Class 197 Civity DMUs for TfW - alternatives and speculation

[greatvoyager]

Unfortunately, cost really is the most important issue here that can't be discounted. Though there's also the question of whether or not 231s can be given gangways, and the political benefits of building the fleet in Newport rather then Switzerland.

All valid points, it’s positive to have trains being produced in the country they will be used.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

I personally don't think it's fair to expect Northern (and GWR) to keep having to accept cascades and/or "make do and mend" solutions while everyone else gets new trains.

That's true enough but remember Wales & Borders was always at the back of the queue as well up until now.

 

[507021]

That's true enough but remember Wales & Borders was always at the back of the queue as well up until now.

Granted, but it's worth bearing in mind Arriva wanted to procure brand new Turbostars but weren't allowed to do so.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Good for them. As far as I can see however they're just a lobbying group, who are free to make any requests they want. They have as much power to make something happen as I do! And even they don't expect 4 tph to happen until after HS2 opens, so clearly not short term.

These business-related bodies do seem to have the ear of the government to a greater degree than other lobby groups - such as environmental ones - though. So, while they have no real power themselves, they are more likely to acheive something like this than you or I. Also, HS2 phase 1 is still due for 2030, meaning if Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury was upgraded to conincide with the openning of HS2 it would also happen around 2030. 2030 is not 'short term' perhaps but still way sooner than the 197s will be life-expired.

True, but sadly TfW weren't blessed with such a modern fleet already on hand.

They weren't blessed with 'such a modern fleet' but they were blessed with a (slightly less) modern fleet (the 175s).

But the majority of the passengers in both cases will be the same. The trains will be dealing with large amounts of people commuting to the a West Midlands. And the 197s are perfectly adequate for the smaller amount of people making the longer journeys into Wales.

The trains will be dealing with large amounts of people commuting to the a West Midlands. True, but the travel time between stops is much greater for the TfW service (about 1/4 of an hour between Wolverhampton and Telford compared to a stop almost every 5 minutes on the WMR service). Even if some consider the 197s adequate for those making longer journeys surely you can see that they are inferior to a 158 or 175 for this purpose? Perhaps we've had it too good and we need downgrading?

But at least we're being realistic and making the best of it

Being realistic, probably*, making the best of it no.

* Completing most of the TDNS electrification by 2050 actually looks completely acheivable to me - the stkm/year averages are not too far out there compared to what has been acheived in the past. The problem is political will in Westminister.

Remember that those "awkward changes in floor height" exist because of level boarding. That is certainly something I think should be a requirement.

I certainly think level boarding is attractive in some respects but I'm not sure about doing this by employing low-floor designs - with a low-floor design it appears that the doors cannot be above the bogies which in some cases is the optimal place for the doors. Could platform heights be increased instead to acheive level boarding, or would that cause most stock to foul the raised platforms (I know carriage bodies get wider with height)? You would have to keep the existing low-floor stock on seperate routes to those with raised platforms though.

As for "mini locomotives", I think that sort of works for the FLIRT because of its short vehicles and articulated design. In a conventional DMU, if it's low floor so it can't go underneath, it might as well go in the end vehicle behind one of the cabs like the Class 210.

The big difference between putting the power pack in a seperate vehicle is so it can be added/removed if you want to change between bi-mode and straight (D)EMU - I actually had the idea of a single-bogie vehicle for adding a pantograph to a 2-car DEMU to avoid the weight of a transformer initially (before partial electrification) and to avoid fitting two pantographs (which would otherwise be required to avoid speed restrictions in suituations where a 2-car unit is used in multiple).

I personally don't think it's fair to expect Northern (and GWR) to keep having to accept cascades and/or "make do and mend" solutions while everyone else gets new trains. The 150s (and possibly 155s) need to go before the end of the decade, and there's no way electrification will progress quickly enough for those replacements to be EMUs or dual modes which can actually make decent use of their capabilities. I would really like to be proven wrong on this next point, but at the moment I don't see HMUs becoming a realistic option for larger scale deployment until 2030 at least.

I don't expect to find enough cascades to replace classes 156-159 (and possibly not 155s either) so my hope would be to deal with the 150s through cascades and the higher-quality sprinters with new-builds. Said new builds would come around 2030 include some for Northern but also ScotRail, SWR and GWR all of whom would benefit from bi-modes (with the ScotRail units not wanting diesel at all, although they will need to be able to run away from the wires) so the development costs of a bi-mode option could be spread between them. Perhaps the Northern units would be delivered without a transformer to save weight while they are running away from the wires all day, but it needs to be easy to add that in later.

As for the 185s, they'd be totally unsuitable for directly replacing the 150s. One is a 75mph commuter unit, the other is a 100mph regional unit. Northern have already tried something similar on the Harrogate Line, however it didn't work because it highlighted that 100mph regional diesel trains with tall gearing aren't designed for stop-start services. I do however think using 185s to free up the 156s and 158s to replace 150s could theoretically work.

I wouldn't have thought the 185s would directly replace the 150s - my thinking was that the longer-distance 195 routes (Leeds-Chester perhaps) could be worked by 185s with the 195s going to replace 150/1s. Also, wiring Liverpool - Manchester via Warrington Central would free up 150s and 195s.

There's also the matter of what's going to be used on East-West Rail, considering it's bizarrely being built as a non-electrified route.

Bizarrely? I'd have used the word 'madness' or 'stupidly' - although a compromise of wiring between Oxford and Bletchley (much of which is not open for passengers at present and the bit that is, if I recall correctly, has already had the bridge work done as part of the Evergreen programme) at first (using EMUs for Milton Keynes services and bi-modes for the Bedford services) might be sensible. Bletchley to Bedford wires could follow when the track upgrades for the full later-stage EWR services are done.