What should be the next DMU order?

[jopsuk]

The 16xs would be restricted to a few North East routes due to being a wider loading than standard build and there may be an issue in getting them up there in the first place.

The 165s and 166s yes, but the 168s are identical in size to the 170/171/172

 

[Anvil1984]

Do 172s have better acceleration than 170s then. I know 170s can be a bit slow off the mark so their Sprinters are often betterIm just an advocate of trying to keep families together as much as possible as its easier come replacement time

 

[Class172]

Do 172s have better acceleration than 170s then. I know 170s can be a bit slow off the mark so their Sprinters are often betterIm just an advocate of trying to keep families together as much as possible as its easier come replacement time

The 172s are supposed to have comparable (or better) acceleration to a 150, though I never seen it for myself so I don't know how much is truth.

 

[tbtc]

I take it you mean the Chiltern 16xs as the FGW ones are being replaced by cascaded EMUs

Only some of the FGW ones; the Thames Valley branches aren't being wired, nor is the Gatwick route (which needs a few 16xs), nor Basingstoke... The numbers of "released" 16xs really aren't as impressive as I first assumed when I heard about GWML electrification. Shame.

 

[Nym]

Two things...


No-one has mentioned an order big enough yet to replace all pacers and increase capacity where it is needed, we're talking somthing in the order of 100 - 140 units here!

Electrification could release this amount of units, but we could't (without total network closure) electrify enough in time.

The 3rd Rail Islands should be done ASAP as a seperate project to release the 171 fleet, as should the thames valley branches be included in the crossrail / GW project. But that still doesn't release near enough units.

To be contrivertial here, why not give somone like CSRE a chance? And even more controvertial, give the new order to....

Northern.

The pacer fleet darn sarth and in wales can be erradicated with a cascade from the Electrification. If you want the numbers I'll get them again for you, but trust me, it can. If the valley lines are added, then it's a massive boost for capacity aswell, this will leave 98 pacers with Northern, (7 with FGW and 15 with ATW).

So... why not, on monday morning, order, from CSRE, for Northern, 10 units, for evaluation. With option for another 100.

These would be basically a 2 or 3 car 20m 1/3 2/3 layout, with 2+2 seating, and set out as a 'commuter' train. Preferably a 3 car unit as a lot in Northernland can take 3 or 6 car diagrams. The eventual fleet could have a mix of 2 and 3 car units, with end gangways.

I would also be asking CSRE to make them coupleable, with BSI couplers to the sprinter fleet. I know that would be a big push, but it could be done.

As a final note. I've seen EDMU / DEMU units mentioned...

Now, they could be a damn good idea, especially on routes around Greater Manchester and Leeds with fractions of Electrification on most of the routes. But, looking into the spesifics, to recive any benifit you would need a minimum of a 3 or 4 car formation. Could be somthing to look into and evaluate, but a brand new idea? When we only have 7 years to get the fleet in place?

I'd say, give CSRE a chance with 10 units for evaluation in Northernland, if it doesnt' work out, they use stuff that is commonly servicable anyway.

Either that, or since there is only really one DMU that is new and proven in the UK, order 50 2 car and 50 3 car 172 units. For Northern.

 

[ACE1888]

Dare say down our way we'll get 20+ year old 'cascaded' units again anyway...South west=unit 'retirement' homes

 

[northwichcat]

No-one has mentioned an order big enough yet to replace all pacers and increase capacity where it is needed, we're talking somthing in the order of 100 - 140 units here!

The question posed in the original post is "what should be the next DMU order?"

In my opinion, the next order should be primarily adding extra capacity to the network. A 172 order would help us to maintain future train building operations in the UK without spending on a design process for a new train.

If we order Pacer replacements next then we'll still have operators short of capacity and I could easily see EMT taking on the 142s that are supposed to be written off.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Dare say down our way we'll get 20+ year old 'cascaded' units again anyway...South west=unit 'retirement' homes

Apart from the LO and future LM 150s what units have been sent down there to retire? While the fleet age is not young isn't that really due to trains not being cascaded away from the South West as they get older?

* The 142s are being sent back up North to retire.
* I think the 143s have been there since new.
* The other 150s and 153s weren't that old when they originally went to the South West.
* The 158s there now have recently been sent down there but replaced less powerful examples of the same train that have been there for a long time.
* The 165/166s are more modern than most trains on the network and been there since new.
* The HST sets have been down there a long time - not just been sent down there to retire - and have been given a lot of investment and will be replaced by IEP in the near future.

 

[sprinterguy]

* I think the 143s have been there since new.

The 143s have only been in the South West since the early nineties (About 1993 I think), when they were transferred away from Heaton. In general though I agree with you that the age of the South West rolling stock is more down to the stock they were given when it new/nearly new getting older, rather than old stock being sent there later in life.

 

[starrymarkb]

Apart from the LO and future LM 150s what units have been sent down there to retire? While the fleet age is not young isn't that really due to trains not being cascaded away from the South West as they get older?

* The 142s are being sent back up North to retire.
* I think the 143s have been there since new.
* The other 150s and 153s weren't that old when they originally went to the South West.
* The 158s there now have recently been sent down there but replaced less powerful examples of the same train that have been there for a long time.
* The 165/166s are more modern than most trains on the network and been there since new.
* The HST sets have been down there a long time - not just been sent down there to retire - and have been given a lot of investment and will be replaced by IEP in the near future.

165/166 units don't come really come that far west. Just a couple of miles into Wiltshire (Don't really count Worcestershire as being South West)

IEP also won't be coming that far west. The Far South West (West of Exeter) will be staying HST when IEP comes on stream.

The only post priviatisation stock we get down here are the XC Voyagers on the mainline and Desiros in Dorset. There were Adelantes but those were ditched because of their cronic unreliablity and expensive running costs and occasional Turbostars when they were with SWT...

 

[northwichcat]

The only post priviatisation stock we get down here are the XC Voyagers on the mainline and Desiros in Dorset. There were Adelantes but those were ditched because of their cronic unreliablity and expensive running costs and occasional Turbostars when they were with SWT...

I believe it was SWT that wanted to ditch the Turbostars as well and replace them with 3 car 158s that became 159s as it meant more streamlined maintenance.

The situation you describe sounds superior to South and Mid Wales and on a par with North East England, East Anglia and Merseyside.

 

[whhistle]

Where to start on this one, LM dont have 158s and neither do Cross Country

:P I am a bit out of touch on what runs what line since Central disappeared. maybe it's EMT who run the Leicester - Birmingham, Leicester - Loughborough lines now?

See this is also where I look at trains for their looks and features, not the engine / mechanics that is running them :P

 

[sprinterguy]

:P I am a bit out of touch on what runs what line since Central disappeared. maybe it's EMT who run the Leicester - Birmingham, Leicester - Loughborough lines now?

Leicester to Birmingham is operated by Crosscountry using 170s, but Leicester to Loughborough is part of the MML so falls under EMTs' jurisdiction.

 

[northwichcat]

:P I am a bit out of touch on what runs what line since Central disappeared. maybe it's EMT who run the Leicester - Birmingham, Leicester - Loughborough lines now?

See this is also where I look at trains for their looks and features, not the engine / mechanics that is running them :P

When CT was split up:
* The shared 350s went to LM
* The 170s were split between LM and XC
* The 150s went to LM
* The 153s and 156s were split between LM and EMT
* The 158s went to EMT

So because of the way the routes were divided out it meant the traction changed on some routes e.g. Crewe-Derby went to 153s, Liverpool-Norwich went to all 158s and Birmingham-Stansted Airport went to all 170s.

 

[cslusarc]

It all depends on what routes these new DNUs will be used upon. But if they run on mostly electric routes, I'd like to see a EDMU ordered, otherwise I'd unfortunately accept a lightweight DMU.

 

[alexf380]

I propose an orde of about 100 3car 172s (20 for NXEA and 30 for LM) allowing LM's 170s to cascade to NXEA, LM's 150s & 153s and NXEA's 153s and 156s to cascade to Northern rendering some of their Pacers redundant.
the remaining 50 172s should go to FGW, allowing their 150s ans 153s to go to ATW, rendering most of their pacers redundant as well.

 

[northwichcat]

I propose an orde of about 100 3car 172s (20 for NXEA and 30 for LM) allowing LM's 170s to cascade to NXEA, LM's 150s & 153s and NXEA's 153s and 156s to cascade to Northern rendering their Pacers redundant.
the remaining 50 172s should go to FGW, allowing their 150s ans 153s to go to ATW, rendering THEIR pacers redundant as well.

You've not thought that through at all. Northern will have 214 Pacer carriages to replace (after the subleased 142s return from FGW) while FGW will only have 16 Pacer carriages to replace.

The LM 150s are already allocated as additional capacity directly and indirectly for Northern, FGW and EMT.

So under your proposals Northern will get 33 Sprinter carriages to replace 214 Pacer carriages. Although that sounds like a DfT proposal!

 

[alexf380]

I have edited my original post so that it makes sense!

 

[LE Greys]

About 500 75 mph lightweight DMUs with around 350 hp/vehicle. It can come in single-car, two-car and three-car form. Acceleration and hill-climbing are more important than speed. Ride quality must be as good as loco-hauled at up to full speed. Two classes, one with 64 ft vehicles and doors at ¼ and ¾ positions, the other 75 ft with doors at the ends of vehicles. Consider mechanical or hydraulic transmissions, depending on cost and reliability. No frills, so no air-con and opening windows, but with a decent guard's/luggage/bicycle compartment in each one.

In other words, take the 150 and 156, update the designs to modern standards, then build some new ones. The nearest we have at the moment is the 172.

 

[BR Blue]

Better to just build extra class 172`s as opposed to designing two new DMU`s with all the related development and production line set up costs. When the class 319 EMU`s arrive on the Liverpool/Manchester/Blackpool routes, many pacers, hopefully, will be sent for scrap. Unless more electricification is planned soon then the remaining 142/144`s will need replacing with like for like DMU`s. At 23 metres a carriage the 172 represents an increase in capacity over 15 metre pacer and 20 metre class 150 carriages. Network Rails recent rolling stock report refers to savings to be made by having fewer types of train on the network.
Future rolling stock orders should look at possible EDMU`s to replace sprinters on long distance routes where some of the route is overhead electic.

 

[LE Greys]

Better to just build extra class 172's as opposed to designing two new DMU's with all the related development and production line set up costs. When the class 319 EMU's arrive on the Liverpool/Manchester/Blackpool routes, many pacers, hopefully, will be sent for scrap. Unless more electricification is planned soon then the remaining 142/144's will need replacing with like for like DMU's. At 23 metres a carriage the 172 represents an increase in capacity over 15 metre pacer and 20 metre class 150 carriages. Network Rails recent rolling stock report refers to savings to be made by having fewer types of train on the network.
Future rolling stock orders should look at possible EDMU's to replace sprinters on long distance routes where some of the route is overhead electic.

Are there any areas where a 75ft vehicle is out of gauge on curves? The Looe branch comes to mind, which is possibly why there were never 156s on Western Region. Really, there should be a 172 variant with doors at the ends of vehicles. That's probably easier to do than an all-new class. Also, all new units should have gangways throughout, which makes things a lot easier for everybody.

I like the EDMU idea, which might require something like the Class 210 to make it practical. Otherwise, you would be carrying loads of electrical equipment around for no reason. A three-car one could have a driving motor brake with a diesel engine, a pantograph trailer with rectifiers and a second driving motor with no engine. This would give decent distributed traction, but not concentrate too much weight in one vehicle. However, most of the DMBS would be out of commission with engine, generator and guard's compartment, although there would be a passenger corridor if they want a through gangway. An alternative would be to have two medium-sized engines and a trailer. QSK19s might work, with a modified drive train for 100 mph top speeds. Essentially, a cross between a 350, a 185 and a 220.

 

[Chris125]

I take it someone's pointed out that there are highly unlikely to be any further DMU orders of much size?

ROSCO's simply arent interested - 172's have a 40 year lifespan, so with electrification now on the table and high fuel prices they risk becoming unwanted. Cheaper to lease, cascaded sprinters are good for several decades more especially if they are re-engineered.

Chris

 

[tbtc]

I take it someone's pointed out that there are highly unlikely to be any further DMU orders of much size?

ROSCO's simply arent interested - 172's have a 40 year lifespan, so with electrification now on the table and high fuel prices they risk becoming unwanted. Cheaper to lease, cascaded sprinters are good for several decades more especially if they are re-engineered.

Chris

The problem is that we've had very little new electrification over the last fifteen years, and the electrification in Lancashire/ Thames Valley won't release *that* many local trains (the GWML electrification will free up lots of HSTs, but since they aren't doing the Thames Valley branch lines it won't release many 165/166s).

The DMUs freed up by the two schemes listed above will go to capacity enhancement on existing services (so won't replace any Pacers).

Since there are no plans to electrify busy DMU lines in England/ Wales (e.g. Cardiff Valleys, GOBLIN) I think we still need a number of basic DMUs (75mph, nothing fancy) to replace the worst ones we have.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

The problem is that we've had very little new electrification over the last fifteen years, and the electrification in Lancashire/ Thames Valley won't release *that* many local trains (the GWML electrification will free up lots of HSTs, but since they aren't doing the Thames Valley branch lines it won't release many 165/166s).

The DMUs freed up by the two schemes listed above will go to capacity enhancement on existing services (so won't replace any Pacers).

Since there are no plans to electrify busy DMU lines in England/ Wales (e.g. Cardiff Valleys, GOBLIN) I think we still need a number of basic DMUs (75mph, nothing fancy) to replace the worst ones we have.

For ANY DMU order to progress, it needs DfT's blessing AND ADDITIONAL financial support (notwithstanding McNulty). If you take Northern as an example, the average farebox income per passenger is less than £3.00 and farebox revenue accounts for less than 30% of Northern's operating costs.

The capital rental on a Pacer vehicle is probably around £3,000 per calendar month. A new (let's say a 172... grrrrr) vehicle is likely to cost a little more than £11,000 per calendar month. If we assume that maintenance costs can be reduced by 20% and fuel costs reduced by 20% (I'm probably being a bit generous), this still means that Northern's rolling stock costs would increase by something like 80% on the status quo.

So, either DfT needs to underwrite the difference and commit to additional subsidy, or it needs to sanction a HUGE increase in ticket prices.

Is either of things likely to happen? Nooooo!

Pacers and cascades are here to stay.... unless fate steps in and something dreadful forces Pacers to be withdrawn on safety grounds, in much the same way as slam door EMUs were driven out of our network.

 

[IanXC]

If you take Northern as an example, the average farebox income per passenger is less than £3.00 and farebox revenue accounts for less than 30% of Northern's operating costs.

Is this a sign that the franchise has very very different financial performance in different areas? Certainly near me £3 only gets you to the next stop...

The capital rental on a Pacer vehicle is probably around £3,000 per calendar month. A new (let's say a 172... grrrrr) vehicle is likely to cost a little more than £11,000 per calendar month. If we assume that maintenance costs can be reduced by 20% and fuel costs reduced by 20% (I'm probably being a bit generous), this still means that Northern's rolling stock costs would increase by something like 80% on the status quo.

So, either DfT needs to underwrite the difference and commit to additional subsidy, or it needs to sanction a HUGE increase in ticket prices.

Or is there an opportunity to procure stock from a lower cost manufacturer? Would this mean a more manageable impact on rolling stock costs

 

[anthony263]

The problem is that we've had very little new electrification over the last fifteen years, and the electrification in Lancashire/ Thames Valley won't release *that* many local trains (the GWML electrification will free up lots of HSTs, but since they aren't doing the Thames Valley branch lines it won't release many 165/166s).

The DMUs freed up by the two schemes listed above will go to capacity enhancement on existing services (so won't replace any Pacers).

Since there are no plans to electrify busy DMU lines in England/ Wales (e.g. Cardiff Valleys, GOBLIN) I think we still need a number of basic DMUs (75mph, nothing fancy) to replace the worst ones we have.

We dont know about the thames valley branches as i have heard that FGW wanted to wire them as part of its bid for the next franchise so i wouldnt write that off yet.

I do think they should extend the 3rd rail on the north downs route and perhaps transfer the route to Southern or southwet trains to operate with some new EMU's.

As for the cardiff valley lines , i know the DFT , Network rail & the WAG are coming up witha case for the network to be electrified. I personally think there is a very good chance of it being given the go ahead especially if you considering the amount of DMU's which would be required i think it would most likely be cheaper to put the wires up.

 

[RobShipway]

My belief is that any new trains should now, be EDMU trains not pure diesel trains with those trains also able to work either third rail or overhead electric.

 

[northwichcat]

If you take Northern as an example, the average farebox income per passenger is less than £3.00 and farebox revenue accounts for less than 30% of Northern's operating costs.

Does the under £3 you quote mean single journey? If so £6 for the average return they sell? I'd say that's lower than I expect (£7-£8) considering singles on Northern are usually only 10p cheaper than an off-peak return. However, I live outside a PTE area so my fares are higher than the average but as the PTE subsides Northern what Northern get at the end of the day should be around the same.

I notice your local station is operated by a franchise that combines intercity and local (NXEA) so I'd expect them to be in a better financial position than Northern simply because of the type of franchise, so would it be fair to award new stock based on financial positions of franchises when reorganising franchises could instantly move lines from unprofitable franchises to lucrative franchises?

So, either DfT ...or it needs to sanction a HUGE increase in ticket prices.

DfT have suggested huge increases in ticket prices to reduce the amount the government puts in.

Pacers and cascades are here to stay.... unless fate steps in and something dreadful forces Pacers to be withdrawn on safety grounds, in much the same way as slam door EMUs were driven out of our network.

I wonder what the disability charities will make if that comes true. An act was passed in 1994? that all public transport should be accessible by the end of 2019. Try making a Pacer accessible and you'd spend more the Pacers originally costed to do so.

 

[anthony263]

My belief is that any new trains should now, be EDMU trains not pure diesel trains with those trains also able to work either third rail or overhead electric.

That would be good, maybe have come class 172's fitted with a pantograph. FGW order some for the Cardiff-Portsmouth/Taunton route as well as a few for an hourly/2hourly Salisbury - Swindon/Oxford service.

or maybe a unit based on a class 158/159 fitted with a pantograph or 3rd rail shoe for routes such as Exeter-London Waterloo or Reading -Redhill/Gatwik Airport

 

[hougtimo]

That would be good, maybe have come class 172's fitted with a pantograph. FGW order some for the Cardiff-Portsmouth/Taunton route as well as a few for an hourly/2hourly Salisbury - Swindon/Oxford service.

or maybe a unit based on a class 158/159 fitted with a pantograph or 3rd rail shoe for routes such as Exeter-London Waterloo or Reading -Redhill/Gatwik Airport

Apart from the fact that all the trains you mentioned have a mechanical drive.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Does the under £3 you quote mean single journey? If so £6 for the average return they sell? I'd say that's lower than I expect (£7-£8) considering singles on Northern are usually only 10p cheaper than an off-peak return. However, I live outside a PTE area so my fares are higher than the average but as the PTE subsides Northern what Northern get at the end of the day should be around the same.

£2.83 average single journey farebox.

I notice your local station is operated by a franchise that combines intercity and local (NXEA) so I'd expect them to be in a better financial position than Northern simply because of the type of franchise, so would it be fair to award new stock based on financial positions of franchises when reorganising franchises could instantly move lines from unprofitable franchises to lucrative franchises?

I think it's more a result of the fact that NXEA serves London. Maybe East Coast and Northern should be combined

DfT have suggested huge increases in ticket prices to reduce the amount the government puts in.

I thought the RPI +3 was intended to pay for rolling stock. If it happens, and some money from the RPI +3 is shifted from London commuter franchises to the heavily subsidised franchises... then maybe Northern might get some shiny new carriages.

I wonder what the disability charities will make if that comes true. An act was passed in 1994? that all public transport should be accessible by the end of 2019. Try making a Pacer accessible and you'd spend more the Pacers originally costed to do so.

DfT could always deal with this as a Network Change and make additional cash available to pay for it. That might also get Northern some shiny new carriages.