Confirmed future cascades (as at March 2016)

Status
Not open for further replies.

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,636
Ignoring rumoured cascades such as loco hauled for TPE or LM taking on EMUs which Northern and TPE are releasing I'm aware of the following cascades have been reported in rail magazines, franchise agreements, presentations etc.

2016
5 x 170s from Scotrail to Southern***
4 x 170s from TPE to Chiltern
12 x 319s from GTR to Northern*
10 x 387s from GTR to GWR

* RAIL has reported a 2016 date despite new routes not being electrified until 2017, possibly to allow them to be refurbished?

2017
3 x 150s from LM to Northern
15 x 150s from GWR to Northern
19 x 387s from GTR to GWR
21 x 365s from GTR to GWR
6 x 153s from ??? to LM**

** I don't think it's been confirmed they will come from GWR even if it looks likely.

2018
2 x 150s from GWR to Northern
5 x 156s from Scotrail to Northern
8 x 158s from Scotrail to Northern
16 x 170s from Scotrail to Northern***

*** These two combined make up all the 170s Scotrail are releasing now the lease has been extended on another 13 of the 170s which Scotrail have.

Are there any other confirmed cascades?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,215
leaves alot of unallocated stock after 2018 including when new stock is going to be delivered.

We still dont know where the remaining 319s, 317s, 313s, 321s, 442s are gonna go and whether 20+ 377/1s are moving from southern to southeastern.

You didnt mention the inter-franchise cascading of most of the 377/5s from Thameslink to Great Northern and the 377/2s from Thameslink to Southern. (and the few remaining 377/5s) ;)
 

387star

On Moderation
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
6,208
since when were the three LM 150s leaving and what has facilitated that?
 

agerj001

Member
Joined
9 Sep 2014
Messages
43
Location
Horsham
leaves alot of unallocated stock after 2018 including when new stock is going to be delivered.

We still dont know where the remaining 319s, 317s, 313s, 321s, 442s are gonna go and whether 20+ 377/1s are moving from southern to southeastern.

You didnt mention the inter-franchise cascading of most of the 377/5s from Thameslink to Great Northern and the 377/2s from Thameslink to Southern. (and the few remaining 377/5s) ;)

I suppose the 313s will be scrapped. It wouldn't surprise me if the 315s and 317s were too..

Southeastern are meant to be getting some 319s - from what I've heard...
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,636
since when were the three LM 150s leaving and what has facilitated that?

Not heard that one either, I know i ts a small fleet but 1 is needed for the school run on the marston vale.

Apparently it was first mentioned at a LM stakeholder presentation that the 3 x 150/1s would be returned to Angel Trains at the end of their current lease with 6 x additional 153s being secured from Porterbrook as replacement. The latest RAIL mentions Arriva Rail North have agreed leases with Angel Trains for all the 150/1s (including the LM ones) so possibly the ROSCO wanted them all with a single operator?
 

Class172

Established Member
Associate Staff
Quizmaster
Joined
20 Mar 2011
Messages
3,366
Location
West Country
Apparently it was first mentioned at a LM stakeholder presentation that the 3 x 150/1s would be returned to Angel Trains at the end of their current lease with 6 x additional 153s being secured from Porterbrook as replacement. The latest RAIL mentions Arriva Rail North have agreed leases with Angel Trains for all the 150/1s (including the LM ones) so possibly the ROSCO wanted them all with a single operator?

It does leave the interesting conundrum regarding the platform lengths on the Marston Vale line however, as currently the only stock that can fit at the platforms are Class 150s or a single Class 153. I can't help thinking that this may be a prime opportunity for the Class 230 D-train to show what it's capable of.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,636
It does leave the interesting conundrum regarding the platform lengths on the Marston Vale line however, as currently the only stock that can fit at the platforms are Class 150s or a single Class 153. I can't help thinking that this may be a prime opportunity for the Class 230 D-train to show what it's capable of.

Would stopping trains too long for the platform be permitted if not all the doors are open or not? Alternatively would it be possible for a 2 car Turbostar to fit all the passengers doors on the platform even if the front and rear ends of the unit are hanging off the ends of the platform?
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
2,238
Location
Lancashire
Would stopping trains too long for the platform be permitted if not all the doors are open or not? Alternatively would it be possible for a 2 car Turbostar to fit all the passengers doors on the platform even if the front and rear ends of the unit are hanging off the ends of the platform?

Think the fact that nearly all the stations have adjacent level crossings may cause a problem with this.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,636
Think the fact that nearly all the stations have adjacent level crossings may cause a problem with this.

Do they have level crossings at both ends of the platforms?

Surely some solution will be needed in the future if not now. Once the 150s get withdrawn the shortest diesel carriages will be 23m.
 

158722

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
822
The problem is that the platforms are staggered either side of the level crossing (at some of the stations at least) - https://goo.gl/maps/mkL9GY1oYWn

Surely it not beyond the realms of current engineering to find a solution to extend the platforms by 5m or so to allow 2x153s to call at the short platforms? That or locking out the front or rear door on the set?
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,455
Location
Cambridge
That or locking out the front or rear door on the set?

This is what's known as Selective Door Opening. SDO is classified as safety-critical, so it requires a lot of safeguards and testing before it can be installed. It's also unit-specific because there's no standardised wiring inside trains. This all combines to make it uneconomical to add it to anything but modern units.
 

sd0733

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2012
Messages
2,181
Surely it not beyond the realms of current engineering to find a solution to extend the platforms by 5m or so to allow 2x153s to call at the short platforms? That or locking out the front or rear door on the set?

They wouldnt be allowed out im service like that as with an end door locked out you have no means of escape in fires etc at that end of the coach
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
Surely it not beyond the realms of current engineering to find a solution to extend the platforms by 5m or so to allow 2x153s to call at the short platforms? That or locking out the front or rear door on the set?

Corus Steel Modular Platform System.

Or laminate the paperwork needed for a platform extension then store it at the end of the platform, it'll do the same thing.
 

158722

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
822

They wouldnt be allowed out im service like that as with an end door locked out you have no means of escape in fires etc at that end of the coach

I should have clarified - the internal door at the front of the leading unit. No different to SWT 159s. I assume the LM 153s still have their internal doors?!
 

sd0733

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2012
Messages
2,181
I think the SWT ones do have a 'break glass point' to override those doors though, I believe those sliding doors would have to be physically locked with a key and would therefore fall foul of the escape rules still without some mods. They could possibly do a mod and fit something like they have fitted to the emergency cupboard doors with a handle in glass to smash the glass and pull the handle though, that would be allowed I guess.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,636
This is what's known as Selective Door Opening. SDO is classified as safety-critical, so it requires a lot of safeguards and testing before it can be installed. It's also unit-specific because there's no standardised wiring inside trains. This all combines to make it uneconomical to add it to anything but modern units.

I'm aware of Northern running services using Sprinters in multiple where one of the following occurs.

If corridor connectors are in use, local door operation is used at stations with short problems and passengers are advised which door will be released (one near the middle.)

If corridor connectors aren't in use e.g. where a 150/1 is used the rear unit is locked out of use until the stations with short platforms have been called at.

Neither of which is SDO.

Also when LM drivers stop 350s at Winsford they pull so far forward so the driver door is off the end of the platform but the front set of passenger doors are on the platform. Maybe another alternative if the platforms are just too short?
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,455
Location
Cambridge
Neither of which is SDO.

Neither is what 158722 described either!

Also when LM drivers stop 350s at Winsford they pull so far forward so the driver door is off the end of the platform but the front set of passenger doors are on the platform. Maybe another alternative if the platforms are just too short?

According to previous posts there are level crossings preventing this.
 

158722

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
822
Neither is what 158722 described either!



According to previous posts there are level crossings preventing this.

I don't see how any of the stations are prevented from being extended - it might cost money but don't see why are impossible!

Kempston Hardwick - level crossing at Bedford end of station, eastbound platform looks like has been recently extended, can't see reason why westbound one can't be altered.

Stewartby - staggered platforms either side of level crossing. Doesn't appear to be any impediments to extending by a few meters, if needed.

Millbrook - problem looks to be westbound platform, which has +5metres or so not in use with very low height close up to level crossing. Presume this is due to requirement to stop X metres short of the level crossing? Solution to extend platform at opposite end by a few meters?

Ridgmont - level crossing at Bedford end of station, platforms look extendable westwards by a few meters, if need be.

Aspley Guise - level crossing either side of staggered platforms. Doesn't appear to be any impediments to extending by a few meters, if needed.

Woburn Sands - level crossing at Bedford end of station, platforms look extendable westwards by a few meters, if need be.

Bow Brickhill - staggered platforms either side of level crossing. Doesn't appear to be any impediments to extending by a few meters, if needed.

Fenny Stratford - single platform, looks to be in tight location, but space for an extra 5m or so extension, noting signal at Bletchley end of platform.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
21,158
Location
Nottingham
I should have clarified - the internal door at the front of the leading unit. No different to SWT 159s. I assume the LM 153s still have their internal doors?!

The 159s also prevent external opening of the two external doors in the front vestibule. If the 153s didn't do that as well then someone might board at these doors at a longer platform, be unable to alight and have to use the break glass or the passcom or bang on the driver's door. Any of these would be pretty disruptive operationally.
 

MatthewRead

On Moderation
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
1,572
Location
West london
I suppose the 313s will be scrapped. It wouldn't surprise me if the 315s and 317s were too..

Southeastern are meant to be getting some 319s - from what I've heard...
I remember reading that the 315s were going to the Welsh Valleys but since the electrification has been deferred I don't think that is going to happen:cry: I thought the 317s still had some life left in them
 

Xc220009

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2015
Messages
14
So when Trans Pennine loose their 170's... What are they replacing them with?? More 185's possibly?
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,636
So when Trans Pennine loose their 170's... What are they replacing them with?? More 185's possibly?

They join Chiltern in July. TPE apparently haven't signed off all their rolling stock deals yet so haven't made any specific announcements about types of traction which will be used post-1st April.

Two strong rumours have emerged:

1. TPE will take the Pretendolino set, split it in to 2 and use 68s to haul it on Liverpool-Newcastle freeing up 2 x 185s.
2. One less 185 will be used on TPE North West services (which are transferring to Arriva): http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=128479

So possibly that'll leave 3 extra 185s available for South TPE instead of 4 x 170s.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
6,697
They join Chiltern in July. TPE apparently haven't signed off all their rolling stock deals yet so haven't made any specific announcements about types of traction which will be used post-1st April.

TPE need to get on with it only 5 days or so to go.
 

RPM

Established Member
Joined
24 Sep 2009
Messages
1,396
Location
Buckinghamshire
I don't see how any of the stations are prevented from being extended - it might cost money but don't see why are impossible!

Kempston Hardwick - level crossing at Bedford end of station, eastbound platform looks like has been recently extended, can't see reason why westbound one can't be altered.

Stewartby - staggered platforms either side of level crossing. Doesn't appear to be any impediments to extending by a few meters, if needed.

Millbrook - problem looks to be westbound platform, which has +5metres or so not in use with very low height close up to level crossing. Presume this is due to requirement to stop X metres short of the level crossing? Solution to extend platform at opposite end by a few meters?

Ridgmont - level crossing at Bedford end of station, platforms look extendable westwards by a few meters, if need be.

Aspley Guise - level crossing either side of staggered platforms. Doesn't appear to be any impediments to extending by a few meters, if needed.

Woburn Sands - level crossing at Bedford end of station, platforms look extendable westwards by a few meters, if need be.

Bow Brickhill - staggered platforms either side of level crossing. Doesn't appear to be any impediments to extending by a few meters, if needed.

Fenny Stratford - single platform, looks to be in tight location, but space for an extra 5m or so extension, noting signal at Bletchley end of platform.

I would have thought that at many of those locations the platforms could be extended within the existing platform footprint by bringing the end ramps up level and putting a fence at the end, as is current practice for new build platforms.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,636
I would have thought that at many of those locations the platforms could be extended within the existing platform footprint by bringing the end ramps up level and putting a fence at the end, as is current practice for new build platforms.

If that is the case it's possible 170s or 172s could operate on the line already with the front and rear of the unit on the slopes, as Turbostars don't have end passenger doors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top