Spacing is fine for higher speeds. Its structures, formation etc.Don't think the 60mph is to do with the track, which is, I understand in good condition. It's mainly a signalling issue (spacing, axle counters etc).
The Northern routes I'd suggest are theoretically better than the S&C are the Airport - Barrow and Windermere routes, plus Blackpool - York, to cascade 195s.
But appreciate it ain't at all likely!
Thanks, wasn't aware of that.Spacing is fine for higher speeds. Its structures, formation etc.
The Northern routes I'd suggest are theoretically better than the S&C are the Airport - Barrow and Windermere routes, plus Blackpool - York, to cascade 195s.
But appreciate it ain't at all likely!
The aversion is because it is expensive to operate and totally inappropriate for the routes suggested, nothing to do with enthusiasm. If they don't work for TPE, the idea of putting them on less lucrative routes, with loads of traincrew to train in locomotive handling is absolutely ridiculous.I think there is an aversion here to replacing DMUs with anything loco-hauled because it is something an enthusuast would usually suggest for nostalgic reasons, but if Northern can sort out the reliability problems then I think they'd be better for the Cumbria services than the 195s are.
The aversion is because it is expensive to operate and totally inappropriate for the routes suggested, nothing to do with enthusiasm. If they don't work for TPE, the idea of putting them on less lucrative routes, with loads of traincrew to train in locomotive handling is absolutely ridiculous.
Sadly they cost more to run - where is the money coming from ?.Why is it ridiculous to put them on less lucrative routes such as this one? The important factors are whether the train more-or-less matches the linespeed, whether the train provides the required capacity, comfort and reliability. Apart from the last point, a 68/mk5 ticks those boxes. First class provision isn't an issue, this could be converted to standard to provide extra standard capacity. The noise issue seems to me to be a lot of fuss about little. I have heard them in stations both idling and in acceleration and really it's hardly deafening.
Crew training would need to happen at the majority of new potential operators, possibly all except Chiltern?
Northern say every passenger mile costs 40p in subsidy, averaged across all routes and times. Taking on an additional training need to operate and service known unreliable and expensive units for any route must be a total non starter.The aversion is because it is expensive to operate and totally inappropriate for the routes suggested, nothing to do with enthusiasm. If they don't work for TPE, the idea of putting them on less lucrative routes, with loads of traincrew to train in locomotive handling is absolutely ridiculous.
Its the case that even if the Mk5s were more reliable (possible inevitably) and economical to run they would still be a micro fleet which brings its own problems. It was a challenge on TPE to crew them once the 802s were coming on stream.Northern say every passenger mile costs 40p in subsidy, averaged across all routes and times. Taking on an additional training need to operate and service known unreliable and expensive units for any route must be a total non starter.
Most of our railways need subsidy, should we close them all down and just run the few profit making lines?Northern say every passenger mile costs 40p in subsidy, averaged across all routes and times. Taking on an additional training need to operate and service known unreliable and expensive units for any route must be a total non starter.
No, not at all, but running efficient rolling stock, rather than rolling stock that is expensive to operate, is important in keeping the subsidy level at a point which is affordable.Most of our railways need subsidy, should we close them all down and just run the few profit making lines?
The Cumbria routes from Manchester Airport were the first to see the 195s when they were introduced. No one argued against that investment.Arguing against doing anything that requires investment because there’s already a subsidy is simply guaranteeing a vicious cycle of decline and not very progressive.
As you say, routes like the Cumbria and Manchester airport have already been invested in with 195s.No, not at all, but running efficient rolling stock, rather than rolling stock that is expensive to operate, is important in keeping the subsidy level at a point which is affordable.
The Cumbria routes from Manchester Airport were the first to see the 195s when they were introduced. No one argued against that investment.
Personally I'd like to see them go back to Newport and be rebuilt in some form to work as more conventional unit, which would require rebuilding at the slab end. I suspect there isn't a lot of room under them for traction equipment so some extra coaches may need to be built.The opportunity might be to use the ex-TPE Mk5s with a Bi-Mode locomotive - class 93 ?. But where ?.
Indeed they could be re-purposed. Like you I wonder what the underfloor space is like - we are leading ourselves to a multiple unit and if an extra coach is required then it will have a cab, panto-graph, transformer and traction motors !. I think Newport beckons and more likely an export "opportunity".Personally I'd like to see them go back to Newport and be rebuilt in some form to work as more conventional unit, which would require rebuilding at the slab end. I suspect there isn't a lot of room under them for traction equipment so some extra coaches may need to be built.
Are there some software issues prohibiting them from attaching to Chiltern's Mk3s? The local council in Marylebone didn't want the noise but without a suitable alternative Chiltern will have to keep them anyway and nothing the council can do about that.Of course the fact that Newport is not rail connected means that they are more likely to go somewhere else more convenient. Thus if the Mk5s do make it back to Newport it would be a positive indication that CAF feel there is a use for them. But are they CAFs problem ?. I don't think CAF own them do they ?. So if CAF took them to Newport that would indicate CAF have plans for them.
They are the responsibility of their leasing company, Beacon Rail, not CAF, but the leasing company can only really go to CAF to try to get them used for something more suitable. That said, with only 66 vehicles, it is a bit of a niche piece of work and could well be a waste of money.Of course the fact that Newport is not rail connected means that they are more likely to go somewhere else more convenient. Thus if the Mk5s do make it back to Newport it would be a positive indication that CAF feel there is a use for them. But are they CAFs problem ?. I don't think CAF own them do they ?. So if CAF took them to Newport that would indicate CAF have plans for them.
Chiltern have their own allocation of class 68s already. The Mark 3s can't couple to Mark 5s.Are there some software issues prohibiting them from attaching to Chiltern's Mk3s?
Who'd have thunk it eh, you choose to live in a property close to the railway and you can hear trains !Sadly they cost more to run - where is the money coming from ?.
And the 68s are too noisy for the residents near the line. A particular problem at Scarborough Depot which has restricted operations to daytime only. At Marylebone the local council has weighed in on the noise issue so Chiltern will not be keeping their 68s unless the sound levels can be improved on. It is not about the noise being painful it is about it disturbing people in their homes and the complaints they have made.
The Mk3s and Mk5s probably are not mechanically compatible. They are certainly not compatible software wise (to work with a locomotive). Only way Chiltern would use the Mk5s is as a complete replacements for their Mk3s. Would have to swap the 68s over as well for software compatibility. But big issue for Chiltern is the noise of the 68s. The 68s need to be made quieter.Are there some software issues prohibiting them from attaching to Chiltern's Mk3s? The local council in Marylebone didn't want the noise but without a suitable alternative Chiltern will have to keep them anyway and nothing the council can do about that.
The problem is the noise from the 68s is significantly more intrusive than other current trains. Left ticking over at night keeping coaches warm I think was the worst of it. Where the depot at Scarborough is there are not many houses that near - that is how bad it must be.Who'd have thunk it eh, you choose to live in a property close to the railway and you can hear trains !
6 car 195 has 368 seats.As I said the Cumbria services already have a number of diagrams booked for 6-car operation. The 68-mk5 sets would be a suitable alternative capacity-wise.
Not even 65mph. The hilly part between Leeds and Knaresborough is only 60mph and gearboxes are suffering even more. 158s are more suitable than 170s due to more rapid acceleration from station stops with reduced journey times.Absolutely no way are 170’s suitable due to the max linespeed of the route being 60mph. Only the first (or last) 26 miles of this 112 mile route would enable them to get into final drive. Think of the uproar on here about their use on the 65mph Harrogate line.
The Settle-Carlisle was a 90mph railway in steam days especially during electrification north of Preston. Diverted double headed class 50s regularly maintained this speed north of Kirkby Stephen and even exceeded this on straighter parts of the route.I would agree that 2, 3 and 4 car units are fine for the Leeds - Carlisle service.
Admittedly, it is possibly a subject for another thread if one is not out there already, but I cannot see how you would be able to be using higher speed trains than class 158 units on the Leeds - Carlisle route. I would stand corrected, but I don't believe that there is much improvement to the track speed that can be done. So on that basis, you would not want any trains doing above 90mph on the route, if that speed is possible?
They aren’t suffering too badly because they spend more of their working life on the Sheffield - Scarborough services.Not even 65mph. The hilly part between Leeds and Knaresborough is only 60mph and gearboxes are suffering even more. 158s are more suitable than 170s due to more rapid acceleration from station stops with reduced journey times.
End door stock is terrible for the Castlefield corridor. Yes there is some running through there but it should be reduced, not increased. Also as I mentioned above, they are a significant reduction in capacity over a 6 car 195.I reckon the Windermere-Manchester Airport run would be a good fit for the mk5s with a 93 hauling/propelling.
Yes, I would like to see 195s on the Harrogate Loop too for their superior acceleration but are wasted on a 60mph railway.They aren’t suffering too badly because they spend more of their working life on the Sheffield - Scarborough services.
However the ideal unit would be 195’s for the line. Much quicker than 158’s and with a door layout to suit a commuter route. There aren’t many people doing much more than 45 minutes on these services.
End door stock is terrible for the Castlefield corridor. Yes there is some running through there but it should be reduced, not increased. Also as I mentioned above, they are a significant reduction in capacity over a 6 car 195.
It's something approaching 100km single track kilometres, which is unfortunately about £400m worth of electrification at current 25kV prices.Yes, I would like to see 195s on the Harrogate Loop too for their superior acceleration but are wasted on a 60mph railway.
I would like to see the Loop electrified to eliminate a diesel island as both ends at York and Leeds are already wired. There would be a big enough pool of EMUs if all 26 323s are cascaded from Birmingham to Northern to move 9 more 3-car 331s over to Leeds. Unfortunately DfT has said a definite no or a gobbledy gook reply to that effect.