Trans Pennine fleet

[pharrc20]

Oh bang goes the promised double 185 from Bolton at 07.35 then....... no chance of that happening now and if FTPE have to take units from Northern what are they most likely to take? I would guess the 158s over any of the other Northern operated stock right now.

 

What are the chances of several operators clubbing together and saying we will commission a new build of class 150/2s or 158s for all intents and purposes fully compatible with the existing units to bolster the fleets of say First ScotRail, First Great Western and Northern with the 150s and FSR, FGW, Northern and EMT for the 158s? Pig pies in the skies thinking? Or exactly what is needed and potentially a much needed boost to what remains of the British Train Building industry. You might say build new designs but few if any new designs are compatible with the older DMU types.

 

Cheers Paul

[Glorious NSE]

172s should be compatible with all 15x/14x series...

 

(But nobody will fund new DMUs...)

[woodenhead]

Why would you build what was a BR 80s design of train?

 

What this issue is highlighting is the impact of the time lag over procuring new stock in the early 2000s before the rolling electrification programme we have now which demands more electric units and a cascade programme to redeploy more modern diesel units rather than new build.

[pharrc20]

True why build obsolete designs? Well at least they work and are proven they might be old hat but at the end of the day the commuters would just be glad of some additional coaches that can easily be added to their morning or evening trains. The KISS principle may well come into play here. And whilst I think on whatever happened to the mooted plan to increase some of the 185s from three to four cars? DfT meddling again I guess.

 

Cheers Paul

[Hesperus]

Are there any spare HST sets or 67+mk3s+DVT available if the DaFT could be talked into paying for them?

 

Also as a side note,  if the electrification schemes and/or replacement stock arn't ready for next years pacer withdrawl is there any way that they could get a stay of execution?  With the current overcrowding problems it seems a shame that a pacer couldn't be tagged onto the back of slower peak hour services after the cut off date.  After all, the service would have accessible coachs, just not all of them.

 

 

True why build obsolete designs? Well at least they work and are proven they might be old hat but at the end of the day the commuters would just be glad of some additional coaches that can easily be added to their morning or evening trains. The KISS principle may well come into play here.

 

I would imagine that european emmissions regulations would be at the top of a long list of reasons why you couldn't legally build more Sprinters.  The only way round it that I can see would be converting electric units of a similar age using secondhand engines from Pacers and I can't see that happening however deep the austerity measures get.

[surfsup]

Are there any spare HST sets or 67+mk3s+DVT available if the DaFT could be talked into paying for them?

 

Also as a side note,  if the electrification schemes and/or replacement stock arn't ready for next years pacer withdrawl is there any way that they could get a stay of execution?  With the current overcrowding problems it seems a shame that a pacer couldn't be tagged onto the back of slower peak hour services after the cut off date.  After all, the service would have accessible coachs, just not all of them.

 

 

 

I would imagine that european emmissions regulations would be at the top of a long list of reasons why you couldn't legally build more Sprinters.  The only way round it that I can see would be converting electric units of a similar age using secondhand engines from Pacers and I can't see that happening however deep the austerity measures get.

 

 

No spare HST sets around these days, the last ones were taken up by the DfT Cross Country Franchise Spec. There are however a good number of MK3 DVTs, Fair few ex Cargo D Mk3s around and there must be a few spare 67s around (when not in use with Chiltern) but to make use of a DVT you lose effectively the length of a Mk3 in dead space, the DVT & 67s would also have to be modified and the irony - The bulk of the spare Mk3s, DVTs and 67s are owned by DB Regio and DB Schenker respectively, mostly brought for potential use with Chiltern in mind.

[Edwin_m]

It's thought to be impossible to build an underfloor-engine DMU that complies with the latest emissions regulations. 

 

Not sure where Pacers going next year came from, I thought the deadline was 2020 for major accessibility works or withdrawal. 

 

This problem is earlier than that, between the transfer of 172s to Chiltern sometime in 2015 and the electrification of north TPE a couple of years later that will free some 185s.  In the meantime the 185s displaced from Manchester-Scotland will be working a fifth TPE service per hour over the core Manchester-Leeds route and on to Liverpool and Newcastle (but replacing the existing TPE service north of York). 

 

Northern has relatively few 158s and they are employed on routes not planned for electrification (Calder Valley, York-Blackpool, Leeds-Nottingham and Leeds-Carlisle) so these services will lose out in rolling stock quality, most likely 156s from the Liverpool area instead, possibly temporarily if the TPE electrification allows the 158s to come back.  At least when TPE see the pretty awful interiors of these 158s they will probably authorise some improvements. 

[black and decker boy]

True why build obsolete designs? Well at least they work and are proven they might be old hat but at the end of the day the commuters would just be glad of some additional coaches that can easily be added to their morning or evening trains. The KISS principle may well come into play here. And whilst I think on whatever happened to the mooted plan to increase some of the 185s from three to four cars? DfT meddling again I guess.

 

Cheers Paul

 

The 1980s sprinter design will not meet current crashworthiness requirements. Reliability and running costs of the sprinters is far worse than the modern 170/172/185 designs which are compatible if so specified (LM run 170 & 172s in multiple with 15x sprinters).

 

From Jan 1 2015, there are no underfloor diesel engines on the market that meet the emissions rules.

 

The best option would be a quickie order for a 4th class 185 car, powered or unpowered trailer but whilst that adds capacity, it does not add units or flexibility which TPE also need. If Northern don't get enough EMUs early in 2015 or enough track to run them on then there won't be that many DMUs that potentially could go to TPE. In the end, I guess it will depend on who gets a signed extention contract from DfT first as they will eb able to confirm their leases and protect their rolling stock from being 'stolen' by another TOC.

 

It makes you wonder if any other TOCs with long term franchises could exploit the current DfT inertia to add to or upgarde their train fleets - Arriva Wales could get extra units or swap out some pacers if Northern can't sign up their fleet? Might never happen but now the precedent has been set, who knows?

[Glorious NSE]

Not sure where Pacers going next year came from, I thought the deadline was 2020 for major accessibility works or withdrawal. 

 

Yes, I believe it's 2020. Even then, I believe the requirement is for each *train* to be accessible, not for each multiple unit forming that train, or each car in that train...whilst it reduces flexibility, if capacity really is the #1 issue, then an upgraded accessible sprinter coupled to pacer(s) full of standard seating might be a logical development for busy DMU routes.

[cheesysmith]

The problem with extending the 185 is the fact the overweight German track muncher that it is requires the 17 litre cummins engine, which is now out of production due to emissions. They are reliable, and build like tanks, but all this add mass, which is why they are not allowed to exploit the high permissible speeds for sprinters. Of course, you could add a unpowered trailer car or two, but then they would have to run with most of the engines actually burning fuel, which would come directly off the franchises bottom line.

 

They really need rebuilding with a smaller engined power train, with lighter more track friendly bogies, but this wouldn't happen because the best bits required to do thus are not from Siemens, so from the companies viewpoint is a non starter.

 

If you think I don't like the talking fridges (which I don't), just remember that the are a 3 coach train, running to the same times as the old 31 between sheffield and manchester. The difference is the old 31 had only 1400hp (ish) and 4 coaches, whereas these have only 3 coaches and 2250hp (ish). Not much of a forwards step in 30 years.

[eastwestdivide]

I'd disagree somewhat with the last para above: I'd say it's a reasonable forwards step today...

Manchester-Sheffield on today's TP is scheduled for 48 mins, while my 1985 ABC timetable shows it as 58 or 60 mins, depending on the hour.

How much of that is down to the route (when did Hazel Grove open?), versus line speeds, versus motive power, is open to question.

As for seating, assuming one brake, 4 coaches behind a 31 gives 64*3.5 = 224 seats max (less a bit for 1st class?), compared to 154 + 15 1st class on a 185.

But there's now two fast trains an hour on that route (the other mostly a 4-car EM) instead of the one.

 

And yes, give me a comfortable Mk1/Mk2 seat over the 185's church pews.

[Talltim]

The problem with extending the 185 is the fact the overweight German track muncher that it is requires the 17 litre cummins engine, which is now out of production due to emissions. They are reliable, and build like tanks, but all this add mass, which is why they are not allowed to exploit the high permissible speeds for sprinters. Of course, you could add a unpowered trailer car or two, but then they would have to run with most of the engines actually burning fuel, which would come directly off the franchises bottom line.

 

They really need rebuilding with a smaller engined power train, with lighter more track friendly bogies, but this wouldn't happen because the best bits required to do thus are not from Siemens, so from the companies viewpoint is a non starter.

 

Surely you're contracting yourself. Add an extra unpowered vehicle and the power to weight ratio goes down to something sensible, in exactly the same way as reducing the power. It costs more to run, but it depends whether you want more capacity or lower bills. Do you make more money from an extra coach than you pay to move it?

[Ron Ron Ron]

Jack Straw. Labour MP for Blackburn, raised the issue of the transferring of DMU's from TPE to Chiltern and the levels of overcrowding in "the House" today, at PM question time (about 20 minutes ago at 1215'ish).

He was interrupted and almost drowned out by a wall of laughter and derision, with the Speaker doing little to quell the noise and not allowing him to be heard properly.

The BBC commentator also took this opportunity to do a voice over, blocking out some of Jack Straw's comments.

 

In his reply, David Cameron pointed out that the Pennine and NW Electrification programmes were going ahead, as well as the Northern hub.

He also made reference to the welcome investment and improvements on the Chiltern line, which serves his constituency. 

 

 

.

[black and decker boy]

Jack Straw. Labour MP for Blackburn, raised the issue of the transferring of DMU's from TPE to Chiltern and the levels of overcrowding in "the House" today, at PM question time (about 20 minutes ago at 1215'ish).

He was interrupted and almost drowned out by a wall of laughter and derision, with the Speaker doing little to quell the noise and not allowing him to be heard properly.

The BBC commentator also took this opportunity to do a voice over, blocking out some of Jack Straw's comments.

 

In his reply, David Cameron pointed out that the Pennine and NW Electrification programmes were going ahead, as well as the Northern hub.

He also made reference to the welcome investment and improvements on the Chiltern line, which serves his constituency. 

 

 

.

 

I always expected the politicians to go for that defense - you've never had it so good, electrification (don't mention its 2017 or so when live), lots of new electric trains (available 2016 / 17 25 years old and in need of TLC but you don't need to know that), Northern Hub (no extra trains to run along it), Metrolink to every lamp post and a 2nd city crossing (only helps Manchester & bits of Salford) and forthcomiong local accounability for the franchise via Rail North (don't mention the subsidy cuts \ cap).

[frobisher]

It's thought to be impossible to build an underfloor-engine DMU that complies with the latest emissions regulations.

Except the IEP would put lie to that at the very least because that's exactly what the Bi-Mode version is. I suspect that it's not cheap/cost effective to build your average under floor engine DMU now.

['CHARD]

From the BBC, here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26438550

 

 

"MP Louise Ellman has written to the Secretary of State for Transport for an explanation about plans to transfer nine trains to Chiltern Railways.

... ...

The current train operator has "no contractual rights" to the locomotives."

[Adam1701D]

There is talk of a face-saving sub-lease being nogitiated between Chiltern and TPx to allow the trains to stay in the North. The entire business is a complete mess and shows exactly why the current franchise / ROSCO model of privitisation urgently needs overhauling.

['CHARD]

There is talk of a face-saving sub-lease being nogitiated between Chiltern and TPx to allow the trains to stay in the North. The entire business is a complete mess and shows exactly why the current franchise / ROSCO model of privitisation urgently needs overhauling.

 

Hmmmmm....  I know I'm in danger of defending the indefensible in the eyes of many, but as a one time RoSCo PR, I share the view that the leasing part of the privatisation isn't so bad.  Porterbrook are free to re-lease the trains when they come off lease, which they were due to do. 

 

I'm not too sure what other model of privitisation we would move to that would solve this perceived problem, and I say that as a sworn opponent of the whole Railways Act 1993.

[Talltim]

My issue with ROSCO is they appear to take no risk. Why aren't they commissioning new trains off their own bts and hawking them round the TOCs?

Say they built Pacer replacements and scrapped the Pacers, they could charge far more for the new trains and the TOCs and the DfT would have to put up or shut up.

[black and decker boy]

My issue with ROSCO is they appear to take no risk. Why aren't they commissioning new trains off their own bts and hawking them round the TOCs?

Say they built Pacer replacements and scrapped the Pacers, they could charge far more for the new trains and the TOCs and the DfT would have to put up or shut up.

I think the problem stems from a 30 year book life that needs to be covered. We have a short term shortage at present that the ongoing electrification works will plug over the next 5 years. After that, the Sprinters, Turbos and their more modern cousins will be able to keep running with suitable refurbs and they still have life in them and so a value. To buy a new DMU now, even if the technology and production space was on hand, might find limited use after 2020 or may in itself be in competition with refurbished sprinters that are much much cheaper. Given that DfT sets the available funds for TOCs, hates ROSCOs and seemingly does not give two hoots about passengers, you know that the TOCs will be told to take the cheapest trains in a oversupply situation and not the best, most modern or passenger friendly.

 

ROSCOs are not aversed to buying trains and having short leases but with all the Anti-ROSCO bile from the DfT, the ongoing attempts to buy trains via routes that exclude ROSCOs (eg Thameslink, Crossrail, IEP), you can perhaps understand why the ROSCOs have taken a step back on risky buys and let the market stew. They cannot loose money when there is a shortage but can if they go out and buy something that DfT then refuses to use out of spite.

[cheesysmith]

Surely you're contracting yourself. Add an extra unpowered vehicle and the power to weight ratio goes down to something sensible, in exactly the same way as reducing the power. It costs more to run, but it depends whether you want more capacity or lower bills. Do you make more money from an extra coach than you pay to move it?

I miss out a or in the post above. If you are going to keep em as 3car, fitting them with the transmission off the 172 and maybe the smaller cummins engines, or keep as is and add unpowered trailers.

 

As to modern trains being overpowered, I remember a tail of a cummins engineer turning up at FGW to fix a engine on the 180s, only to be told to come back later in the week when the set would be in depot for maintenance. Having been used to dealing with the virgin units, he asked what about the lack of power on the timings? The reply was that as long as it was safe, the just isolated the engine and the sets kept time with only 4 engines anyway.

[Edwin_m]

Yes, Voyagers and Meridians can happily keep time with one engine out so I imagine 180s can too.  In fact I think, like the 185s, 22x now have an "eco mode" which shuts down one engine on rotation so as to reduce fuel consumption.  Full power may be restored if the train is running late. 

[Talltim]

ROSCOs are not aversed to buying trains and having short leases but with all the Anti-ROSCO bile from the DfT, the ongoing attempts to buy trains via routes that exclude ROSCOs (eg Thameslink, Crossrail, IEP), you can perhaps understand why the ROSCOs have taken a step back on risky buys and let the market stew. They cannot loose money when there is a shortage but can if they go out and buy something that DfT then refuses to use out of spite.

But if they've scrapped the cheap-to-lease old units, then the DfT has no choice!

[Glorious NSE]

I think the bottom line is that, despite what the DfT say, the ROSCO's have been responsible, and haven't indulged in lots of shenanigans to artificially increase their profits. If they had done, then when the M&M comission investigated it then it all might have gone a different way, so I don't see them likely to do so.

 

Besides, at least in theory (as it would add megabucks to govt. debt in practice) the DfT could counter that by choosing to replace all ROSCO owned trains by new ones funded themselves - putting the ROSCOs out of business.

 

Despite different stakeholders coming up with assorted rants, it's in (almost) everyones interest for the ROSCO's to carry on using, developing, and investing in improvments to the existing fleets.

[DerekEm8]

Yes, Voyagers and Meridians can happily keep time with one engine out so I imagine 180s can too.  In fact I think, like the 185s, 22x now have an "eco mode" which shuts down one engine on rotation so as to reduce fuel consumption.  Full power may be restored if the train is running late. 

The modified 185s were temporarily identified during the 'eco' modifications -(no it's not the track gauge )