• 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!

Cascading GA 170s by electrification

Status
Not open for further replies.

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
I rather the GA 170s went to XC as Birmingham to Stansted services need additional coaches due to the overcrowding.
Indeed, even if Crosscountry could only get hold of GAs' four 2-car 170s, then that would go a long way towards all of the Birmingham - Leicester and Stansted services being formed of either 3-car units or pairs of 2-car units.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

NXEA!

Member
Joined
22 Oct 2009
Messages
482
If you could stump up the cash to electrify every Anglian unelectrified line, you could order 16 380's in addition to the batch likely to be ordered for the Edinburgh-Glasgow and cascade the 314's (suitably life-extended with a Southern-type refurbishment, maybe a toilet and corrosion issues sorted out) to replace the 14 153/156's and recall the 9 317/7's back to Norwich to replace the 8 170/2's, and with a little tightening up of the diagrams and the fact that you're replacing the 8 170's and 14 Sprinters with 3 extra EMU's (16 314's + 9 317's) you could release the four 2-car 170/2's too. You could also resource the Sudbury-Marks Tey unit from the GEML pool and merge it with the Walton service to make a Sudbury-Marks Tey-Colchester Town-Walton through service which leaves an extra 314/317 for the Anglian branches.

Now what to do with the diesels: send 156402/407/409/412 to EMT for extra capacity and send 416-419 and 422 to Northern, 153306/309 to FGW and 314/322/335 to Northern. Take the centre cars out of 170201-208 and give them to XC, and then send all twelve 170/2's to Scotrail to release 4 158's and 8 156's; the 158's to EMT, and the 156's to Northern which could then displace around 4 150's to FGW. The net gain would then be: Northern 21 vehicles, EMT 16 vehicles, XC 8 vehicles and FGW 8 vehicles, as well as GA gaining an extra 29 vehicles (that's what I make it as) through longer EMU's.

Not to mention the gains you would make from electrifying Felixstowe's cross-country freight corridor and providing an electrified diversionary route for the ECML by doing Cambridge-Ely-Peterborough.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
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).

170s would probably be an improvement over 158s on some Northern routes like Calder Vale.

If the 185s were to go to Scotland after North TPE electrification then the 170s could well come the other way. (Scotland also has plans for more electrification so having less 185s than 170s shouldn't be an issue.)
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
170s would probably be an improvement over 158s on some Northern routes like Calder Vale

Unless you have almost fifty 170s to replace the Northern 158s it'd mean adding yet another unit type to the franchise (as well as 142, 144, 150, 153, 155, 156, 158, 321, 322, 323, 333 and whatever EMUs are used for the Lancashire Triangle routes), plus without corridor connections you'd be limiting growth on the Calder Valley line.

GA's 156s wouldn't be as modern/ fast/ exciting, but they would be more practical
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Unless you have almost fifty 170s to replace the Northern 158s it'd mean adding yet another unit type to the franchise (as well as 142, 144, 150, 153, 155, 156, 158, 321, 322, 323, 333 and whatever EMUs are used for the Lancashire Triangle routes), plus without corridor connections you'd be limiting growth on the Calder Valley line.

GA's 156s wouldn't be as modern/ fast/ exciting, but they would be more practical

If TPE and Northern are merged the new fleet will already contain a small number of 170s.

A 5 car 170 combination of the Calder Vale line would be an improvement on the 5 car Pacer combinations used currently.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
If TPE and Northern are merged the new fleet will already contain a small number of 170s.

A 5 car 170 combination of the Calder Vale line would be an improvement on the 5 car Pacer combinations used currently.

Possibly, although I'd expect that the nine two coach 170s would be the first to leave after TPE electrification (maybe to GA to swap for 156s :lol:).

As TPE have shown, having this small fleet of 170s isn't ideal - hence SWT getting rid of 170s and replacing them with older 158s.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
A 5 car 170 combination of the Calder Vale line would be an improvement on the 5 car Pacer combinations used currently.
Five carriage 170 formations would be an improvement on a large number of medium distance inter-urban routes. Even if Northern were to receive a handful, and in this scenario it really is only a token number, of 170s, then it is just as unlikely that they would ever operate in those sorts of train lengths as it is anywhere else.
 

SprinterMan

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2010
Messages
2,341
Location
Hertford
Five carriage 170 formations would be an improvement on a large number of medium distance inter-urban routes. Even if Northern were to receive a handful, and in this scenario it really is only a token number, of 170s, then it is just as unlikely that they would ever operate in those sorts of train lengths as it is anywhere else.

A 5 car 170 would have worse acceleration than a 5 car 144 I think. Schedules may need to be retimed :P
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,331
Possibly, although I'd expect that the nine two coach 170s would be the first to leave after TPE electrification (maybe to GA to swap for 156s :lol:).

As TPE have shown, having this small fleet of 170s isn't ideal - hence SWT getting rid of 170s and replacing them with older 158s.

I think this would be an exceedingly good swap, would do lots for fleet simplification.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Indeed, even if Crosscountry could only get hold of GAs' four 2-car 170s, then that would go a long way towards all of the Birmingham - Leicester and Stansted services being formed of either 3-car units or pairs of 2-car units.

Indeed,

Question why is there a Leicester to Birmingham service shuttle, why not extend though to Ely/Stansted?

Also why is there a need for a 50 minute layover at Stansted? Could this not be reduced to 30 minutes by making better usage of the 170s?

Would be nice if XC could get some more 3 car 170s (Yes I'm looking at you FSR as well as GA) which would allow the following to be a reality.

Now ideally while I would like to see the Birmingham to Leicester shuttle extended though to Stansted and be in a position to introduce a half hourly service between Stansted and Birmingham.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
I think this would be an exceedingly good swap, would do lots for fleet simplification.

Depending on what gets electrified, a batch of 156s to replace the remaining 170s might be a better swap. Unless there's 100mph running involved, a 170 is simply not suited to the Bittern Line, Wherry Lines, etc. They're too slow and have too many stops. 172s might well be, but that's a different issue.

If the much more important sections, Peterborough-Ely, Ely-Trowse Jcn and maybe Cambridge/Ely-Needham Market Jcn are wired, the important question will be whether or not to do Ipswich-Felixstowe and Ipswich-Yarmouth, then you get all the 170s and 153s with the 156s remaining, to be replaced by whatever new local DMU replaces all the Pacers and Sprinters (which really must happen by the end of the decade). Even if that means hundreds and hundreds of 172s running everywhere, it's better than allocating unsuitable stock.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,331
Depending on what gets electrified, a batch of 156s to replace the remaining 170s might be a better swap. Unless there's 100mph running involved, a 170 is simply not suited to the Bittern Line, Wherry Lines, etc. They're too slow and have too many stops. 172s might well be, but that's a different issue.

I was thinking on the basis of the currently announced electrification projects. While there would undoubtedly be drawbacks to the GA franchise loosing its 156s in favour of 170s, the ongoing use of 90mph stock on 75mph routes at Northern, and the introduction of a further class of stock (170) also has drawbacks.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
I was thinking on the basis of the currently announced electrification projects. While there would undoubtedly be drawbacks to the GA franchise loosing its 156s in favour of 170s, the ongoing use of 90mph stock on 75mph routes at Northern, and the introduction of a further class of stock (170) also has drawbacks.

Yes, that's another problem. Hopefully one that can be solved by some different electrification proposals in Scotland, Lancashire and Yorkshire. GA is lucky to have such useful little DMUs as the 156s, so I hope they stay there until something suitable comes along to replace them.
 

bailey65

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2011
Messages
131
I thought it was a shame when swt got rid of their 170's i think they are better than a 158 in respect of quietness,smoothness and comfort.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
I was thinking on the basis of the currently announced electrification projects. While there would undoubtedly be drawbacks to the GA franchise loosing its 156s in favour of 170s, the ongoing use of 90mph stock on 75mph routes at Northern, and the introduction of a further class of stock (170) also has drawbacks.

You could actually say Northern have too much 75mph stock meaning that services which 90mph stock is used on could have faster journey times but Northern don't want to re-timetable to allow for 90mph running as the chance of a 75mph train filling in and running late is too high.

Although, the 100mph 333s are a different matter as they never go about 90mph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
without corridor connections you'd be limiting growth on the Calder Valley line.

Forgot to say before that there are plans for Halifax-Bradford-Leeds to gain an extra service and to become 5tph (Victoria-Halifax-Leeds wouldn't be enhanced further due to introduction of Victoria-Rochdale-Burnley services.)
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Unless there's 100mph running involved, a 170 is simply not suited to the Bittern Line, Wherry Lines, etc. They're too slow and have too many stops

Honest question, but what are 170s suited to?

The door arrangement suggests "commuter" routes with large numbers boarding/ getting off at stops (unlike the narrow doors of a 158 etc).

The 100mph and rubbish acceleration suggests something longer distance.

Doing a Venn Diagram of services suggests there aren't many that suit both of these categories.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Honest question, but what are 170s suited to?

The door arrangement suggests "commuter" routes with large numbers boarding/ getting off at stops (unlike the narrow doors of a 158 etc).

The 100mph and rubbish acceleration suggests something longer distance.

I'd suggest services which don't have many stops where an intermediate station is a major station e.g. Liverpool to Manchester Airport which calls at Manchester Piccadilly, Leeds to Nottingham which calls at Sheffield etc.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,331
You could actually say Northern have too much 75mph stock meaning that services which 90mph stock is used on could have faster journey times but Northern don't want to re-timetable to allow for 90mph running as the chance of a 75mph train filling in and running late is too high.

Although, the 100mph 333s are a different matter as they never go about 90mph.

Thats very true actually, my local line is operated by 158s but with 75mph paths. Its pretty rare to have anything other than 158s, other than some traction knowledge diagrams, the only non 158 diagrams seem to he 153s used to strengthen 158s during Summer weekends. It ought to be possible to diagram either 2x 158s (which is happening more anyway) or 3car 158s to replace these. Whether the work required would be worth the timing gains is another question.

Honest question, but what are 170s suited to?

The door arrangement suggests "commuter" routes with large numbers boarding/ getting off at stops (unlike the narrow doors of a 158 etc).

The 100mph and rubbish acceleration suggests something longer distance.

Doing a Venn Diagram of services suggests there aren't many that suit both of these categories.

Designed by committee perhaps! I suppose the performance traces its history back to the Cl168s and Cl165s before that. I'm not really familiar with them, how suitable are they for the routes they operate?
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Designed by committee perhaps! I suppose the performance traces its history back to the Cl168s and Cl165s before that. I'm not really familiar with them, how suitable are they for the routes they operate?

Not quite as big a bodge as the 158 (which really was designed by committee), but still a bodge. I'd say they suit the Scottish main lines quite well, just as they suited the Central Citylink routes very well. Get up to speed, then stay there for a good while, although they do struggle on the Highland Main Line sometimes because of the gradients. The mid-point doors are a problem in cold weather, but not all that bad. The lack of end-gangways must be a pain in the backside, though. However, they ride excellently at speed and are pretty comfortable.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Non end-doors are increasingly common on trains being used on long journeys (Cl185 being the most obvious example).

I'm not convinced the problem with draughts coming in when the doors are opened is actually a major problem on longer distance routes, simply because a long distance train will tend not to open its doors very often.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I'd suggest services which don't have many stops where an intermediate station is a major station e.g. Liverpool to Manchester Airport which calls at Manchester Piccadilly, Leeds to Nottingham which calls at Sheffield etc.

Good suggestions - I was struggling to think of any where high speed, slow acceleration and wide doors tick the boxes.

Designed by committee perhaps!

Sadly, yes.

At a time when TOCs weren't buying new stock, the 170s for MML must have been about the first DMUs for a long time (IIRC the Chiltern 168s were slightly earlier?) and Bombardier came up with a camel of a unit.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
At a time when TOCs weren't buying new stock, the 170s for MML must have been about the first DMUs for a long time (IIRC the Chiltern 168s were slightly earlier?) and Bombardier came up with a camel of a unit.

They basically took the 168 (itself derived from the Turbo) and stuck a new cab design on it, so the suburban door layout is a holdover from that. 422 horsepower was actually quite high for a unit then, 158s tend to have 350hp, with 159s uprated to 400hp. The rest was just a matter of trying to keep it under the weight limit. Only later did they start sticking enormous 750hp lumps in regional units. A road equivalent might be sticking an enormous V8 in a family saloon. It'll move quickly, but will weigh a ton and drink fuel like there's no tomorrow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top