A New Civity Trains for EMR

[James Kevill]

It would make sense if East Midlands Railway could order the 15 Diesel Civitys in 3 carriages and they could be classified as 198s. They could replace the 15 Class 185 Desiro if they are subleased from TPE and the new Civitys will be used exclusively on the Liverpool Lime Street to Nottingham and Norwich services.

 

[edwin_m]

I really don't think anyone's going to order a new DMU that can't easily be converted to a bi-mode or EMU.

 

[AM9]

I really don't think anyone's going to order a new DMU that can't easily be converted to a bi-mode or EMU.

It's great to see this view beginning to prevail. The current orders for pure DMUs look like they will be the last. It doesn't make any difference that the latest types are less damaging than their predecessors (in DMU) terms, they commit the railway to 30+ years of diesel operation, sending all the wrong messages about any exhortations of greener operation. Modern designs of DEMUs have overall efficiencies similar to pure diesel traction, and far better if fitted with batteries to provide boost power and energy recovery.

 

[Nym]

Given the continuing poor condition, quality and maintainability of all the recent wave of CAF rolling stock into the UK.
Why should anyone be ordering this very poor product to replace either Class 158s or Turbostars?

 

[JonathanH]

It would make sense if East Midlands Railway could order the 15 Diesel Civitys in 3 carriages and they could be classified as 198s. They could replace the 15 Class 185 Desiro if they are subleased from TPE and the new Civitys will be used exclusively on the Liverpool Lime Street to Nottingham and Norwich services.

How would it 'make sense'?

Who is paying?
Why are they needed?

There is a lot of uncertainty about future demand.

[Did this get split off the 'EMR Class 170s on Crewe to Derby line' thread where someone suggests 185s on the Liverpool to Nottingham route 'make sense'?]

 

[James Kevill]

How would it 'make sense'?

Who is paying?
Why are they needed?

There is a lot of uncertainty about future demand.

[Did this get split off the 'EMR Class 170s on Crewe to Derby line' thread where someone suggests 185s on the Liverpool to Nottingham route 'make sense'?]

It's Just a thought. And Turbostars are not suitable for the Liverpool to Norwich via Nottingham services as people say.

 

[Aictos]

It's Just a thought. And Turbostars are not suitable for the Liverpool to Norwich via Nottingham services as people say.

Why are the Class 170s not suitable? They run to the same speed limits don't they and having doors where they are surely helps with the loading and unloading of passengers plus was there ever a issue with them in Central Trains days when they used to operate Liverpool to Stansted Airport not counting delays caused by congestion en route.

Personally the Class 170s are very much suited to the route IMO.

 

[JonathanH]

It's Just a thought. And Turbostars are not suitable for the Liverpool to Norwich via Nottingham services as people say.

No, there just aren't enough of them so 185s, which aren't suitable for much other than the routes they already work, are seen as more likely (and have a depot halfway along the route from Liverpool to Nottingham).

170s are slated to work Nottingham to Norwich, despite my 'makes sense' musings that it might be a useful place to employ the slack in the 755 fleet.

 

[popeter45]

can we please stop with this idea of every TOC getting its own TOPS class for the same train?
if EMR where to get civity's they should class them as 195's or 196's (and personally i think i would be far better to do what was done with the 800's and put them all in the same class and separate by sub class)
195/0 Northen 2 car
195/1 Northen 3 car
195/2 WMT 2 car with end gangways
195/3 WMT 4 car with end gangways
195/4 TfW 2 car with end gangways
195/5 TfW 3 car with end gangways
195/6 EMR 3 car

 

[Domh245]

can we please stop with this idea of every TOC getting its own TOPS class for the same train?
if EMR where to get civity's they should class them as 195's or 196's personally (and personally i think i would be far better to do what was done with the 800's and put them all in the same class and separate by sub class)
195/0 Northen 2 car
195/1 Northen 3 car
195/2 WMT 2 car with end gangways
195/3 WMT 4 car with end gangways
195/4 TfW 2 car with end gangways
195/5 TfW 3 car with end gangways
195/6 EMR 3 car

Whilst I can understand the rationale behind putting the WMR and TfW fleets under one class number (but really don't see the fuss myself, it's not like there's a shortage of unit numbers which requires them to be more rationed), the Northern Civities are sufficiently different from the latter orders that combining them under a single number would be more counterproductive than anything IMO

 

[py_megapixel]

It would make far more sense to order more Civities for Northern to displace their 170s to EMR, so that EMR don't have the operational hassle of a very small fleet.

However, I don't think EMR really need any more trains, especially if they get the 185s, as is heavily rumoured (but not sure if it's been confirmed or not).

 

[D365]

Whilst I can understand the rationale behind putting the WMR and TfW fleets under one class number (but really don't see the fuss myself, it's not like there's a shortage of unit numbers which requires them to be more rationed), the Northern Civities are sufficiently different from the latter orders that combining them under a single number would be more counterproductive than anything IMO

Agreed, the Wales and WMR CAF units are definitely an evolution of the 195.

170s are slated to work Nottingham to Norwich, despite my 'makes sense' musings that it might be a useful place to employ the slack in the 755 fleet.

What slack?

 

[tbtc]

Turbostars are not suitable for the Liverpool to Norwich via Nottingham services as people say

What's wrong with them?

They used to run the route (in the days when Central Trains treated us to five coaches worth of modern trains, then reduced to two old carriages when EMT got a terrible share of the ex-Central fleet).

Gaps between stations are sufficient for the 170s acceleration, high turnover at some intermediate stations mean the wide doors are suitable, they seem more suited to the route than many of the services that 170s run or have ran in the past.

Even if/when the split at Nottingham happens, the Turbostars should be okay on either side, if required. Doubled up 185s could work on the western side, sure, but that doesn't mean that 170s aren't suitable IMHO.

 

[Neptune]

However, I don't think EMR really need any more trains, especially if they get the 185s, as is heavily rumoured (but not sure if it's been confirmed or not).

Nothing has been confirmed for the future use of any future released 185’s from TPE. All the rumours are attributed to this forum of what people want to see happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's Just a thought. And Turbostars are not suitable for the Liverpool to Norwich via Nottingham services as people say.

Literally the only reason why Turbostars would not be suitable for that route is that there aren't enough of them to hand. Central Trains used 3-car Turbostars on it for a while (though you'd probably want 5 or 6-car formations now) and they were spot-on for that sort of route - they had the comfort for long distance, and the door layout for the considerable amount of commuting on the route.

In essence, 185s are just overpowered, heavy, poshed-up Turbostars. And Civitys (195s etc) are Turbostars on the cheap (the high acceleration isn't really that much of a concern on this sort of route).

Agreed, the Wales and WMR CAF units are definitely an evolution of the 195.

The Welsh ones are basically gangwayed 195s with awful seats in a worse layout (which is saying something). The WMR ones are a slightly different bodyshell (more expensive, perhaps) with more, smaller windows and the door positions different.

To be fair, the 195s would work fine on the route, but I don't think there's much of a case for ordering more pure DMUs, particularly as 185s will be available. And so little of the route is under the wires that it'd make more sense, if you did need to get more stock for it, to order bi-modes for somewhere else (say Barrow/Windermere for one random example) and start a cascade that released some 170s for it. Northern has some operating on unsuitable (local stopping) routes that a cascade putting 195s on those routes and releasing 170s would work.

 

[Neptune]

The ordering of diesel only Civity’s is as good as dead. The best option for Liverpool - Nottingham is the potentially surplus 185’s (although nothing is confirmed as to their future use despite the fact that forum rumour seems to have made this a definite in many people’s eyes).

The subject of Northern’s 170’s keeps cropping up and again people seem to have decided that they too should be heading to EMR because they are all working on unsuitable routes (untrue, in reality only the Harrogate line is unsuitable for high speed low accelerating units, Sheffield - Hull/Scarborough and Halifax - Hull is fine for them).

The problem with Northern’s 170’s actually stems from the 195 order. 25 of the 195’s were ordered as 2 cars meaning the 3 car units are too thinly spread out across the network to work the Harrogate line diagrams that the 170’s work. The 195’s should have been ordered as 3 and 4 car units as per the 331’s which would have allowed 3 car 195’s to work the Harrogate line and release the 170’s to move on to Leeds - Nottingham/Lincoln services alongside 3 car 195’s thus focusing the 170’s on the Leeds/Sheffield/Hull triangle of services. Of course if 4 car units had been ordered too then it would have prevented the requirement to double up 2 car sets on the Calder Valley therefore actually creating extra units for service as very few if any 195 services would need to be doubled up.

So can we please stop trying to suggest nicking the 170’s from Northern for EMR all the time with no replacements in sight. Like the issue with the 171’s from Southern, the 170 shortage at EMR is their problem, not Northern’s or Southern’s.

 

[43096]

can we please stop with this idea of every TOC getting its own TOPS class for the same train?
if EMR where to get civity's they should class them as 195's or 196's (and personally i think i would be far better to do what was done with the 800's and put them all in the same class and separate by sub class)
195/0 Northen 2 car
195/1 Northen 3 car
195/2 WMT 2 car with end gangways
195/3 WMT 4 car with end gangways
195/4 TfW 2 car with end gangways
195/5 TfW 3 car with end gangways
195/6 EMR 3 car

Can we please stop with this idea of every TOC getting its own sub-class? That was done for the Turbostars and it's all a big mess now. I would suggest 2 sub-classes - with end gangway or without. Length of the unit doesn't need a separate sub-class.

 

[py_megapixel]

So can we please stop trying to suggest nicking the 170’s from Northern for EMR all the time with no replacements in sight. Like the issue with the 171’s from Southern, the 170 shortage at EMR is their problem, not Northern’s or Southern’s.

What about EMR Sprinters as replacements?

Northern could get twenty-six 158s and eight 156s in exchange for sixteen 170s, which would allow a modest capacity boost on Northern (single 3-car Turbostars replaced with pairs of 15x) whilst allieviating EMR's shortages and allowing them to have a homogeneous regional fleet. It's a win-win.

It wouldn't take much work to get them to the same spec as the rest of Northern's 15x; they already have TrainFX and seating of equal or greater quality to what's already on the fleet, so all that would presumably be needed would be new seating covers, carpets and paintwork.

Can we please stop with this idea of every TOC getting its own sub-class? That was done for the Turbostars and it's all a big mess now. I would suggest 2 sub-classes - with end gangway or without. Length of the unit doesn't need a separate sub-class.

But the end-gangwayed units are not compatible with each other for multiple working purposes, so that doesn't make sense either.

TOPS numbers were created for operational purposes, and not to make things look neat to enthusiasts - something which I accept even as an enthusiast who has never worked on the railways.

 

[raetiamann]

To return to the original question, I'm unable to see a single reason why EMR would want Civity stock. As one who travels the route during normal times it be quite happy with 170s, 185s or indeed retaining the 158s.

 

[43096]

But the end-gangwayed units are not compatible with each other for multiple working purposes, so that doesn't make sense either.

Which in itself is utterly dumb.

TOPS numbers were created for operational purposes, and not to make things look neat to enthusiasts - something which I accept even as an enthusiast who has never worked on the railways.

Don't disagree, but a numbering system needs to be consistent and logical. What we have now is an utter mess.

 

[Neptune]

What about EMR Sprinters as replacements?

Northern could get twenty-six 158s and eight 156s in exchange for sixteen 170s, which would allow a modest capacity boost on Northern (single 3-car Turbostars replaced with pairs of 15x) whilst allieviating EMR's shortages and allowing them to have a homogeneous regional fleet. It's a win-win.

It wouldn't take much work to get them to the same spec as the rest of Northern's 15x; they already have TrainFX and seating of equal or greater quality to what's already on the fleet, so all that would presumably be needed would be new seating covers, carpets and paintwork.

Why? Yet again why is EMR’s problem of having a homogenous fleet of 170’s Northern’s problem. This suggestion means pushing Northern’s average age up just as it is finally coming down. Imagine the outrage (including on this forum) if Northern replaced 2005 built class 170’s for 1988 built 156’s and 1991 built 158’s. What is wrong with EMR retaining some of their current 158 fleet until the planned 170’s can be released from Southern which doesn’t look like anytime soon.

 

[py_megapixel]

To return to the original question, I'm unable to see a single reason why EMR would want Civity stock.

The issue isn't that the current stock is too low-quality; it's that there isn't enough of it. The plans for an all-170 fleet were made on the wrong assumption that Southern would somehow be able to release their 171s for conversion to 170s. It was also made on the assumption that EMR would be losing the Liverpool-Nottingham service to a different operator (TransPennine, Northern and CrossCountry were all speculated).

Which in itself is utterly dumb.

I entirely agree - but it doesn't mean they should be numbered the same!

Don't disagree, but a numbering system needs to be consistent and logical. What we have now is an utter mess.

Indeed, the Turbostar numbering has become very messy, but that seems to me to be an outlier - most of the numbering on the network at large seems pretty logical.

Why? Yet again why is EMR’s problem of having a homogenous fleet of 170’s Northern’s problem. This suggestion means pushing Northern’s average age up just as it is finally coming down. Imagine the outrage (including on this forum) if Northern replaced 2005 built class 170’s for 1988 built 156’s and 1991 built 158’s.

Why does it have to be someone's "problem"?
The fact of the matter is, there are these diagrams, these depots, and this fleet, and it somehow has to be divided between them. I can't see why it makes any operational sense to give Northern a tiny fleet of Turbostars, and EMR a tiny fleet of Sprinters, just to pull down Northern's average fleet age - an entirely meaningless statistic for the vast majority of passengers who will never encounter a Turbostar on Northern.

The railway really needs to be looking at the big picture of things, rather than having this constant race between TOCs which don't even serve the same area.

 

[Neptune]

Why does it have to be someone's "problem"?
The fact of the matter is, there are these diagrams, these depots, and this fleet, and it somehow has to be divided between them. I can't see why it makes any operational sense to give Northern a tiny fleet of Turbostars, and EMR a tiny fleet of Sprinters, just to pull down Northern's average fleet age - an entirely meaningless statistic for the vast majority of passengers who will never encounter a Turbostar on Northern.

The railway really needs to be looking at the big picture of things, rather than having this constant race between TOCs which don't even serve the same area.

Ok shall we flip this? Instead why don’t Northern take on EMR’s 170’s in exchange for some 156’s & 158’s. It’s no different but would no doubt be rebuffed.

Or how about EMR taking on TfW’s even smaller fleet of 170’s (12 units) working on stopping services. How ridiculous that must be if it’s ridiculous Northern having 16 units.

 

[py_megapixel]

Ok shall we flip this? Instead why don’t Northern take on EMR’s 170’s in exchange for some 156’s & 158’s. It’s no different but would no doubt be rebuffed.

That seems like a reasonable suggestion. The main issue with it is that EMR have promised 170s on their routes as a huge transformation in the passenger experience, while Northern has just put them quietly into service as a modest capacity boost. But that plan doesn't sound ludicrous.

Or how about EMR taking on TfW’s even smaller fleet of 170’s (12 units) working on stopping services. How ridiculous that must be if it’s ridiculous Northern having 16 units.

Again, sounds reasonable to me, especially if TfW could add onto their FLIRT order to cover for it.

 

[Neptune]

So it’s ok to take TfW’s units so long as they are replaced with brand new units but Northern must have them replaced with 3rd hand scrap.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again, sounds reasonable to me, especially if TfW could add onto their FLIRT order to cover for it.

Or perhaps take more 769s?

 

[py_megapixel]

So it’s ok to take TfW’s units so long as they are replaced with brand new units but Northern must have them replaced with 3rd hand scrap.

It makes sense for TfW to take on FLIRTs because it's what most of their fleet is already made up of. I've already made the suggestion that Northern could order more of their new train - the Civity - in post #11, further up the thread, when I said:

It would make far more sense to order more Civities for Northern to displace their 170s to EMR

But you'd already implicitly dismissed that idea when you said that the ordering of diesel's Civities was "as good as dead" in post #16.

 

[Neptune]

Absolutely. There should be no pure diesel units ordered from here on in. However the suggestions on here as with other previous threads is with EMR taking on 15 year old units from Northern in return for 30 year old units which bemuses me. That suggestion I note is not being made for Wales.

 

[DB]

Ok shall we flip this? Instead why don’t Northern take on EMR’s 170’s in exchange for some 156’s & 158’s. It’s no different but would no doubt be rebuffed.

Or why don't EMR just keep some/all of their curre t 158s? Perfectly decent trains - proper repaint and new seat covers, etc, and they'd be fine. Crews alreay work them, so no training needed...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely. There should be no pure diesel units ordered from here on in. However the suggestions on here as with other previous threads is with EMR taking on 15 year old units from Northern in return for 30 year old units which bemuses me. That suggestion I note is not being made for Wales.

To release 170s from Northern it'd be best to order some new bi-modes for the most obvious bi-mode routes (e.g. Barrow/Windermere) and swap the 195s in for 170s.

Absolutely. There should be no pure diesel units ordered from here on in. However the suggestions on here as with other previous threads is with EMR taking on 15 year old units from Northern in return for 30 year old units which bemuses me. That suggestion I note is not being made for Wales.

The suggestions that are being made are mostly so because they simplify the 170-supplying TOC's fleet as well as EMR's.