Cascading GA 170s by electrification

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
Just a thought; if we electrified the following lines:
  • Ely to Peterborough
  • Ely to Norwich
  • Ely/Cambridge to Ipswich
thus allowing for GA's major rural routes to go electric, how many 170s could be released? (I note they have eight 3-car and four 2-car units, and that they do also work on some of the Norfolk/Suffolk branches too.)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

David10

Member
Joined
25 May 2012
Messages
391
Location
Manchester
The only other services they operate regularly are the Ipswich - Lowestoft services which require 4 units to operate the peak service. Also appear on the odd service from Norwich to Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
6,106
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
And dont forget that the Beccles loop will be opening in december, increasing the Ipswich - Lowestoft to hourly (although as i have not seen the timetable, you might have picked that in in peak hourly in your post David).
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
What's interesting is that NXEA, in their RUS responses didn't see the potential of electrification of those lines, but saw potential in the Southern 171 routes being electrified and suggested if that was to go ahead they could get the 171s and release their Sprinters to Northern as Pacer replacement.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,516
Location
Central Belt
If - and it is a big if those routes ever got electrified I wonder if direct services from Kings Cross would be feasiable. I guess thameslink will probably not help by have say x15 London - Norwich calling Cambridge the all the normal stops to Norwich.

Even extend the Liverpool st services via Harlow to Norwich / Ipswich.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,452
Whilst I appreciate there are considerable numbers that do change at Cambridge for onward services to London, I'm not convinced that having through services is a great idea- though maybe it might as a "splitter" service (like a lot of the Kings Lynn ones- means that there's always at least a 4-car train to London if the incoming service fails).
I like the idea of Norwich-Stansted though (giving a second hourly Cambridge-Stansted service).
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
If - and it is a big if those routes ever got electrified I wonder if direct services from Kings Cross would be feasiable. I guess thameslink will probably not help by have say x15 London - Norwich calling Cambridge the all the normal stops to Norwich.

Even extend the Liverpool st services via Harlow to Norwich / Ipswich.

As an extension of the Beer Train possibly, trying to ram yet more services through Welwyn is not a good idea. Alternate trains terminating at King's Lynn and Norwich. I'd also like to see the odd Ipswich terminator extended to Leiston, as near as you can get to Aldeburgh without reinstating lines. That might call for 170s.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,226
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
And dont forget that the Beccles loop will be opening in december, increasing the Ipswich - Lowestoft to hourly (although as i have not seen the timetable, you might have picked that in in peak hourly in your post David).

Does anyone know how this will be done (without any new stock)?

Short forming other services? Or using spare off-peak units during the daytime?
 

Aictos

On Moderation
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
9,333
Turning the Norwich to Cambridge services over to EMU operation and extending it to Stansted would be a move in the right direction.
 

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
4,502
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
Does anyone know how this will be done (without any new stock)?

Short forming other services? Or using spare off-peak units during the daytime?
Tightening up of diagrams. Given the state of the Norwich DMU fleet most of the time though...
 

johnnyp_360

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2011
Messages
108
Location
Soham, Ely
Why do people dislike those 170s? I regularly commute the on the lines between Cambridge, Ely and Stowmarket. They are so much nicer than those awefull sprinters we used to have :)
 

SprinterMan

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2010
Messages
2,340
Location
Hertford
They are just generally tatty, inside and out.

Indeed so, NXEA's idea of maintenance involved smearing them with mud. The interior plastic panels all vibrate at the resonant frequency of the engine creating a noise that actually hurts your ears. Also, 170270 seems to be carrying 4 different liveries simultaneously (Anglia Railways green roof, One metallic bodyside, One blue carriage ends, NXEA/GA white stripe).

The 170s GA have cleaned and tightened up the interiors on are very good indeed (aside from being slow away and having doors in the wrong place, but thats not GA's fault :P).

Adam :D
 

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,031
Location
Yorkshire
Just a thought; if we electrified the following lines:
  • Ely to Peterborough
  • Ely to Norwich

If these two were wired, then a good chunk of the EMT service (Grantham to Norwich) and Cross Country service (Helpston to Stansted) would be under the wires.

This would surely increase the case for Grantham-Nottingham and Helpston-Leicester (both especially so if MML electrification happens).
 

dk1

Established Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
8,850
Location
East Anglia
The 170s GA have cleaned and tightened up the interiors on are very good indeed (aside from being slow away and having doors in the wrong place, but thats not GA's fault :P).

Adam :D

Often only slow away as there is quite a bit of recovery time on the Norwich-Ely section & we are asked to eco-drive if possible & not go above notch 5 when pulling away.
 

johnnyp_360

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2011
Messages
108
Location
Soham, Ely
Indeed so, NXEA's idea of maintenance involved smearing them with mud. The interior plastic panels all vibrate at the resonant frequency of the engine creating a noise that actually hurts your ears. Also, 170270 seems to be carrying 4 different liveries simultaneously (Anglia Railways green roof, One metallic bodyside, One blue carriage ends, NXEA/GA white stripe).

The 170s GA have cleaned and tightened up the interiors on are very good indeed (aside from being slow away and having doors in the wrong place, but thats not GA's fault :P).

Adam :D

I like them. Yeah, they rattle and could go through a wash a little more often. But they are quiter than the sprinters that I used to travel on and they have air con :)
Why do people think the doors are in he wrong place?
 

dk1

Established Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
8,850
Location
East Anglia
Why do people think the doors are in he wrong place?

Many like the doors at either end & the Intercity format rather than doors at 1/3 & 2/3 which tend to be suburban & draughty in the saloon. They do however allow much faster boarding/alighting & thus shorter dwell times.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Many like the doors at either end & the Intercity format rather than doors at 1/3 & 2/3 which tend to be suburban & draughty in the saloon. They do however allow much faster boarding/alighting & thus shorter dwell times.

The 'slow' part needs a little qualification. They are geared very high to allow a 100mph top speed, so are slow to accelerate at lower speeds, although they can make this up if there is extensive 100mph running and long distances between stations - during which time the doors are closed anyway, so draughts are not a problem (provided the seals are in good condition).

I quite like them as well, their seats are softer than Desiros, there always seems to be plenty of space inside, they ride smoothly at speed and the air-con almost always works (on Scotrail anyway).
 

SprinterMan

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2010
Messages
2,340
Location
Hertford
The 'slow' part needs a little qualification. They are geared very high to allow a 100mph top speed, so are slow to accelerate at lower speeds, although they can make this up if there is extensive 100mph running and long distances between stations - during which time the doors are closed anyway, so draughts are not a problem (provided the seals are in good condition).

A 172 and a 175 both have only slightly more power than a 170, but accelerate away like a stabbed rat. Admittedly a 175 can't do Sprinter speed restrictions, and a 172 has mechanical transmission. IMO, a 158 is still the best long-range DMU.

Adam :D
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
A 172 and a 175 both have only slightly more power than a 170, but accelerate away like a stabbed rat. Admittedly a 175 can't do Sprinter speed restrictions, and a 172 has mechanical transmission. IMO, a 158 is still the best long-range DMU.

Adam :D

Please don't get me started on that one again. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If these two were wired, then a good chunk of the EMT service (Grantham to Norwich) and Cross Country service (Helpston to Stansted) would be under the wires.

This would surely increase the case for Grantham-Nottingham and Helpston-Leicester (both especially so if MML electrification happens).

Now that I agree with. It also raises the possibility of an electrified freight route from Felixstowe to Sheffield, possibly then Leeds and Manchester.
 

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,031
Location
Yorkshire
Now that I agree with. It also raises the possibility of an electrified freight route from Felixstowe to Sheffield, possibly then Leeds and Manchester.

Then again, if all this wiring happened (most unlikely) we could split the Liverpool-Norwich in two, perhaps Liverpool-Sheffield (diesel) and Sheffield-Norwich (electric) or a bit of overlap with Liverpool-Nottingham.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,926
Then again, if all this wiring happened (most unlikely) we could split the Liverpool-Norwich in two, perhaps Liverpool-Sheffield (diesel) and Sheffield-Norwich (electric) or a bit of overlap with Liverpool-Nottingham.

We've already had one attempt to break this service in the middle... it did not go down well with people out here (in the East Midlands, let alone East Anglia).

Hope Valley will be done before Grantham-Nottingham or at the same time in all likelyhood. This service would either be truncated at Manchester, divided by the Victoria on the Northern Liverpool-Manchester or would remain diesel until the southern route is eventually electrified.
 

Waverley125

Member
Joined
2 Sep 2008
Messages
1,003
Location
Leeds, West Yorkshire
I think the obvious place is to Northern on pacer replacement, although much of northern's network is slated to be electrified (i.e. Harrogate line, Leeds-Sheffield & Caldervale, plus stuff in Lancashire). The obvious answer is pacer replacement, so move to Northern, allowing 150s and maybe 158s away to FGW & ATW.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
I think the obvious place is to Northern on pacer replacement, although much of northern's network is slated to be electrified (i.e. Harrogate line, Leeds-Sheffield & Caldervale, plus stuff in Lancashire). The obvious answer is pacer replacement, so move to Northern, allowing 150s and maybe 158s away to FGW & ATW.

Well yes if you're electrifying North TPE then Caldervale and the CLC line through Warrington Central makes more sense as follow up, otherwise we'll be in a similar position to Virgin and Birmingham-Scotland services at present.

There's only 12 x 170s in Anglia so there wouldn't even be enough to indirectly replace the 144s, never mind suggested Pacer replacement and cascading Sprinters.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,554
Location
Macclesfield
I think the obvious place is to Northern on pacer replacement, although much of northern's network is slated to be electrified (i.e. Harrogate line, Leeds-Sheffield & Caldervale, plus stuff in Lancashire). The obvious answer is pacer replacement, so move to Northern, allowing 150s and maybe 158s away to FGW & ATW.
I think it would make more sense to cascade additional Sprinters to Northern, rather than setting up one small new fleet of 170s. Plus, at the current time electrification of the Harrogate circle, Leeds - Sheffield and the Caldervale are all only aspirations, and with electrification of TPE North in some form or another committed to between 2016 and 2018 (provisionally), then it is unlikely that we will see wires going up over those routes you have stated before the CP6 period next decade.

Also, as jcollins says, how do you propose to both replace some Pacers and also allow some Sprinter units to be cascaded with only twelve 170s?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What's interesting is that NXEA, in their RUS responses didn't see the potential of electrification of those lines, but saw potential in the Southern 171 routes being electrified and suggested if that was to go ahead they could get the 171s and release their Sprinters to Northern as Pacer replacement.
Sounds like a sound idea, and is pretty similar to what I would advocate. Although I would transfer the 6 x 4-car 171/8s to TPE which would replace the 9 x 2-car 170/3s: Once the North West electrification is complete, then TPE will have sufficient stock to allow the 170s to return to operating primarily in pairs, so six 4-car units would be sufficient to replace nine 2-car ones. Plus I have seen it reported that it would be difficult to convert the 171/8s into 170s, as they were built as 171s to have compatability with 377s and their software and electronics is incompatible with 170s, while the 2-car 171/7s started life as 170s in many cases and can easily be converted back. The 171/8s would also retain their Dellner couplers so they could be coupled to a 185 in an emergency, even if they couldn't work together in normal service due to the different software used.

The 9 x 170/3s and 10 x 171/7s (Converted back to 170/7s with BSI couplers) would then go to GA to displace their 5 x 153s to EMT and 9 x 156s to Northern. EMT then lose their 15 x 156s to Northern, in exchange for Northern's 19 x 153s. Admittedly this maths worked better when EMT had only eleven 156s (With Northern losing 19 x 153 carriages but gaining 40 x 156 carriages, and EMT losing 22 x 156 carriages but gaining 24 x 153 carriages), so I suppose it would have to be hoped that EMT would also gain London Midlands' 153s through some other rolling stock development in order to match EMTs' current capacity. Northern would then have a larger fleet of 156s and no 153s (3-car services previously formed of 150+153 or 156+153 will become 4-car formed of 150+156 or 156+156), while EMT would have a standard fleet of 153s sufficiently large enough for them all to be formed back into 2-car 155s.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
16,226
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
I think that Northern would be better with GA's fleet of five 153s and nine 156s than with the dozen 170s - Pacer replacement doesn't need 100mph trains with poor acceleration.

Nor would introducing an additional type of unit be helpful - more "common" DMUs would be better (since Northern already run 153s and 155s).
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
I think that Northern would be better with GA's fleet of five 153s and nine 156s than with the dozen 170s - Pacer replacement doesn't need 100mph trains with poor acceleration.

Nor would introducing an additional type of unit be helpful - more "common" DMUs would be better (since Northern already run 153s and 155s).

Nor does Sprinter replacement, and the lines that these are used on in East Anglia are Sprinter territory, local routes with relatively low passenger density, lots of intermediate stops and a top speed of about 75mph. Some 172/1s might be useful there, and having end-gangways would help if the services need strengthening in the tourist season.

A few 171s to suppliment the 158s on lines with a top speed of 100mph might be quite useful for Northern, and I like the idea of giving them their BSIs back for compatibility. The resulting cascade might mean an end to the least-suitable Pacer journeys of all, Newcastle-Carlisle and Leeds-Morecambe. The latter would free some 3-car Pacers to replace 2-car ones somewhere else.
 

Aictos

On Moderation
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
9,333
I rather the GA 170s went to XC as Birmingham to Stansted services need additional coaches due to the overcrowding.

Then maybe half hourly services between Leicester and Stansted could be introduced to help with the overcrowding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top