• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Updated track access charges - very interesting regarding Pacers

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
When ever track access charges are mentioned a link to an old pdf that pre-dates the newer stock gets pulled out. However, I've found an Excel sheet which was put on the Network Rail site last year here: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/delivery-plans/control-period-5/periodic-review-2013/

Interestingly the units with the lowest track access charges are no longer 142s. The Parry People Mover (class 139) is unsurprisingly now the cheapest (2.00 pence per mile per carriage). However, the second cheapest are the 172s (4.46 pence per mile per carriage) and the 142 cost (4.87 pence per mile per carriage) is now a higher rate than the 143 and 144s (4.64 pence per mile per carriage.)

Maybe the 172s put a lot less wear on the track compared to Pacers despite the 172s being 47.5m compared to the 142s being 31m?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Y

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,692
Intresting, if true (which i presume it is) it really does make me wonder why more were not ordered.
 
P

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
YorkshireBear said:
Intresting, if true (which i presume it is) it really does make me wonder why more were not ordered.
Click to expand...

I think it's down to DfT having the redundant Thameslink 319s on their mind when they were next thinking allowing a new DMU order. Many people envisaged Bombardier would offer 172s in response to the tender for 200+ extra carriages for Northern, FGW and TPE and that they would be awarded it.
 
C

Chrisgr31

Established Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
1,675
Wonder why there are such different charges for the 170, 171, and 172 classes when one might consider they are similar units.
 
61653 HTAFC

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,679
Location
Another planet...
Chrisgr31 said:
Wonder why there are such different charges for the 170, 171, and 172 classes when one might consider they are similar units.
Click to expand...

Well, 170s and 171s are basically identical 'under the skin' but the 172s- whilst still derived from the same design- have a wide range of differences mostly made with the intention of reducing weight and CO2 emissions: The most obvious of these is the 'Voyager-style' inside-frame bogies which make a big difference to the weight and thus reduce track wear.
 
P

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Chrisgr31 said:
Wonder why there are such different charges for the 170, 171, and 172 classes when one might consider they are similar units.
Click to expand...

172s are lighter, have better acceleration than the 170s and they have different bogies.

I'm not sure why the 172s are only listed once though. I would have expected a 172 charge for the 100mph units and a lower one for the 75mph units.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,438
jcollins said:
I'm not sure why the 172s are only listed once though. I would have expected a 172 charge for the 100mph units and a lower one for the 75mph units.
Click to expand...

They are all 100 mph units aren't they? Didn't it turn out the 75 mph version was a bit of a railway myth?
 
61653 HTAFC

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,679
Location
Another planet...
jcollins said:
I'm not sure why the 172s are only listed once though. I would have expected a 172 charge for the 100mph units and a lower one for the 75mph units.
Click to expand...

It's been mentioned elsewhere on these forums that the LO 172s are mechanically identical to the Chiltern units, and are labelled in the cabs as 'Max. Speed 100mph'- so it could be that the notion of them having different gearing is yet another Railway Myth!

Edit. Beaten to it!
 
61653 HTAFC

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,679
Location
Another planet...
With the mention of different rates for the different (or not!) 172s, it struck me that it does seem rather strange that the only factors for track access charges (at least for diesels) is the track wear the vehicle impacts- so this would be based on weight- but surely a 158 running a Leeds-Nottingham will have more impact on the track it covers on that route as it will reach its max speed of 90mph for long stretches, compared to an identical 158 running a Huddersfield-Sheffield which barely gets above 60mph.
 
P

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
61653 HTAFC said:
With the mention of different rates for the different (or not!) 172s, it struck me that it does seem rather strange that the only factors for track access charges (at least for diesels) is the track wear the vehicle impacts- so this would be based on weight- but surely a 158 running a Leeds-Nottingham will have more impact on the track it covers on that route as it will reach its max speed of 90mph for long stretches, compared to an identical 158 running a Huddersfield-Sheffield which barely gets above 60mph.
Click to expand...

It would probably be too complicated to charge a rate proportional to the average speed the train travelled at. Much more practical for TOCs to use appropriate rolling stock for the routes they operate.
 
61653 HTAFC

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,679
Location
Another planet...
jcollins said:
It would probably be too complicated to charge a rate proportional to the average speed the train travelled at. Much more practical for TOCs to use appropriate rolling stock for the routes they operate.
Click to expand...

It would be complicated, sure- particularly in instances where the same stock runs along the same line- but one on a stopper and another on a semi-fast (For example a 455 on a Hampton Court service compared to one on a Guildford via Cobham service: both use the slow lines between Wimbledon and Surbiton, but the Guildford will run faster with not calling at any intermediate stops. In that case I suppose the effect of braking/accelerating would play a part too though.).
The example I gave previously is more related to the maximum speed of the line itself, rather than how the TOC chooses to schedule its services, though I'm certainly no expert in such matters so I'll bow to the judgement of those who are!
 
transmanche

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
jcollins said:
It would probably be too complicated to charge a rate proportional to the average speed the train travelled at. Much more practical for TOCs to use appropriate rolling stock for the routes they operate.
Click to expand...
In that case, the LO 172s only need a max speed of 50mph - and I doubt they ever even reach that speed as most of the route has linespeed between 30 & 45mph, with some stretches of just 20mph. :(
 
P

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
transmanche said:
In that case, the LO 172s only need a max speed of 50mph - and I doubt they ever even reach that speed as most of the route has linespeed between 30 & 45mph, with some stretches of just 20mph. :(
Click to expand...

What speeds do they get up to doing ECS moves?
 
P

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
5,699
Location
Croydon
jcollins said:
Maybe the 172s put a lot less wear on the track compared to Pacers despite the 172s being 47.5m compared to the 142s being 31m?
Click to expand...

I imagine a pacer (142, 143 & 144) could wear the track out more, especially on bends. This is because it has a fixed wheelbase - no bogie. That effectively means the wheelbase of a pacer coach is not much less than 31 metres. However the 172 has bogies so the comparable wheel base must be only a few metres. It is perhaps 10% of the wheelbase of a pacer which is why a pacer makes so much squealing noise on bends.
 
N

Nozzacook

Member
Joined
3 Sep 2013
Messages
24
Isn't the track charge done by axle load.

Pacer class 142 weighs about 49t but only 4 axles (2car) so 12.25t per axle

Class 172 weighs about 88t but has 8 axles (2car) so 11t per axle.
 
P

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
WestCountry said:
Perhaps more importantly than the total mass, the unsprung mass of the bogies is about 30% lower.
Click to expand...

Nozzacook said:
Isn't the track charge done by axle load.

Pacer class 142 weighs about 49t but only 4 axles (2car) so 12.25t per axle

Class 172 weighs about 88t but has 8 axles (2car) so 11t per axle.
Click to expand...

So while people are quick to criticise Bombardier for product quality they've produced a train that's cheap to operate and much better than the Pacers were when new.
 
D

DownSouth

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2011
Messages
1,545
61653 HTAFC said:
It would be complicated, sure- particularly in instances where the same stock runs along the same line- but one on a stopper and another on a semi-fast (For example a 455 on a Hampton Court service compared to one on a Guildford via Cobham service: both use the slow lines between Wimbledon and Surbiton, but the Guildford will run faster with not calling at any intermediate stops. In that case I suppose the effect of braking/accelerating would play a part too though.).
The example I gave previously is more related to the maximum speed of the line itself, rather than how the TOC chooses to schedule its services, though I'm certainly no expert in such matters so I'll bow to the judgement of those who are!
Click to expand...
This is correct, and it also applies to running heavy freight on steep hills.

Track maintenance schedules on some lines in Australia have had to be shortened now that 3,300 kW diesel locomotives with AC traction are common, they literally pull the track backwards as they go up a hill.


EDIT: If track access charges are how the energy usage of electric traction is paid for then the stopping service would need to be charged more than the express, accelerating away from a station uses a lot more energy than cruising does and requires beefed up electric infrastructure to handle the 'peak' loading of EMUs applying full power away from a stop. If indeed an express impacts the track more than a lightweight EMU stopping/starting, the difference would be offset by the energy usage.
 
Last edited:
tbtc

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Nozzacook said:
Isn't the track charge done by axle load.

Pacer class 142 weighs about 49t but only 4 axles (2car) so 12.25t per axle

Class 172 weighs about 88t but has 8 axles (2car) so 11t per axle.
Click to expand...

That makes sense.

  • 172s = 11t per axle = 4.46 pence per mile per carriage
  • 142s = 12.25t per axle = 4.87 pence per mile per carriage
 
transmanche

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
DownSouth said:
EDIT: If track access charges are how the energy usage of electric traction is paid for then the stopping service would need to be charged more than the express, accelerating away from a station uses a lot more energy than cruising does and requires beefed up electric infrastructure to handle the 'peak' loading of EMUs applying full power away from a stop.
Click to expand...
Network Rail have been moving to on-train metering in recent years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top