Now that the post-172 DMU cascade is almost over... (who were the winners and losers)

[tbtc]

The announcement that FGW are getting their 180s back and a handful of additional 150 carriages means that the post-172 cascade has almost been completed.

Who were the biggest winners/ losers?

London Overground: Got a brand new DMU fleet, with the 172s replacing the 150s. They seem to have done best out of it.

London Midland: Gained twenty seven 172s, and were allowed to keep a small number of 150s (so the overall fleet number increased). Came out of it well.

FGW: Gained a decent number of 150s, albeit with the loss of 142s. Still it leaves them with more DMUs, and bigger ones on average too (since the 142s were each replaced by a 150). Add in the 180s and they've had a good cascade.

ATW: Got their rented 150s back from FGW, which allows them to run them on routes like the Cheltenham - Maesteg, freeing up a 158 for the Cambrian. Not too bad... but still stuck with the same old Pacers.

Northern: A mixed bag. The loss of the fifteen 180 carriages means they have no more post-privatisation DMUs. However the poor availability of these units meant that they only rostered for two in use at any one time, and two 180s are broadly equivalent to four 150/156s. They also lost four 156s to EMT. Whilst the return of the 142s worsens the average age, the overall capacity at Northern (including the cascaded 150s) did increase. However there is arguably the greatest need here for further capacity, which was not really addressed.

EMT: Gained four 156s (to free up 158s for capacity enhancements between Nottingham and Liverpool), all good news (although quite limited, given the number of units sloshing around the country, and it will still mean single coach 153s on routes like Derby - Stoke - Crewe). Good, but not idea.

Scotrail: Not directly involved, although you could argue that Northern's gain of 150s allowed FSR to keep the 158s that they had on loan (that should have headed south when the Bathgate line was electrified, but are being used on capacity enhancements like the Aberdeen - Inverness route).

So, ignoring London Overground (as they clearly got the best deal), who do you reckon "had a good cascade" and who didn't get what they really needed?

(I know that Chiltern gained 172s too, but as they lost nothing, they aren't really part of any "cascade")

 

[swt_passenger]

I reckon FGW, and my reasoning is that when the DfT's 'pass the parcel music stopped', they suggested that there'd be 8 carriages left over, and they were up for grabs if any TOC or local authority etc could make a suitable business case.

So FGW have to be applauded for getting all 8 allocated to them only a few weeks later...

 

[tbtc]

I reckon FGW, and my reasoning is that when the DfT's 'pass the parcel music stopped', they suggested that there'd be 8 carriages left over, and they were up for grabs if any TOC or local authority etc could make a suitable business case.

So FGW have to be applauded for getting all 8 allocated to them only a few weeks later...

Good point, they do seem to have worked the system pretty well.

Good to see that First haven't lost interest in improving the franchise, despite planning to hand the keys back early, they aren't just coasting through the final few years of the contract doing the bare minimum.

 

[pemma]

FGW: Gained a decent number of 150s, albeit with the loss of 142s. Still it leaves them with more DMUs, and bigger ones on average too (since the 142s were each replaced by a 150). Add in the 180s and they've had a good cascade.

FGW have now also got the high capacity 150/0s, which provide more capacity than a 156+153 due to only having one toilet and two driving cabs and 3+2 seating.

to see that First haven't lost interest in improving the franchise, despite planning to hand the keys back early, they aren't just coasting through the final few years of the contract doing the bare minimum.

What exactly are First doing though? They've proved to DfT that they can utilise the extra carriages but they are relying on DfT to pay for them to be put in to use.

I reckon FGW, and my reasoning is that when the DfT's 'pass the parcel music stopped', they suggested that there'd be 8 carriages left over, and they were up for grabs if any TOC or local authority etc could make a suitable business case.

Has it really stopped though? If EMT had put in a case for the extra 150 carriages would we have seen another pass the parcel situation? FGW already have 150s and didn't have any other units off lease, so a pass the parcel wasn't required this time.

 

[Ivo]

Would have to say FGW. 50% increase on capacity with the 150s taking over from the 142s and the 180s returning as well, although they do need some work.

I would suggest that NT have done better than usual though, even if they have lost their "flash" units!

P.S.: "This poll will close on 18th August 2014 at 13:27" - what?!

 

[sprinterguy]

I think that FGW have done very well out of these cascades. Before considering the recent gain of the two 150/0s and 150209, they received a total of 19 150s from London Overground and LM, which have replaced seven 142s which can now return to their "rightful" owners, Northern, two hired in ATW 150s and two loco-hauled rakes.

That's a very good deal I think; the 150s have more than 20 seats more than the 142s, and even if we assume the loco hauled rakes to be equivalent to a pair of 150 each, then that's thirteen 150s that have been utilised in replacing other stock.

Plus, of course, FGW have got five 180s, three of them made available through Northern receiving 150s from LM, which will allow longer, more comfortable trains on the Cotswolds line and longer Network Turbo formations on shorter distance services along the Thames Valley.

And now of course there's 150001, 150002 and 150209 as well! Allowing two 153s to move to the Falmouth and Exmouth branches to strengthen other services that are currently worked by single 153s (in the case of 150209), and once again freeing up Network Turbos for use in the Thames Valley (in the case of 150001/2).

 

[I like Class 153]

EMT: Gained four 156s (to free up 158s for capacity enhancements between Nottingham and Liverpool), all good news (although quite limited, given the number of units sloshing around the country, and it will still mean single coach 153s on routes like Derby - Stoke - Crewe). Good, but not idea.


What will run on the Matlock to Nottingham route when the 158's go back to Liverpool to Norwich route?

 

[sprinterguy]

What will run on the Matlock to Nottingham route when the 158's go back to Liverpool to Norwich route?

As you've already surmised in another thread, a mix of 153s and 156s; just like it is now but with less sporadic 158 activity. EMT don't have anything else that could run the Matlock branch.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Thought I might put some basic numbers up on this to help.

EMT

+8 (+8 x 156)

LM

+1 (-66 x 150, -2 x153 +69 x 172)

NO

+47 (-15 x 180, -8 x 156 + 36 x 150, +14 x 142, +20 x 322)

GW

+56 (-14 x 142 +25 x 180, +30 x 150, +15 x HST)


Numbers are in passenger coaches.

 

[swt_passenger]

Hang on though, you can't really count the HST carriages for FGW, and 2 of the 180s, as part of the 172 based cascade - or even the ex-Scotrail 322s?

They are completely separate to the matter under discussion surely...

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Hang on though, you can't really count the HST carriages for FGW, and 2 of the 180s, as part of the 172 based cascade - or even the ex-Scotrail 322s?

They are completely separate to the matter under discussion surely...

It's seats for bums that counts and that's the reality.

 

[Class172]

Even though LM have come out very nicely with brand new trains, the capacity has not been significantly increased.

(I hope the add-on order is going to happen)

FGW, not only have they received a load of 150s as extra capacity, supplementing those lost to other TOCs, they have gained the 180s; furthermore, they have now gained 150001/2 and 150209!

 

[pemma]

LM

+1 (-66 x 150, -2 x153 +69 x 172)

NO

+47 (-15 x 180, -8 x 156 + 36 x 150, +14 x 142, +20 x 322)

GW

+56 (-14 x 142 +25 x 180, +30 x 150, +15 x HST)


Numbers are in passenger coaches.

Take in to consideration carriage length as well:

LM had 20m carriages replaced by 23m carriages. In total this made the equivalent of 5 extra 150s.

FGW had 15.5m carriages replaced by 20m carriages. In total it gave the equivalent of an extra 142.

Northern had 23m carriages replaced by 20m carriages. In total it is equivalent to losing a pair of 142s. Then 14 of the extra carriages are the shorter 15.5m carriages.

Why haven't you include the London Overground 150s? They were originally intended for Northern, so not counting them in FGW's quota gives a false impression, unless you exclude the Pacers that Northern got from FGW.

 

[Class172]

LM had 20m carriages replaced by 23m carriages. In total this made the equivalent of 5 extra 150s.

A LM 150 has 2+3 seating and a 172 has 2+2 seating so overall the seating capacity increase is negligible.

 

[pemma]

A LM 150 has 2+3 seating and a 172 has 2+2 seating so overall the seating capacity is negligible.

I agree it makes it a difference. However, if LM had kept the 150s and decided to refit them with 2+2 seating, as has been done in the South West and Wales, then they could have claimed they've increased the total capacity as there's more standing space, which is actually the objective LM tried to achieve with the way they spec'ed the 172 seating.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Take in to consideration carriage length as well:

LM had 20m carriages replaced by 23m carriages. In total this made the equivalent of 5 extra 150s.

FGW had 15.5m carriages replaced by 20m carriages. In total it gave the equivalent of an extra 142.

Northern had 23m carriages replaced by 20m carriages. In total it is equivalent to losing a pair of 142s. Then 14 of the extra carriages are the shorter 15.5m carriages.

Why haven't you include the London Overground 150s? They were originally intended for Northern, so not counting them in FGW's quota gives a false impression, unless you exclude the Pacers that Northern got from FGW.

Class 172 makes the point re the 150/172 issue, length of vehicle does not equate to seating or indeed standing capacity, DDA requirements/TOC (not passenger) preferences are an issue to, the 172s have less seats than the 150s they replace.

 

[Class172]

Class 172 makes the point re the 150/172 issue, length of vehicle does not equate to seating or indeed standing capacity, DDA requirements/TOC (not passenger) preferences are an issue to, the 172s have less seats than the 150s they replace.

That's why I hope the add-on order for 172s will be completed.

 

[TEW]

I don't think FGW did as well as some on here are suggesting. Certainly under the original cascade they got a pretty poor deal, but that has now been improved with the recent additions to the cascade.
Originally 15 150s were gained but 7 142s to Northern, 4 150s to ATW, 1 158 to SWT and two loco hauled rakes equivalent to 2 150s each were lost. That's actually a loss of 1 150 but a gain in length of carriages and in the flexibility of 150s over the Loco Hauled stock. The recent increases puts FGW up 1 150, 2 153s and 2 half 150s. An overall gain of 6 carriages in the West area of FGW.

 

[WillPS]

LM was one of the few franchises operating in the north with an adequate level of capacity. They also now have the most modern fleet.

 

[pemma]

I don't think FGW did as well as some on here are suggesting. Certainly under the original cascade they got a pretty poor deal, but that has now been improved with the recent additions to the cascade.
Originally 15 150s were gained but 7 142s to Northern, 4 150s to ATW, 1 158 to SWT and two loco hauled rakes equivalent to 2 150s each were lost.

If we're counting all the short term loans then we need to include the ATW 150 and LM 153 that Northern had as well.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

LM was one of the few franchises operating in the north with an adequate level of capacity. They also now have the most modern fleet.

I live and use LM services from Worcestershire into Birmingham and they are stuffed in the peaks so where does the north start.

More importantly can you explain the science behind your statement with regards to "an adequate level of capacity"?

 

[sprinterguy]

LM was one of the few franchises operating in the north with an adequate level of capacity. They also now have the most modern fleet.

London Midland, North? You what? There's bits of Northern that I would claim weren't in the north

(Sorry, just fancied a quick burst of regionalism)

 

[Class172]

LM was one of the few franchises operating in the north

North?? Only the Liverpool services but certainly not the rest.

 

[OxtedL]

From where I'm sitting, it's definitely the North.

I think comparing the number of carriages gained by everyone is a bit of a useless measure and not necessarily an indication of how "well" franchises have done out of the cascade. It's a bit arbitrary, and doesn't really show up how well they will be used.

Nonetheless I would agree FGW have done quite well. Although everyone has in their own way.

 

[Class172]

London Midland, North? You what? There's bits of Northern that I would claim weren't in the north

(Sorry, just fancied a quick burst of regionalism)

It seems we think alike.

 

[sprinterguy]

A LM 150 has 2+3 seating and a 172 has 2+2 seating so overall the seating capacity increase is negligible.

It's not a huge difference though: The LM 150 hybrids had 212 seats, and a three car 172/3 has 193, plus 7 tip-up seats between the two driving vehicles. It's also debatable how well used all the seats would be in the 3+2 formation prevalent in LMs' 150s; on the LM 150 Farewell, there were apparently about forty seats left spare on the tour, but there were still a few people choosing to stand and it felt pretty cosy.

 

[TEW]

If we're counting all the short term loans then we need to include the ATW 150 and LM 153 that Northern had as well.

They were nessecary to run FGWs service and weren't really short term, the ATW 150s were hired for about three years and the SWT 158 two.

 

[WillPS]

Sorry - I was going on the political sense of the word - e.g. anywhere north of Watford Junction.

Commuter trains *are* stuffed in the peaks, it's an unavoidable reality of modern railways, across Western Europe. The trains are sufficiently sized to allow passengers to stand while travelling - there's several examples of Northern/EMT services which literally do not have enough room to let all the passengers on board. In the distant future, the idea of a seat for everybody on even the busiest train is a lovely idea, but when some areas have such chronic shortages as those I've just outlined, I'd describe LM's capacity as relatively sufficient.

 

[Class172]

there's several examples of Northern/EMT services which literally do not have enough room to let all the passengers on board.

I've seen it happen at Birmingham a few times, and I don't often go there.

 

[tbtc]

What exactly are First doing though? They've proved to DfT that they can utilise the extra carriages but they are relying on DfT to pay for them to be put in to use

Northern, and other TOCs could have demonstrated to the DFT that they had a use for these additional carriages.

Either they didn't, or they gave weaker cases, I don't know which. But it surprised me that FGW had a better case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree it makes it a difference. However, if LM had kept the 150s and decided to refit them with 2+2 seating, as has been done in the South West and Wales, then they could have claimed they've increased the total capacity as there's more standing space, which is actually the objective LM tried to achieve with the way they spec'ed the 172 seating.

...but you dismiss the additional standing space on the ex-FNW 150s (e.g. the wheelchair space) when making comparisons about capacity (vs a 156).

We need to be consistent on whether standing space can be used to determine capacity.