Creation of class 230 DEMUs from ex-LU D78s by Vivarail

[Bletchleyite]

Interestingly Tony Miles has posted on wnxx that a D-Train with a full new interior will finish up only being slightly cheaper to lease than the new build CAF stock due to their only be limited time to recoup the cost of modifications to D-Trains.

That might have been part of the basis of the Northern decision. However, D-trains with the original LUL interior (perhaps with a couple of doors blocked off and replaced with new seats) would be fine for a number of lines, certainly for the Marston Vale. No massive need for a bog either, it's only a short journey and the stations at both ends have bogs.

I'd rather sit sideways than in the airline 2+3 midget seating of a 150/2 or even 2+2 midget seating of the 153, and the original D-stock interior has some facing seats.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It really worries me when people do not like the 230s because they are "second hand". Is that pride coming before a fall ?. The 230s are going to be as good as new. Its the price and their capabilities that interests me - not some arbitrary label.

Don't forget that the cheapest option offered by VivaRail for the 230s is effectively a D-Stock seating configuration, designed for high density travel. So passengers could end up standing on a 230 just as easily as new stock, unless the TOC opted for the more expensive options in which case the economic case between 230s and new starts to weigh in favour of new, especially if electrification projects continue to slip.

As far as the Northern franchise is concerned, I do wonder if such slippage was as much as an influence on the decision for all new as the political pressure. It might have occurred to them that any DMU solutions may have to be around much longer than originally planned, and thus opting for new stock with a longer expected shelf life could well have been the deciding factor. Personally, beyond the current and planned North TP sparks projects, I would not be entirely surprised if further proposed ones such as the Calder Valley might suddenly slip away into the distance.

I do believe that new DMUs will undermine the case for electrification. That is as long as there are enough of them to overcome growth - and Pacer replacement hopefully. The deadline of 2020 (or is it 2019) means there should be a DMU shortage. So assuming electrification cannot keep up then a short term replacement (not directly for the Pacers I will reiterate) will be best to avoid undermining the case for electrification.

I see the 230s as a chance to fill a gap after the DDA legislation has culled the DMU fleet. Allowing time for electrification to be realistically achieved without lasting too long. I do think the current pace of electrification is unfortunately proving to be too fast to be achieved. It therefore follows that the new DMUs ordered for Northern could be a sign that electrifcation will be forgotten.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I see the 230s as a chance to fill a gap after the DDA legislation has culled the DMU fleet. Allowing time for electrification to be realistically achieved without lasting too long. I do think the current pace of electrification is unfortunately proving to be too fast to be achieved. It therefore follows that the new DMUs ordered for Northern could be a sign that electrifcation will be forgotten.

Why, though, will the DDA legislation "cull" the DMU fleet? The removal of Pacers will not reduce the numbers of DMUs all that significantly. Pacers aside, everything else is based on Mk3 or Mk3-style bodyshells (or newer) and as such is just as viable to convert to be compliant as the large fleet of EMUs to the same design.

The only thing that leaves is 153s, but with so few lines suitable for single-car operation these days you might as well double them back up to 155s and convert the 2-car unit. But there aren't even that many of those.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I wouldn't say there's necessarily NO justification, as often an improved service results in a rise in usage. Whether such a rise in service provision on that route should be a priority I'd agree is unlikely, UNLESS such a rise could be provided relatively cheaply. More realistically the 230s could possibly allow a hot spare to be provided, particularly when compared with the future plan for the 150s to go north.

Agreed. Look at the pent up demand that became apparent on the Gospel Oak to Barking line. We have watched the 378s grow from 3-cars iirc to 5-cars.

I for one do not consider using a service with a frequency of half hourly or less as I can use my car instead. That is unless it is very much cheaper (like a coach for £7 from London to Cardiff). In London the buses are the alternative to rail as the car is not often feasible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. Look at the pent up demand that became apparent on the Gospel Oak to Barking line. We have watched the 378s grow from 3-cars iirc to 5-cars.

The GOBLIN runs through a busy urban area. Bedford-Bletchley runs through the middle of nowhere, and the small number of flows that do have reasonable volume are served better by bus.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Interestingly Tony Miles has posted on wnxx that a D-Train with a full new interior will finish up only being slightly cheaper to lease than the new build CAF stock due to their only be limited time to recoup the cost of modifications to D-Trains.

That's fair enough. That means a Rosco will be happy to take on the risk of a 230 if they can charge the same amount per month as for a new DMU but know that the 230 will have paid for itself earlier. There is a risk that pending electrification puts Roscos off buying new DMUs. However if the Roscos are happy to take the risk then why would a TOC complain. Perhaps the Roscos are confident that electrification will not spoil their DMU income so soon ?.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The GOBLIN runs through a busy urban area. Bedford-Bletchley runs through the middle of nowhere, and the small number of flows that do have reasonable volume are served better by bus.

We would need to know how many people travel along the Bedford-Bletchley corridor. I assume there is more to be gained from people using the car than from the bus. As for how much I really do not know. Whereas in London the car is not practical and many people do not own a car which is why I mentioned the bus. For one office I visit in North London (6 full time + many part timers) there are no car owners - except I am led to believe I am the odd one out as I do own a car. I still protest that I have ecological sympathies !.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We would need to know roughly how many people travel along the Bedford-Bletchley corridor. I assume there is more to be gained from people using the car than from the bus. Whereas in London the car is not practical and many people do not own a car which is why I mentioned the bus. For one office I visit in North London (6 full time + many part timers) there are no car owners - except I am led to believe I am the odd one out as I do own a car. I still protest that I have ecological sympathies !.

There are two problems here.

1. The bus service is actually a very high quality and quick walk-up half hourly coach service (Google the X5, it really is a very rare thing outside Scotland). It attracts car drivers in a way a used Dennis Dart won't ever do. It also operates from MKC and the Coachway, which are more accessible to most of MK than Bletchley station is, the Coachway also having free parking for anyone wishing to park and ride.

2. The journey by car is very fast with the new A421 dual carriageway. The railway cannot get close to matching it without running non-stop.

These mean it is a basket case. Add a change at Bletchley and you kill it off totally.

 

[Peter Sarf]

There are two problems here.

1. The bus service is actually a very high quality and quick walk-up half hourly coach service (Google the X5, it really is a very rare thing outside Scotland). It attracts car drivers in a way a used Dennis Dart won't ever do. It also operates from MKC and the Coachway, which are more accessible to most of MK than Bletchley station is, the Coachway also having free parking for anyone wishing to park and ride.

2. The journey by car is very fast with the new A421 dual carriageway. The railway cannot get close to matching it without running non-stop.

These mean it is a basket case. Add a change at Bletchley and you kill it off totally.

Fair enough. I presume the school kids olny use the train because their destination is more suitable ?. Lets hope there are other lines where a raising of frequency is likely to yield returns. The figures for the re-opened Borders line are very promising but compared to whet you say about Bedford-Bletchley the alternatives seem to be awful also Edinburgh is going to be more of a traffic centre than even Milton Keynes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fair enough. I presume the school kids olny use the train because their destination is more suitable ?

The schoolkids are an odd bit of extra demand that occurs for almost the exact reason that the other demand from the local stations is low - the villages along the way (not served by the X5) are all well-off locations, and the schoolkids are going to the private schools in Bedford, not to State schools which for the MK area are not located near the stations (Lord Grey aside, but that's mostly local pupils who mostly walk to it) and as such are served better by bus.

Lets hope there are other lines where a raising of frequency is likely to yield returns. The figures for the re-opened Borders line are very promising but compared to whet you say about Bedford-Bletchley the alternatives seem to be awful also Edinburgh is going to be more of a traffic centre than even Milton Keynes.

I would imagine there are - it just isn't that line unless it runs to MKC (and probably not hugely even if it does) - or indeed as part of East West Rail for demand from further afield.

I doubt you'd really annoy all that many people if you reduced it to about three return pairs of trains a day, to be honest - an out and back for morning school/work time, an out and back for afternoon school finishing time, and an out and back for office workers finishing around 5. The rest have very low loadings indeed. I don't propose this, but loadings really are that low other than those specific times of day. It used to have a decent loading as the "Primark train" at certain times on Saturdays, but now one has opened in MK that has been lost.

 

[A0]

There are two problems here.

1. The bus service is actually a very high quality and quick walk-up half hourly coach service (Google the X5, it really is a very rare thing outside Scotland). It attracts car drivers in a way a used Dennis Dart won't ever do. It also operates from MKC and the Coachway, which are more accessible to most of MK than Bletchley station is, the Coachway also having free parking for anyone wishing to park and ride.

2. The journey by car is very fast with the new A421 dual carriageway. The railway cannot get close to matching it without running non-stop.

These mean it is a basket case. Add a change at Bletchley and you kill it off totally.

And before anyone bleats about the new A421 being 'more money spent on roads at the expense of public transport' the effect of that meant that the A422 - which the X5 uses - became much, much quieter and resulting in quicker, more reliable journey times for the coach.

The biggest problem with the Bedford - Bletchley line is it runs between two places of marginal significance. And the geography of MK in general means even running into MKC doesn't really help - the jobs aren't all based in the centre.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And before anyone bleats about the new A421 being 'more money spent on roads at the expense of public transport' the effect of that meant that the A422 - which the X5 uses - became much, much quieter and resulting in quicker, more reliable journey times for the coach.

And indeed there is nothing stopping someone introducing a coach service along the A421 if they so wish. It would be both quick and punctual, particularly once the A421 is dualled back to Kingston. I wonder, indeed, if once that does happen Stagecoach will switch.

The biggest problem with the Bedford - Bletchley line is it runs between two places of marginal significance. And the geography of MK in general means even running into MKC doesn't really help - the jobs aren't all based in the centre.

Indeed so, and the local bus service is poor, though improving.

 

[HowardGWR]

I've only come to this thread late. Is there a list of routes where the 230 could be attractive? I imagine Mr Shooter has one, otherwise the project would never have got off the ground. I joined this thread with the Gunnislake reference, so I clocked that one.

 

[jimm]

I do believe that new DMUs will undermine the case for electrification. That is as long as there are enough of them to overcome growth - and Pacer replacement hopefully. The deadline of 2020 (or is it 2019) means there should be a DMU shortage. So assuming electrification cannot keep up then a short term replacement (not directly for the Pacers I will reiterate) will be best to avoid undermining the case for electrification.

Why? Just how long do you think that Sprinters will keep going, even if fitted with new toilets etc? The 150/1s are about to mark their 30th birthdays.

To replace them and the scarcely any younger 150/2s and 156s you are going to need dmus of more recent vintage at some point and wiring routes around the West Midlands will free lots of sprightly young 172s for places where wires are a way off/non-starter, to name but just one example where a case for electrification will still make lots of sense. XC wiring would also release some 170s, Chiltern wires would release later-build 16xs and some 172s, etc, etc.

Northern may be getting the CAF sets but it's hard to see where another dmu order of that size is going to be coming from, so further wiring will surely be needed to free those other sets to replace 1980s-built Sprinters during the 2020s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why? Just how long do you think that Sprinters will keep going, even if fitted with new toilets etc? The 150/1s are about to mark their 30th birthdays.

And so are a load of EMUs. A train is more like a house than a car, you don't just dump it at 10 years and get a new one, you repair it and refurbish it for as long as it is economic to do so.

FWIW, the Class 101s made it to something like 49 years, and the Sprinter is a much more modern, much more reliable design. Indeed, with its basic but solid engines and transmissions and few electronics it could easily prove to be the most reliable and long-lived generation of DMUs.

 

[jimm]

And so are a load of EMUs. A train is more like a house than a car, you don't just dump it at 10 years and get a new one, you repair it and refurbish it for as long as it is economic to do so.

FWIW, the Class 101s made it to something like 49 years, and the Sprinter is a much more modern, much more reliable design. Indeed, with its basic but solid engines and transmissions and few electronics it could easily prove to be the most reliable and long-lived generation of DMUs.

Electric units are generally reckoned to have longer lives than dmus anyway.

Who said anything about dumping them? I'd reckon 40 years is what might reasonably be expected as a lifespan for the Sprinters but that still means as of 2025-28 you will have a lot of 150s and 156s that have done their time, by which point the odds are that some of the potential wiring schemes I mentioned are likely to be under way, freeing up replacements for those Sprinters.

That some 101s almost completed 50 years on the main line and Chiltern's 121s are still going at 55 has rather more to do with the chilling effect on rolling stock orders of the early 1990s recession and the long run-up to privatisation than it does with the desirability of things staying in service that long.

 

[Haydn1971]

Who said anything about dumping them? I'd reckon 40 years is what might reasonably be expected as a lifespan for the Sprinters but that still means as of 2025-28 you will have a lot of 150s and 156s that have done their time, by which point the odds are that some of the potential wiring schemes I mentioned are likely to be under way, freeing up replacements for those Sprinters.

Whilst the current order with CAF will help, I'm still of the opinion that further DMU's will be required as a tag on to the current order for another franchise, possibly tagged onto a franchise with an old DMU fleet where wires just aren't going to happen - EMT or the next Welsh franchise. Will the Turbostars on the XC be suitable moving forward in the next franchise or will XC need a replacement freeing up the Turbostars for part replacing the 15x fleets. It's worth noting that the EMT 158's seem to be missing a unit on a regular basis, something will need doing to get the reliability up if these are to stay in service another 10-15 years

 

[northwichcat]

Why? Just how long do you think that Sprinters will keep going, even if fitted with new toilets etc? The 150/1s are about to mark their 30th birthdays.

To replace them and the scarcely any younger 150/2s and 156s you are going to need dmus of more recent vintage at some point and wiring routes around the West Midlands will free lots of sprightly young 172s for places where wires are a way off/non-starter, to name but just one example where a case for electrification will still make lots of sense. XC wiring would also release some 170s, Chiltern wires would release later-build 16xs and some 172s, etc, etc.

Northern may be getting the CAF sets but it's hard to see where another dmu order of that size is going to be coming from, so further wiring will surely be needed to free those other sets to replace 1980s-built Sprinters during the 2020s.

I think another franchise like the EMT one could order a new batch of diesel replacements* and it would still leave plenty of life expired DMUs to replace via electrification. A hell of a lot of DMUs were produced between 1984 and 1990 and with their current resources Network Rail aren't going to get wires up fast enough to replace them all through electrification. Once the 159s are gone then we can probably work on the basis that electrification can be used to replace all life-expired DMUs for the following 10 years.

* Diesel replacements doesn't have to mean new DMUs, it could be new DEMUs or bi-modes.

 

[jimm]

I think another franchise like the EMT one could order a new batch of diesel replacements* and it would still leave plenty of life expired DMUs to replace via electrification. A hell of a lot of DMUs were produced between 1984 and 1990 and with their current resources Network Rail aren't going to get wires up fast enough to replace them all through electrification. Once the 159s are gone then we can probably work on the basis that electrification can be used to replace all life-expired DMUs for the following 10 years.

* Diesel replacements doesn't have to mean new DMUs, it could be new DEMUs or bi-modes.

Sorry, but did you miss the bit where I said I expect the Sprinters to get up to about 40 years in service? ie well into the second half of the NEXT decade. The 158s/159s/165/166s should get past 2030 if they have to and the Turbostars and 175s ought to get up towards 2040. All long after any current franchise is re-let.

By the late 2020s I would expect NR to have caught up with the like of MML and Valleys wiring and have moved on to XC, Chiltern and the remaining diesel bits of the West Midlands, more of Scotland, plus infill of the Southern diesel outposts, to displace assorted Turbostar variants - plus some 185s if more wires appear across the North of England - for places where wires are not going to happen for a long time. Hopefully by that stage the planning system and skills base will be such that the electrification process is rather less painful than at present and can proceed at some pace.

What dmus is EMT going to be replacing any time soon? Maybe the 153s at a push if they are thought to be just too much trouble but the 156s and 158s won't be going anywhere in a hurry. I can see a new franchisee looking at bi-modes as a way to replace the remaining EMT HSTs and plan ahead for the future but what other EMT services would bi-modes be any use for? In the course of a Liverpool-Norwich run, being able to use 25kv for a few miles across Manchester and between Sheffield and Nottingham isn't likely to cut it in terms of a business case. And the other bits of the EMT network worked by dmus don't exactly scream electrification priority, do they?

As for new DEMUs, why? MML wiring will free up rather a lot that will need to find a new use. Add XC wiring - and the possibility of a post-2017 West Coast franchisee ordering some sort of tilting bi-modes to replace 221s - to the mix and there will be even more DEMUs going spare with a good few years left in them.

 

[The Ham]

Sorry, but did you miss the bit where I said I expect the Sprinters to get up to about 40 years in service? ie well into the second half of the NEXT decade. The 158s/159s/165/166s should get past 2030 if they have to and the Turbostars and 175s ought to get up towards 2040. All long after any current franchise is re-let.

By the late 2020s I would expect NR to have caught up with the like of MML and Valleys wiring and have moved on to XC, Chiltern and the remaining diesel bits of the West Midlands, more of Scotland, plus infill of the Southern diesel outposts, to displace assorted Turbostar variants - plus some 185s if more wires appear across the North of England - for places where wires are not going to happen for a long time. Hopefully by that stage the planning system and skills base will be such that the electrification process is rather less painful than at present and can proceed at some pace.

What dmus is EMT going to be replacing any time soon? Maybe the 153s at a push if they are thought to be just too much trouble but the 156s and 158s won't be going anywhere in a hurry. I can see a new franchisee looking at bi-modes as a way to replace the remaining EMT HSTs and plan ahead for the future but what other EMT services would bi-modes be any use for? In the course of a Liverpool-Norwich run, being able to use 25kv for a few miles across Manchester and between Sheffield and Nottingham isn't likely to cut it in terms of a business case. And the other bits of the EMT network worked by dmus don't exactly scream electrification priority, do they?

As for new DEMUs, why? MML wiring will free up rather a lot that will need to find a new use. Add XC wiring - and the possibility of a post-2017 West Coast franchisee ordering some sort of tilting bi-modes to replace 221s - to the mix and there will be even more DEMUs going spare with a good few years left in them.

I would guess another priority would be to wire up the lines around Bristol so that the local services can be run by EMU's, as after the GWML electrification has been finished there wouldn't be a lot left to wire up.

Likewise, Bath to Southampton is likely to be fairly high up the list (especially if Southampton to Basingstoke via Salisbury is being done anyway.

Both of those would free up quite a fee 165's, 166's, 158's and 159's. Even if a number were to be retained to run a DMU shuttle to Salisbury (1.5tph) and one through train to London from Exeter (0.5tph). Once the wires reach Yeovil then you would run a shuttle from Exeter to Westburry via Yeovil (0.5tph) and a direct service to London from Exeter (0.5tph).

That would remove the need for a lot of DMU's. With those that are left possibly being run by either commuter trains (Exeter Westburry via Salisbury shuttle) or by permanent 10 coach Voyagers/Meridians (circa 580 seats in the current XC setup vs 588 seats for a train of 3*159's) running the direct service from Exeter to London. (Capacity gain would be made by using 10 coach EMU's on the other services).

Ideally, if it were possible, then being able to lengthen sone platforms at Waterloo (about 13m more than a 12*20m train requires) to enable the 22x's to be 11 coach sets it would be better as that would enable them to provide an extra circa 65 seats per train. Given that they would only run once every 2 hours there wouldn't need to be many platforms.

It would give a useful place for the 22x's to go post MML and partial XC electrification (say 2025 to 2035) but before the wires reach Exeter. By my maths you would need 4 units to run a bi-hourly service, so maybe 6 units total. Even using the 220's (and assuming 11 coach sets) that would use 27 of the fleet of 34. That would leave 7*220's and 43*221's and all the 27*222's which would need to find a home (although some would still likely be needed by XC).

 

[northwichcat]

Sorry, but did you miss the bit where I said I expect the Sprinters to get up to about 40 years in service? ie well into the second half of the NEXT decade. The 158s/159s/165/166s should get past 2030 if they have to and the Turbostars and 175s ought to get up towards 2040. All long after any current franchise is re-let.

By the late 2020s I would expect NR to have caught up with the like of MML and Valleys wiring and have moved on to XC, Chiltern and the remaining diesel bits of the West Midlands, more of Scotland, plus infill of the Southern diesel outposts, to displace assorted Turbostar variants - plus some 185s if more wires appear across the North of England - for places where wires are not going to happen for a long time. Hopefully by that stage the planning system and skills base will be such that the electrification process is rather less painful than at present and can proceed at some pace.

I think work on electrification projects started in around 2011, following the Coalition's spending review. So in more than 8 years we won't have electrified enough to replace 140 Pacers (given the new CAF order for 55 DMUs.) It's also worth noting with Pacers that a pair of 142s is around the same length as a 3 car Turbostar, while a 3 car 144 is around the same length as a 2 car 156, so the number of Pacer carriages looks high in comparison to the capacity they provide.

There are 137 x 150s and 114 x 156s and while Northern are getting rid of their Pacers and 153s it doesn't rule out the 144s or 153s being used for other franchises, especially ATW who'll need an interim solution for Valley Lines given the 150s being released have already been snapped up by Northern.

So in the 10 years between 2019 and 2029 we'll need the speed of electrification to more than double to replace all the remaining Sprinters excluding the 158s and 159s.

What dmus is EMT going to be replacing any time soon? Maybe the 153s at a push if they are thought to be just too much trouble but the 156s and 158s won't be going anywhere in a hurry. I can see a new franchisee looking at bi-modes as a way to replace the remaining EMT HSTs and plan ahead for the future but what other EMT services would bi-modes be any use for? In the course of a Liverpool-Norwich run, being able to use 25kv for a few miles across Manchester and between Sheffield and Nottingham isn't likely to cut it in terms of a business case. And the other bits of the EMT network worked by dmus don't exactly scream electrification priority, do they?

The Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester route and the Stockport-Sheffield route are supposed to be high priorities for the next phase of electrification, so a proposal for new bi-modes for EMT might help strengthen the electrification business case as it'll mean an additional service would be using the wires.

As for new DEMUs, why? MML wiring will free up rather a lot that will need to find a new use. Add XC wiring - and the possibility of a post-2017 West Coast franchisee ordering some sort of tilting bi-modes to replace 221s - to the mix and there will be even more DEMUs going spare with a good few years left in them.

DEMUs could be built to run on non-electrified lines but built so that the option for adding a pantograph and removing the diesel fuel tank exists - more versatile than a DMU.

Do you realise 150s and 156s are mainly used on shorter services? How are you proposing they would be replaced by cascaded 22xs? Are you proposing 158s being used on short stoppers with 22xs replacing 158s on longer services? I'm not sure that'll help improve journey times on short services, unless you re-engineer DMUs, which will be 40 years old, as well fit new doors to them

 

[47802]

I would guess another priority would be to wire up the lines around Bristol so that the local services can be run by EMU's, as after the GWML electrification has been finished there wouldn't be a lot left to wire up.

Likewise, Bath to Southampton is likely to be fairly high up the list (especially if Southampton to Basingstoke via Salisbury is being done anyway.

Both of those would free up quite a fee 165's, 166's, 158's and 159's. Even if a number were to be retained to run a DMU shuttle to Salisbury (1.5tph) and one through train to London from Exeter (0.5tph). Once the wires reach Yeovil then you would run a shuttle from Exeter to Westburry via Yeovil (0.5tph) and a direct service to London from Exeter (0.5tph).

That would remove the need for a lot of DMU's. With those that are left possibly being run by either commuter trains (Exeter Westburry via Salisbury shuttle) or by permanent 10 coach Voyagers/Meridians (circa 580 seats in the current XC setup vs 588 seats for a train of 3*159's) running the direct service from Exeter to London. (Capacity gain would be made by using 10 coach EMU's on the other services).

Ideally, if it were possible, then being able to lengthen sone platforms at Waterloo (about 13m more than a 12*20m train requires) to enable the 22x's to be 11 coach sets it would be better as that would enable them to provide an extra circa 65 seats per train. Given that they would only run once every 2 hours there wouldn't need to be many platforms.

It would give a useful place for the 22x's to go post MML and partial XC electrification (say 2025 to 2035) but before the wires reach Exeter. By my maths you would need 4 units to run a bi-hourly service, so maybe 6 units total. Even using the 220's (and assuming 11 coach sets) that would use 27 of the fleet of 34. That would leave 7*220's and 43*221's and all the 27*222's which would need to find a home (although some would still likely be needed by XC).

Your plan is very South Biased I'm sure there will be other routes with similar high priority but the point is electrification has been much slower and more expensive than original envisaged and who's to say one or both of those conditions wont continue to apply going forward.

I believe that by the time we get to the end of the next Northern and Scotrail franchises there will be 500+ 15x carriages likely to need replacing on those franchise alone. Will electrification have progressed enough to replace all those directly or by cascade I somehow doubt it so some form of Self powered train will be needed.

As for 222 who to say they will even provide 15x replacement they well be used as additional capacity on intercity routes or as replacement for Scotrail's ancient HST's

I would go as far to say that the Northern DMU order is probably inadequate and probably should have been double the size, which would have allowed more cascaded stuff to go to other franchises, probably no need for D trains anywhere and possibly a start made on binning the worst of the 15x stuff before the mid 2020's

 

[jimm]

I think work on electrification projects started in around 2011, following the Coalition's spending review. So in more than 8 years we won't have electrified enough to replace 140 Pacers (given the new CAF order for 55 DMUs.) It's also worth noting with Pacers that a pair of 142s is around the same length as a 3 car Turbostar, while a 3 car 144 is around the same length as a 2 car 156, so the number of Pacer carriages looks high in comparison to the capacity they provide.

The current pace of electrification is not a guide to how things will go in the future but that has been discussed elsewhere anyway. Nor were any of the current projects meant to 'replace Pacers' - perhaps start nibbling around the edges at the Pacer fleets. The CAF order probably has more to do with politicians' pronouncements about Pacers - and ex-Tube trains not being acceptable as their replacements - in the North of England - than anything else. No one in Wales seems to have made such unequivocal statements about what might be acceptable there if an interim solution is needed for the Valley Lines, with most comments in this story from last September being as noncommittal as possible.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/first-glimpse-london-underground-carriages-10075310

So in the 10 years between 2019 and 2029 we'll need the speed of electrification to more than double to replace all the remaining Sprinters excluding the 158s and 159s.

But once you start to join up the various electrification schemes currently in hand - which in many cases means wiring a series of relatively short connecting lines - then you start to take out an awful lot of diesel miles rather rapidly. Acting on the top priorities in the Northern task force proposals would eliminate huge areas of dmu operations in the North West and Yorkshire, never mind the other potential schemes I and The Ham mention above

The Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester route and the Stockport-Sheffield route are supposed to be high priorities for the next phase of electrification, so a proposal for new bi-modes for EMT might help strengthen the electrification business case as it'll mean an additional service would be using the wires.

Sorry, but the Northern task force on electrification report last March put Manchester-Sheffield in its Tier 2 priorities, so well down the queue.

DEMUs could be built to run on non-electrified lines but built so that the option for adding a pantograph and removing the diesel fuel tank exists - more versatile than a DMU.

Do you realise 150s and 156s are mainly used on shorter services? How are you proposing they would be replaced by cascaded 22xs? Are you proposing 158s being used on short stoppers with 22xs replacing 158s on longer services? I'm not sure that'll help improve journey times on short services, unless you re-engineer DMUs, which will be 40 years old, as well fit new doors to them

Well you didn't say what you meant by a DEMU, did you? We're not psychic and there are quite a lot of existing DEMUs that MML and XC electrification will displace, for which new uses will have to be found - and a number of routes currently in the hands of 158/159s look like reasonable candidates for their future employment.

Unless there is some reasonable prospect of a rapid move to electric operation. no one is likely to sink money into the kind of DEMU you suggest when there are dmus around with lots of life left in them - which there are. So you might as well carry on with dmus and then go straight to electric operation.

No, I haven't a clue what sort of services 150s and 156s work:roll:

No, I wasn't suggesting replacing them with 22xs or 158s - but there are places where 158s could replace 170s to put 1/3, 2/3 door sets in places where they would be best used - and if you're worried about those types' acceleration, fit them with a 172-type transmission. There are all sorts of possibilities which do not necessarily require us to start building lots of new dmus that would then need to be kept gainfully employed into the 2050s - which really would undermine the case for electrification.

 

[northwichcat]

Nor were any of the current projects meant to 'replace Pacers' - perhaps start nibbling around the edges at the Pacer fleets.

The joint rolling stock strategy document did say if the current rate of electrification continues ('current' presumed all announced schemes including MML and North TPE would be done by 2019 at the latest) that no new DMUs would be required in CP5 or CP6 but a small order may be required in CP7 as some lines will never be electrified. However, all electrification schemes have fallen behind schedule since, some by as much as 4 years.

Sorry, but the Northern task force on electrification report last March put Manchester-Sheffield in its Tier 2 priorities, so well down the queue.

They didn't consider schemes being done alongside other schemes outside the scope of the study, so as a result schemes like Chester-Crewe finished up much lower down the list than people expected. It's also not a list of electrification projects which will be carried out, it's a report Rail North produced to present to DfT to state what they think should be the priorities for future electrification. I don't think DfT will be announcing future electrification schemes until we're near the next general election given how far behind schedule existing schemes are.

Well you didn't say what you meant by a DEMU, did you? We're not psychic and there are quite a lot of existing DEMUs that MML and XC electrification will displace, for which new uses will have to be found - and a number of routes currently in the hands of 158/159s look like reasonable candidates for their future employment.

I said there were alternatives to DMUs like bi-mode and DEMUs when talking about replacements for existing DMUs in the EMT fleet. That didn't exactly leave an endless list of possibilities, given I think it's established 22xs wouldn't be suitable for Liverpool-Norwich if it was to remain as a through route.

No, I haven't a clue what sort of services 150s and 156s work:roll:

No, I wasn't suggesting replacing them with 22xs or 158s - but there are places where 158s could replace 170s to put 1/3, 2/3 door sets in places where they would be best used - and if you're worried about those types' acceleration, fit them with a 172-type transmission.

Claims about poor 170 acceleration are exaggerated as figures have been posted before which show the 170 acceleration is certainly better than that of a Pacer or a 153.

Will there be enough 16xs and 17xs to cover all non-electrified local services by 2030 and will operators be happy still using 40 year old 158s on their premium regional routes then? We'll see. I'm not optimistic of either.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Hmmm. I have realised that there are two many variables in the electrification vs DMU building race.

What is clear to me is that electrification willcould happen at a slower pace than the aspirations of the last few years would suggest.

Although I argued that 230s will provide an open door for replacement EMUs sooner there is a risk. The risk is that if electrification proceeds as slowly as is becoming obvious then at the end of the 230s lives new DMUs might have to be ordered anyway thus postponing the necessity to electrify. That would mean that new DMUs now might be better.

I cannot face the detail but it is a fear of mine that the current pace of electrification is getting too ambitious. We bite off more than we can chew and end up with a lot less.

The current pace of electrification is not a guide to how things will go in the future but that has been discussed elsewhere anyway.

............

But once you start to join up the various electrification schemes currently in hand - which in many cases means wiring a series of relatively short connecting lines - then you start to take out an awful lot of diesel miles rather rapidly. Acting on the top priorities in the Northern task force proposals would eliminate huge areas of dmu operations in the North West and Yorkshire, never mind the other potential schemes I and The Ham mention above

...........

I agree and it is a hope I cling to that sooner or later we will reach critical mass and infill electrification schemes will be more relevant.

The joint rolling stock strategy document did say if the current rate of electrification continues ('current' presumed all announced schemes including MML and North TPE would be done by 2019 at the latest) that no new DMUs would be required in CP5 or CP6 but a small order may be required in CP7 as some lines will never be electrified. However, all electrification schemes have fallen behind schedule since, some by as much as 4 years.

........

Thanks for reminding me. The above is what I have been keeping in mind, rightly or wrongly.

Typed the following in a rush :-

Separately I have always assumed that we have to look at the current diesel trains and services as two beasts. Loosely Suburban and Intercity - forgive the terms I am thinking door layout and speed/acceleration.

Suburban :-
I can see predominantly 170s replacing 150s which then replace 142s-144s. Later More 172s replace 150-153s. The hope was 230s would speed that up and take pressure of electrification.

Intercity :-
The 220s-222s replace 170s (a bit contentious). No case for 230s there of course.

In both the above electrification and EMUs has to fit in but goodness knows how effective that will be. The EMUS will probably obviate the need for 220-222s on inappropriate (suburbanish) routes.

EDIT :- In the above I can see it likely that 220s-222s have less use, the only thing they can do is replace HSTs (sadly in my biased mind). Of course this assumes enough electrification (or Bi-Modes) to make them spare.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Deleted - double post prevention system failed me ? !.

 

[Greybeard33]

I said there were alternatives to DMUs like bi-mode and DEMUs when talking about replacements for existing DMUs in the EMT fleet.

The CAF Civity family includes both bi-mode and DEMU offerings, yet Arriva has ordered the DMU variant. These Northern DMUs will operate on some routes that are partly wired, and others that are candidates for future electrification. So Arriva must have concluded that the overall operating economics for new-build bi-mode or DEMU regional trains (to British requirements) would have been worse than for the DMUs.

Now that the DMUs are in production, a follow-on order will be even more commercially attractive relative to a new bespoke bi-mode or DEMU.

 

[A0]

And indeed there is nothing stopping someone introducing a coach service along the A421 if they so wish. It would be both quick and punctual, particularly once the A421 is dualled back to Kingston. I wonder, indeed, if once that does happen Stagecoach will switch.

I assume they use the A422 as it brings them into Bedford on the most convenient route to serve the station and town centre - whereas coming off the A421 wouldn't, as you'd have to come through Kempston which I suspect would be slow.

Indeed so, and the local bus service is poor, though improving.

Even if it were improved - you'd still be looking at 20-30 min journeys from the Centre to Kingston, Caldecotte, Blakelands which is why people don't want to commute into MK by train and then use the bus.

I'm a perfect example - having commuted into MK for the last 15 years. To get to the rail station would take me about 40 mins, the train to MK would take 20 mins, then another bus taking 20 mins. Journey time (assuming perfect connections) 80 mins, so you can easily expect that to become 90-100 mins as you'll never get 'perfect' connections, for something I can drive in 45 - 50 mins.

 

[The Ham]

Your plan is very South Biased I'm sure there will be other routes with similar high priority but the point is electrification has been much slower and more expensive than original envisaged and who's to say one or both of those conditions wont continue to apply going forward.

I believe that by the time we get to the end of the next Northern and Scotrail franchises there will be 500+ 15x carriages likely to need replacing on those franchise alone. Will electrification have progressed enough to replace all those directly or by cascade I somehow doubt it so some form of Self powered train will be needed.

As for 222 who to say they will even provide 15x replacement they well be used as additional capacity on intercity routes or as replacement for Scotrail's ancient HST's

I would go as far to say that the Northern DMU order is probably inadequate and probably should have been double the size, which would have allowed more cascaded stuff to go to other franchises, probably no need for D trains anywhere and possibly a start made on binning the worst of the 15x stuff before the mid 2020's

My "plan" wasn't a comprehensive list, rather an additional few schemes above what had been listed in the post I was responding to. Nor did I say that they were the most important schemes.

I had only suggested schemes which were fairly small in terms of electrification miles. For the reason that electrification had been progressing slowly.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Electrification has been much slower and more expensive than original envisaged.

The slowness and the expense are largely Great Western specific and one the slowness and problems encountered have driven the vast majority of the cost increases.

North West electrification was a little behind, by around three months, but has now been slowed much further by Balfour Beatty exiting the project, and Farnworth wouldn't have helped in any case, likewise with the issues surrounding the Ordsall Chord, but the North West scheme wasn't significantly over budget.

The Scottish electrification projects have progressed very well, works to lower Winchburgh Tunnel went according to plan, works on Falkirk Tunnel went pretty much perfectly over Christmas.

The route clearance works are going really well across the country, it's now a regular occurrence to see bridges re-open days or weeks early, footbridges are being installed quickly and without trauma.

There's good reason to believe future electrification works will be considerably cheaper and faster than the GWep project, closer to the costs for Scotland's works, and at a similar pace.

 

[jimm]

The joint rolling stock strategy document did say if the current rate of electrification continues ('current' presumed all announced schemes including MML and North TPE would be done by 2019 at the latest) that no new DMUs would be required in CP5 or CP6 but a small order may be required in CP7 as some lines will never be electrified. However, all electrification schemes have fallen behind schedule since, some by as much as 4 years.

A strategy that envisioned starting to make inroads into the early-build Sprinters in the first half of the 2020s - which does not mean they could not run for several more years if they have.

They didn't consider schemes being done alongside other schemes outside the scope of the study, so as a result schemes like Chester-Crewe finished up much lower down the list than people expected. It's also not a list of electrification projects which will be carried out, it's a report Rail North produced to present to DfT to state what they think should be the priorities for future electrification. I don't think DfT will be announcing future electrification schemes until we're near the next general election given how far behind schedule existing schemes are.

I didn't say it was a definitive schedule, but the Northern task force priorities made plenty of sense if terms of filling in gaps between the North West, TPE and MML wiring schemes and at the same time covering places where lots of early-build Sprinters are used, thus speeding their retirement. On the assumption that much younger 185s galore would be available to work South TPE services after North TPE was wired, and an awful lot of the other traffic using the line, in the shape of heavy freight, will still need to use diesel traction for a long tim to come, then there is no great rush to tackle that route - and George Osborne's HS3 vision is unlikely to hasten wiring via Chinley.

I said there were alternatives to DMUs like bi-mode and DEMUs when talking about replacements for existing DMUs in the EMT fleet. That didn't exactly leave an endless list of possibilities, given I think it's established 22xs wouldn't be suitable for Liverpool-Norwich if it was to remain as a through route.

Established by whom? What is established is that the current speed restrictions on 22xs in East Anglia are down to issues with the existing track in that part of the world, not anything to do with the trains per se.

Claims about poor 170 acceleration are exaggerated as figures have been posted before which show the 170 acceleration is certainly better than that of a Pacer or a 153.

I know that but there are frequent comments here about how sluggish the 170s are compared with assorted other dmus, so I thought I would anticipate that line by posting out a possible answer.

Will there be enough 16xs and 17xs to cover all non-electrified local services by 2030 and will operators be happy still using 40 year old 158s on their premium regional routes then? We'll see. I'm not optimistic of either.[/QUOTE]

What do you think all the 22xs are going to be doing once displaced from MML and XC routes? And potentially West Coast as well at some point in a post-2018 franchise. If it's not going to be razor blades then 'premium regional routes' and replacing HSTs in Scotland are the most obvious places for them to go - and a lot sooner than 2030.