• 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!

Future Rolling Stock Plans: My Ideas

Status
Not open for further replies.

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,448
Hi all,

This is my first post on the forum, but for some time I have been devising my own "DAB Masterplan"; a proposal to streamline the orders and subsequent cascade of passenger rolling stock. As you may have realised, a significant amount of MUs in the UK will be coming to the end of their lives within the next decade or so, including the infamous Pacer units, which do not meet new disabled access requirements. My plan, although it only currently only details orders for new EMUs (and the eVoyager project for a restarted IEP), is quite detailed. I have not posted in an existing thread, partially because there are so many (I don't know which one to post in!), but mainly because I would like to update this, with the help of your ideas, criticism and imagination!

Thanks in advance for reading!


DAB Masterplan: Future Passenger Rolling Stock builds, moves, refurbishment, retirement etc.
& long-term work for Derby (Bombardier - IMPORTANT!!!)


Inner Suburban Standard Unit (ISSU):
• 75-90mph, dual-voltage
• 3, 4 or 6 cars; modular design with reformable carriages depending on operator needs
• Based on PEP, 376 and 378 designs. Built in Derby, an evolutionary, proven design. Alternatively, stripping and rebuilding PEP units into a single class may be possible?

• 44 GN IS 313s: 3 or 6 carriages, dual-voltage essential. Lower roof profile (or whatever) for Northern City Line running
(• 16 ScotRail 314s replaced by 318/320, displaced by further new 380s)
• 61 Anglia IS 315s; 4 carriage replacement (also replacing a number of 317s, see below). Shenfield Metro service replaced by Crossrail 345 (see below).
• 315s (and reformed 313s/314s?), if not rebuilt, possibly deep-cleaned AND reused on future Cardiff Valley Electrics. Further ISSUs follow later. Electrify to Swansea, improve services and cascade Pacers into scrapyards!
• Merseyrail 507s and 508s; same order as GN Units
• 455s, 456s, 19 South Coast 313s: similar to existing units/SE Networkers, 2-4 carriages
(• Some services returned to other suburban units?)

All new DC stock must be AC OHLE compatible?
In short: ISSU for inner suburban services, LO take over [dedicated] metro routes around London with further 378s
Will safeguard and possibly create Derby jobs in the long term, as well as in scrapyards, [new] depots and more!

Reuse electric units in metro/suburban schemes until new units can be justified:
Cardiff Valley "Electrics": Refurbished Class 315/317
"Harrogate Metro": Converted D Stock


Better investment in Anglia region:

• Further 379 batches to gradually replace oldest EMUs* and loco-hauled sets, in various door/seating configurations. 360s also replaced, joining Heathrow Connect 360s (reformed into 4-car units with further vehicles) to move elsewhere. Gangway added if joining 350/450 fleets.

*Up to 48 displaced 317s (as built /1) could be regeared to 75-90mph and used as short-term inner-suburban units
• 5 322s working alongside 321s, possible conversion to 321/4 or /9 - Done, up North!

• eVoyager: Final (B-)IEP train. As much work done as possible in England. All Bombadier high-speed diesel units converted to bi-mode sets with new carriages.

B-IEP Routes:

• Cross Country, Midland Main Line: Voyagers/Meridians converted to bi-mode with extra carriages along with brand-new trains to replace HSTs.
• West Coast: supplementing 390 Pendolinos, North Wales services

• Great Western Main Line, East Coast Main Line: Replace (most) HSTs/180s (including open-access). Electric-only variant for London - Kings Lynn / Oxford. InterCity 225 sets kept for ECML long-distance.


Thameslink "Class 355" Cascade:

• 86 319s and 40 365s thoroughly refurbished and cascaded to future electrified routes; Great Western (see below), north etc. Remember, they are dual-voltage!
(Alternatively several 365s retained on "Greater Thameslink" as added peak-time [Great Northern] capacity and 'disconnected' Thameslink services)
• 313 not replaced; dealt with separately (ISSU)
• 23+3 377s back to Southern, joining more new units
• 12 317/1s: added to GA 317s (/7) for micro-fleet of at least 21 317s (see earlier).
• 13 321s: joining 321/9 and 322 for north electrification; total 13 ex-FCC, 3 321/9 and 5 (ex) 322. Midland fleet could be reduced to three if compatible with 350 for emergency coupling. Would add 4 direct ex-LM for at least 25 total.

Crossrail Class 345 Cascade:

• 165/166: along with cascaded 319s, will help to replace Pacers by 2019/2020.
• 5 360/2s: 5th carriages reformed into new vehicles, joins 360/1 ex-Anglia fleet (see earlier)
• 315: see earlier

• 14 332s continue with HEx

Rev.1
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Class86Fan

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2012
Messages
40
My idea for Future trains is to have Dual Voltage Diesel-Electric Locomotives for freight.
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,531
Location
South Wales
If Heathrow express is withdrawn the question would be what to do with the class 332's?

Class 317's would be ideal for electric service in south wales which use the mainline such as between Swansea & Newport due to their higher top speed of 100mph with the class 315's being kept on the core valley lines network.

I dont think a lot of people will be happy with having voyagers on great western long ditsance services something from Alstom would be much better.
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
Looking at your comments about inner suburban units.

What benefit is there in having a common design of EMU for inner suburban routes when the fleets will be based in Birkenhead/Liverpool, Hornsey, Brighton and Wimbledon? Or are you suggesting building a maintenance facility in Birmingham were all these units would go overnight for attention? In particular one would hope whoever had any influence on the class 376 and 378 trains (at least above the floor) would be prevented from any future involvement in train design. Why on earth would you replace the excellent 465/6s with the awful 378s?

In a world were sanity prevailed it would surely be logical to replace the GN 313s with trains sharing components with the Thameslink trains, the 455/6s by trains with commonality with the SWT fleet, The Southern 313s with 377s and the 507/8s with trains from whoever offers the best deal.

From a personal perspective I would prefer to keep Preston busy rather than Derby as they do the clever stuff (unless things have changed again!).
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,448
@Class86Fan: Would be ideal for reducing under-the-wire running, but the country has other spending priorities.

If Heathrow express is withdrawn the question would be what to do with the class 332's?

HEx and the refurbished 332 fleet will be unaffected by Crossrail; HC's 4 360s (and the 1 HEx shuttle unit) will be displaced by the Crossrail Class 345, which will presumebly be folded into the Greater Anglia fleet in real life.

Class 317's would be ideal for electric service in south wales which use the mainline such as between Swansea & Newport due to their higher top speed of 100mph with the class 315's being kept on the core valley lines network.
Good idea, only problem I can see is that 317 have slower acceleration than PEP units IIRC.

I don't think a lot of people will be happy with having voyagers on great western long ditsance services something from Alstom would be much better.
I'm thinking of units more akin to the 222 Meridian, which isn't designed to tilt. Plus if enough "eVoyager" units are order, it would presumably help the UK railway manufacturing industry!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Looking at your comments about inner suburban units.

What benefit is there in having a common design of EMU for inner suburban routes when the fleets will be based in Birkenhead/Liverpool, Hornsey, Brighton and Wimbledon? Or are you suggesting building a maintenance facility in Birmingham were all these units would go overnight for attention? In particular one would hope whoever had any influence on the class 376 and 378 trains (at least above the floor) would be prevented from any future involvement in train design. Why on earth would you replace the excellent 465/6s with the awful 378s?

In a world were sanity prevailed it would surely be logical to replace the GN 313s with trains sharing components with the Thameslink trains, the 455/6s by trains with commonality with the SWT fleet, The Southern 313s with 377s and the 507/8s with trains from whoever offers the best deal.

From a personal perspective I would prefer to keep Preston busy rather than Derby as they do the clever stuff (unless things have changed again!).

I'm thinking more about the long-term economies of a larger order for Bombadier Derby. The whole process of ordering new batches in units and the gradual replacement of rolling stock, guaranteeing jobs in the factory, depots and the like. Rolling stock procurement in Britain tends to be rather 'start-stop'. Also, by having a common fleet, units can be moved around the national network and reconfigured as needed.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,279
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
@Class86Fan: Would be ideal for reducing under-the-wire running, but the country has other spending priorities.



HEx and the refurbished 332 fleet will be unaffected by Crossrail; HC's 4 360s (and the 1 HEx shuttle unit) will be displaced by the Crossrail Class 345, which will presumebly be folded into the Greater Anglia fleet in real life.

Good idea, only problem I can see is that 317 have slower acceleration than PEP units IIRC.

I'm thinking of units more akin to the 222 Meridian, which isn't designed to tilt. Plus if enough "eVoyager" units are order, it would presumably help the UK railway manufacturing industry!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'm thinking more about the long-term economies of a larger order for Bombadier Derby. The whole process of ordering new batches in units and the gradual replacement of rolling stock, guaranteeing jobs in the factory, depots and the like. Rolling stock procurement in Britain tends to be rather 'start-stop'. Also, by having a common fleet, units can be moved around the national network and reconfigured as needed.

I'm sorry to ask, but do you read Modern Railways? Or use Bombardier stock fairly regularly? Bombardier is the making of it's own Downfall, we can go over and over time after time the reasons why, but at the end of the day its not so much a case of our pretty p*ss poor attitude towards ordering rolling stock, but what Derby are offering.

Why didn’t they get contracts such as Thameslink? Because Bombardier did not have a credible product to show the DFT in time, and when they did, surprise surprise it wasn't chosen. A pretty good example of this came late last year at one of the railway trade events. Modern Railways *i think* asked Siemens, What have you done so far for new deep level underground stock for the future Piccadilly / Bakerloo line replacements and they were perfectly happy to reveal what they'd come up with - a simulated deep level tube train with fully functioning Air Conditioning, Alstom said they were hard at work basing a new unit on the now rather successful 1996 stock. When our dear friends of Derby were asked, all they could come up with was something on the lines of 'Were starting from scratch working on a totally new train, based on the 2009 Vic Stock' - So your working on a new train, that’s not actually going to be a new train, just recycled from a previous train - Something Bombardier seems to be very good at.

Also, With the way Bombardier continues to show it's attitude in this country, all i can say is im sorry but Good Riddance. This 'We'll throw our toys out of the pram and manipulate the media' attitude is poor. As for the E-Voyager, Dont pin your hopes up on that being British either. Bombardier were offered the money to carry this project forward as long as they use the already highly proven Onyx traction package from Alstoms Preston plant. What are they now using? A similar electrostar package from Bombardiers Swedish division - So much for British Jobs for British workers then! Needless to say, the DfT are Not impressed, and neither are many either.

As for the UK Rail manufacturing industry - I’m sorry to tell you that you'll find much more British products in a Alstom Juniper & Siemens Desiro - Both companies have several highly skilled plants in this country, producing many more British components than is being imported by Bombardier (The S Stock is appalling, most of the equipment is actually manufactured in Bombardiers China plant). For example, Siemens produce many of the electrical control components up in its Sunderland factory, whilst the on board computer control systems are actually produced in Poole.

Right, sorry for the rant, but having just completed a hefty piece of Coursework about Lean Manufacturing, and as a regular reader of Modern Railways, i have very little sympathy for the management of Bombardier UK At all. If you want someone to order your product, you have to make it stand out, Be the Best, not keep recycling bits and bobs and old designs.

As for the rebuilding of the PEP idea. frankly, i don't think it would be practical - after all, you'd be taking a nearly 40 year old design and trying to modernise it - why don't i think it would be practical?: Cost, Structural Integratory, the shape / build of the PEPs.
However, rebuilding or re-engineering rolling stock should become easier as time goes on, as newer gen rolling stock such as the Siemens Desiro City will have modular traction packages, so this should allow previous designs of vehicles to be re-motored – Such as say the 442?

Don’t forget too that most of the GE Suburban services will be going over to Crossrail in the near future, so what i would do is add on more units to the crossrail order, with these taking over the GE Suburban services. Then stagger the types of units in a similar way to South West Trains, with the 455s covering the inner subuarban jobs, Reformed 458s working the outer suburban services and the 450s & 444s doing the longer distance service work. So for GE, I would order 345s for inner suburban GE (This kills off the 315s), then start reducing the 317 batches - this with some 345s, Then, once complete on Thameslink, possibly bring the FCC 377s across to GE – These can replace further batches of 317s, Then, Swap the 321 & 377s duties so the Electorstars end up working the part time Norwich services, and 321s remain outer suburban.

But what i'd rather see for this country - IEP Scrapped, Replacement options include Siemens RailJet Push Pull High Speed stock, Alstom High Speed EMU.2 - Apprently set to be based around the body of the Adelante, with the traction packages of the Pendo - and designed to couple up to a loco in.....30 Seconds! Yes, 30. Not the 9 Minutes the dft seems to believe. :roll:

Anyway, sorry to be rather brash against your first post, but my views on Bombardier are as you might have gathered, rather low compared to the company that they could well be! Anyway, Welcome to the forum.
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,531
Location
South Wales
Yes I read about Alstom saying they had a locomotive design which could couple up to their new high speed emu design in 30 seconds. I did have my doubts however it seems Alstom have shown a computer model which backs up their claims.

No offence I know Alstom did go through a bad patch a while ago but they seem to have learned their lessons especially after seeing how many orders seimens have gotten over the last 15 years or so and how reliable their units are.


Besides if IEP is cancelled (something I think we hope will happen) if the media start playing up about the train operators ordering from Alstom who should show that they have their factory in Preston which offers high tech jobs which is more than what Hitachi seem to be offering.

Plus in terms of comfort Alstoms class 180's seem to be one of the best units on the UK rail network so a electric version although with a few differences would be interesting to see.


Bombardier seriously need to get themselves in order however especially with all the problems there have been with trains built by them over the years
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,448
I can't reply in much detail yet since I'm on my iPod, but I understand the points you are making. You've definitely bought some great points into the debate :o
 

142094

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Messages
8,789
Location
Newcastle
Not sure why the use of ex-LU stock on the Harrogate loop keeps popping up but it will never happen in a million years.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,701
Not sure why the use of ex-LU stock on the Harrogate loop keeps popping up but it will never happen in a million years.

Its due to the desire for any kind of electrification in that area, so the take the cheapest electrification systme they are likely to get away with (bottom contact third rail) and the most obviously available stock (the D78s).

They could always have 313s refit with retractable bottom contact shoes..... then you have no dual signalling issues at York and Leeds.
 

142094

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Messages
8,789
Location
Newcastle
Sure it will already have been mentioned on previous threads about the issue, but it has already stated that there is unlikely to be any extension of 3rd rail. Also, where would the stock be stored and maintained?
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,636
Location
Redcar
Also even if you use dual voltage units to avoid running third rail into Leeds/York you're still going to have immunization problems as I'm sure someone in infrastructure mentioned that you have to immunize some distance away from the change over point. Third rail on the Harrogate Loop is a terrible idea by all accounts either do it properly with OHLE or don't bother.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,701
Sure it will already have been mentioned on previous threads about the issue, but it has already stated that there is unlikely to be any extension of 3rd rail. Also, where would the stock be stored and maintained?

Light maintenance could be carried out the same way the Stourbridge branch PPMs are maintained... and the train could be hauled south to the LUL works for heavy maintenance if nowhere closer can be located.

Why would there not be an extension of third rail? Beyond the system-compatibility issues bottom contact is no worse than 25kV for safety.
And the Harrogate line is almost entirely self contained anyway, so compatibility issues are limited. The daily train to Harrogate could simply remain diesel hauled.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,448
Thanks for having made this whole discussion redundant; I'll prepare my comebacks ;)

I travelled on a Class 350 (/2 I believe as it was 3+2 seating) recently, and I have to say it was a good ride. The carriage was jam-packed; more than twice as many people as seats, and the aisle was crammed throughout! However, the unit didn't seem to struggle at all, and neither did the air-con; the overall atmosphere was very pleasant. I didn't use the toilet but this is the standard that I think new and refurbished rolling stock should be expected to at least meet the Desiro standard.

Ironically, I haven't actually ridden a Bombardier UK train! I've bashed the German Electrostar cousin a number of times, the DB 423, of which 462 four-car units were manufactured between 1998 and 2007 by Bombardier and Alstom (the motor sounds are the only difference I recall). A strange metamorphosis of inner and outer suburban features, 2+2 seating, wide corridors and three doors per vehicle side, but without toilets (made up for by station facilities) and with a speed limit of 140 km/h. These are probably the closest you will get to seeing the future Crossrail Class 345 units right now, which I believe should be manufactured by Siemens. That is, if Bombardier are instead given my hypothetical ISSU contract.

This brings me onto my next point. Only Bombardier have a recent, proven Inner Suburban EMU design in the UK, in the form of the Class 376 and 378 fleets. These, I believe, were introduced relatively smoothly, although 378 production was delayed due to the economic recession causing issues in finding parts. I have heard on this forum from several locations that 378 units have run down to Moorgate, but I'm not sure if this is true. In order to get the ball rolling, a new 3 or 6 car Class 378 batch could (should?) be ordered for both Merseyrail and Great Northern Inner Suburban electrics.

I do understand what you mean about the sourcing of parts; I guess Bombardier may be sourcing the cheapest parts in order to reduce the overall price, but not considering supporting the UK industry first. I'm currently doing work experience at an electronics company in Huntingdon, where I have learnt a lot about the sourcing of components and how production lines work. Their PCBs are shipped from China, even though there are capable manufacturers in Cambridgeshire. Why? Partially because none of these can make as many as is required, but mainly (I'm guessing) because it's cheaper to manufacture these abroad. Even the popular Raspberry Pi 'micro-computer' is made in China, but this is because there is a shipping duty on individual parts but not complete products.

The point I'm trying to make is that manufacturing has become global business; less and less products are truly "Made in Britain" or wherever. I'm guessing that I've fallen into the Bombardier publicity trap that their trains are "more British" than others, but it would be sad if Litchurch Lane shut shop. The railway pioneering country without a rolling stock factory? A ghastly thought...

But if a design is suitable for a particular order, there's no need to redesign it. Crossrail are looking for an "evolutionary, not revolutionary" fleet. Actually, I'd hoped for something like the aforementioned 423 units for Crossrails and Thameslink (they cover 30tph in central Munich well), but that's not my point. It sounds like Bombardier got their words mixed up in regards to the LU Evo Stock concept, but we'll see how the S Stock gets on during the Olympics.


I'm sorry that I may not have a great response for each point you've made, but I hope I've provided some more things to think about. Is the Swedish Electrostar traction package even suitable for high-speed trains? I think the complete eVoyager (and "eMid") project, extra carriages for existing units as well as an order for new Class 222-based DEMUs/EMUs would give Bombardier enough of an incentive to re-equip Derby or open a new factory. Would it?

And yes, ordering a 26m Hitachi SET seems like a complete waste. Use the money saved by ordering 'traditional' Bombardier (or even an Alstom Class 180/390 fusion) intercity stock and sling up some more wire with the money saved.

In short:

Thameslink/Crossrail, Class 350/360 add-on batches: Siemens
ISSU (PEP Replacement), further Electrostars: Class 377/378/379, Bombardier
eVoyager, IEP: Bombardier (or Alstom for the latter)

Wires: GWML (Swansea and Cardiff Valley included), eventually to Penzance? - Many more up north!

(Note: The Harrogate "Metro" scheme will not actually be bottom contact; according to the official FAQ, it will be a protected 3rd rail, à la Docklands Light Railway - read it all, it explains a lot!)
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,701
Third rail on the Harrogate Loop is a terrible idea by all accounts either do it properly with OHLE or don't bother.

The locals are of the opinion that they will never get 25kV electrification and be forced to use DMUs that have huge capacity issues forever.
Judging by the rather silly electrification schemes and rolling stock procurements that occur these days... I am inclined to agree with them.


As to reducing costs, that means more Turbostars/Electrostars (to standardise spares as much as possible) and removing pointless small non-standard fleets from service like the 185s (which appear to be so much more fuel hungry than 172s that it would be cheaper to build brand new Turbostars than continue using them).
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,448
The locals are of the opinion that they will never get 25kV electrification and be forced to use DMUs that have huge capacity issues forever.
Judging by the rather silly electrification schemes and rolling stock procurements that occur these days... I am inclined to agree with them.

Did you read the official website; see above.

As to reducing costs, that means more Turbostars/Electrostars (to standardise spares as much as possible) and removing pointless small non-standard fleets from service like the 185s (which appear to be so much more fuel hungry than 172s that it would be cheaper to build brand new Turbostars than continue using them).

How would it be cheaper? Any evidence??
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,636
Location
Redcar
and removing pointless small non-standard fleets from service like the 185s (which appear to be so much more fuel hungry than 172s that it would be cheaper to build brand new Turbostars than continue using them).

Due you have any figures to show that removing a fleet of fifty one 3-car units for scrap and replacing them with brand new units is in anyway shape or form cost effective? I don't understand your vendetta against 185s it seems totally illogical. Scrap a fleet that isn't even ten years old? How on earth does that make financial sense (or any other kind of sense) when there are other fleets that are far far older and in much more desperate need of replacement? The railway where ever possible needs to use the resources it already has effectively not start throwing them away!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,701
Due you have any figures to show that removing a fleet of fifty one 3-car units for scrap and replacing them with brand new units is in anyway shape or form cost effective? I don't understand your vendetta against 185s it seems totally illogical. Scrap a fleet that isn't even ten years old? How on earth does that make financial sense (or any other kind of sense) when there are other fleets that are far far older and in much more desperate need of replacement? The railway where ever possible needs to use the resources it already has effectively not start throwing them away!

My original analysis shows that brand new Turbostars would have operating costs £5000/three car set/year greater than the 185s they would replace. This however does not account for the scrap value of the 185s, which reduces the effective capital cost of the Turbostars. Nor does it account for the public desire to always have new trains, or the possibility of only using two crew on a coupled set while being able to check all tickets, or the fact that routes like the North Transpennine could be maintained at only MU100 rather than normal 100mph speed limits, giving a reduction a subsidy to Network Rail compared to the current values.

Should all the Desiro compatible components in the 185s (lights, switches, seats, trailer wheelsets and so on) plus all the scrap metal and bits come to a value of ~£17,000 or more per vehicle then the Turbostar becomes cheaper to operate, even without reductions in brake pad costs and the like thanks to the trains being far lighter than the 185s are.

This is a result of extremely low borrowing costs available to the state at the present time and would require a willingness to use state money to directly purchase new units, presumably as part of a public sector ROSCO.

I do not have a "vendetta" against class 185s, I just happen to think they are massively overweight, non-standard and operationally troublesome.
If Siemens produced SP compatible multiple units like 172s and Bombardier produced the 185s I would side with Siemens.
The reductions in weight of Class 172s has obsoleted them effectively.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,279
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
Bear in mind though, that the 185s were built to handly the Transpennine Hills, rather than the outer suburban jobs which the 172s do, so i would say that's it's hardly a fair comparison - Long distance unit constructed for steep gradients and long periods of running - Built at 20M too, compared to a unit with 23 metre bodies, built for commuter stop start services.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,636
Location
Redcar
So the answer to my question is that you want to replace a near brand new fleet of trains with another fleet of trains that in fact cost £5,000 more per year to run than the existing fleet and you want me to believe that this is a sensible proposition? What is the through life cost for this? Over say thirty years would it be cheaper to keep the 185s or replace with 172s? Because whilst you might be able to reduce the capital costs of the new fleet thanks to the 185s scrap value the new trains still cost £5,000 more per year than the old fleet so what's the saving over thirty years for this new fleet? Or is there in fact no saving to be had?

Further you suggest that Network Rail could save money be cutting back on maintenance can you suggest which stretches of track this is applicable to? Could you quantify the savings to be had?

I would also come back to the point that you've so far ignored. You want to replace a six year old fleet of trains that work perfectly fine in their current role with another fleet of brand new trains whilst there are literally hundreds of units of rolling stock still on the network that are far older and in far more desperate need of replacement? How in the name of everything holy is that sensible?

There is a lot to recommend commonality. However pursuing it without consideration of anything else is foolish. You have yet to provide any information/evidence that suggests to me that the advantages of commonality are sufficient to allow us to scrap a perfectly good fleet of trains.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,701
Bear in mind though, that the 185s were built to handly the Transpennine Hills, rather than the outer suburban jobs which the 172s do, so i would say that's it's hardly a fair comparison - Long distance unit constructed for steep gradients and long periods of running - Built at 20M too, compared to a unit with 23 metre bodies, built for commuter stop start services.

Both units are 3x23m.
The stated figures for TPE's fleet include runs that are nowhere near as hilly as the core Trans-pennine route which drags the figures down somewhat (very long runs on the ECML and WCML for instance), while the Turbostar family has routes that are almost as hilly (especially in Scotland), so I believe that fuel consumption figures are probably largely comparable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So the answer to my question is that you want to replace a near brand new fleet of trains with another fleet of trains that in fact cost £5,000 more per year to run than the existing fleet and you want me to believe that this is a sensible proposition? What is the through life cost for this? Over say thirty years would it be cheaper to keep the 185s or replace with 172s? Because whilst you might be able to reduce the capital costs of the new fleet thanks to the 185s scrap value the new trains still cost £5,000 more per year than the old fleet so what's the saving over thirty years for this new fleet? Or is there in fact no saving to be had?
Did you actually read the analysis?
That £5000 figure INCLUDES CAPITAL COSTS
Therefore by reducing the capital cost of the fleet the savings become apparent.
If you want day to day running costs the Class 172s win EVERY SINGLE TIME

EDIT:

And no, I cannot quantify the savings associated with replacing 100mph speed limits with 100MU differentials while reducing the normal speed limit. That is why I did not include them in my analysis.
But those savings are still apparent.
The scrap value of the Class 185s almost certainly means that Class 172s are cheaper to run in the long term even excluding the hard to quantify savings like maintenance differentials and track maintenance differentials like the one above.

And by the looks of it, the scrap value of the Class 185's steel content comes to ~£14,000 per vehicle by itself, so it looks like £17,000 might be a low estimate.
 
Last edited:

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,531
Location
South Wales
The locals are of the opinion that they will never get 25kV electrification and be forced to use DMUs that have huge capacity issues forever.
Judging by the rather silly electrification schemes and rolling stock procurements that occur these days... I am inclined to agree with them.


As to reducing costs, that means more Turbostars/Electrostars (to standardise spares as much as possible) and removing pointless small non-standard fleets from service like the 185s (which appear to be so much more fuel hungry than 172s that it would be cheaper to build brand new Turbostars than continue using them).

I certainly agree that more dmu's should be ordered with the class 172 being the ideal dmu in my opinion. With Bombardier looking at flywheel technology which could be fitted to future dmu's it could help improve the acceleration and improve fuel economy.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,636
Location
Redcar
Did you actually read the analysis?
That £5000 figure INCLUDES CAPITAL COSTS
Therefore by reducing the capital cost of the fleet the savings become apparent.
If you want day to day running costs the Class 172s win EVERY SINGLE TIME

There's no need to shout! Blimey let's keep our cool here shall we? And I'm sorry but I've re-read your post again and I still don't see where you state that the £5,000 figure includes the capital costs, perhaps it's obvious to you but it isn't to me.

Having re-read it another thought occurs I assume your fuel cost comparison is a straight how much each unit would burn/cost in fuel if they both traveled 282800km per year? Therefore does this not account from the fuel saving that a 185 makes each year from not using three engines all the time, which TPE have told us saves them enough to cover the fuel costs of their 170 fleet? This would surely narrow the fuel saving gap?

Okay that's fair reason to not include the infrastructure savings in your analysis.

Do you have anything to address my other point:

I would also come back to the point that you've so far ignored. You want to replace a six year old fleet of trains that work perfectly fine in their current role with another fleet of brand new trains whilst there are literally hundreds of units of rolling stock still on the network that are far older and in far more desperate need of replacement? How in the name of everything holy is that sensible?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,701
There's no need to shout! Blimey let's keep our cool here shall we? And I'm sorry but I've re-read your post again and I still don't see where you state that the £5,000 figure includes the capital costs, perhaps it's obvious to you but it isn't to me.
Sorry, I suppose it would be obvious to me based upon me having wrote it... and sorry, people just keep accusing me of being an idiot over this even though I have made an attempt to crunch numbers. :(

Having re-read it another thought occurs I assume your fuel cost comparison is a straight how much each unit would burn/cost in fuel if they both traveled 282800km per year? Therefore does this not account from the fuel saving that a 185 makes each year from not using three engines all the time, which TPE have told us saves them enough to cover the fuel costs of their 170 fleet? This would surely narrow the fuel saving gap?
It does indeed, Siemens reports a 7% fuel saving which seems quite significant, however thanks to Class 172s approaching the 185's power to weight ratio, (its within 1-2hp/t now), it does not seem unreasonable that a similar technology could be deployed on the Turbostars which do not currently have it. Although this would be unlikely to erase the entire difference between the two as the Siemens trains do still have a higher p:w ratio it would probably render it insignificant.

Do you have anything to address my other point:

Yes, my original concept was that this project would take place as part of a large scale replacement of existing life-expired DMUs with Class 172s, thus recasting this "favouritism" as merely them getting a turn with new trains after the Pacer replacement is complete but before we get started on the 150/0s and 150/1s (no gangways so they have to be first).
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,636
Location
Redcar
Sorry, I suppose it would be obvious to me based upon me having wrote it... and sorry, people just keep accusing me of being an idiot over this even though I have made an attempt to crunch numbers.

Hey it's no problem, the figures are certainly interesting to look at and I'd certainly never suggest you're an idiot for proposing such an idea (crazy perhaps ;)).

It does indeed

Okay.

Yes, my original concept was that this project would take place as part of a large scale replacement of existing life-expired DMUs with Class 172s, thus recasting this "favouritism" as merely them getting a turn with new trains after the Pacer replacement is complete but before we get started on the 150/0s and 150/1s (no gangways so they have to be first).

Ahh, so the idea is that as part of a rolling program the 185s would be replaced rather than as a one off measure? Well that's more logical but I have to say that whilst it might be possible to extract some savings by replacing the 185s I'm not totally convinced that it's sensible. They're barely half way towards half their service life and it just feels wrong to replace such a fleet that early. I mean I could get behind scrapping the 180s as they really are a baby fleet but getting rid of all the 185s? It just doesn't sit right with me.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,448
Let's compromise: 185s apparently have fuel-saving features (engines shut off when rolling downhill), but they could have modifications in the future to make them more eco-friendly. I assume they have better acceleration than Turbostars; nearly anything's better than having more cars chug through the hills!

And back on topic: I will make some improvements to my plan soon, but what do you guys think of the fleet reshuffling/cascades?
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,549
Location
UK
I certainly agree that more dmu's should be ordered with the class 172 being the ideal dmu in my opinion.

Move the dorrs to the end, and add a corridor connection and button operated saloon to vestibule doors and you would be right. Okay terminus dwel ltimes may be longer, but the train would be a bit better suited for distance work, and more seats :)
 

142094

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Messages
8,789
Location
Newcastle
Going back to the Harrogate line, Northern have done quite a lot to improve capacity on what is quite a rural route, with doubled up services being on the majority of workings. Does the line deserve to be electrified? Some will argue yes, but I'd say there are far more lines that could do with the investment before Harrogate.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,701
Move the dorrs to the end, and add a corridor connection and button operated saloon to vestibule doors and you would be right. Okay terminus dwel ltimes may be longer, but the train would be a bit better suited for distance work, and more seats :)

172s do exist with corridor connections and I believe all future Turbostar orders will have them.
Unfortunately a redesign with a new bodyshell would cause all sorts of extra costs that can be avoided, and with the development of good quality door seals I am no longer convinced that the comfort of the train is significantly impaired by the "commuter" style door positions.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Well, this idea of a common suburban design was something BR tried several times, first with MkI-based units, then PEP-based, then MkIII/Sprinter-based, then Networker/Turbo based. They never quite did it, because the lengthy construction periods resulted in a new generation of unit coming along before there were enough of the previous ones to replace everything. Still, assuming for the moment that we will get mass electrification, I reckon it's an excellent idea, and hope that there will be a regional diesel version of the same thing (essentially a modern Super Sprinter [Super-Duper Sprinter if you like]) with doors at the end and a bit more luggage space. It doesn't have to be super-powerful, but be light, efficient, comfortable, fast off the mark and have good hill-climbing ability. You could have single-car, two-car and three-car versions, all with end-gangways.

Looking bigger, it's worth having some new Desiro-based stock around, to replace 455s on SWT for instance. It's also worth keeping the 185s, especially if they could work on Waterloo-Exeter (for commonality with 444s) or the Scotrail Express routes (where hill-climbing is important). This would release 170s and 159s for other uses - the 159s might do well on the former Alphaline routes for instance. A bit of upgrading to 90mph would be very helpful, especially over longer routes which might use remaining 158s and the released 159s.

The eVoyager, or rather its replacement design, might make a good main line unit for routes parallel to HS2. While I will mourn the loss of 91s and MkIVs, they don't really suit regular stops, so replacing them with something lighter and quicker to accelerate will be helpful. IEP (if we ever see it) would make a good unit for longer-distance work, any remaining ECML Anglo-Scottish traffic for instance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top