Construction progress: TPE 350/4

[ianhr]

Indeed, no other choice but maybe one which should be used more often given the day-to-day crowding on parts of TPE.

Yes, I have never been able to understand why MUs were favoured over loco hauled sets with push-pull working using DVTs or a cab control coach which were widespread in the 1980s. Loco hauled push pull surely combines the lower terminal costs of MUs with the advantage of train length adjustments and swapping of power units that is possible with loco hauled.

An all MU railway, which is what we effectively have now, is inherently inflexible when it comes to fluctuations in traffic and rashes of train failures.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Yes, I have never been able to understand why MUs were favoured over loco hauled sets with push-pull working using DVTs or a cab control coach which were widespread in the 1980s. Loco hauled push pull surely combines the lower terminal costs of MUs with the advantage of train length adjustments and swapping of power units that is possible with loco hauled.

An all MU railway, which is what we effectively have now, is inherently inflexible when it comes to fluctuations in traffic and rashes of train failures.

How were they coupled up? The couplings might have been bolted together, so possibly needing them to be returned to the depot to have coaches added or removed. Also with locohauld push-pull you have in effect a coach length of wasted space, where the loco is, with MUs all the traction equipment, engines etc is underneath so the whole of the train can be used for conveying passengers.

 

[edwin_m]

As I hinted above, Glasgow Central platform lengths are very restrictive - only P1 and P2 can take a full-length train. So adding the dead space of a loco and possibly a DVT isn't going to be very welcome. Also lengthening a loco-hauled set worsens its running times, whereas with MUs if you lengthen the train you also add more power.

 

[MCR247]

Yes, I have never been able to understand why MUs were favoured over loco hauled sets with push-pull working using DVTs or a cab control coach which were widespread in the 1980s. Loco hauled push pull surely combines the lower terminal costs of MUs with the advantage of train length adjustments and swapping of power units that is possible with loco hauled.

An all MU railway, which is what we effectively have now, is inherently inflexible when it comes to fluctuations in traffic and rashes of train failures.

Whilst loco hauled trains may be "flexible" in the sense that you could insert an extra carriage when needed, any sets of carriages ordered today would be for 10x9 car sets, for example, so where would these extra carriages people seem to love come from? Are you expecting extra carriages to be a part of these orders that will sit around doing nothing when there aren't major events?

 

[swt_passenger]

Southern's EMU fleet seems reasonably flexible, IIRC someone reported a few days ago that they had formed an 11 car train from a 5+3+3, which was considered unusual. But 12,10,9,,8,7,6,4 are all easily provided.

SWT's DMU fleet routinely provides for any just about any sized train between 2 and 10 cars - and I reckon the only permutations not routinely diagrammed will be 4 or 7 car - but they are possible.

 

[ianhr]

Southern's EMU fleet seems reasonably flexible, IIRC someone reported a few days ago that they had formed an 11 car train from a 5+3+3, which was considered unusual. But 12,10,9,,8,7,6,4 are all easily provided.

SWT's DMU fleet routinely provides for any just about any sized train between 2 and 10 cars - and I reckon the only permutations not routinely diagrammed will be 4 or 7 car - but they are possible.

Yes agreed, but Southern do have a very large fleet and so can make up all these combinations. They are also one of the few TOCs to exploit one obvious advantage of MUs, and that is split portion working e.g. the splitting and joining of trains at Haywards Heath for Eastbourne, Ore, Worthing, Littlehampton etc. sections. It is also carried out very efficiently within a few minutes. I do not see why this could not be done, given enough units of course, at Preston and Carstairs to provide through Manchester/Liverpool-Edinburgh/Glasgow trains. Also TPE could attach/detach units a York to relieve overcrowding between there and Manchester and avoid overprovision on more lightly loaded sections east and north of York.

 

[ainsworth74]

Southern's EMU fleet seems reasonably flexible, IIRC someone reported a few days ago that they had formed an 11 car train from a 5+3+3, which was considered unusual. But 12,10,9,,8,7,6,4 are all easily provided.

SWT's DMU fleet routinely provides for any just about any sized train between 2 and 10 cars - and I reckon the only permutations not routinely diagrammed will be 4 or 7 car - but they are possible.

Which is precisely why I don't get how people can claim LHCS is someone really flexible? How is it more flexible that what SWT, or Southern or SouthEastern are doing which can see a huge variety of formations in just a single diagram! In what universe is LHCS more flexible than a train starting as a four car unit and ending up as an twelve car train? Or vice versa? You can even have various destinations served by this split train (for instance at Horsham with Southern).

I just don't get it.

 

[ianhr]

Whilst loco hauled trains may be "flexible" in the sense that you could insert an extra carriage when needed, any sets of carriages ordered today would be for 10x9 car sets, for example, so where would these extra carriages people seem to love come from? Are you expecting extra carriages to be a part of these orders that will sit around doing nothing when there aren't major events?

Well in London and the South East there is plenty of stock which sits around all day to provide the extra capacity for Mon-Fri peak services, this can of course be mobilised for special events at weekends and bank holidays. This is not the case in the North where there is usually little difference between peak and off peak diagrams and the only spare capacity is just about enough to cover for routine maintenance even though Sunday services are sometimes minimal (as in West Yorks).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which is precisely why I don't get how people can claim LHCS is someone really flexible? How is it more flexible that what SWT, or Southern or SouthEastern are doing which can see a huge variety of formations in just a single diagram! In what universe is LHCS more flexible than a train starting as a four car unit and ending up as an twelve car train? Or vice versa? You can even have various destinations served by this split train (for instance at Horsham with Southern).

I just don't get it.

Yes but most TOCs outside the former Southern Region area DON'T DO THIS!

 

[MCR247]

Well in London and the South East there is plenty of stock which sits around all day to provide the extra capacity for Mon-Fri peak services, this can of course be mobilised for special events at weekends and bank holidays. This is not the case in the North where there is usually little difference between peak and off peak diagrams and the only spare capacity is just about enough to cover for routine maintenance even though Sunday services are sometimes minimal (as in West Yorks).

So my point is how would loco haul in practice be more flexible through "train length adjustments" like you said?

 

[ianhr]

So my point is how would loco haul in practice be more flexible through "train length adjustments" like you said?

I agree that MUs are more flexible for split portion working than any LH option but as I have said most TOCs don't do this, even though it might go some way to alleviating track occupancy problems.

As with most choices of rolling stock provision there are advantages and disadvantages whatever policy is adopted so lets not try to pretend that a total MU railway is the ideal solution. The LH push-pull policy was obviously thought to be a good idea 30 years ago. It was more likely to have been abandoned for MUs because they were fashionable and politically and economically expedient than for any operational reason. The scrapping of large amounts of good quality Mark 3 and later Mark 2 stock which potentially had years of useful life was in my view wantonly wasteful. Incidentally LH sets provide a better passenger environment that a DMU with engines roaring away under the floor and a pervasive stench of fumes.

I would have thought that if a case could be made for having a limited amount of 'spare' stock available in the North it could be provided far more cheaply in the form of unpowered trailer vehicles, which could be added in increments of one, than by having complete powered MUs as 'spare'.
The fact is that the rolling stock economics of the privatised railway precludes this anyway. The ROSCOs have no motive for providing anything above the basic service requirement specified by the DfT.

As a comparison a many North American operators use loco hauled push pull and seem to manage to constantly adjust train lengths. Have a look at Metrolink (LA), Caltrain, TRE (Texas), NM Railrunner, Metra (Chicago) etc. etc. There it is only rapid transit systems that seem to rely exclusively on EMUs.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes but most TOCs outside the former Southern Region area DON'T DO THIS!

And if they had LHCS they would?

Further I must be imagining those services on ATW, FGW, Northern, Scotrail and TPE which are formed of more than one unit? They might not be as complex or as widespread as former Southern Region TOCs but they most certainly do it and there's nothing stopping them doing more of it other than their fleets are too small for the services they need to run. Or would that never be an issue in a LHCS world? If so how?

I would have thought that if a case could be made for having a limited amount of 'spare' stock available in the North it could be provided far more cheaply in the form of unpowered trailer vehicles, which could be added in increments of one, than by having complete powered MUs as 'spare'.

I can see that happening at Manchester Piccadilly or Leeds...

Or is a short LHCS set going to have to go into Neville Hill uncouple the locomotive, have another locomotive or the same one fetch a carriage to join the rake and then get put back into Leeds to form a peak service only to have to reverse the process later that night? Sounds cheap and easy to me.

 

[MCR247]

I would have thought that if a case could be made for having a limited amount of 'spare' stock available in the North it could be provided far more cheaply in the form of unpowered trailer vehicles, which could be added in increments of one, than by having complete powered MUs as 'spare'.

I don't think any case could be made to have 'spare' stock whatever type of train it is! Even if we had continued with loco haul instead of EMUs, we would still have fixed formations so any flexibility would be lost.

And as for 'roaring diesel engines,' I don't think normal passengers really care tbh

 

[fowler9]

Which is precisely why I don't get how people can claim LHCS is someone really flexible? How is it more flexible that what SWT, or Southern or SouthEastern are doing which can see a huge variety of formations in just a single diagram! In what universe is LHCS more flexible than a train starting as a four car unit and ending up as an twelve car train? Or vice versa? You can even have various destinations served by this split train (for instance at Horsham with Southern).

I just don't get it.

Are you really just not good at maths?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Yes, I have never been able to understand why MUs were favoured over loco hauled sets with push-pull working using DVTs or a cab control coach which were widespread in the 1980s.

Not exactly related, but whenever I see a picture of the Anglia summer short LHCS set (2x mrk3, 2x47 and a DVT) my head screams "why on earth don't they fit some diesel locos with TDM to work with these DVTs?". The class 47/7 locos of course had/have TDM, but apparently (so I've been told on this forum) not the right sort. Given that a similar system has been fitted to 47s in the past, I cannot see why the correct system couldn't be installed to some 47s or 57s.

with locohauld push-pull you have in effect a coach length of wasted space, where the loco is, with MUs all the traction equipment, engines etc is underneath so the whole of the train can be used for conveying passengers.

That depends, it is certainly true if you don't need to go above 115mph, but above that and MUs need to waste almost as much train length and LHCS becomes an option worth considering.

Anyway, this debate about whether LHCS should have been built instead of MUs isn't what I was intending. I was meerly stating that:

• there are spare mrk2s and diesel locos kicking arround
• there are no spare DMUs kicking arround
• TPE (and other TOCs, but since this is a TPE topic...) have crowding problems and
• TPE (and other TOCs, but since this is a TPE topic...) have shown that mrk2s can be still be used in service to provide additional capacity for special events

and raising the question that, given the above points, shouldn't TPE (and other TOCs, but since this is a TPE topic...) be using mrk2s ALL THE TIME to relieve crowding until more MUs can be provided

I would have thought that if a case could be made for having a limited amount of 'spare' stock available in the North it could be provided far more cheaply in the form of unpowered trailer vehicles, which could be added in increments of one, than by having complete powered MUs as 'spare'. The fact is that the rolling stock economics of the privatised railway precludes this anyway. The ROSCOs have no motive for providing anything above the basic service requirement specified by the DfT.

My point is that there IS an amount of spare stock kicking arround, in the form of mrk2s (mostly, but maybe there's a handfull of mrk3s out there too) and that it should be brought out of storage and put to use.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or is a short LHCS set going to have to go into Neville Hill uncouple the locomotive, have another locomotive or the same one fetch a carriage to join the rake and then get put back into Leeds to form a peak service only to have to reverse the process later that night? Sounds cheap and easy to me.

No. You have single MUs running around in the off-peak, then in the peaks you couple them together to make a smaller number of longer trains. But then you don't have enough trains to cover every service so you bring LHCS sets (too long and expensive to run off-peak, apparently) out of the sidings to run the service. Simples Not as cheap as just running the short MUs all day, but not nearly as difficult as shunting coaches in and out of LHCS rakes. Just make sure your MUs have UEGs if you are going to use portion working rather than coupling/uncoupling only at the start and end of a service.

 

[Manchester77]

[*]TPE (and other TOCs, but since this is a TPE topic...) have crowding problems and
[*]TPE (and other TOCs, but since this is a TPE topic...) have shown that mrk2s can be still be used in service to provide additional capacity for special events[/LIST] and raising the question that, given the above points, shouldn't TPE (and other TOCs, but since this is a TPE topic...) be using mrk2s ALL THE TIME to relieve crowding until more MUs can be provided

Quite as I sat on the nicely refurbished DRS mark II set I wondered why TPE arent hiring say 8/10 mark IIs to form 2 LHCS sets which could be used on the new express Liverpool - Victoria - Newcastle (where end doors aren't as big of an issue as one which calls at more stations) and so freeing up 185s for the rest of the TPE network. I hope this becomes a more attractive idea when the 170s go. I'd imagine that BR would have done something similar if they were in similar situation where the DMUs didn't provide enough capacity and so as a temporary measure LHCS is utilised.

 

[ainsworth74]

No. You have single MUs running around in the off-peak, then in the peaks you couple them together to make a smaller number of longer trains. But then you don't have enough trains to cover every service so you bring LHCS sets (too long and expensive to run off-peak, apparently) out of the sidings to run the service. Not as cheap as just running the short MUs all day, but not nearly as difficult as shunting coaches in and out of LHCS rakes. Just make sure your MUs have UEGs if you are going to use portion working rather than coupling/uncoupling only at the start and end of a service.

Right that sort of thing I can understand and it does actually make some sense to me.

The suggestions that LHCS are somehow how more flexible than MUs however are still nonsensical to me.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

@Rhydgaled what about Voyagers, Merdians, Pendolinos and Cordias? Four types of MU that can operate at above 115mph and no space wasted about the undeframe by traction equipment and/or engines?

 

[Greenback]

Are you really just not good at maths?

That's not a very comprehensive reply is it? Just an insult, really, that doesn't add much to the discussion.

Let's try and shine a bit of light into the shadows here. While, on the face of it, it seems obvious that the ability to form trains form different numbers of carriages to suit the demand is more flexible than being stuck with the multiples of the units you have (in this example 4 car), it isn't actually the case in reality.

Suppose, for example, that a service needs 9 cars on average. Two four car units would be slightly too short, but a 12 car would result in a fair bit of empty space. So a 9 car LHCS seems ideal.

But wait a minute, what about the faff of attaching and detaching small numbers of carriages together? Where would that be done? How many shunters or additional locos would be required for these moves?

As the coaches can't run independently, surely that is a major disadvantage that balances out any numerical flexibility that may accrue?

There is a reason that TOC's prefer running units, and why the LHCS services that run do so, generally, in fixed formations. The reason is financial, and at a time when there is so much focus on cost cutting, having LHCS with its attendant costs is a luxury that we can't afford.

It's also illuminating that it isn't just the UK. European railways have also realised that there is, in fact, little or no flexibility n LHCS, and countries such as Ireland, Switzerland and The Netherlands (the latter two not noted for refusing to invest in rail) have moved, or are moving towards abandoning LHCS workings, and, where they still exist, running them in fixed formations which has no more flexibility than units.

The suggestions that LHCS are somehow how more flexible than MUs however are still nonsensical to me.

You're right. The flexibility is only illusory.

 

[Rhydgaled]

@Rhydgaled what about Voyagers, Merdians, Pendolinos and Cordias? Four types of MU that can operate at above 115mph and no space wasted about the undeframe by traction equipment and/or engines?

Cordias (class 175s) can only do 100mph. As for the other three, nowhere did I say that the 'wasted' space on faster MUs contains traction equipment or engines. I think a 5-car Arriva XC class 221 seats 262. You get MORE seats (268) on a 4-car ATW class 158 formation I think. That works out as roughly one vehicle on the Voyager (23m) carrying nothing but air, and locos are shorter than 23m (ok you have a DVT on the other end, but if they were built today half the length of them could carry passengers).

 

[ainsworth74]

I think a 5-car Arriva XC class 221 seats 262. You get MORE seats (268) on a 4-car ATW class 158 formation I think. That works out as roughly one vehicle on the Voyager (23m) carrying nothing but air, and locos are shorter than 23m (ok you have a DVT on the other end, but if they were built today half the length of them could carry passengers).

Though one of those vehicles is first class so would be lower density than any of the 158 vehicles. Further the Voyagers are well known to be hugely space inefficient due to having DDA compliant toilets all but one vehicle eating space and the one that doesn't have a toilet used to have a buffet and now a large luggage storage space, features that a 158 doesn't have to worry about using up seating space.

A quick check of an XC seating plan suggests that if you had an all standard class layout you'd go up to 278 seats on the 221. I would suspect if you eliminated all but one DDA compliant toilet you'd gain maybe another eight seats on four of the five vehicles so that would take you up to maybe as much as 310 seats. For interest on Pendolino's the standard class vehicles fitted with a DDA compliant toilets have seating for 62, the vehicles which have just a normal toilet have seating for either 76 or 74 (depending on luggage storage arrangements). So it's possible I'm low balling an estimate of eight extra seats...

So yeah Voyagers cart a lot of fresh air around but that's got more to do with terrible design features than some inherent problem with MUs.

 

[fowler9]

That's not a very comprehensive reply is it? Just an insult, really, that doesn't add much to the discussion.

Let's try and shine a bit of light into the shadows here. While, on the face of it, it seems obvious that the ability to form trains form different numbers of carriages to suit the demand is more flexible than being stuck with the multiples of the units you have (in this example 4 car), it isn't actually the case in reality.

Suppose, for example, that a service needs 9 cars on average. Two four car units would be slightly too short, but a 12 car would result in a fair bit of empty space. So a 9 car LHCS seems ideal.

But wait a minute, what about the faff of attaching and detaching small numbers of carriages together? Where would that be done? How many shunters or additional locos would be required for these moves?

As the coaches can't run independently, surely that is a major disadvantage that balances out any numerical flexibility that may accrue?

There is a reason that TOC's prefer running units, and why the LHCS services that run do so, generally, in fixed formations. The reason is financial, and at a time when there is so much focus on cost cutting, having LHCS with its attendant costs is a luxury that we can't afford.

It's also illuminating that it isn't just the UK. European railways have also realised that there is, in fact, little or no flexibility n LHCS, and countries such as Ireland, Switzerland and The Netherlands (the latter two not noted for refusing to invest in rail) have moved, or are moving towards abandoning LHCS workings, and, where they still exist, running them in fixed formations which has no more flexibility than units.



You're right. The flexibility is only illusory.

Yeah mate, I take it back and apologies to Ainsworth, it was just a bit rude. I really can't argue that multiple units aren't more cost effective. My opinion on the subject risks drifting off topic to how many things that are more efficient only seem to benefit shareholders or company owners, not workers or customers.

 

[edwin_m]

It's arguably precisely because the loco-hauled sets aren't economic for use every day that they are available for short-term hire for special events such as the TdF.

If it was economic for a TOC to use a loco-hauled set every day then wouldn't they have hired one of the available ones on a long-term basis instead of using MUs? Instead only AGA and Chiltern do this (and VT on one working per week) and that is because they need to provide "intercity" type service but there are no suitable MUs economically available. And notice how the Scotrail set, and other LHCS in regular use in the recent past, tends to cover only a couple of workings per day. If it was cheaper to use than the MUs, or the TOC thought the extra comfort would attract more passengers, then wouldn't they use them all day and assign a couple of MUs to the peak extra?

The various companies who hire out LHCS probably bought it at close to scrap value so have no huge capital loans to pay off, and no doubt their maintenance regimes are mainly distance rather than time based as the most economical way of maintaining safety and reliability on low-mileage stock. Hence the rental per day is probably rather cheap. However the costs for crew hire, fuel and track access to actually operate the train are much higher than for a MU. Hence a TOC may use LHCS on a one-off basis to cover a peak in demand, but if they had a year-round requirement for extra stock it would be cheaper to get hold of more MUs.

 

[fowler9]

Genuine question, if TOC's hire LHCS for things such as the Tour De France because the companies that own them got them for close to scrap value why didn't the companies that own them buy multiple units at close to scrap value in the first place.

 

[pemma]

Genuine question, if TOC's hire LHCS for things such as the Tour De France because the companies that own them got them for close to scrap value why didn't the companies that own them buy multiple units at close to scrap value in the first place.

They'll only become scrap value when the units are replaced and there's no interest from franchised operators in taking them on for extra capacity or to cover refurbishment programs.

 

[fowler9]

They'll only become scrap value when the units are replaced and there's no interest from franchised operators in taking them on for extra capacity or to cover refurbishment programs.

I was thinking more the first gen DMU's to be honest although to be fair many of them would have been scrapped pre privatisation.

 

[edwin_m]

Genuine question, if TOC's hire LHCS for things such as the Tour De France because the companies that own them got them for close to scrap value why didn't the companies that own them buy multiple units at close to scrap value in the first place.

At a guess

Firstly because most withdrawn MUs were either non-compliant with various safety rules and/or totally clapped out.

Secondly because the people who bought the LHCS were primarily interested in providing longer-distance excursions and land cruises. For these the first class or 2+2 seating of loco-hauled coaches is much more suitable than the interiors of most MUs.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Though one of those vehicles is first class so would be lower density than any of the 158 vehicles. Further the Voyagers are well known to be hugely space inefficient due to having DDA compliant toilets all but one vehicle eating space and the one that doesn't have a toilet used to have a buffet and now a large luggage storage space, features that a 158 doesn't have to worry about using up seating space.

A quick check of an XC seating plan suggests that if you had an all standard class layout you'd go up to 278 seats on the 221. I would suspect if you eliminated all but one DDA compliant toilet you'd gain maybe another eight seats on four of the five vehicles so that would take you up to maybe as much as 310 seats. For interest on Pendolino's the standard class vehicles fitted with a DDA compliant toilets have seating for 62, the vehicles which have just a normal toilet have seating for either 76 or 74 (depending on luggage storage arrangements). So it's possible I'm low balling an estimate of eight extra seats...

So yeah Voyagers cart a lot of fresh air around but that's got more to do with terrible design features than some inherent problem with MUs.

It is very hard to find any two classes of train to produce any kind of fair comparision, that's one of the reasons I started this topic, to try and average things out across all units which exhibt a particular trait. Since I never finished that listing though, picked on the XC Voyager for this discussion since (if I recall correctly) XC removed the buffet and every other 125mph MU (I think) has a buffet. Otherwise I'd have used the 800/801 where two extra cabs and an extra buffet car seem to cost the equivelent of an entire 26m carriage worth of seats (less 3), but again the firsttandard ratio might mess things up a bit.

It's arguably precisely because the loco-hauled sets aren't economic for use every day that they are available for short-term hire for special events such as the TdF.

If it was economic for a TOC to use a loco-hauled set every day then wouldn't they have hired one of the available ones on a long-term basis instead of using MUs?

I don't think it is a question of long-term LHCS being unecconomic, just less ecconomic in most cases. If it really is unecconomic then why do GA run 2mrk3s with a DVT and 2 47s in summer? I think it's just a question of not wanting to spend any more money than they have to, even if it is painfully obvious that more rolling stock is needed. If a TOC was a given choice of LHCS or MU they would take MU, given a third option of doing nothing I wonder how many would take that. If there was a siding full of spare 158s sitting outside Cardiff would ATW use them? I don't think I'd be supprised if ATW refused to use them without more subsidy.

 

[WatcherZero]

Thread seems to have got a long way from 350's while ive been away this weekend. I left on Friday morning with station announcements of many TPE services cancelled due to driver shortage though I gather in the end the extra capacity did work out though not everywhere.

It is unfeasible for many reasons to put these kinds of extraordinary measures in place everyday so dont think why cant the penny pinchers do this regularly.

Though I did hear the bidders for the Scottish Franchise were all proposing to use LHCS presumably freed up by IEP because the conversion to 'tourist' vehicles would be cheaper and easier, the reality is that the franchises that use LHCS regularly like Chiltern and the OAO are trying to move away from them leasing/proposing purchase of multiple units instead.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Thread seems to have got a long way from 350's while ive been away this weekend. I left on Friday morning with station announcements of many TPE services cancelled due to driver shortage though I gather in the end the extra capacity did work out though not everywhere.

It is unfeasible for many reasons to put these kinds of extraordinary measures in place everyday so dont think why cant the penny pinchers do this regularly.

Though I did hear the bidders for the Scottish Franchise were all proposing to use LHCS presumably freed up by IEP because the conversion to 'tourist' vehicles would be cheaper and easier, the reality is that the franchises that use LHCS regularly like Chiltern and the OAO are trying to move away from them leasing/proposing purchase of multiple units instead.

Where did you hear that? If the rural lines are returning to LHCS then it would be great, especially when they are some of the (if not the only) lines where the disadvantages of LHCS are not great enough to justify MUs instead. Upgrading displaced Mk3 stock is one possibility, although the same requirements for TSI-PRM compliance would be needed as on other lines, but since CAF are willing to build a relatively tiny fleet of entirely custom LHCS for the sleeper operation it does raise the possibility that they could build some more for the day operations as well.

If you think about it, the stock that best fits what the ScotRail ITT demands for 'scenic trains' is the sleeper as it has the sort of high quality, ultra low density seated environment that encourages tourism. We haven't seen what CAF are planning to build yet but at the very least they will be building the same sort of seated and brake/guard van coaches that would be suitable for these scenic train day operations. If you can be sure that the brake/guard carriage would always be at one end and in the right direction you could fit a driving cab to it, allowing push-pull operation and reducing the cost and complexity of running both the day and sleeper services. Having technically similar/identical stock on both would allow more resilience as there would be a larger number of locomotives, drivers, guards and spare parts available for both.

Last but not least if they're planning on de-Sprinterising these lines then that's another fleet of 15x trains available to be sent down to Pacerland, so everyone benefits. The new Northern franchise could then procure some more of the 'scenic train' formations to run the Settle & Carlisle to improve that service and free up even more Sprinters. Same goes for the Wales & Borders franchise once it's up for renewal in 2018.

 

[IanXC]

Also TPE could attach/detach units a York to relieve overcrowding between there and Manchester and avoid overprovision on more lightly loaded sections east and north of York.

Which TPE do multiple times every single day in the current timetable.

Cordias (class 175s) can only do 100mph.

I think its fair to say in this context the Coradias referred to are Class 180 units - which most certainly can do 125mph.