Why all the short trains?

[poshbakerloo]

Why all the short trains?

Why are short trains still produced? So many times we have all been on 2 or 3 coach trains that are jammed to the doors, everyone complains...

Even brand new trains like the 172s which are still due to come out are gonna only be short trains with few coaches, and I'm sure they'll just end up just as jammed at other trains like them...

The TPE 185s have only 3 coaches, most of the time they should be 6! I have seen 2 units joined up a few times but travelling Sheffield-Stockport its only ever been a single set urg...

 

[Fincra5]

Well older DMUs and emus were short too. You can't just make long trains for routes with short stations...

 

[poshbakerloo]

Well older DMUs and emus were short too. You can't just make long trains for routes with short stations...

What about longer trains for congested routes, with long platforms? lol

 

[Fincra5]

What about longer trains for congested routes, with long platforms? lol

What about during the remainder of the day when it isn't that busy?

To make longer trains TOCs (on busy routes) will put multiple units together.

 

[NSEFAN]

Some routes can only take short trains, so you either have to increase the frequency (as with the GOBLIN) or increase platform length (as with the NLL).

Both will have their advantages, eg, running more frequent trains removes the expense of platform lengthening, but is more costly operating wise, and visa versa for longer trains. The decision is made depending on the demand for service and layout of the existing railway.

With the 172s, they may be 2 cars like the 150s, but they have a greater capacity by reducing the number of seats. As the GOBLIN now runs a 20 min frequency on saturdays and at peak times, the capacity will be greatly improved when the class is introduced.

There is also the option to extend the 172s to 3 car sets if needed. Not sure what decision has been made on this though, and I believe there are some stations which wouldn't be able to take them.

On the NLL, many stations will have platforms lengthened to cope with 4 car class 378s, as the line can't take any more trains, and even after the upgrade I suspect it will be pretty tight (albeit, not as bad as before). So the only realistic option is to make the trains longer.

As for routes which CAN take longer trains already and there IS stock available somewhere, well you'll need to ask the DaFT about that one! They dictate who has which trains!

 

[mumrar]

What about longer trains for congested routes, with long platforms? lol

I think you'll find that catered for by the 'M' part of DMU. It allows longer trains when necessary, but shorter at other times.

 

[yorksrob]

I think you'll find that catered for by the 'M' part of DMU. It allows longer trains when necessary, but shorter at other times.

Indeed, although as a Southern Region man it always surprises me that using units in multiple seems to be much rarer outside of what was NSE. I'd have thought that the ability to do this is potentially one of the main advantages of multiple unit operation. Also is there some rule in the North which says that you can't split/join units with people on them?

 

[142094]

Try putting a 6 car double 185 on platforms such as Thornaby, York platform 4 or anywhere else. That will explain to you why short trains are still produced.

 

[generalvegitable]

what about milton keynes platform 2a? at an estimate I would say that is a 3 car maximum

 

[yorksrob]

Try putting a 6 car double 185 on platforms such as Thornaby, York platform 4 or anywhere else. That will explain to you why short trains are still produced.

Interestingly the Southern came up with a solution to this in the 1930's in the form of modular concrete platform extensions (and indeed platforms) which were made at it's concrete works at Exmouth. you can still see em all over the South.

 

[142094]

I completely forgot about TPE using selective door opening on some services. A few years ago I was on an early morning double 185 Newcastle - Liverpool Lime Street direct, which had to do this at Thirsk as the train was too long for the platform.

However this does mean a lot of messing around for passengers, especially at rush hour and especially for those that cannot hear or do not listen to the announcements.

 

[yorksrob]

However this does mean a lot of messing around for passengers, especially at rush hour and especially for those that cannot hear or do not listen to the announcements.

And the fact that so many units are built without inter-unit vestibules could lead to passengers being stranded in the wrong part of the train.

 

[Pumbaa]

what about milton keynes platform 2a? at an estimate I would say that is a 3 car maximum

4-car. One MK - Croydon service a day uses it, and in times of need to shunt a unit away.

 

[gregh]

Interestingly the Southern came up with a solution to this in the 1930's in the form of modular concrete platform extensions (and indeed platforms) which were made at it's concrete works at Exmouth. you can still see em all over the South.

Possibly a little picky, but it was Exmouth Junction, not Exmouth. Exmouth Junction is where the Exmouth line branches away from the main Exeter to Waterloo line.

A surviving example of one of those modular platforms can be seen just a short distance from those old works, at Polsloe Bridge (unless they've replaced the platform in the last few years) just a couple of hundred yards from Exmouth Junction.

 

[yorksrob]

Possibly a little picky, but it was Exmouth Junction, not Exmouth. Exmouth Junction is where the Exmouth line branches away from the main Exeter to Waterloo line.

A surviving example of one of those modular platforms can be seen just a short distance from those old works, at Polsloe Bridge (unless they've replaced the platform in the last few years) just a couple of hundred yards from Exmouth Junction.

Cheers for the correction. My knowledge west of Salisbury's a little sketchy

 

[jopsuk]

extending platforms though isn't just a simple case of plonking down a structure with a flat top, at least, not at all stations. A great many stations are constrained when it comes to platform extensions by junctions, level crossing and buildings close to the line. "Island" platforms can be particularly problematic.

 

[gregh]

Cheers for the correction. My knowledge west of Salisbury's a little sketchy

And mine to be honest - and i used to sign it!!

 

[yorksrob]

extending platforms though isn't just a simple case of plonking down a structure with a flat top, at least, not at all stations. A great many stations are constrained when it comes to platform extensions by junctions, level crossing and buildings close to the line. "Island" platforms can be particularly problematic.

And they had all of those problems on the Southern too - stations such as Chatham stuck between tunnels being a good case (they had to eliminate it's outer platforms and have trains pass/terminate elsewhere instead) yet a cheap, easy to assemble on site modular design undoubtedly made it easier and cheaper to extend lots of platforms in one go for schemes such as the Kent electrification.

 

[aspierail]

I would say the reason why we have short trains is because some of the routes they travel on might not able to cope with 3 or 4 car trains as the platform is too short this would normally happen on rural routes but can happen on other lines too.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

The main reason for shorter trains is a) short term thinking when they were ordered - i.e. some plonker never thinks that trains will get busier over time and b) the current obsession with platform lengths.

When I grew up in the Southern Region it was fairly regular for long trains to stop at short platforms. You were simply told by station announcements prior to boarding to make sure you were in the correct part of the train for short platforms. There were then other announcements on board. Sometimes the train had no corridor so you really were stuffed if you hadn't listened before hand. When the train reached the short platform there was no central door locking to lock people in - if you were alongside the platform you opened the door and got out. If you weren't you didn't. Simple. I don't recall many people falling to their death.

With the advent of newer trains with automatic doors it eventually became compulsory to ensure that those parts of the train not alongside the platform remained locked out of use. On the Southern this is now accomplished via a GPS linked system on the train. On the TPE units I work on - and most other DMU types built 80s and 90s - you have to physically lock out the doors. The Class 185s also have a system whereby you can lock out a whole unit electrically from the cab, but not each coach individually. Thus you may have a 6 coach train stopping at a 5 car platform with only 3 cars open as the rear 3 are locked electrically.

Older trains still operating - primarily HSTs - still have "grandfather" rights - hence an HST can stop at some short platforms and still have the door locks released on all doors - even those not alongside the platform.

So, for example, in the 1980s you may have a 3 or 4 car DMU stopping at a 2 car platform quite happily. Nowadays you either have to have a 2 car DMU on its own, or lock the doors out of use on any additional units. Locally, Cottingley or Deighton are good examples. Both platforms can accommodate a 3 car pacer or 2 car 15x unit maximum. At peak times using conventional DMUs you could stop with a 4 car unit quite happily. Now, anything longer than a 3 car pacer or 2 car 15x causes problems. There is the odd diagram which involves a 3 car 158 at the aforementioned stations, and only 1 door (the guards local door) is allowed to opened. As you can imagine this can cause some problems.

Thus it is far simpler just to run shorter trains.

Oh, and politically, don't forget the DFT controls train orders. As far as the DFT is concerned anywhere north of Peterborough or Milton Keynes only requires short (cheap) trains!

 

[yorksrob]

I think the other issue is that you can't just keep adding more and more short trains onto the same network. At some stage you either have to lengthen trains and platforms or build new lines - and lengthening trains and platforms would be far cheaper, particularly since many routes in the North were built with longer platforms than todays trains

 

[Fincra5]

I'm confused why other trains do not feature the same GPS system as the Southern Electrostars. However it does have its drawbacks, seeing as the system is based from a older operating system (similar to win95, i was told), you can that annoying "This is coach number.... of...." even on trains that do not have platform length issues.

Also it is interesting that the system only contains 1 number of allowed cars per station. Portslade is 6 cars on one side and 12 on the other, however the GPS system will only allow the rear 6 cars to open (i believe, it may have been fixed).

 

[northwichcat]

Try putting a 6 car double 185 on platforms such as Thornaby

The best solution would be for TPE to be a proper express service with longer trains and for Northern to acquire more shorter trains for extra local trains for stations like Thornaby and Yarm. 6 car trains would be appropriate for fast trains between Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester and between Manchester, Huddersfield and Leeds

 

[142094]

However that would mean that Northern would have to start serving Yarm, which they don't at present. Thornaby is relatively well served with the Saltburn - Darlo, Middlesbrough - Newcastle and Middlesbrough - Manchester workings, so that wouldn't be a problem. Going to Yarm would probably create pathing problems, and I don't think there is that great a market for extra trains at Yarm.

However this still wouldn't help the situation at Thirsk.

 

[Waddon]

On the subject of extending platforms, I wonder what is the least extendable station in the UK? I'd vote for St. Leonards Warrior Square, with both ends of the platform having a tunnel entrance. Good job that it's long enough for it's current use...

 

[yorksrob]

I'd say that Chatham and Tunbridge Wells Central would be in the same position. Probably Dover Priory as well.

 

[jopsuk]

Chesunt won't be easy- given that most West Anglia services stop there I'm not sure how this affects the 12 car plans. But then the trains on that line are hardly "short" by most (and especially northern) standards.

 

[Drsatan]

Although I'm fairly ignorant on matters relating to ROSCOs (Rolling Stock Leasing Companies), the reason why TOCs tend to run short trains is due to leasing charges levied by the ROSCOs and track access charges.

One of the flaws of today's privatised railway is that the ROSCOs can charge whatever they like for a TOC to lease rolling stock. Mk2 carriages cost about £200,000 a year to lease (or something similar) even though they're 30 years old so their construction cost has been written off multiple times. The leasing charges for a Mk2 should be less than those of a multiple unit carriage because a Mk2 has less "asset value" - whereas a MU has engines or traction motors that can be sold for scrap, a Mk2 doesn't have those. This helps to explain the dearth of loco hauled passenger trains in the Uk( although you have to consider other reasons like the absence of run-round facilities at termini stations, lack of suitable locomotives, and track access charges for locomotives), even though I and most passengers would rather spend 3 hours on a Mk2D than in a 158.

Locomotives cost more to lease from a FOC or spot-hire company, and the TOC then has to pay track access charges on top of that. A 67 has a route availability of 8 because of its high axle load, so it'll be charged considerably more to run on the network by NR than a 158, which is RA2 because of its lower axle load. So in this respect TOCs prefer to plump for multiple units.

By running shorter trains, TOCs pay less in rolling stock leasing costs. You may remember in December 2006 FGW handed back to the Roscos most of its 153s, as well as a few 150s and 158s. Although this resulted in gross overcrowding, and public uproar, I read somewhere that on average FGW saved £300,000 per year on every carriage taken out of service. That option must have seemed tempting given that FGW had a premium to pay. However, DafT published a remedial plan due to FGW's poor performance which among other things, insisted that FGW had to lease five extra 150s to allow Cardiff-Pompey services to go back to three cars.

Hope this helps

 

[Multiple Unit]

A the end of the day its all to do with Money you will come accross many station arround that have had there platforms shortened but only by fencing etc.

 

[tbtc]

The question should be "why are so many new trains built without corridor connections"?

I've no problem with 153s which can be lengthened easily. However, trying to add two Pacers together means one unit is without a guard, which can cause a few problems (and may put vulnerable passengers off).

I get that 100mph units need to be streamlined, but there's no excuse for slower trains to be built without the benefits of a corridor in the end.