Sprinter Extinction

[tomuk]

I'm assuming it's the gangway connections that the poster wants for the more intensive commuter operations the northern fleet is employed on.

As I say they all have a low density layout maybe not so suitable for intensive commuter operations.

 

[philthetube]

If Northern did get a big Sprinter replacement order, might it make sense to me for them to order enough to also replace the 2-car 195s, which could then head south? I think the numbers line up reasonably well for them to see off all of GWR's 150s and perhaps also the worst few 158s.

Northern could find plenty of work for the 2 car 195's if they were really spare, plenty of two car 156's floating round which could be replaced, Colne Morecombe Ormskirk, etc.

 

[Neptune]

.Northern
Out:
6 x 150/0s > GWR
46 x 150/1s > GWR (not all of them, rest sent for scrap/spares)
7 x 155s > scrap
8 x 158/7s > GWR

In:
TfW > 36 x 150/2s
GWR > 20 x 150/2s
EMR > 20 x 156s
EMR > 26 x 158s

All 150/0s and some 150/1s from Northern to run Devon & Cornwall branch services & provide capacity increase. 155s to scrap when they are displaced by 156s from EMR. 158/7s to GWR to provide capacity boost, replaced by 26 x 158s from EMR. All 150/2s end up at Northern to create a homogeneous fleet, 156s and 158s from EMR to replace 150/0s, 155s & 158/7s plus provide additional rolling stock.

So realistically the only Sprinters that could potentially go are the 150s (by my prediction the 150/1s) and 155s plus the Castle Sets.

Just a few questions regarding Northern.

What will replace the 6x150/0 directly seeing as from December they will be based at Neville Hill with 3 employed daily on the Penistone line (this route is max 3x20m vehicle and needs the capacity they can provide) and 2 on the Dearne Valley line.

Is the replacement of 150/1’s with 150/2’s just tidying up rather than part of a proper plan?

Why would it make any sense for Northern to send 8 x 158’s, which are already refurbished to Northern standards, to GWR yet take on 26 from EMR? Wouldn’t it be better for EMR to send 8 to GWR and 18 to Northern?

 

[tomuk]

Why would it make any sense for Northern to send 8 x 158’s, which are already refurbished to Northern standards, to GWR yet take on 26 from EMR? Wouldn’t it be better for EMR to send 8 to GWR and 18 to Northern?

It would make sense to try and group together the three 158 engine types, Cummins, Perkins, Cummins 400hp

 

[Neptune]

That just sounds like tidying up.

For reference the Perkins units are based at Heaton and the Cummins units (both types with common parts) at Neville Hill so I fail to see the issue.

In any case the poster is suggesting all 26 EMR units to Northern which have Cummins 350hp, Cummins 400hp and Perkins engines so it can’t be that.

To be honest I suspect ‘8 units from Northern to GWR’ means something specific.

 

[tomuk]

That just sounds like tidying up.

For reference the Perkins units are based at Heaton and the Cummins units (both types with common parts) at Neville Hill so I fail to see the issue.

In any case the poster is suggesting all 26 EMR units to Northern which have Cummins 350hp, Cummins 400hp and Perkins engines so it can’t be that.

To be honest I suspect ‘8 units from Northern to GWR’ means something specific.

It isn't just tidying up if depots only had to maintain one type costs would be less.

 

[Ken H]

I'm assuming it's the gangway connections that the poster wants for the more intensive commuter operations the northern fleet is employed on.

Then why not simply sandwich a 150/2 between 2 150/1 cars and make a semi-permanent 4 car unit?

 

[py_megapixel]

Northern could find plenty of work for the 2 car 195's if they were really spare, plenty of two car 156's floating round which could be replaced, Colne Morecombe Ormskirk, etc.

I didn't mean they are spare now - rather, that if they were making a Sprinter replacement order (which would include those 2-car 156s) then they could order some extra so that they were.

 

[Neptune]

It isn't just tidying up if depots only had to maintain one type costs would be less.

They do maintain one type. Heaton = Perkins, Neville Hill = Cummins.

Nevertheless, as I said, the poster suggests just 8 units going from Northern to GWR which doesn’t align with engine types.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Northern could find plenty of work for the 2 car 195's if they were really spare, plenty of two car 156's floating round which could be replaced, Colne Morecombe Ormskirk, etc.

That cascade was nominally the whole reason for the 2 car sets.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

I'm assuming it's the gangway connections that the poster wants for the more intensive commuter operations the northern fleet is employed on.

GWR retained the 150/2's because of the gangway connection.

 

[MattRat]

Then why not simply sandwich a 150/2 between 2 150/1 cars and make a semi-permanent 4 car unit?

Is that actually possible though, because while I like the sound of it, I don't know if it's actually mechanically possible, or if the differences between units would cause a problem somehow.

 

[Ken H]

Is that actually possible though, because while I like the sound of it, I don't know if it's actually mechanically possible, or if the differences between units would cause a problem somehow.

West Midlands ran 150/1 -150/2 - 150/1 3 car sets for some years.

 

[skyhigh]

Is that actually possible though, because while I like the sound of it, I don't know if it's actually mechanically possible, or if the differences between units would cause a problem somehow.

Have you seen the Northern /0s? Other than 001 and 002, the rest are 150/1s with a 150/2 vehicle inserted to make it up to a 3 car unit. No reason it couldn't be done as a 4 car instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have you seen the Northern /0s? Other than 001 and 002, the rest are 150/1s with a 150/2 vehicle inserted to make it up to a 3 car unit. No reason it couldn't be done as a 4 car instead.

Given that Northern are seeing revenue flying out of the door because people know to get in the front unit of a pair to avoid the guard, and given that Northern mostly now only operate 150s in pairs (some /1s can be left at singles for single diagrams), I think this would be a very good idea indeed.

 

[HSTEd]

How many 150/153/155/156/158/159 vehicles are actually still in service across the entire country?

How much would it cost just to order a single run of new units and be done with it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many 150/153/155/156/158/159 vehicles are actually still in service across the entire country?

How much would it cost just to order a single run of new units and be done with it?

That's the sort of economy of scale GBR could certainly manage!

We've got a standard IC EMU (ish), so why not a standard regional bi-mode/DEMU?

 

[Ken H]

That's the sort of economy of scale GBR could certainly manage!

We've got a standard IC EMU (ish), so why not a standard regional bi-mode/DEMU?

Not sure Leeds - Castleford needs the same train as Leeds - Carlisle. We have 150's and 158's for a reason. But it should be possible to make a bodyshell that can have end doors like a 158 and 1/3 - 2/3 doors like a 150. Dont know is there is anywhere a 23m vehicle cant go.

 

[JonathanH]

How many 150/153/155/156/158/159 vehicles are actually still in service across the entire country?

6 x 150/0 vehicles
100 x 150/1 vehicles
168 x 150/2 vehicles
26 x 153 vehicles
14 x 155 vehicles
228 x 156 vehicles (although some EMR 156s are out of use)
442 x 158 / 159 vehicles (allowing for deletion of 158763 and 159102)

984 in total, then add on 240 165 / 166 vehicles.

How much would it cost just to order a single run of new units and be done with it?

Too much, although the more pertinent question is how much higher would the lease cost be, offset by possibly higher revenue and lower maintenance costs.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

That's the sort of economy of scale GBR could certainly manage!

We've got a standard IC EMU (ish), so why not a standard regional bi-mode/DEMU?

One fleet for Inner Suburban, one for Outer Suburban, one for Regional Express and one for InterCity would be perfect for a smart, neat and homogeneous (if boring) railway. Would cost far, far, far too much though.

 

[tomuk]

They do maintain one type. Heaton = Perkins, Neville Hill = Cummins.

Nevertheless, as I said, the poster suggests just 8 units going from Northern to GWR which doesn’t align with engine types.

Were not just talking about Northern. Northern and EMR have a mixture of all three, GWR have both the Cummins and a large fleet of Perkins 165/166. The TfW 158s are Perkins. It would make sense for one operator to have all the Perkins engines.

 

[JonathanH]

It would make sense for one operator to have all the Perkins engines.

Not really, as they apparently require more maintenance.

 

[tbtc]

Building a thousand or more carriages sounds great, but I’m guessing the people making these suggestions haven’t noticed the dozen years of austerity/ the fact that the DfT aren’t exactly in “expansionist” mode?

Plus there’s the problem that building a thousand carriages in one order “now” would presumably mean that we’d need to consider one enormous to swallow bill for a replacement thousand carriages in thirtysomething years?

(If you’re going to tell me that “ah, no, because we’ll have electrified so much over those decades that we can replace a lot of them with pure EMUs then that begs the question of how many new self powered trains we really need to order today if a lot of them will be usurped by electrification in the medium term?)

Also, the talk of DMU engines just reminds me what a mess BR made of what looks to outsiders like one big/common fleet, yet with a lot of differences under the surface

 

[Ken H]

Building a thousand or more carriages sounds great, but I’m guessing the people making these suggestions haven’t noticed the dozen years of austerity/ the fact that the DfT aren’t exactly in “expansionist” mode?

Plus there’s the problem that building a thousand carriages in one order “now” would presumably mean that we’d need to consider one enormous to swallow bill for a replacement thousand carriages in thirtysomething years?

(If you’re going to tell me that “ah, no, because we’ll have electrified so much over those decades that we can replace a lot of them with pure EMUs then that begs the question of how many new self powered trains we really need to order today if a lot of them will be usurped by electrification in the medium term?)

Also, the talk of DMU engines just reminds me what a mess BR made of what looks to outsiders like one big/common fleet, yet with a lot of differences under the surface

BR went in for a lot of dual sourcing. There were 2 types of traction motor in HST's. 2 makes of 3rd rail networkers. GEC and ML signaling for example.
Woukd a new series production of MU train have dual sourcing or would they risk one vendor?

 

[JonathanH]

Also, the talk of DMU engines just reminds me what a mess BR made of what looks to outsiders like one big/common fleet, yet with a lot of differences under the surface

Isn't that just a dual sourcing convention that ensured that BR didn't end up with only one supplier if the other went out of business?

 

[tomuk]

Not really, as they apparently require more maintenance.

Indeed they do, the old Rolls Royce design heritage which allowed customisation of the basic design does let them down compared to the mass produced Cummins.

By having them at one operator a 'centre of excellence' could be set up and easier more fruitful liaison with Cat\Perkins could occur.

 

[HSTEd]

Building a thousand or more carriages sounds great, but I’m guessing the people making these suggestions haven’t noticed the dozen years of austerity/ the fact that the DfT aren’t exactly in “expansionist” mode?

I do seem to recall the DfT springing for a ruinously expensive intercity fleet of a thousand carriages or more very recently!

Or the the 1140 carriage Class 700 fleet slightly less recently.

A thousand carriage-equivalents of homogeneous electrodiesel stock would allow dramatic simplifications in maintenance and driver training services, and all the trains would come fitted for ETCS and almost certainly with all the equipment for train based DOO - which would allow the Government to take up that fight at will.

Maintaining all this rusting out scrap metal is not cheap in the slightest, and there are numerous places on the network where stock modernisation would enable dramatic operational savings - for example with high performance units the semi-fast services on the CLC could likely be dispensed with because they would be little faster than the stopper.

(If you’re going to tell me that “ah, no, because we’ll have electrified so much over those decades that we can replace a lot of them with pure EMUs then that begs the question of how many new self powered trains we really need to order today if a lot of them will be usurped by electrification in the medium term?)

Well a cynic would suggest "almost none" - but the real answer is you follow SNCF's example and order electro-diesels.

 

[tomuk]

I do seem to recall the DfT springing for a ruinously expensive intercity fleet of a thousand carriages or more very recently!

Or the the 1140 carriage Class 700 fleet slightly less recently.

The DfT didn't pay for them they are leased from a 'special' ROSCO like other stock but the TOCs concerned have to pay the extra high leasing fees for 25 odd years.

 

[Neptune]

Were not just talking about Northern. Northern and EMR have a mixture of all three, GWR have both the Cummins and a large fleet of Perkins 165/166. The TfW 158s are Perkins. It would make sense for one operator to have all the Perkins engines.

My question was why the suggestion was 8 units from Northern to GWR (don’t think it looks like I’ll get that reply) with 26 incoming from EMR to Northern which seems totally pointless when you can just move 18 from EMR to Northern and have done.

When it comes to having all the Perkins units at one depot is there a depot that’s diagrams requires exactly 48 x 158’s and 96 x 165/166’s?

They seem to have managed with mixed Perkins/Cummins fleets for many years at various places (Neville Hill, Canton, Tyseley, Nottingham) and now only Nottingham a mixed fleet. It honestly just sounds like tidying up rather than a plan for what is actually required.

 

[tomuk]

My question was why the suggestion was 8 units from Northern to GWR (don’t think it looks like I’ll get that reply) with 26 incoming from EMR to Northern which seems totally pointless when you can just move 18 from EMR to Northern and have done.

When it comes to having all the Perkins units at one depot is there a depot that’s diagrams requires exactly 48 x 158’s and 96 x 165/166’s?

Well if you transferred the TfW 158s to GWR they would have 44 x 158s
Plus 57 x 165/166s with the remaining 165s at Chiltern.