Cascade of DMUs to CURRENT TPE franchise

[pemma]

Don't forget that the reason SWT got rid of the 170s was so that they had a common fleet of 158/159s - with corridor connections!

Some 170s had been freed up by SWT no longer serving Brighton.

They were able to do a swap so they could get a greater number of 158s (the 159/1s were 158s when with TPE) so an overall capacity increase. Would they have been so keen to get rid of 170s if only 9 x 2 car 158s had been available and there was the option of taking on additional 170s?

 

[DT611]

Could the 185s goto SWT eventually with SWTs 158s and 159s then going to someone else?

well, how many 158/9s do SWT have? would the 185s be enough to replace the 158/9s in full? would the 185s over all have the same capacity?

 

[jopsuk]

3-car Class 159 has 172 Standard, 24 First. 3-car Class 185 has 154 Standard, 15 first. Can't find the seating capacity of a SWT 2-car 158

There are 51 185s. SWT has 30 159 and 11 158

So, if SWT took the 185s, it would be a larger fleet. However, if used as 3, 6 and 9 car trains as direct replacement, they would have lower capacity. Worse, 10-car formations would not be possible, and 12-car would be too long for the platforms. The Guard would only be able to check and sell tickets in one unit and if catering trollies were operating, there would need to be up to three per train- unless there was a hilariously expensive rebuild to change the cabs to a version of the 444 or 380 cab (not impossible, just very, very expensive).

It would mean more capacity on the local services currently operated by single 158s, and would potentially allow more 3 or 6 car services to be extended.

Overall it's probably not a good solution. It's basic attractiveness is "SWT use Desiros. 185s are Desiros, therefore they should be at SWT"

 

[pemma]

It's basic attractiveness is "SWT use Desiros. 185s are Desiros, therefore they should be at SWT"

I've thought for a long time if the 185s leave the North of England a better exchange would have been for the Scotrail 170s. Scotrail also have Desiros and they also have routes which involve a big of climbing (something the 185s were designed for.)

 

[DT611]

3-car Class 159 has 172 Standard, 24 First. 3-car Class 185 has 154 Standard, 15 first. Can't find the seating capacity of a SWT 2-car 158

There are 51 185s. SWT has 30 159 and 11 158

So, if SWT took the 185s, it would be a larger fleet. However, if used as 3, 6 and 9 car trains as direct replacement, they would have lower capacity. Worse, 10-car formations would not be possible, and 12-car would be too long for the platforms. The Guard would only be able to check and sell tickets in one unit and if catering trollies were operating, there would need to be up to three per train- unless there was a hilariously expensive rebuild to change the cabs to a version of the 444 or 380 cab (not impossible, just very, very expensive).

It would mean more capacity on the local services currently operated by single 158s, and would potentially allow more 3 or 6 car services to be extended.

Overall it's probably not a good solution. It's basic attractiveness is "SWT use Desiros. 185s are Desiros, therefore they should be at SWT"

thanks. yeah, in short, such a swap would be pointless. i'm sure eventually SWT could get their hands on some more 158s to increase capacity on local services where needed, if they haven't enough to do it all ready. so realistically, there would be no advantage to a swap for 185s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've thought for a long time if the 185s leave the North of England a better exchange would have been for the Scotrail 170s. Scotrail also have Desiros and they also have routes which involve a big of climbing (something the 185s were designed for.)

certainly that would be a better fit, and there would be some advantage to doing it. however, again, capacity will come into it.

 

[jopsuk]

Though 185s are 10tonnes per carriage heavier and can't use DMU/Sprinter speed differentials.

 

[pemma]

certainly that would be a better fit, and there would be some advantage to doing it. however, again, capacity will come into it.

There wouldn't be much difference in number of seats between a 3 car 170 with a FC area and a 3 car 185, while the 3 car 185s provide more seats than 2 car Sprinters. The one area there might be an issue is if Scotrail use 4 car Sprinters and the platforms won't take any longer formations.

 

[DT611]

There wouldn't be much difference in number of seats between a 3 car 170 with a FC area and a 3 car 185, while the 3 car 185s provide more seats than 2 car Sprinters. The one area there might be an issue is if Scotrail use 4 car Sprinters and the platforms won't take any longer formations.

+ as mentioned, the weight of the 185 over the sprinter meaning the 185 cannot take advantage of sprinter speeds, dispite i think being more powerful and being capible of a higher speed?

 

[matacaster]

Actually, we oop north are rather fond of our 185's so keep your hands off! We hardly ever get new trains, 333's are only other ones I can think of for ages.

On the other hand, we are open to the idea that you lot get our pacers when we've finished with them. You dump your rubbish up here, we would like to reciprocate.

Speaking as a northerner who had the privilege to travel on cascaded 308's for a while whose reliability and general state was appalling.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If Siemens were to do a new build of a DMU version of the 380s apart from the obvious of engines what else would need to be done to meet all the regs?

 

[WatcherZero]

Not a lot, the 380's are a hybrid with the components from their old desiro below the floor and their new desiro models bodyshell and interior.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

+ as mentioned, the weight of the 185 over the sprinter meaning the 185 cannot take advantage of sprinter speeds, dispite i think being more powerful and being capible of a higher speed?

When TPE had the full quota of 170/3s, they tended to be used on Hull to Manchester Piccadilly services as the route East of Selby had long stretches of track with Sprinter differentials. However the extra power and acceleration of 185s was sufficient to allow them to keep to time on those services even with extra speed restrictions in places.

 

[childwallblues]

156423 + 156452 were noted on the 1645 Manchester Piccadilly to Blackpool North yesterday.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Of course, there's the question of running costs, staff training and all that stuff, but surely with Gideon in charge of the economy there should be plenty of spare cash for a DfT grant or whatever...

Whilst I really do appreciate your optimism, something deep inside me is telling me that the DfT would be rather near to the bottom of the list of his pet financial projects..:roll:

 

[pemma]

When TPE had the full quota of 170/3s, they tended to be used on Hull to Manchester Piccadilly services as the route East of Selby had long stretches of track with Sprinter differentials. However the extra power and acceleration of 185s was sufficient to allow them to keep to time on those services even with extra speed restrictions in places.

Yes. Original plan was for all TPE services to have at least 3 carriages as there were 8 x 170s in daily service which all operated in pairs on Hull services but then DfT wanted TPE to run Scottish services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst I really do appreciate your optimism, something deep inside me is telling me that the DfT would be rather near to the bottom of the list of his pet financial projects..:roll:

While a recent DfT press release said Osborne can spot a Pacer from 100 yards, it was only a couple of years ago when a Tatton constituent asked Mr Osborne about getting newer bigger trains to replace overcrowded outdated trains and Mr Osborne replied saying he wasn't aware of a problem but said now he has been made aware of it he's taken it up with DfT and Northern Rail.

 

[onlinespotting]

Depends if XC had any choice in the matter. Remember the XC franchise is up for renewal soon. The owners of the stock may happy to get a long lease from TPE compared to an uncertain lease from XC.

I know voyagers get a bad press, but for anyone who has used the North Transpennine route they would be an absolute dream on there !!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I know voyagers get a bad press, but for anyone who has used the North Transpennine route they would be an absolute dream on there !!

If XC were to loose the Voyagers they'd need to have short-link HSTs to replace them

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

He probably didn't realise you could even get a train from his constituency into Manchester, as opposed to jumping on the first thing from Wilmslow back to London - always assuming he remembers to have the right type of ticket to sit in first class...

Whilst Wilmslow has two suburban lines into Manchester, one via Stockport and the other via Manchester Airport, these are operated by Northern Rail with Class 323 units that have NO first class accommodation. The ATW service from Wilmslow into Manchester with its Class 175 units also has NO first class accommodation.

 

[RobShipway]

If XC were to loose the Voyagers they'd need to have short-link HSTs to replace them

With the majority of HST's certainly from FGW going to Scotrail soon, there is not going to be much in the way of HST's to replace the 34 class 220 and 23 Class 221's that XC uses.

The only HST's that XC would be able to use are the ones that East Midlands trains use if or when they are replaced.

A better idea is for the 27 Class 222's to be replaced by AT300 Hybrid trains where the electrics can be used as far as Bedford and then diesel power from there onward.

The class 222 trains replace the 5 HST sets and the 23 class 221's with XC.

Then the 20 class 221's with VWC also get replaced by AT300 hybrid or similar train as well.

Now there are 51 class 185's, I can see if electrification gets restarted at least 10 of these trains being replace by either AT200 or Desiro trains or a hybrid version of either AT200 or Desiro, especially if the private funded scheme to electrify Selby to Hull goes ahead and the route to Cleethorpes is also included within this scheme.

Then possibly all the class 221's get moved to TPE to replace the remaining 41 class 185's.

I then see the class 185's where possible replacing the majority of class 155/156 trains with Northern.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How many miles of their running do the VWC do away from the wires (not counting diversions)? Would it be a small enough amount to make it viable for VWC to replace them with class 800s, freeing up their Voyagers to go elsewhere?

 

[D365]

How many miles of their running do the VWC do away from the wires (not counting diversions)? Would it be a small enough amount to make it viable for VWC to replace them with class 800s, freeing up their Voyagers to go elsewhere?

At this point in time it's pretty much essential for all LDHS services on the WCML to have tilt functionality. That includes the recently approved GNWR open-access service to Blackpool, who are said to be ordering a new six-car version of the Pendolino.

In the franchise holder's case, this might be an option again when the franchise is put out to tender, with new diesel locomotives ordered to replace their Super Voyager fleet on Holyhead services.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How many miles of their running do the VWC do away from the wires (not counting diversions)? Would it be a small enough amount to make it viable for VWC to replace them with class 800s, freeing up their Voyagers to go elsewhere?

Crewe-Chester (hourly) and on to Holyhead (6 return workings per day)
Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury (2 per day)
Preston-Blackpool (1 per day) - being electrified

At least 9 Voyagers are stll at work on Euston-Birmingham-Scotland services because there aren't enough Pendolinos.
Non-tilt trains won't work south of Rugby because they are limited to 110mph, so 800s are out.
VT also like Voyagers to use during engineering work on the wired sections of the WCML.

 

[RobShipway]

How many miles of their running do the VWC do away from the wires (not counting diversions)? Would it be a small enough amount to make it viable for VWC to replace them with class 800s, freeing up their Voyagers to go elsewhere?

Well, you have class 221's running to either Chester or Holyhead under the wires as far as Crewe, which would be better to be run by class 800's as far as Crewe under the electrics.

With class 800 replacing the Voyagers, well you have Hull Trains replacing 4 class 180's with class 800/AT300 trains possibly in the near future under the optional sets for the AT300's going to GWR as per thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2267375#post2267375, so I think an extra 20 sets to make it up to a nice round 24 trains being built would make it worthwhile for Hitachi to build the trains as an add on order to the AT300 trains ordered by GWR.

The AT300 trains could have tilt added to them, so that would not be a problem.

 

[D365]

The AT300 trains could have tilt added to them, so that would not be a problem.

Jesus Christ, I hope you're kidding!

 

[RobShipway]

Jesus Christ, I hope you're kidding!

I not kidding as Hitachi have built A-trains with tilting for the Taiwan Railway Administration. The class 800/AT300 trains are are part of the Hitachi A-Trains family so on that basis, it would be easy for them to add tilt to the trains.

 

[D365]

I not kidding as Hitachi have built A-trains with tilting for the Taiwan Railway Administration. The class 800/AT300 trains are are part of the Hitachi A-Trains family so on that basis, it would be easy for them to add tilt to the trains.

A-Train is a common marketing name. Class 800/IEP was never specced for tilt. Technically, if Hitachi were to develop a tilting variant, it would be an entirely different type.

 

[Bevan Price]

Voyagers on Trans Pennine services would probably be a bit of a disaster. Their door layout on busy services would extend station dwell times, and adversely affect punctuality.

 

[WatcherZero]

Don't Hitachi basically call everything they produce A-train no matter the size or shape? They even call their monorail design 'Alweg-Train' though the name comes originally from a Swedish design.

 

[Emblematic]

Don't Hitachi basically call everything they produce A-train no matter the size or shape? They even call their monorail design 'Alweg-Train' though the name comes originally from a Swedish design.

The A-train moniker covers the current design features and manufacturing techniques. The AT100/200/300, IEP and others are all A-trains.

Hitachi A train
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With the majority of HST's certainly from FGW going to Scotrail soon, there is not going to be much in the way of HST's to replace the 34 class 220 and 23 Class 221's that XC uses.

Less than half of the FGW HSTs go to Scotrail. If MML retain their current sets, there would still be enough HSTs for XC to entirely replace their Voyagers with HSTs, should they so desire (not that they will, but mathematically they could.) Remember that the only operators using HSTs by the end of the decade will be Scotrail, and possibly XC and MML (plus Network Rail.) All the others will be replacing their sets.

 

[childwallblues]

Whilst Wilmslow has two suburban lines into Manchester, one via Stockport and the other via Manchester Airport, these are operated by Northern Rail with Class 323 units that have NO first class accommodation. The ATW service from Wilmslow into Manchester with its Class 175 units also has NO first class accommodation.

Ah but the hourly WML-EUS operated by Virgin Trains does.