Transport for London Looking for New DMUs?

[Nym]

The whole point is trying to homogenise fleets, there's no point in having a micro-fleet at Northern of a handful of units. (Oh, hang on, 180s?)

And this whole infrastructure changes thing for 172s vice 150s on the Bedford to Bletchley Line I'm really sick of this broken record now, isolate one door and you're fine, and the chances are the doors will fit on the platform anyway.

Eight two carriage units certainly would be welcome around Manchester on the Bolton line to replace the services that will be going via Eccles instead, but it still needs a shed tonne of EMUs into the Manchester area ASAP. One of the main things that prevents the need for a silly amount more DMUs in Northernland is the provision of EMU services to Wigan ASAP to abstract passengers from Wigan away from the via Bolton and via Atherton services to travel via Eccles instead, meaning that said services via Bolton and Atherton are freed up for passengers between Wigan and Manchester. (Via Eccles would be sub. 30mins, 15mins better than the current fastest time, and 4, 6 or 8 car EMUs would be plenty of encouragement to use that route.)

 

[pemma]

True, but if they go down that road they're going to be competing fully on the open market whereas submitting a bid to just build centre cars means they're almost certainly going to win. Also it's worth pointing out that Bombardier as a business is getting plenty of work it's just their Derby plant that isn't.

If LO want the new trains in service for 2013 then Bombardier's 172 is really the only viable option. Siemens can't produce a revised 185 unit for then and they are stacked out the Desiro City and 350 order, they even warned of the 350s not being delivered quickly due to the Desiro City order. While Alstom haven't produced a DMU for the British network since the 175 and things have changed a lot since then.

Good news. Although it will be a pretty small order, so presumably a relatively high unit price?

Hopefully there will be an add-on order for another operator. In all seriousness maybe Northern are the best place for an add-on order.

* LM could use a few more new units but they don't need that many.
* FGW are too close to the end of the franchise to order new units and there has already been invitation to tenders for the next franchise.
* Northern have over 150 diesel trains towards the end of their expected shelf life, in need of loads of extra capacity. Plus they have over 100 more diesel trains that should be replaced before the end of the next franchise, so plenty of lines to cascade the new diesel units on to as lines get electrified.
* EMT would be another option but the 142s need withdrawing first and they are all with Northern.

 

[ainsworth74]

If LO want the new trains in service for 2013 then Bombardier's 172 is really the only viable option. Siemens can't produce a revised 185 unit for then and they are stacked out the Desiro City and 350 order, they even warned of the 350s not being delivered quickly due to the Desiro City order. While Alstom haven't produced a DMU for the British network since the 175 and things have changed a lot since then.

Well we'll just have to wait and see what happens won't we

My money is still on centre cars rather than an entire new build of 3-car DMUs.

 

[tbtc]

My money is still on centre cars rather than an entire new build of 3-car DMUs.

I think I agree.

I just wish that other orders of DMUs had the provision for extensions after a few years (once rising passenger numbers showed a proven demand for longer trains) - e.g. ATW 175s, most two coach 170s...

(also, going off topic, but isn't the reason for the 150 on the Bedford - Bletchley line just to satisfy one school service a day (which a single 153 couldn't cope with)? Tail wagging the dog?

 

[Failed Unit]

I think I agree.

I just wish that other orders of DMUs had the provision for extensions after a few years (once rising passenger numbers showed a proven demand for longer trains) - e.g. ATW 175s, most two coach 170s...

(also, going off topic, but isn't the reason for the 150 on the Bedford - Bletchley line just to satisfy one school service a day (which a single 153 couldn't cope with)? Tail wagging the dog?

I remember when we got the 153s in Lincolnshire, the solution to deal with the schools traffic was simple price it off. The 153s came along and the school traffic went by bus...

I remember when Central trains order the 170s, they said that the would extend as demand grew. The problem was the 170s seemed to become obsolete (engine emisions etc) long before they were extend. We don't seem to be able to do the 455 / 508 solutions anymore. I guess as trains get more complex it is harder. But before I get my rose tinted glasses out, did we ever extend units in the past. I know you could get 3 car 101s, but was that as built or were they extended later.

As for the tender.
We want a unit that is proven for use in the UK and can take advantage of sprinter speed limits (or just go for weight). That would rule out the 185 and Sieman's as they would need to type approve. I can only see it going one way, you don't want to retrain crews and fitters again!

 

[Nym]

Lets all just hope it kick starts a bigger order with some PTEs jumping on the bandwagon and ordering some units to be used exclusively in their areas...

Yes, I'm looking at YOU Mersey Travel and TfGM/GMPTE/AGMA whatever they are now, since they DO have several isolated, or very nearly isolated services.

Eg.
Manchester - Wigan via Bolton or Atherton (3 or 4 car 172s would be nice)
Manchester - Rose Hill and Marple (2 or 3 car?)
etc. etc.

We all know the kind of isolated services run by TfGM and MT, or they could club up with the three PTEs (Mersey, GM, WY) and get some decent stock oop Norf. Alternatively, NT can cough up for it with DfT Funding.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes, I'm looking at YOU Mersey Travel and TfGM/GMPTE/AGMA whatever they are now, since they DO have several isolated, or very nearly isolated services.

Eg.
Manchester - Wigan via Bolton or Atherton (3 or 4 car 172s would be nice)
Manchester - Rose Hill and Marple (2 or 3 car?)
etc. etc.

They are both being merged with other services to become longer through services. Im not saying new stock wouldnt be highly welcome, however it would be much better to have a large order for dozens of trains rather than a micro fleet and that stock is not going to be ordered until the Northern refranchise.

 

[tbtc]

Different tack - how about sixteen (or so) new 172s for Southern?

Reverse their 171s back to "common or garden" 170s and you've potential to spread them across a few TOCs to cascade Sprinters around (e.g. some SN 170s go to LM to release 153s elsewhere, some SN 170s go to GA to release 156s elsewhere)?

That avoids the hassle of "micro fleets"...

 

[IanXC]

Probably in a similar way that they currently make use of 2-car 165s. :P

The 172s aren't compatible with tripcocks though so their use is more restricted to Chiltern than the 165s.

Don't Chiltern operate 'local' services between Birmingham and Leamington using 2-car 165s? Also Services to Stratford and Oxford are not limited by the tripcocks issue.

 

[Nym]

Aye, it's going to need to be a megaorder, even with electrification coming in, I can think of a couple of places it could make sense (displacing Class 150 directly) but even then, it needs to be a big order at the beginning of the next Northern franchise.

 

[Eagle]

Don't Chiltern operate 'local' services between Birmingham and Leamington using 2-car 165s?

Yep, the Stratford–Leamington–Birmingham diagrams (which have brought p4 at Leamington back into regular use). And if you replaced those with 172s, considering that that's the same stock that LM use round those parts, you've got great potential for some inter-TOC shenanigans

 

[Rhydgaled]

Unfortunately so, voyagers are steel body, derby can only build aluminium bodies.

Build aluminium-bodied Voyager cars? How many alterations to Derby works would be justified to get 172 panto cars (for converting the whole 22x fleet to bi-mode) built there?

 

[ainsworth74]

Build aluminium-bodied Voyager cars?

I suspect that such a significant change would require such a redesign that you'd end up designing and then building an entirely new train. I doubt it's as simple as swapping the steel for aluminium (they have totally different qualities as metals for a start).

How many alterations to Derby works would be justified to get 172 panto cars (for converting the whole 22x fleet to bi-mode) built there?

Well they'd have to retrain their entire manufacturing workforce and bring in all new equipment, you also have to consider the fact that they will not have much experience in actually welding steel trains together. Also I doubt anyone is going to be ordering 172 vehicles (as nice as it would be) so I doubt the economic case would stack up for such a massive conversion program.

 

[IanXC]

Yep, the Stratford–Leamington–Birmingham diagrams (which have brought p4 at Leamington back into regular use). And if you replaced those with 172s, considering that that's the same stock that LM use round those parts, you've got great potential for some inter-TOC shenanigans

Or the franchise remapping to bring the LM Snow Hill routes into the Chiltern... how I recon it should have been all along!

Anyway, I'm always in favour of creating opportunities for shenanigans

 

[tbtc]

Or the franchise remapping to bring the LM Snow Hill routes into the Chiltern... how I recon it should have been all along!

Agreed

 

[YorkshireBear]

Build aluminium-bodied Voyager cars? How many alterations to Derby works would be justified to get 172 panto cars (for converting the whole 22x fleet to bi-mode) built there?

What ainsworth said, you cant just swap material about and hope it has the same result. An entire remodelling will be required even if this is only to prove aluminimum is sufficient, every step has to be done again. Crash modelling, etc etc. So its better for everyone just to do it in bruges.

 

[Rhydgaled]

What ainsworth said, you cant just swap material about and hope it has the same result. An entire remodelling will be required even if this is only to prove aluminimum is sufficient, every step has to be done again. Crash modelling, etc etc. So its better for everyone just to do it in bruges.

I'm not supprised you can't use the same design with a different metal, but things like crash modelling were beyond what I guessed would come up and hence would probably write the idea off. If it is too expensive, fair enough. I take it a 172 vehicle order for panto cars wouldn't be enough to justify a temporary steel assembly line at Derby either.

What would ecconomies of scale be like ordering all 172 vehicles versus DaFT's plans of just doing one TOC's fleet?

Back on topic, and speaking of DaFT, why is it that they made the (actually rather sensible) desision that it wasn't worth ordering any more DMUs due to possible future electrification plans, yet are still planning what is essecially a DMU (IEP) to replace IC125s and now there are discussions of replacing fairly new DMUs with even newer DMUs on a route with one of the strongest cases for electrification!??!?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I thought the Bruges plant had been closed?

 

[Eagle]

I thought the Bruges plant had been closed?

It's still very much in operation.

 

[ainsworth74]

Back on topic, and speaking of DaFT, now there are discussions of replacing fairly new DMUs with even newer DMUs on a route with one of the strongest cases for electrification!??!?

This isn't a DfT decision it's a TfL one. LOROL is controlled by TfL and is nothing to do with the DfT.

 

[Rhydgaled]

This isn't a DfT decision it's a TfL one. LOROL is the preserve controlled by TfL and is nothing to do with the DfT.

I thought DfT had a say on all rolling stock orders, even if the rolling stock is for services under TfL responcibility. That's just an assumption though, so I probably stand corrected on that.

 

[WatcherZero]

Dft rather than Tfl would set the wider national rolling stock policy, since they subsidise most fleets in service and therefore judge the value for money of older stock versus never stock and quantity they also usually get the say on what stock is ordered or used. Franchises can however order extra stock themselves for commercial routes that arent subsidised against Dft wishes for example the most recent order of 130 carriages by Southern when it became apparent the cascade would take longer than expected. Without Dft involvement they can process an order a heck of a lot faster (also freeing them from Government procurement even handedness red tape)

 

[anthony263]

I think TFL are really only looking at this option as a stop-gap measure because of the severe overcrowding on the line until they can get the wires up and get additional class 378's

 

[John55]

Dft rather than Tfl would set the wider national rolling stock policy, since they subsidise most fleets in service and therefore judge the value for money of older stock versus never stock and quantity they also usually get the say on what stock is ordered or used. Franchises can however order extra stock themselves for commercial routes that arent subsidised against Dft wishes for example the most recent order of 130 carriages by Southern when it became apparent the cascade would take longer than expected. Without Dft involvement they can process an order a heck of a lot faster (also freeing them from Government procurement even handedness red tape)

This order was placed because the DfT financed it. Southern did not order them as a commercial exercise.

 

[pemma]

I just wish that other orders of DMUs had the provision for extensions after a few years (once rising passenger numbers showed a proven demand for longer trains) - e.g. ATW 175s, most two coach 170s...

The routes the 175s were built for (Blackpool, Windermere, Llandudno etc) had loadings that were strongly affected by the number of tourists. A 5 car 175 on an off-peak Manchester Airport to Blackpool service in January would have been overkill. Although, the lack of corridor connectors didn't really suggest they were planning many 4 and 5 car 175 workings. Maybe loco hauled was a better option here.

 

[jopsuk]

I think TFL are really only looking at this option as a stop-gap measure because of the severe overcrowding on the line until they can get the wires up and get additional class 378's

Indeed. Why is why I would assume that they'll be careful to ensure that, as with the current 172s, they're easily cascadable elsewhere. It's a tender born of frustration; I'm sure they'd have preffered to go straight to four-car (possibly even additional 378s) EMUs, but they celarly feel capacity demands won't wait.

 

[tbtc]

The routes the 175s were built for (Blackpool, Windermere, Llandudno etc) had loadings that were strongly affected by the number of tourists. A 5 car 175 on an off-peak Manchester Airport to Blackpool service in January would have been overkill

I thought you'd support four/five coach trains on the line from Manchester Airport - Manchester - Bolton - Preston - Blackpool?

It's not just the "bucket and spade" market on that route after all.

 

[pemma]

I thought you'd support four/five coach trains on the line from Manchester Airport - Manchester - Bolton - Preston - Blackpool?

It's not just the "bucket and spade" market on that route after all.

I thought we were talking about what was ordered over 10 years ago when passenger numbers were lower on a lot of lines.

 

[Nym]

I thought you'd support four/five coach trains on the line from Manchester Airport - Manchester - Bolton - Preston - Blackpool?

It's not just the "bucket and spade" market on that route after all.

Certainly isn't a bucket and spade route, every single service off Bolton this morning was crush loaded, including a Victoria service that left 2 mins after the previous Victoria service, and 6 carriage 185s...!

 

[pemma]

Certainly isn't a bucket and spade route, every single service off Bolton this morning was crush loaded, including a Victoria service that left 2 mins after the previous Victoria service, and 6 carriage 185s...!

With current platform lengths it's needs to be 4 car units on stoppers and 6 car units on express services, with both having 23m carriages. The express services can split at Preston if desired.

I can see the proposed 4 car 350s and 4 car 319s causing problems in the coming years as the platforms won't be long enough to take doubled up units and the cars are only 20m so we'll be stuck with 4 car units on all services. In this case I think 3 car units with corridor connectors, similar to 172/3s or 37xs are the best solution for the express services, provided there are enough for the busy services to be doubled up.