbury, some of those early morning/evening Yeovil services which don't form an Exeter turn would be replaced by a shuttle to Salisbury, longer term might be a bi mode solution with electrification extension to Yeovil, or replacing the 158's with 220/221/222's

Without the Exeter services, would it be worth wiring to Salisbury even with Yeovil services reduced to a shuttle?

 

[northwichcat]

I disagree there. I think the routes less likely to be electrified throughout are longer distance services like Cardiff-Portsmouth, which may cut across regions with electrification but tranverse sections of track with no. Also, there is a short-medium term prospect of suburban-door stock being cascaded in the form of Scotrail 170s and TPE 185s, but no large source of regional express units to boost capacity on regional express routes like Manchester-Swansea.

Network Rail seem to be hinting at a new design of train for regional routes being versatile enough to also use on rural stopping services.

Vehicles serving the regional market are often
cascaded to serve rural routes. Given the earlier
discussion on the economics of small orders, it is
unlikely that the rural sector alone could economically
be served by a bespoke vehicle. A common high
level vehicle specification which is suitable for both
the regional and rural market sectors represents an
opportunity for future cost savings.

The regional and rural sectors have a number of
common characteristics which may make it possible
to serve them with one generic type of train with the
appropriate gauge and traction power.

The key requirements for rolling stock include a
maximum operating speed up to 100mph. Some
rural services will require small formations, whilst
regional service will require medium size formations
(3 to 5-cars), and long formations (6 to 10-cars)
on busier routes. The flexibility of being able to
operate in multiple units is helpful to meet lower
levels of demand in the off-peak. The vehicles in this
fleet would be 20 metre and 23 metre to give the
flexibility to match supply and demand.

Given that many of the routes in this sector are
not recommended for future electrification in the
Network RUS: Electrification strategy, it is anticipated
that the vehicle type will have a self powered variant.
It is envisaged that as the extent of the electrified
network increases, the proportion of self powered
vehicles within this fleet will decrease.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ots/network rus - passenger rolling stock.pdf P75

 

[158722]

My own solution to Waterloo Exeter would be electrification to Salisbury, some of those early morning/evening Yeovil services which don't form an Exeter turn might be replaced by a shuttle to Salisbury, longer term might be a bi mode solution with electrification extension to Yeovil, or replacing the 158's with 220/221/222's.

Also any Bi-mode or Electric unit from the main suppliers eg Bombardier/Hitachi/Siemens is likely to be based on there current standard designs rather than any fanciful design you might propose.

A bit of selective quoting, just to cut down on length of post, but I agree that Salisbury is probably the most likely to get electrified (overhead or 3rd rail though?!) given service frequency as far as there. Rather than new bi-modes, would it not be possible to modify some 185s to be compatible with some sort of existing EMU (444/450/707 from the same stable?). Exeter/Yeovil-Salisbury worked by the 185s, which attach to the EMU at Salisbury to work forward - pretty much what happens at present with 158/159s. I'm sure there would be a significant list of technical difficulties to solve...!

 

[The Ham]

I disagree there. I think the routes less likely to be electrified throughout are longer distance services like Cardiff-Portsmouth, which may cut across regions with electrification but tranverse sections of track with no.

Maybe a poor example as once CP6 is finished (given what is hinted at in the Wessex plan about electrification south and east of Salisbury) there would be a significant percentage of that route will be electrified. With the gap being between Bath and Salisbury (unless more is done that that which is know/hinted at).