Transport for London Looking for New DMUs?

HSTEd · 27 May 2012

Surely it would be simpler to install TPWS in place of the tripcocks when the resignalling takes place, as TPWS is a sealed box electronic system and not a mechanical system that is exposed to the weather.

RailUK Forums

pemma · 27 May 2012

Peter Sarf said:
Given that the LOROL 172s have no end connection it seems to me they would be more use as longer units so adding 1 or 2 centre cars would reduce the need for them to be coupled to other units. I know its been said before that the cabs could be replaced with the London Midland variant so at least its technically feasible and already done. Might make them have a better residual value from a ROSCOs point of view ?.

Just a thought. If the LO order was for 8 x 4 car 172s with longitudinal seating and no toilets, why not add-on to the order 16 centre carriages with half of them containing toilets to turn the LO 172s in to 4 car 172s to replace the 170+153 formations at LM and while we're at it order more centre carriages for Chiltern as well?

Metrailway · 27 May 2012

Nym said:
Or possibly just installing TWPS alongside the coloured light signalling, using TWPS in place of tripcocks (or in combination with them, keeping them for the Met units) for Chiltern units.

In my opinion it would be unlikely but anything is possible. In the past, LU have never installed AWS (or similar systems) on any of it's lines. BR wanted to install Chiltern ATP on the Met but it never happened, which is why the 165s and 168s have tripcocks.

Why would LU install (and maintain) a completely alien protection system, which has not been specified by them, for Chiltern units, when they already have good experience with a current system which does the job just as well? Maintaining the trainstops is not a problem as LU would have plenty of spares from the other lines which would have been converted to ATO.

swt_passenger · 27 May 2012

Nym said:
Or possibly just installing TWPS alongside the coloured light signalling, using TWPS in place of tripcocks (or in combination with them, keeping them for the Met units) for Chiltern units.

That's exactly how it works on the District between East Putney and Wimbledon, AFAICS. Tripcocks are clearly open to negotiation as none of SWT's fleet has them.

I'll give you the frequency of use, and line speed , is not quite the same - but the principle is there...

Metrailway · 27 May 2012

swt_passenger said:
That's exactly how it works on the District between East Putney and Wimbledon, AFAICS. Tripcocks are clearly open to negotiation as none of SWT's fleet has them.

I'll give you the frequency of use, and line speed , is not quite the same - but the principle is there...

But the East Putney - Wimbledon section is Network Rail maintained not LUL maintained* so it's a bit different when compared to the Met.

*LUL have owned the branch since privatisation but have never maintained it. It has always been maintained to 'mainline' standards.

Pumbaa · 28 May 2012

There has been a suggestion floated that TfL issuing this notice are ;

a) deliberately seeking high cost interest
b) will then use them to illustrate the benefits of getting the line electrified sharp-ish and completing the Electrostar lengthening and follow on order.

Putting my cynical head, I think that seems like a reasonable suggestion.

pemma · 28 May 2012

Pumbaa said:
There has been a suggestion floated that TfL issuing this notice are ;

a) deliberately seeking high cost interest
b) will then use them to illustrate the benefits of getting the line electrified sharp-ish and completing the Electrostar lengthening and follow on order.

Putting my cynical head, I think that seems like a reasonable suggestion.

And if DfT are thinking that 50 or so extra DMUs need to be introduced to the National Rail network that idea could go to the dogs. Note the 'if' there.

NIMBUS · 28 May 2012

RPM said:
Incidentally, the 172s are not completely banned from the Met. They can be used as long as they are boxed in between two 165s, although as far as I am aware this has yet to happen in practice.

A bit O/T also - but, when they were delivered, 165s 001-005 and the three-car units were not fitted with tripcocks and only operated on the Met under those conditions. Eventually, practicality led to the three-car sets being fitted but 001-007 had by that time transferred to the Thames sub-sector, 006/007 having their tripcocks removed on transfer. When it returned, the vehicles of 007 were formed cab-to-cab within a tripcock-fitted two-car unit for a few weeks, until tripcocks were refitted. When 006 returned, the following year, it operated for several months in such an arrangement between the vehicles of (IIRC) three different tripcock-fitted units. AFAIR 001-005 were fitted immediately upon transfer back from fGW.

anthony263 · 29 May 2012

Speaking of the London Overground class 172's according to the district dave forum it seems one of Chilterns class 172's could be used on the Goblin next week.

At the moment it hasnt really left Willesdon depot although someone has mentioned it was used on that additional peak service which doesnt service Gospel Oak.

WatcherZero · 29 May 2012

Interesting seems to be the suggestion this order is to replace the existing two car 172's rather than to complement them (and a change from early work done by the Mayors office costing up carriage insertion). I guess the 172's would be cascaded to London Midland freeing up more Sprinters for Northern?

anthony263 · 29 May 2012

London Overgound have at least 8 class 172's so that should release the remaining three class 150's London Midland have as well as perhaps allowing London Midland extra units to boost or increase services on some routes.

Perhaps the additional class 172's can displace some of London Midlands class 153's.
I am sure Northern or FGW will be more than happy to get some more dmu's that said I think East midlands trains and perhaps even the WG would look at getting their hands on additional units.

That said with the dmu fleet's needing to be refurbished etc to meet DDA regulations after 2020 perhaps some of these dmu's could cover for others to get overhauled etc if the rosco's decide to take up the opportunity.

Of course this will all depend on London Overground ordering a fleet of new dmu's rather than just a centre carriage for their class 172's

hwl · 30 May 2012

anthony263 said:
London Overgound have at least 8 class 172's so that should release the remaining three class 150's London Midland have as well as perhaps allowing London Midland extra units to boost or increase services on some routes.

Perhaps the additional class 172's can displace some of London Midlands class 153's.
I am sure Northern or FGW will be more than happy to get some more dmu's that said I think East midlands trains and perhaps even the WG would look at getting their hands on additional units.

That said with the dmu fleet's needing to be refurbished etc to meet DDA regulations after 2020 perhaps some of these dmu's could cover for others to get overhauled etc if the rosco's decide to take up the opportunity.

Of course this will all depend on London Overground ordering a fleet of new dmu's rather than just a centre carriage for their class 172's

As several others have said there is more than meets the eye on the this one.
a) come up with quotes that are much more expensive than adding centre cars so you can easily justify ordering centre cars.
b) ignore the adding centre cars option and use the expensive quote as a reason to justify electrification especially if the government are looking for spade ready infrastructure projects (as large parts of goblin aren't suitable for the automated wiring trains this would be an ideal project as it wouldn't effect other electrification schemes). If they really wanted to lower the total cost of electrification they could assume using ex-lease 315 or 317/7 (even if they actually order more 378s) just to manipulate the figures to get the wires up.

swt_passenger · 30 May 2012

anthony263 said:
London Overgound have at least 8 class 172's so that should release the remaining three class 150's London Midland have as well as perhaps allowing London Midland extra units to boost or increase services on some routes.

No, London Overground have EXACTLY 8 Class 172s, unless there's been a secret build and delivery.

LM retain 150s because they have a route that 172s cannot be used on, as pointed out a few times before. Without platform lengthening on that route, 172s could not release those last few 150s.

anthony263 · 30 May 2012

swt_passenger said:
No, London Overground have EXACTLY 8 Class 172s, unless there's been a secret build and delivery.

LM retain 150s because they have a route that 172s cannot be used on, as pointed out a few times before. Without platform lengthening on that route, 172s could not release those last few 150s.

I thought it was 8 London Overground had although I couldnt be sure so thansk for confirming.

If London Midland were offered these class 172's perhaps they could get network rail to do the platform lengthening and clearance work on say the Bedford - Bletchley line to allow the class 172's to operate along the route.

Eagle · 30 May 2012

swt_passenger said:
LM retain 150s because they have a route that 172s cannot be used on, as pointed out a few times before.

Completely irrelevant, but can a 172 fit at Bedworth?

WatcherZero · 30 May 2012

swt_passenger said:
No, London Overground have EXACTLY 8 Class 172s, unless there's been a secret build and delivery.

LM retain 150s because they have a route that 172s cannot be used on, as pointed out a few times before. Without platform lengthening on that route, 172s could not release those last few 150s.

Network Rail are legally obliged to lengthen platforms when required by a toc, they dont get a choice in the matter.

tbtc · 30 May 2012

swt_passenger said:
LM retain 150s because they have a route that 172s cannot be used on, as pointed out a few times before. Without platform lengthening on that route, 172s could not release those last few 150s.

As I understand it, the Bedford line is operated by a 153 and a 150 each day. The reason for the 150 is that one morning service is busy with school kids. Were it not for this, the line could comfortably be run by two 153s (and LM wouldn't need any 150s) - the other services on the Bedford line can cope with a single unit.

Can anyone confirm whether this is the case? Because if it is (?) then we have a TOC hanging on to some 150s/ requiring expensive platform extensions/ unable to rationalise their DMU stock... is this the tail wagging the dog?

(please correct me if I'm wrong, as I appreciate that these stories can grow legs sometimes)

Bald Rick · 30 May 2012

WatcherZero said:
Network Rail are legally obliged to lengthen platforms when required by a toc, they dont get a choice in the matter.

That depends on the definition of 'required'. If a TOC contracts with Network Rail to build platform extensions, and pays, then there are the usual obligations under contract law.

If a TOC approaches Network Rail and says 'we require you to build platform extensions because we want them', they would get roughly the same response as if you walked into Sainsbury's and asked for your weekly shop because you were hungry.

WatcherZero · 30 May 2012

Bald Rick said:
That depends on the definition of 'required'. If a TOC contracts with Network Rail to build platform extensions, and pays, then there are the usual obligations under contract law.

If a TOC approaches Network Rail and says 'we require you to build platform extensions because we want them', they would get roughly the same response as if you walked into Sainsbury's and asked for your weekly shop because you were hungry.

Its not a commercial decision. Network Rail are obliged to build platform extensions to meet demand without charge as part of the basic upkeep requirements of the railway. Its not a commercial 'here I want longer platforms' ' Ok thats 15 bob please'. Essentially if your paying track access charges then free upgrades of platform length when required are included.

Bald Rick · 30 May 2012

WatcherZero said:
Its not a commercial decision. Network Rail are obliged to build platform extensions to meet demand without charge as part of the basic upkeep requirements of the railway. Its not a commercial 'here I want longer platforms' ' Ok thats 15 bob please'. Essentially if your paying track access charges then free upgrades of platform length when required are included.

Sorry old chap that's not how it works. For NR to spend money on upgrading the network, someone pays. Either an external funder (e.g. a local authority or developer), or more usually a funding authority e.g. DfT, TfL, PTEs etc etc. They may do this directly with cash payments, or more usually (for DfT at least) by adding the cost of the work onto NRs regulated asset base which means, in effect, that the work is mortgaged and paid back by increased access charges and/or direct grants over, say, 30 years.

jon0844 · 30 May 2012

Can't NR go to someone like wonga.com?

Nym · 30 May 2012

Do you need a loan quick for £10,000,000 or more, to put into platform enhancements to keep school children happy?

No chance!

SprinterMan · 30 May 2012

Nym said:
No chance!

Due to one of the stations' location between a bridge and a level crossing (?), the platform cannot be lengthened beyond 40m (150) to 46m (172).
Adam

neodoughnut · 30 May 2012

WatcherZero said:
Its not a commercial decision. Network Rail are obliged to build platform extensions to meet demand without charge as part of the basic upkeep requirements of the railway. Its not a commercial 'here I want longer platforms' ' Ok thats 15 bob please'. Essentially if your paying track access charges then free upgrades of platform length when required are included.

I agree this is incorrect. If you look at the original documentation for the fairly recently NLL and GOBLIN upgrades it was at least partly funded by TFL on the basis that they would make a return within 30 years.

WatcherZero · 31 May 2012

They didnt charge Northern a penny for the work to allow four car operation on the Southport and Kirkby lines.

And from the 2009 RUS

In the medium term, Network Rail is proposing a programme of platform extensions which will facilitate longer trains, relieving crowding on commuter services into Manchester during the peak hours. These proposals form part of Network Rail’s funding submission to the Government and the Office of Rail Regulation for the 2009 – 2014 period.

Also looking at the Maesteg Line the local councils were paying £11m for the passing loops but only £100k towards the feasability study costs for the £1m cost of the platforms themselves. While extra features do have to have funding sources I believe NR itself is responsible for funding all platform extensions from its operational budget as their considered base maintenence requirements like rail replacement.

Bald Rick said:
Sorry old chap that's not how it works. For NR to spend money on upgrading the network, someone pays. Either an external funder (e.g. a local authority or developer), or more usually a funding authority e.g. DfT, TfL, PTEs etc etc. They may do this directly with cash payments, or more usually (for DfT at least) by adding the cost of the work onto NRs regulated asset base which means, in effect, that the work is mortgaged and paid back by increased access charges and/or direct grants over, say, 30 years.

Thats exactly what Im saying, where platform extensions are concerned NR has to do the work itself through the usual Government funding, it cant require external funding sources like Tocs, PTE's, Regional development agencies, councils, etc...

HSTEd · 31 May 2012

Wait, so we have platforms that will be stuck at 40m forever and thus we will need to build more 20m DMUs or build two carriage 20m EMUs to serve this line?

WatcherZero · 31 May 2012

No Network Rail HAS to do the work if a Toc asks and it cant charge them for it, say you have a line with four car long platforms and a toc says it wants to run 6 car trains then NR HAS to lengthen all the platforms and cant charge them for the work as its part of their service obligations. The funding comes from their 5 year settlements from Government as part of regular maintenence requirements. If they wanted upgrades in station facilities like ticket office, platform shelters, etc.. then the Toc has to find the money itself.

In the seperation of funding and maintenence responsibility to trackside and station side platform length is considered a trackside improvement.

swt_passenger · 31 May 2012

WatcherZero said:
Network Rail are legally obliged to lengthen platforms when required by a toc, they dont get a choice in the matter.

But only if the TOC can develop a positive business case for the stock to operate on the line first. Hasn't it been explained previously that LM could not do this, and that is basically why they had to keep the three 150s?

It can't have been because they desperately wanted a very small sub fleet of 150s...

So I might have mixed up cause and effect - but TfL having some cascadable 172s doesn't really alter LM's position, does it?

tbtc · 31 May 2012

tbtc said:
As I understand it, the Bedford line is operated by a 153 and a 150 each day. The reason for the 150 is that one morning service is busy with school kids. Were it not for this, the line could comfortably be run by two 153s (and LM wouldn't need any 150s) - the other services on the Bedford line can cope with a single unit.

Can anyone confirm whether this is the case? Because if it is (?) then we have a TOC hanging on to some 150s/ requiring expensive platform extensions/ unable to rationalise their DMU stock... is this the tail wagging the dog?

(please correct me if I'm wrong, as I appreciate that these stories can grow legs sometimes)

SprinterMan said:
Due to one of the stations' location between a bridge and a level crossing (?), the platform cannot be lengthened beyond 40m (150) to 46m (172).
Adam

HSTEd said:
Wait, so we have platforms that will be stuck at 40m forever and thus we will need to build more 20m DMUs or build two carriage 20m EMUs to serve this line?

Unless anyone with local knowledge can confirm/deny the story I posted above, all journeys on the Bedford - Bletchley line can be covered by single 153s, with the exception of one school trip.

So we could spend millions on infrastructure or we could just pay for a school bus...

(can anyone confirm which station/stations are restricted on the line?)

HSTEd · 31 May 2012

153s could have trouble on the line after DDA comes in though.

Transport for London Looking for New DMUs?

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member