East Anglia fleet future cascade options

[Domh245]

Wales has to be a beneficiary from this fleet cascade in some way. The current ATW fleet is stretched to crisis point.
The DMU's being released can provide instant relief in Wales:
The 153's and 156's can go to the valleys to help replace pacers. The 170's can be added to Wales' long distance fleet to supplement the 158's and 175's, which in turn could also release 150s from North Wales to help Pacer replacement on the valleys.

Longer term, if the WG can be persuaded to abandon the proposed tramway conversion for the core valley lines then the 321s can provide an instant ready made fleet with plenty of capacity if refurbished to a high enough standard.
After all, the original business case for the valley lines electrification in 2012 was based on cascaded class 313s providing the initial fleet of EMUs with new build stock following later on.
Even if the core valley lines are converted, heavy rail EMUs will still be needed on the Vale of Glamorgan, Ebbw Vale and Maesteg lines.

I think that ATW would benefit more by being indirectly involved than directly involved. It'd make more sense to send the AGA fleet to TOCs with existing fleets of the same type, allowing them to release units to ATW which they already have examples of. It is cheaper and less disruptive that way.

 

[urpert]

What happens to all the 321s. Scrap at only 30 years old?

If so then interesting to me, as a Southeastern passenger, to see what happens with Networkers when the Southeastern franchise is announced. Only 3-5 years older - will they too be scrapped when SE franchise begins in a couple of years? They aren't compatible with a 12-car Metro network on the whole due to no SDO, but it seems a waste if so.

I'd imagine the Networkers' future is entirely dependent on whether all the SE inner-suburbans end up going to TfL, in which case they might splash the cash for some more Aventras. The repowered BRELs ought to have a bit more life in them but the Met-Camms are in a v sorry state.

 

[RobShipway]

I think that ATW would benefit more by being indirectly involved than directly involved. It'd make more sense to send the AGA fleet to TOCs with existing fleets of the same type, allowing them to release units to ATW which they already have examples of. It is cheaper and less disruptive that way.

ATW could really do with going through a similar process to East Anglia with replacing stock with new stock, but that is down to the Welsh Authority to sort out with Westminster.

I personally would have bi - mode flirts on the Manchester/Chester - North Wales route and on the route from Cardiff to Fishguard.

The class 175's I would have dedicated to the routes through Shrewsbury.

But this is getting off the track of this thread which is about East Anglia.

 

[LowLevel]

Wales has to be a beneficiary from this fleet cascade in some way. The current ATW fleet is stretched to crisis point.
The DMU's being released can provide instant relief in Wales:
The 153's and 156's can go to the valleys to help replace pacers. The 170's can be added to Wales' long distance fleet to supplement the 158's and 175's, which in turn could also release 150s from North Wales to help Pacer replacement on the valleys.

Longer term, if the WG can be persuaded to abandon the proposed tramway conversion for the core valley lines then the 321s can provide an instant ready made fleet with plenty of capacity if refurbished to a high enough standard.
After all, the original business case for the valley lines electrification in 2012 was based on cascaded class 313s providing the initial fleet of EMUs with new build stock following later on.
Even if the core valley lines are converted, heavy rail EMUs will still be needed on the Vale of Glamorgan, Ebbw Vale and Maesteg lines.

I suspect the Sprinters will head to the East Midlands to join their existing brethren to allow things like Sunday services on the Lincolnshire lines.

 

[Clansman]

Yes, they have. For instance, the 385 order includes the units needed to run six car trains to North Berwick rather than the current four cars. The E&G is the only route where four car sets will run and the right number have been ordered to run them in eight car formations. The three car sets will be used only on all the other routes, such as Stirling/Alloa/Dunblane, Shotts and the ECML. The only other route that a four car set might end up on would be future electrified Anniesland, just as express 170s sometimes turn up today, and that would just be for ease of diagramming.

My comment about metro units is that it's more efficient to order one fleet of the same type of train at one time. That's why 100mph regional units have been ordered to run the Cathcart Circle services. Once the 318s and 320s need replaced in the mid 2020s, it'll be possible to replace them and also displace 385s away from where they have replaced the 314s. The regional 385s would end up on regional routes to which they are suited, such as stopping services to Perth and Dundee.

NR are planning to electrify Dunblane to Aberdeen starting in CP6, presumably once East Kilbride, Barrhead and Anniesland are done. This will allow many of the extra ScotRail services announced recently upon the retention of the 13 extra 170s to be run by those 385s freed up from the Cathcart Circle.

Simultaneously the replacement of the HSTs will have to be considered, but it would not be efficient to have one fleet for Glasgow-Aberdeen and another for Glasgow-Inverness and Edinburgh to either. This is where Stadler's product comes in, as they are delivering one basic design in InterCity form for London-Norwich and in shorter, bi-mode form for rural and regional services. There seems to be no reason why they couldn't deliver a half-length InterCity bi-mode train that would be ideal for replacing the HSTs. That the same design would also be able to replace the 15x units on rural duties makes it even more useful for ScotRail.

I get you now - I think we're on the same page in terms of ordering strategies. But where do you draw the line between efficiency and service? For example, the Class 385 with 3 carriages has around the same seating capacity as a Class 314. Due to the lower density layout in the 385s, there will probably be a little more standing room in a 3-car 314 compared to a 3-car 385. If you are replacing the 314s with 385s (which were designed for commuter journeys rather than suburban), you'll find that during peak times you will have to compensate the lesser overall capacity for more services making it less efficient - especially on days where there is events going on at Hampden Park. So that's where my suggestion for the 321s come in - high density seating arrangement and higher standing capacity (designed for suburban journeys) meaning they are more inclined to be a better and more efficient replacement for the 314s. Thus, freeing up around 14x385s to go onto E-G to strengthen services better suited to the unit class and specifications. Also, this situation works out better maintenance wise as the 321s would be maintained at the nearby Yoker depot which is more accessible and closer to Central than what the new depot at Millerhill (Edinburgh) is.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I'd imagine the Networkers' future is entirely dependent on whether all the SE inner-suburbans end up going to TfL, in which case they might splash the cash for some more Aventras. The repowered BRELs ought to have a bit more life in them but the Met-Camms are in a v sorry state.

I think TfL would have little choice but to get new rolling stock for many of the inner suburban routes. As soon as you apply a TfL roundel to the service and add it to the tube map, demand will skyrocket and there's little hope of accommodating it without new stock designed for maximum capacity.

 

[3270]

If there is a surplus of useable units, particularly as coherent fleets owned by differing ROSCOs, it gives the TOCs some leverage when negotiating leasing costs.

True, but on the other hand I imagine that if there was no reasonable prospect of leasing the surplus units the ROSCOs would send them for scrap pretty quickly so that there wasn't a surplus. It's in their interest for there to be a train shortage so that they can increase lease charges. Supply and demand.

 

[43096]

True, but on the other hand I imagine that if there was no reasonable prospect of leasing the surplus units the ROSCOs would send them for scrap pretty quickly so that there wasn't a surplus. It's in their interest for there to be a train shortage so that they can increase lease charges. Supply and demand.

But there is no evidence that that is what happens in practice. The Competition Commission investigation was clear that the ROSCOs are not applying monopoly pricing.

On the other hand, holding stock off lease costs significantly in storage charges - it's a call the owner has to make weighing up the cost vs potential opportunity of a future lease.

 

[urpert]

I think TfL would have little choice but to get new rolling stock for many of the inner suburban routes. As soon as you apply a TfL roundel to the service and add it to the tube map, demand will skyrocket and there's little hope of accommodating it without new stock designed for maximum capacity.

Agreed - and I've read several times on here that the Networkers are stuck with their cramped 2+3 seating layout because of equipment boxes under seats, so there's no prospect of a SWT 455 refurbishment either.

 

[theblackwatch]

On the other hand, holding stock off lease costs significantly in storage charges - it's a call the owner has to make weighing up the cost vs potential opportunity of a future lease.

Agreed, a balance has to be struck - the 508 situation was a good example of this, with the units being kept at Eastleigh initially with the possibility of work (such as the 508/3s to Merseyrail), but after a while, with no sign of work and their condition deteriorating, off they went.

 

[43096]

Agreed, a balance has to be struck - the 508 situation was a good example of this, with the units being kept at Eastleigh initially with the possibility of work (such as the 508/3s to Merseyrail), but after a while, with no sign of work and their condition deteriorating, off they went.

Likewise the Mark 3s off Virgin West Coast were stored for around 10 years until Porterbrook finally got rid of the final batch.

 

[D365]

If anything DRS would have more interest in the class 442 MK3 coaches, than the Mk3's from the East Anglia line, as class 442 have electronically operated doors which are suitable for the 2020 disability act as far as I am aware.

I don't know why on one thread, you say that Class 442s aren't feasible for LHCS conversion, but here you claim that they are suitable for DRS?

:roll:

 

[RobShipway]

I don't know why on one thread, you say that Class 442s aren't feasible for LHCS conversion, but here you claim that they are suitable for DRS?

:roll:

I think this question should be within the class 442 storage thread, rather than with the thread about East Anglia.

Since making the comment about the fact of DRS having the 442's within this thread, I then did a bit of research into how the class 442's would be able to be converted to LHCS and from the details I gathered found that there is a lot of work that needed to be done which would consist of carriages being re - worked and refurbished in a similar way to the MK3's where converted for FGW.

The comment about the wiring within the class 442 storage thread, is after the above mentioned research.

Also, I have noticed at times DAB_MOVE you have also made different comments in different threads from time to time and no one has questioned it. So I find your question of my different comments s being harassment to be honest.

 

[D365]

Also, I have noticed at times DAB_MOVE you have also made different comments in different threads from time to time and no one has questioned it. So I find your question of my different comments s being harassment to be honest.

my question was not about why you have discussed the Class 442s here and not under a different topic, so I apologise if you got the wrong end of the stick.

 

[CosherB]

If anything DRS would have more interest in the class 442 MK3 coaches, than the Mk3's from the East Anglia line, as class 442 have electronically operated doors which are suitable for the 2020 disability act as far as I am aware.

Whereas the Anglia MK3's would have to be converted Chiltern style before they are used.

I'd say the complete opposite. DRS or charter operators would love the AGA Mk3s as they'd need little work after their recent internal and exterior refurbs.

442s are scrap. Period.

 

[RobShipway]

I'd say the complete opposite. DRS or charter operators would love the AGA Mk3s as they'd need little work after their recent internal and exterior refurbs.

442s are scrap. Period.

There would be just as much work needed to be done on the AGA MK3's as there would be on the class 442's for them to be able to use them, so I think you will find both lots are for scrap.

 

[CosherB]

There would be just as much work needed to be done on the AGA MK3's as there would be on the class 442's for them to be able to use them, so I think you will find both lots are for scrap.

Why? Does charter stock need to have electrically operated sliding or plug doors? Will Mk1s and Mk2s also need 'Chilternisation'?! The AGA Mk3s have had CETs fitted as well as all of the cosmetic work. I'd say they're good to go as they are, and don't need all of this 'Chilternisation' that some seem to think they must have. I'm not, however, stating that the Mk3s have much of a future on front line, daily passenger work.

 

[43096]

There would be just as much work needed to be done on the AGA MK3's as there would be on the class 442's for them to be able to use them, so I think you will find both lots are for scrap.

Would there indeed? As you are clearly an expert, care to educate the rest of us?

 

[northwichcat]

Wales has to be a beneficiary from this fleet cascade in some way. The current ATW fleet is stretched to crisis point.
The DMU's being released can provide instant relief in Wales:
The 153's and 156's can go to the valleys to help replace pacers. The 170's can be added to Wales' long distance fleet to supplement the 158's and 175's, which in turn could also release 150s from North Wales to help Pacer replacement on the valleys.

There are already 153s coming off-lease which have no future homes - Northern are releasing 18 with 1 going to EMT, GWR are releasing 14 with probably 6 going to LM, plus GWR are releasing 8 x 143s - so if the WG are looking for short term extra capacity they already had options before the Anglia announcement.

There's apparently already an agreement in place for 4 x 150s (or equivalent) to be used on new Liverpool to Chester services operated by ATW but it's unclear where those are going to come from. Maybe those released 153s or 143s are going to ATW but it's not been announced yet?

The Anglia 170 fleet is small so I doubt the released 170s will go to any operator who won't already have Turbostars given we seem to be moving towards more consistent fleets. For the same reason I doubt the 156s will go directly to ATW - maybe if they replace 153s at EMT then ATW will get the 153s?

The big unknown at the moment is really the 22 x 185s - they really need to go to an operator who will likely be able to use 51 x 185s in the future, as more 185s will be released as electrification progresses and it could be in the future loco-hauled or bi-mode sets finish up on South TPE opposed to finishing up with a single class 185 operated route in the TPE franchise.

 

[RobShipway]

Would there indeed? As you are clearly an expert, care to educate the rest of us?

I am not an expert, when it come to the trains, but know that even the Charter Operators and train owners need to follow the Rail Vehicle Accessibility act of 2010: http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-r...-and-certification/rail-vehicle-accessibility by 2020.

This means the end of any slam door coached trains, whether it is Mk1, MK3 or MK3 unless they can be adapted in some form to allow disabled travellers to travel by allowing access of a wheelchair.

Even though not disable in any form myself, I have been a someone that has fought for the rights of the disabled for 20 or more years. I still feel that it should not be the case that someone in a wheelchair needs to phone up at least 24 hours before departure and can only travel from a main train station, even though there are ramps provided at many local stations that provide easy enough access to the disabled to get to the platform.

Anyway, this discussion is getting away from the main reason for this thread which is on the subject of the cascading of the East Anglia stock.

There are already 153s coming off-lease which have no future homes - Northern are releasing 18 with 1 going to EMT, GWR are releasing 14 with probably 6 going to LM, plus GWR are releasing 8 x 143s - so if the WG are looking for short term extra capacity they already had options before the Anglia announcement.

There's apparently already an agreement in place for 4 x 150s (or equivalent) to be used on new Liverpool to Chester services operated by ATW but it's unclear where those are going to come from. Maybe those released 153s or 143s are going to ATW but it's not been announced yet?

The Anglia 170 fleet is small so I doubt the released 170s will go to any operator who won't already have Turbostars given we seem to be moving towards more consistent fleets. For the same reason I doubt the 156s will go directly to ATW - maybe if they replace 153s at EMT then ATW will get the 153s?

The big unknown at the moment is really the 22 x 185s - they really need to go to an operator who will likely be able to use 51 x 185s in the future, as more 185s will be released as electrification progresses and it could be in the future loco-hauled or bi-mode sets finish up on South TPE opposed to finishing up with a single class 185 operated route in the TPE franchise.

I am wandering if the 22 class 185's could end up with on the London - Salisbury/Exeter routes as replacements for the class 159/158 fleets? Yes, I know that the combined class 158/159 fleets only totals 41 units, but with allowing for growth the only place I see them going is on the West of England routes.

 

[Harbornite]

I am not an expert, when it come to the trains, but know that even the Charter Operators and train owners need to follow the Rail Vehicle Accessibility act of 2010: http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-r...-and-certification/rail-vehicle-accessibility by 2020.

This means the end of any slam door coached trains, whether it is Mk1, MK3 or MK3 unless they can be adapted in some form to allow disabled travellers to travel by allowing access of a wheelchair.

Even though not disable in any form myself, I have been a someone that has fought for the rights of the disabled for 20 or more years. I still feel that it should not be the case that someone in a wheelchair needs to phone up at least 24 hours before departure and can only travel from a main train station, even though there are ramps provided at many local stations that provide easy enough access to the disabled to get to the platform.

Anyway, this discussion is getting away from the main reason for this thread which is on the subject of the cascading of the East Anglia stock.

But surely there will be more hassle in converting class 442s than the AGA mark 3s for charter use? Just think about it.

 

[CosherB]

I am not an expert, when it come to the trains, but know that even the Charter Operators and train owners need to follow the Rail Vehicle Accessibility act of 2010: http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-r...-and-certification/rail-vehicle-accessibility by 2020.

This means the end of any slam door coached trains, whether it is Mk1, MK3 or MK3 unless they can be adapted in some form to allow disabled travellers to travel by allowing access of a wheelchair.

Even though not disable in any form myself, I have been a someone that has fought for the rights of the disabled for 20 or more years. I still feel that it should not be the case that someone in a wheelchair needs to phone up at least 24 hours before departure and can only travel from a main train station, even though there are ramps provided at many local stations that provide easy enough access to the disabled to get to the platform.

Anyway, this discussion is getting away from the main reason for this thread which is on the subject of the cascading of the East Anglia stock.

Wholescale scrapping of Mk1 and Mk2 vehicles operated by the likes of WCRC and Riviera will not happen, despite your interpretation of the legislation you have selected to quote.

For example:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/east-lancashire-railway-wheelchair-carriage-11734302

I still maintain that some of the AGA Mk3s will find new homes after their release by Abellio.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wheelchair users can travel on slam door trains. Mk3 doors are wide enough, for Mk2s it just involves widening the van to saloon door.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Harbornite]

I am wandering if the 22 class 185's could end up with on the London - Salisbury/Exeter routes as replacements for the class 159/158 fleets? Yes, I know that the combined class 158/159 fleets only totals 41 units, but with allowing for growth the only place I see them going is on the West of England routes.

Why? There aren't enough of them to replace those two fleets.

 

[RobShipway]

But surely there will be more hassle in converting class 442s than the AGA mark 3s for charter use? Just think about it.

The only hassle would be re - wiring the coaches and what to do about the guards van as the coaches already have electronic doors. Whereas the AGA Mk3's you are quite literally having to rebuild from scratch back from the main frame of the coaches so that you can Chilternise the carriage doors which would take a lot more work in my opinion.

Yes, there is still a lot of work that would need to be done within the class 442 coaches to enable accessibility and a lot of rebuilding work within it, but not as much as the slam door MK3 coaches and will not be as costly.

 

[CosherB]

The only hassle would be re - wiring the coaches and what to do about the guards van as the coaches already have electronic doors. Whereas the AGA Mk3's you are quite literally having to rebuild from scratch back from the main frame of the coaches so that you can Chilternise the carriage doors which would take a lot more work in my opinion.

Yes, there is still a lot of work that would need to be done within the class 442 coaches to enable accessibility and a lot of rebuilding work within it, but not as much as the slam door MK3 coaches and will not be as costly.

Your opinion. Please provide a comparative cost for each scenario. I think you're barking up the wrong tree .... assuming you've found the correct forest in the first place.

 

[RobShipway]

Why? There aren't enough of them to replace those two fleets.

With the 22 trains there is not enough, but once the full 51 class 185 trains there is enough to replace the class 158/159 fleet.

Your opinion. Please provide a comparative cost for each scenario. I think you're barking up the wrong tree .... assuming you've found the correct forest in the first place.

I suggest that you do a search and find out how much it cost per carriage for each of the Chiltern carriage to be converted and what per carriage was the most costly part of teh conversion that needed to be done. Then equate that to what needs to be done with the MK3 coaches of the class 442 fleet excluding the guards coach in each set as that would certainly have to be scrapped.

 

[Harbornite]

The only hassle would be re - wiring the coaches and what to do about the guards van as the coaches already have electronic doors. Whereas the AGA Mk3's you are quite literally having to rebuild from scratch back from the main frame of the coaches so that you can Chilternise the carriage doors which would take a lot more work in my opinion.

Yes, there is still a lot of work that would need to be done within the class 442 coaches to enable accessibility and a lot of rebuilding work within it, but not as much as the slam door MK3 coaches and will not be as costly.

If the AGA mark 3s were for charter use, they wouldn't need to be Chilternised. Older stock comes under grandfather rights, hence why charter operators' mark 1s and 2s don't have contrasting door colours or plug doors.

 

[The Ham]

With the 22 trains there is not enough, but once the full 51 class 185 trains there is enough to replace the class 158/159 fleet.

The problem is lack of capacity per unit and the lack of two coach units. Unless by reforming into 5 coach sets is viable and run in pairs and provides enough of an uplift in capacity to slightly exceed what the current configurations provide.

I could see that the current 185's which are spare could be useful in creating extra capacity in the peaks by allowing 9 coach trains to replace 6 coach trains (which run contra flow) which then allow more trains to be run as 9 coach trains (or even 10 coach trains by swapping freed up 159's with 2 coach 158's).

 

[RobShipway]

If the AGA mark 3s were for charter use, they wouldn't need to be Chilternised.

Yes, they would I believe from what others have posted on this forum before as they were built after 1960s.

I believe from what I have read within this forum and in other places on the internet that the accessibility act applies to all coaching stock built since 1970, as anything built after that year has been deemed that it can be converted to allow disability access.

Now, I maybe incorrect in the way that I am reading the details so quite happy to be corrected on this point, but that would mean Mk1 & Mk2 stock built prior to 1970 as long as used for charter work only, possibly would be exempt.

However, the same exemption does not apply to MK3 stock which I believe was built even before the HST trains where built that they were used within.

The MK3 coaches where built 1975-1988 which yes, is around the same time as the HST, but the Mk3 was built not because of the HST as has been mentioned a few times within this forum.