What stock "should" operate Liverpool-Norwich services?

[jopsuk]

So we're incapable of building a type of DVT to operate with loco hauled services then?

No, but with much of the route constrained with short platforms if new stock were to introduced all vehicles should be passenger carrying.

 

[Rhydgaled]

DB have a driving trailer vehicle built in to one end of their double decker Regio stock and they attach a loco on the other end. We don't have any UK stock designs which incorporate that.

We have mrk3 DVTs and mrk2 DBSOs. They can go on one end, loco on the other. Granted there aren't many DVTs and DBSOs, but you could make two or three rakes to release 158s from some diagrams to other operators or to have 4-car throughout.

Buying new rolling stock to use with locomotives would likely pay for a fleet of Bi-mode IEPs to operate the service.

?????? If we are assuming we already have the locomotives (eg. 68s) then purchasing a fleet of unpowered coaches (including driving trailers) will be nowhere near as expensive as a bi-mode 140mph train with traction motors under most if not all vehicles. If you have to buy the locos as well it could be a close-run thing, depending on train lengths and whether they charge the original price (twice Pendolino) or the newer price on the later extensions to the order (slightly more than a Pendolino) for the IEP.

 

[northwichcat]

We have mrk3 DVTs and mrk2 DBSOs. They can go on one end, loco on the other. Granted there aren't many DVTs and DBSOs, but you could make two or three rakes to release 158s from some diagrams to other operators or to have 4-car throughout.

I mean the DVT is built in to a passenger carriage so this is what you see at one end opposed to building separate DVTs:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/DB_Regio_DT_(8063779248).jpg
and this at the other end:
http://www.crashbuffer.com/estcpp1111.jpg

 

[HSTEd]

?????? If we are assuming we already have the locomotives (eg. 68s)

But we don't, we only have 15 Class 68s, you need 12 trainsets at the very least to do Liverpool Norwich, probably more like 13 or 14.
I do believe that they are going to want to take over existing freight duties with those locomotives so it seems unlikely that they could dedicate the entire fleet to Liverpool-Norwich at no cost.

then purchasing a fleet of unpowered coaches (including driving trailers)

The 13 locomotievs alone will cost ~£60m based upon the cost of the previous order, whereas the cost of 13 5-car IEP sets would be roughly £160m, giving you only £100m to spend on the coaching stock and DVTs.

You would need five unpowered vehicles in the formation to match, or nearly match, the carriage capacity of an IEP, meaning you must source 65 vehicles for only £100m.
That is a price of £1.58m, which while feasible will certainly mean that you can't hope to spend less than the IEPs, at which point the IEP's titanic operational benefits will crush you on operating costs, and the drastic reduction in journey time will leave the loco hauled services in the dust.

will be nowhere near as expensive as a bi-mode 140mph train with traction motors under most if not all vehicles. If you have to buy the locos as well it could be a close-run thing, depending on train lengths and whether they charge the original price (twice Pendolino) or the newer price on the later extensions to the order (slightly more than a Pendolino) for the IEP.

As far as I am aware an IEP carriage costs roughly ~£2.5m to construct, so hardly 'twice' the Pendolino.

 

[northwichcat]

Surly the most sensible option is to build new DMU's to operate on lines like the West Highland, Far North/ Kyle of Lockalsh, Cumbrian Coast, Cambrian Mainline/Cambrian Coast etc. Routes that are unlikely to be electrified in the next 30 years so will need new build diesel stock eventually which could free up 156's/158's for use elsewhere until they are freed up/replaced by electrification.

Network Rail in their passenger rolling stock strategy suggest new diesel regional stock could be designed in a way that is suitable to cascade down to rural lines that'll never be electrified, as I mentioned in post #169.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I mean the DVT is built in to a passenger carriage so this is what you see at one end opposed to building separate DVTs:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/DB_Regio_DT_(8063779248).jpg
and this at the other end:
http://www.crashbuffer.com/estcpp1111.jpg

New build DVTs could have passenger accomadation in them. If you want existing stock, then you want a mrk2 DBSO.

But we don't, we only have 15 Class 68s, you need 12 trainsets at the very least to do Liverpool Norwich, probably more like 13 or 14.

Yes, if you want to replace the whole fleet rather than just release a few 158s.

That is a price of £1.58m, which while feasible will certainly mean that you can't hope to spend less than the IEPs, at which point the IEP's titanic operational benefits will crush you on operating costs, and the drastic reduction in journey time will leave the loco hauled services in the dust.

As far as I am aware an IEP carriage costs roughly ~£2.5m to construct, so hardly 'twice' the Pendolino.

Titanic operational benifits? A fixed formation LHCS set and a fixed formation MU are operationally similar.

As for cost, you have to remember that IEP is a total train service contract. The original batch (Great Western fleet) is going to cost twice as much per car per month compare to the lease+maintainance deal on Pendolinos. That crushes the operating cost benifit you would otherwise expect. Even the East Coast IEP fleet, some of which comes at a lower monthly fee, will INCREASE annual rolling stock costs for the franchise by a considerable ammount compared to the current IC125+IC225 fleet.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, if you want to replace the whole fleet rather than just release a few 158s.

You are stuck with a compromise timetable if you don't replace the whole lot, so you get no benefits of increased travel times from improved performance of newer stock, even assuming Class 68s can even get anywhere near Class 158 timings east of Peterborough.
(Extending SP speed limits to IEP type multiple units is one thing, doing it for massive locomotives with 20 tonne+ axle loads is quite another).

Titanic operational benifits? A fixed formation LHCS set and a fixed formation MU are operationally similar.

So your LCHS set can accelerate like a near fully motored multiple unit?

Your Class 68 will consume no fuel (and suffer from no diesel engine wear?) between Grantham and Peterborough, no fuel while idling/stabled in Norwich/Liverpool station, no fuel while travelling between Hazel Grove and Deansgate and no fuel between Liverpool South Parkway and Liverpool Lime Street?

With impending electrification and potential minor reroutes of the service the situation gets even more in favour of the IEP, with potentially continuous electric operation between Liverpool and Hazel Grove and between Dore and Nottingham.

As for cost, you have to remember that IEP is a total train service contract.

No, IEP is just a train, the Intercity Express Programme itself is the total train service contract. There is no reason to believe that 800/801s will not be available through more conventional purchase agreements should the DfT require it (are Hitachi really going to turn down business if they lose the lucrative TSA?)

The original batch (Great Western fleet) is going to cost twice as much per car per month compare to the lease+maintainance deal on Pendolinos. That crushes the operating cost benifit you would otherwise expect. Even the East Coast IEP fleet, some of which comes at a lower monthly fee, will INCREASE annual rolling stock costs for the franchise by a considerable ammount compared to the current IC125+IC225 fleet.

Assuming we use the train service agreement, which we are not required to.
And you seem to assume for some reason that the DfT would not have to purchase the new rolling stock required for this service through the same procurement officials that led to the abortion that is the IEP train service contract.

 

[jopsuk]

A DVT wouldn't be a DVT with passenger accomodation. A DBSOP (as with the mark 2s for example) perhaps, but definitely not a "van" if it carries passengers!

 

[tbtc]

ALl this talk of getting some new locos to go with some new coaches to go with some new DVTs reminds me of the (Groucho Marx?) quote that ""If we had some eggs we could have eggs and ham, if we had some ham"..

So we're incapable of building a type of DVT to operate with loco hauled services then?

We can build them, but to tackle the Liverpool - Norwich service we'd need at least a dozen new "68"s, almost a new hundred coaches and a dozen new DVTs (no ability to split the train at Nottingham, like is currently done).

And those new locos may only have a lifespan of ten/ fifteen years, since we'll need a lot fewer diesels after 2024.

If you are going to the bother of doing all that, you could build a fleet of units that are compatible with existing stock and keep things a lot simpler. Bi-mode stock* may be the way forward, given the long sections of line that will be electrified post-2019.

(not necessarily IEP)

 

[Rhydgaled]

So your LCHS set can accelerate like a near fully motored multiple unit?

Maybe like a 158, depending on how many carriages you have. Not as quick as an IEP though.

Your Class 68 will consume no fuel (and suffer from no diesel engine wear?) between Grantham and Peterborough, no fuel while idling/stabled in Norwich/Liverpool station, no fuel while travelling between Hazel Grove and Deansgate and no fuel between Liverpool South Parkway and Liverpool Lime Street?

With impending electrification and potential minor reroutes of the service the situation gets even more in favour of the IEP, with potentially continuous electric operation between Liverpool and Hazel Grove and between Dore and Nottingham.

Sorry, you said 'operational benifits' not just 'benifts', so I thought you were refering to a sub-set of benifits which wouldn't include the things you listed. In fact, either IEP or LHCS would remove the operational benifit of being able to use portion working.

As I probably said earlier in the topic, bi-mode capability would be rather useful for alot of things that don't need a 140mph unit with massive crumple zones and a lack of corridor connections on the ends. A bi-mode 158/444-type thing would have far more applications than an IEP bi-mode.

 

[60008]

In my opinion. I think there is still a future for push-pull trains but we need a different design for the carriages and the cab car at the other end. Something designed along the lines of the Class 700 would be ideal as the carriages are designed for fast boarding/alighting. So I think a rake of fixed set of six carriages including the cab car which would look like the Class 700 driving unit with a new Diesel Locomotive at the other end.

SNCF had the right idea when they had the RIB/RIO stock that was built in the 1970' and 1980's as these were designed to work with both Electric and Diesel Traction. Also there is a selector switch in the driving unit to select between the two. So I think if such stock based along the lines of the Class 700 (maybe it could be classed as the "Class 83" stock as DVT's use the 82xxx prefixes anyway).

New features could be added to the stock for this diagram. Which could be a shop/cafe section in car 3 or at the front/rear end behind the driving cab. Some carriages in the rake could be set to 3+2 combination to allow more seating in busier times. As for the type of Locomotive, the Class 68 would be a good choice. But what about something like a Class 65 (would be identical to the Vossloh Euro 4000 shrunk to UK loading gauge) in CC configuration.

Personally I think locomotive hauled stock is better than Railcars because they can be altered in length more easier than the DMU's as the operators can shove extra carriages in the rake if they longer trains as if you couple two DMU's (notably the Class 150/1's/170/185's) or Voyagers together. There is more limitations because there is no corridors in the middle due to the unused cabs which prevents passengers passing through the train. Loco-hauled carriages do not have this issue .

 

[HSTEd]

But you have to timetable the train as if it is at its maximum length all the time, so you gain almost nothing.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Personally I think locomotive hauled stock is better than Railcars because they can be altered in length more easier than the DMU's as the operators can shove extra carriages in the rake if they longer trains as if you couple two DMU's (notably the Class 150/1's/170/185's) or Voyagers together. There is more limitations because there is no corridors in the middle due to the unused cabs which prevents passengers passing through the train. Loco-hauled carriages do not have this issue .

Correct, Loco-hauled carriages do not have this issue, but a full loco-hauled set does (passengers can't walk through the loco if you couple two LHCS trains together).

A class 158 or class 444 on the other hand really does not have that problem. In my opinion, if a DMU or EMU can be built with corridor connections on the ends, it should be built with corridor connections on the ends. If it can't do that (because it has to go faster than 110 (possibly 115 in future) mph) then the formations should be long enough that you never ever have to run them in multiple in passenger service. It is in such a suituation that LHCS stands a chance of being at least as good a solution as an appropriately designed multiple unit*.

* a 67, 5 mrk3 coaches and a DVT is always going to be better than suburban DMUs like 165s/166, 170s, 185s etc. for regional express or intercity work though.

 

[tbtc]

Personally I think locomotive hauled stock is better than Railcars because they can be altered in length more easier than the DMU's as the operators can shove extra carriages in the rake if they longer trains as if you couple two DMU's (notably the Class 150/1's/170/185's) or Voyagers together

How often did/do loco hauled trains (inc HSTs, for arguments sake) actually alter their carriages?

It can happen with multiple units (222s were originally four/ nine coaches long, for example, Virgin have taken coaches from one Voyager to lengthen three other Voyagers). IEP is designed to allow coaches to be changed in a rake (with the software amendment taking forty minutes IIRC?).

Meanwhile, virtually every TOC sees DMUs or EMUs splitting/ joining on a regular basis, thus allowing supply to better match demand (like the Norwich - Liverpool service being discussed on this thread, which changes from two coach east of Nottingham to four coach west of Nottingham).

 

[Rhydgaled]

How often did/do loco hauled trains (inc HSTs, for arguments sake) actually alter their carriages?

More often than MUs. You can tell the unit number of a 2-car 158 from the coach numbers, for example, they almost never run with one coach from one unit and one from another unit, except FirstGW's hybrid 3-car sets.

 

[tbtc]

More often than MUs. You can tell the unit number of a 2-car 158 from the coach numbers, for example, they almost never run with one coach from one unit and one from another unit, except FirstGW's hybrid 3-car sets.

DMU trains do split/ join on a regular basis though, so are much more flexible than loco hauled. Imagine doing something like the Cambrian with loco hauled?

The fact that most individual DMUs are still formed of the same coaches as when they were built doesn't alter that.

 

[Aictos]

No mention of DVTs in Photohunter's post.

DMUs work well on this route. If there was a surplus of suitable LHCS and locos around that might be an argument for it, but to suggest new LHCS to go with new 68s just because they do on the continent is foolish.

If you had bothered to read the posts properly you would have noticed I was referring to the issue of reversals on route and the fact that European railways seem to cope okay with loco haulage.

I was merely pointing out that loco haulage could be used on such a route IF the right type of rolling stock was used - why do you think the WAG has both a 67 and a DVT at either end :roll: And by the way I made no mention of Class 68s so to your comments, well it's foolish not to read the posts fully

 

[dosxuk]

well it's foolish not to read the posts fully

Indeed, if you'd read my post fully, you'd have noticed I was quoting Photohunter71, not yourself.

 

[jopsuk]

How often did/do loco hauled trains (inc HSTs, for arguments sake) actually alter their carriages?

From what I've read, the Southern region of BR (and into NSE days) generally kept its hauled stock in formations that were as fixed as their EMUs.

 

[Whistler40145]

As the service may require strengthening at times, IMHO a Class 172/3 Turbostar type unit at a better quality would be better.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[asylumxl]

What "should" operate Liverpool to Norwich? Exactly what is already used on the service.

 

[Aictos]

What "should" operate Liverpool to Norwich? Exactly what is already used on the service.

Maybe though as 5/6 coaches west of Nottingham and 3 coaches east of Nottingham

 

[Whistler40145]

The Class 172/3 is the London Midland version with end connections, quite useful if more than one unit is required.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[60008]

As far as I recall, HST's had their rakes swapped around at times when maintenance schedules were due on parts of the train. So it happens more than you might think .

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correct, Loco-hauled carriages do not have this issue, but a full loco-hauled set does (passengers can't walk through the loco if you couple two LHCS trains together).

A class 158 or class 444 on the other hand really does not have that problem. In my opinion, if a DMU or EMU can be built with corridor connections on the ends, it should be built with corridor connections on the ends. If it can't do that (because it has to go faster than 110 (possibly 115 in future) mph) then the formations should be long enough that you never ever have to run them in multiple in passenger service. It is in such a suituation that LHCS stands a chance of being at least as good a solution as an appropriately designed multiple unit*.

* a 67, 5 mrk3 coaches and a DVT is always going to be better than suburban DMUs like 165s/166, 170s, 185s etc. for regional express or intercity work though.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's my point exactly. Also the concept of the Class 700 design carriages with a driving trailer and a locomotive at the other end would be equivalent to 3x Class 170's coupled together with a locomotive at one end but the six carriages would be accessible throughout. Perhaps the 3+2 seating idea wasn't so wise for this route. But more people can sit down on this 5-6 hour trek if they are going all the way to Liverpool from Norwich. In addition, Isn't it cheaper to just fill up one locomotive which could power the whole train rather than 4-5 underfloor units for a DMU/Railcar? Especially taking into account the requirements for HEP?

 

[HSTEd]

The traction equipment on a multiple unit weighs rather less than the whole locomotive, which means the excess is effectively dead weight.

Instead of carrying 20t of power units you are carrying 70t of steel.
Then add in the fact that it is now feasible to have bi-mode multiple units but apparently not locomotives with reasonable power output in the British loading gauge/weight restriction.

 

[Kneedown]

What "should" operate Liverpool to Norwich? Exactly what is already used on the service.

If i had 10p for everytime i gave the reasons why the current stock is unsuitable and needs replacing i'd have £2.40 now, so i'm not going to repeat myself anymore. Simply refer to my previous posts on the subject.

 

[asylumxl]

If i had 10p for everytime i gave the reasons why the current stock is unsuitable and needs replacing i'd have £2.40 now, so i'm not going to repeat myself anymore. Simply refer to my previous posts on the subject.

You're welcome! Go buy yourself something pretty .

 

[fowler9]

What should operate it is a class 37/4 with 4 or 5 mark 2's. If they can get the odd class 50 then even better. Failing that then a 4 car class 158 is pretty good at the job.

 

[60008]

What should operate it is a class 37/4 with 4 or 5 mark 2's. If they can get the odd class 50 then even better. Failing that then a 4 car class 158 is pretty good at the job.

Mate, that wouldn't work anymore as it is a "classic" set compared with the modern plastic. Nice config and would appeal to the bashers (fans) but probably not so much for the generic passenger, so something more modern looking would be needed here fella . Well I have thought of another "cheapo" replacement train. If there is any left, what about a Class 67 + Class 442 set converted to a remote unit like the Class 438 "4TC" sets were when they were used with 421's and Class 33's? Would make a nice sized train as well as the doors are powered. But the first class compartments would have to go though. Assuming there is still some leftovers stored somewhere.

Ah failing that, DfT could buy up the stored IE MkIII's and dig out some DVT/DBSO's to use with them for the other end of the train when in "push" mode .

 

[Kneedown]

You're welcome! Go buy yourself something pretty .

Maybe in 5 or so years, when they're completely knackered as opposed to pretty knackered, approaching 30 years old, is the time to go shopping, but 156's will hit 30 year old before that, and the 158's may need to be shifted onto their work.
Whatever, the time to start planning replacement is now given how long it takes to get things moving in this Country.