Network Rail Class 950 to be disposed

[LUYMun]

Been reading the latest edition of RAIL Magazine (issue 1024; 11-26 December) where on page 19 they write the following:

NR Class 150 to be withdrawn
Network Rail has confirmed that its two-car Class 150-derivative Infrastructure Monitoring train will be withdrawn and disposed of. The two-car diesel multiple unit (950001) was built as part of the Sprinter production run of the mid-1980s purposely for use as a track monitoring unit. It was new in 1987 with vehicles DB999600/601.

Network Rail Programme Manager Mark Chestney told RAIL: “We plan to replace 950001 with a two-car 153 next year. The 950 is unique, whereas we now have so much more efficient to have a fleet of the same type of trains. Also, the 950 has technology on board that is no longer supported.”

Came as a bit of a surprise to me however I couldn’t find news or discussion elsewhere regarding this, especially on RAIL’s online site so departmental news must be relatively unimportant or Network Rail would rather keep it hush-hush.

There’s also little indication of the timescale for disposal so Network Rail can’t be in a rush. Looking at it, I can only see it going to the scrapper’s torch but I’m also wondering if heritage railways could value it as an engineering asset, especially as its equipment might be considered old tech for NR but revolutionary for HR.

 

[DanNCL]

If a 150 is too old for infrastructure work then they should also be considered too old for passenger service. I think this is a very good indicator that the 150 fleet is life expired.

I could see the NRM possibly taking it. 950001 is unique and whilst it may not be the most exciting thing to Joe Public, it has got historical value and infrastructure monitoring trains are few/non existent currently in the National Collection so would add something new.

 

[Peter0124]

Has 950001 visited every station in the country aswell?

 

[D365]

I could see the NRM possibly taking it. 950001 is unique and whilst it may not be the most exciting thing to Joe Public, it has got historical value and infrastructure monitoring trains are few/non existent currently in the National Collection so would add something new.

Unfortunately, given the NRM's ultimate lack of interest in 313121, I wouldn't be very optimistic. (As a 313 and an ERTMS test unit, it could serve as an excellent showpiece for the evolution of railway technology; perhaps 950001 would sit well alongside it.)

 

[driverd]

If a 150 is too old for infrastructure work then they should also be considered too old for passenger service. I think this is a very good indicator that the 150 fleet is life expired.

Its not about the age of the 950 - as the statement says, its a bespoke unit with dated test equipment fitted, not in itself life expired. It'll be replaced with a pair of 153s that will have the latest kit fitted and be broadly common with the rest of the 153 fleet - in terms of spare parts and more unique stuff (think things like generators). The actual train used for testing doesn't matter so much (thus mk1/2 coaching stock still in use), and test kit can be attached to most things, it's just what makes sense economically. It's more cost effective to pick up a few 153s (especially given how many are currently available) and kit them out to the established design on the other 153s, than it is to come up with a bespoke solution to modernise a single 950 unit (it's worth remembering that in many ways this unit is unique, it has a fair few differences to a standard 150).

 

[edwin_m]

153s and 950s have the same bogies so they might even transfer the bogie with the measuring equipment to the new unit. I believe this was done with the Lab 5 test car when the early Mk2 version was replaced by a later one.

 

[fgwrich]

I’ve just had a slightly off topic thought - there probably isn’t many lines (thinking Gunnislake here) but is there anywhere where 2x153 cannot go whereas a 150 can?

 

[InOban]

They had to modify the WHL to accommodate the 153 explorer units. I wonder whether the other Scottish 156 routes (Stranraer and dumfries) will need attention,?

 

[hacman]

Been reading the latest edition of RAIL Magazine (issue 1024; 11-26 December) where on page 19 they write the following:

Came as a bit of a surprise to me however I couldn’t find news or discussion elsewhere regarding this, especially on RAIL’s online site so departmental news must be relatively unimportant or Network Rail would rather keep it hush-hush.

There’s also little indication of the timescale for disposal so Network Rail can’t be in a rush. Looking at it, I can only see it going to the scrapper’s torch but I’m also wondering if heritage railways could value it as an engineering asset, especially as its equipment might be considered old tech for NR but revolutionary for HR.

It would be of very little use to a heritage railway, as the recording equipment is usually worthless without both trained staff to operate it and interpret the results, as well as support/licensing from the manufacturers.

The benefit of these sorts of units is in their ability to inspect the track whilst slotted in between regular services or over long distances at speed - not something that the vast majority of heritage railways have a need for.

If a 150 is too old for infrastructure work then they should also be considered too old for passenger service. I think this is a very good indicator that the 150 fleet is life expired.

I could see the NRM possibly taking it. 950001 is unique and whilst it may not be the most exciting thing to Joe Public, it has got historical value and infrastructure monitoring trains are few/non existent currently in the National Collection so would add something new.

The issue is not the unit, as mentioned above it's about the equipment onboard, but also Network Rail wanting to standardise their fleet - since they already have a number of 153 inspection vehicles, the 950 becomes an outlier.

The 150s are long in the tooth at this point, but have not quite reached life-expiry yet if maintained to a reasonable standard. Either way their replacements are in the process of being sought by Northern, with the TfW units on borrowed time already. I believe GWR are in the process of ousting their examples already too.

 

[StripeyNick]

I’ve just had a slightly off topic thought - there probably isn’t many lines (thinking Gunnislake here) but is there anywhere where 2x153 cannot go whereas a 150 can?

153s can't go north of Pontypridd on the Valleys. A single one escaped a couple of years ago and had to work back ecs a few days later at a very low speed.

 

[swt_passenger]

Are standard 153s still generally barred from third rail areas?

 

[diligentdave]

153s and 950s have the same bogies so they might even transfer the bogie with the measuring equipment to the new unit. I believe this was done with the Lab 5 test car when the early Mk2 version was replaced by a later one.

No they aren't. 150 bogies are completely different to 153's. It's the 156 bogies that are (virtually) the same as a 153.

 

[HJ10001]

Considering the 150's of the oldest sprinters on the network, being over 30 years old, both Northern and Transport of Wales will be in the process of withdrawing their units from service.

As the 950 is also over 30 years old, it's put in hundreds of miles, since being created by British Railways, then being handed down through to Railtrack (Late 90's to 2004) and Network Rail (2004 - present) and sadly, technology has moved on and the unit is no longer compatible!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

153s can't go north of Pontypridd on the Valleys. A single one escaped a couple of years ago and had to work back ecs a few days later at a very low speed.

Soon the line will be officially signed off as Light Rail anyway, and no heavy rail stock will be able to go up there regardless.

 

[Minnietheminx]

I’ve just had a slightly off topic thought - there probably isn’t many lines (thinking Gunnislake here) but is there anywhere where 2x153 cannot go whereas a 150 can?

I suspect the Cumbria Coast line may also be an issue

 

[Mollman]

I suspect the Cumbria Coast line may also be an issue

153s worked the Cumbrian Coast in the past

 

[rg177]

153s worked the Cumbrian Coast in the past

150s can't be used on the full route (believe north of Maryport), so this is a case where a 153 *could* go the whole way but a 150 couldn't!

 

[Deepgreen]

Considering the 150's of the oldest sprinters on the network, being over 30 years old, both Northern and Transport of Wales will be in the process of withdrawing their units from service.

As the 950 is also over 30 years old, it's put in hundreds of miles, since being created by British Railways, then being handed down through to Railtrack (Late 90's to 2004) and Network Rail (2004 - present) and sadly, technology has moved on and the unit is no longer compatible!

Perhaps hundreds of thousands of miles?

 

[Ashley Hill]

I’ve just had a slightly off topic thought - there probably isn’t many lines (thinking Gunnislake here) but is there anywhere where 2x153 cannot go whereas a 150 can?

IIRC single 153s were allowed to Gunnislake but not pairs. If a 153 failed it had to be rescued by a 150.

 

[fgwrich]

IIRC single 153s were allowed to Gunnislake but not pairs. If a 153 failed it had to be rescued by a 150.

Indeed - that and Looe are predominantly what led me to think of this. I believe the restriction on Gunnislake is due to the curvature at Calstock.

 

[Fishandbananas]

153s can't go north of Pontypridd on the Valleys. A single one escaped a couple of years ago and had to work back ecs a few days later at a very low speed.

Why is this?

 

[Jim]

Why is this?

Banned north of Taffs Well I thought?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Are standard 153s still generally barred from third rail areas?

They never were, were they?
They were not permitted to Portsmouth, not sure of the exact parameters of the restriction but there have been times they've slipped through according to past discussions on this site. It was something to do with the crew steps fitted to the "new" cab end, but AIUI it took a confluence of circumstances besides simply the presence of the juice rail, to require a restriction. As 155s they weren't restricted to Portsmouth, and were the regular traction Cardiff to Portsmouth for a while in the late 1980s.

As 153s they've run to at least Weymouth, Southampton, Liverpool (via Hunts Cross) and Bidston which have 3rd rail.

 

[Strathclyder]

They had to modify the WHL to accommodate the 153 explorer units. I wonder whether the other Scottish 156 routes (Stranraer and dumfries) will need attention,?

Good question. Maryhill/Anniesland comes to mind too.

Lest we forget the various Glasgow/Strathclyde suburban lines (North Clyde/Argyle, Inverclyde, Ayrshire, Cathcart etc), though most of those are usually covered by loco-hauled test trains anyways. The 950 or the existing NR 153s haven't visited the Glasgow area that frequently in comparison.

 

[D365]

They never were, were they?
They were not permitted to Portsmouth, not sure of the exact parameters of the restriction but there have been times they've slipped through according to past discussions on this site. It was something to do with the crew steps fitted to the "new" cab end, but AIUI it took a confluence of circumstances besides simply the presence of the juice rail, to require a restriction. As 155s they weren't restricted to Portsmouth, and were the regular traction Cardiff to Portsmouth for a while in the late 1980s.

As 153s they've run to at least Weymouth, Southampton, Liverpool (via Hunts Cross) and Bidston which have 3rd rail.

I’ve seen photos of the Network Rail 153s on the ’South Coastway’ routes.

 

[StripeyNick]

Fair point but if that's the case, how is the track going to be monitored? (Replying to post #14)

 

[Townsend Hook]

153s and 950s have the same bogies so they might even transfer the bogie with the measuring equipment to the new unit. I believe this was done with the Lab 5 test car when the early Mk2 version was replaced by a later one.

The recording equipment on the class 153 units is of a completely different generation to that on the 950. Obsolescence of the recording equipment is a stated reason for the 950's withdrawal.

150s can't be used on the full route (believe north of Maryport), so this is a case where a 153 *could* go the whole way but a 150 couldn't!

The 950 doesn't record the Cumbrian Coast - track geometry recording on that line is covered by class 43-powered PLPR (Plain Line Pattern Recognition) trains. Also, a ban to class 150 traction on a given line doesn't necessarily mean that the 950 isn't permitted, local derogations are often used to permit infrastructure monitoring trains to run places they'd otherwise be banned.

 

[edwin_m]

Fair point but if that's the case, how is the track going to be monitored? (Replying to post #14)

Advancing technology means monitoring equipment can now be fitted to service trains and operate unattended, transmitting its data back in real time. It probably isn't as sophisticated as what NR's dedicated test trains can do, but it may well be good enough for the low speeds on the Valley lines. Anyone know if TfW has so fitted a couple of units of its new fleets?

 

[Townsend Hook]

153s can't go north of Pontypridd on the Valleys. A single one escaped a couple of years ago and had to work back ecs a few days later at a very low speed.

Fair point but if that's the case, how is the track going to be monitored? (Replying to post #14)

The 950 doesn't record the Valleys, they're covered by loco-hauled trains.

 

[StripeyNick]

The 950 doesn't record the Valleys, they're covered by loco-hauled trains.

It has done..... photographed it earlier this year