More coaches would be nice

[ElectronicaL33]

Hello, newbie so please be gentle! Browsing through a mid 80's article in Traction Magazine, im reminded how many loco hauled coaches there used to be on the services i used as a kid, usually 6-10 as a rule. Since taking up my 'Railway Enthusiast' role again & visiting the NRM, East Lancs to name a few ive endured being squashed on a Cross Country 4-car Voyager, & being squashed even further on a 2-car 158 from Piccadilly to Sheffield :cry:

I know its a Pandorra's box but my question is......Does this fault lie with The Privatised Train Companies or British Rail's rundown stock at the time of Privatisation? (thus leaving the newly formed companies a mountain to climb!?) hmmmm :roll:

 

[gordonthemoron]

Department for Transport

 

[ElectronicaL33]

Department for Transport

Ahh, im sure you'll agree the current capacity does more harm than good!? I'll be heading off to the ELR Diesel Day on the 7th Jan....in my car! No more Sardine can journeys from Picc to Sheff!

 

[HSTEd]

I know its a Pandorra's box but my question is......Does this fault lie with The Privatised Train Companies or British Rail's rundown stock at the time of Privatisation? (thus leaving the newly formed companies a mountain to climb!?) hmmmm :roll:

This is indeed a Pandora's box of a topic, however the answer is a combination of factors:
1) British Rail was directed to put all available resources into preparation for privatisation, leading to the famous, and insane, drought of orders that stretched eventually to nearly 3 years.

2) After privatisation the private sector decided it rather liked the British rail stock that it had criticised as being old and inadequate to the task before privatisation, this reduced the demand for new carriage construction as the existing assets were "sweated" and "inefficient" extra capacity was removed.

3) With the apparent failure of the private sector to replace rolling stock unless they were forced to the DfT decided to take a direct hand in the procurement process, which unfortunately led to a series of bureaucratic snarls.

4) The privatised companies have no incentive to provide slack loadings on the railway as there business is to obtain the best return on investment possible, which means that crush loadings are acceptable at peak hours as commuters have little option with regards to other operators or other means of public transport in many cases.

Contrary to popular belief British Rail was not in a particularly dire state at privatisation, with more 100mph+ services than any other railway in the world and the lowest public subsidy per passenger mile in Europe.

 

[ElectronicaL33]

4) The privatised companies have no incentive to provide slack loadings on the railway as there business is to obtain the best return on investment possible, which means that crush loadings are acceptable at peak hours as commuters have little option with regards to other operators or other means of public transport in many cases.

Thanks for your thoughts! I guess my experiences as a nipper enjoying a corridoor compartment to myself will never be enjoyed again! It seems we may have gone from one extreme to the other? :roll: Please correct me if im wrong but with regards to The Hope Valley line, is the longest public service now a paltry 3-car 185? now thats waaaaay too inadequate surely

 

[Nym]

Nah, it's a 4 car 158...

 

[YorkshireBear]

Thanks for your thoughts! I guess my experiences as a nipper enjoying a corridoor compartment to myself will never be enjoyed again! It seems we may have gone from one extreme to the other? :roll: Please correct me if im wrong but with regards to The Hope Valley line, is the longest public service now a paltry 3-car 185? now thats waaaaay too inadequate surely

No you have EMT 4 car 158s (some of the time other times its 2 car) although by the time the sprinter refresh is done all nottingham liverpool should be 4 car.
Then you have your 3 car 185s with 2 workings a day being in the hands of 2 car 170s. Then every two hours you have a stopper on the hope valley, usually a 142/150.

Thats it unfortunately.

 

[ElectronicaL33]

Well i had heard that EMT had doubled up their Norwich Liverpool service but ive had a 2-car every time on my recent journeys along this line. Guess its me & my bad timing
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No you have EMT 4 car 158s (some of the time other times its 2 car) although by the time the sprinter refresh is done all nottingham liverpool should be 4 car.
Then you have your 3 car 185s with 2 workings a day being in the hands of 2 car 170s. Then every two hours you have a stopper on the hope valley, usually a 142/150.

Thats it unfortunately.

Thanks for the info! bloody hell it was a nightmare coming back from the ELR in October :cry: even the guard couldnt get down the aisle & my friend who caught the same service an hour later had the same experience! (and a 2 car) United played Liverpool & all that day, not a nice day to be a EMT guard lol

 

[gordonthemoron]

last friday, the 22:28 EMT service from Manchester to Nottingham had 4 coaches but the rear two appeared to be locked out of use (and the front two coaches were a rubbish tip)

 

[tbtc]

Well i had heard that EMT had doubled up their Norwich Liverpool service but ive had a 2-car every time on my recent journeys along this line. Guess its me & my bad timing

Only from 11 December 2011.

As for the other points, we have traded longer (infrequent) trains for shorter (frequent) ones.

For example, Leeds - Manchester is every fifteen minutes, but with only a three coach train. Under BR you might have had trains twice as long on most journeys, but with only half the frequency.

I agree about Sheffield - Manchester being a poor service, especially given the poor roads between the two (so there's scope for rail to take a big market share).

 

[ElectronicaL33]

I agree about Sheffield - Manchester being a poor service, especially given the poor roads between the two (so there's scope for rail to take a big market share).

Agreed! which begs the question about re-opening the Woodhead route? I presume after all the campaigns to reopen this route, its still 'dead in the water'?

 

[HSTEd]

Agreed! which begs the question about re-opening the Woodhead route? I presume after all the campaigns to reopen this route, its still 'dead in the water'?

Yeah, the newer Woodhead tunnel is now part of National Grid so its gone.

Reopening would also weaken the already weak case for upgrades and even electrification on the Hope valley.

 

[DXMachina]

I get the impression from my dim memories of '80s train travel that BR had a more whole-system outlook: if a commuter train wasn't available to run to Euston via Hemel so my family could get to london, something else would be sent (pretty sure I remember a diesel locomotive and 5 old slam-door carriages turning up once, and a single-unit railcar working a stopper to Euston on another occasion)

Nowadays there isn't one pool of trains that can be dipped into, they're jealously guarded by the operators that hired them - so if there's a need for more carriages it's either unmet or the service is cancelled.

 

[tbtc]

I get the impression from my dim memories of '80s train travel that BR had a more whole-system outlook: if a commuter train wasn't available to run to Euston via Hemel so my family could get to london, something else would be sent (pretty sure I remember a diesel locomotive and 5 old slam-door carriages turning up once, and a single-unit railcar working a stopper to Euston on another occasion)

Nowadays there isn't one pool of trains that can be dipped into, they're jealously guarded by the operators that hired them - so if there's a need for more carriages it's either unmet or the service is cancelled.

Bear in mind that BR used to have a lot of spare resources (think of the amount of 37s/47s etc that you used to see at yards, or rakes of carriages in sidings). Now stock is used a lot more intensively, so there's not so much "spare" to use when things start to go wrong.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Agreed! which begs the question about re-opening the Woodhead route? I presume after all the campaigns to reopen this route, its still 'dead in the water'?

Sadly, yes.

The line as far as Deepcar still sees freight traffic, but I can't see the line opening to passenger service any time soon.

Additional loops on the Hope Valley line and redoubling the chord at Dore appear to be all we can hope for (in Sheffield - Manchester terms).

 

[DXMachina]

and i take it - from what I read on here about stock being dumped and neglected - that the maintenance to allow the older coaches and locomotives out when needed hasn't been done as nobody will pay for it?

 

[tbtc]

and i take it - from what I read on here about stock being dumped and neglected - that the maintenance to allow the older coaches and locomotives out when needed hasn't been done as nobody will pay for it?

Yes - take the ex SouthEastern 508s as an example, left to rot

 

[jopsuk]

Only from 11 December 2011.

As for the other points, we have traded longer (infrequent) trains for shorter (frequent) ones.

This is in most cases very much it. "back in the day" how many (for example) Liverpool-Norwich trains were there? The current weekday timetable has 11 trains each way along the full length of the route.
There's 15 one way and 16 the other on the Birmingham-Stansted route.
Edinburgh-Aberdeen has 17/18 direct services.

Virgin Cross Country's "operation princess", where they tried to replace long loco-hauled services with many more, shorter, Voyagers was only a failure as they failed to take into account the New Street bottleneck effect and went too short with their shorter trains- the increased frequency and faster journey times brought a surge in demand that hadn't been modelled adequately, and of course they couldn't do anything to add capacity to the new trains. Otherwise it wasn't actually a bad idea. A bit shorter but more frequent should give better capacity AND a better service for passengers.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes - take the ex SouthEastern 508s as an example, left to rot

They should be taken as the example though, as there is nothing else now that the 460s are spoken for...

 

[HSTEd]

They should be taken as the example though, as there is nothing else now that the 460s are spoken for...

Well theres a whole range of locomotives left to rot at Toton isn't there?

And those Arriva Mark 2s that nothing has happened with.

 

[ainsworth74]

Well theres a whole range of locomotives left to rot at Toton isn't there?

They don't have a use so no loss there.

And those Arriva Mark 2s that nothing has happened with.

They turn up from time to time of Ruggex's don't they?

 

[ElectronicaL33]

This is in most cases very much it. "back in the day" how many (for example) Liverpool-Norwich trains were there? The current weekday timetable has 11 trains each way along the full length of the route.
There's 15 one way and 16 the other on the Birmingham-Stansted route.
Edinburgh-Aberdeen has 17/18 direct services.

Virgin Cross Country's "operation princess", where they tried to replace long loco-hauled services with many more, shorter, Voyagers was only a failure as they failed to take into account the New Street bottleneck effect and went too short with their shorter trains- the increased frequency and faster journey times brought a surge in demand that hadn't been modelled adequately, and of course they couldn't do anything to add capacity to the new trains. Otherwise it wasn't actually a bad idea. A bit shorter but more frequent should give better capacity AND a better service for passengers.

Point taken, & im not here to have a rant at the TOCs. With regards to the Norwich Liverpool services there was 20-30 years ago, im not sure! but even if there was half the frequency in the years gone by, then maybe a 31 + 6 coaches would still provide more seats than 2 hourly 170's? unless the frequency was even less than that

 

[RichmondCommu]

Well theres a whole range of locomotives left to rot at Toton isn't there?

Class 60's are no good for working passenger trains. And as others have pointed out almost all the rolling stock that exists is being used.

 

[Yew]

Class 60's are no good for working passenger trains. And as others have pointed out almost all the rolling stock that exists is being used.

Dont DBS have a load of 66's that theydont use, as they own them, but rent 67's so use them instead?

Just a thought, but how much would it cost to build new coaching stock and locomotives, when compared to multiple units?


Looking on here http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=919479

£1.7m per year = 1x class 57 + 1x mrk3 buffet (with chef!) + 2x mrk2 TSO + 1x mrk2 BSO
£1.25m per year = 1x 2-car 175
£1.87m per year = 1x 3-car 175
£1.6m per year = 1x class 67 + unknown number of mrk3 coaches + mrk3 DVT

If those figures are correct, and the contract length has little effect, a push-pull LHCS rake is cheaper than a 3-car 175.

it seems that (at least for leasing costs) LHCS is cheaper to rent than an equivelent length DMU. However Im not sure how this would be for the actual buying costs, but i imagine if LHCS was being snapped up at every oppotunity then ROSCOS would consider aquiring new stock (or even commisioning some form of BR/Modern combination stock.


Then again, Im forgetting we have a private system run by the DfT

 

[150222]

Class 60's are no good for working passenger trains.

No but they could displace 66's to passenger workings. Not that they are particulally suitible either but we have to start somewhere or we'll have capacity issues for the rest of time.

 

[DXMachina]

Class 60's are no good for working passenger trains. And as others have pointed out almost all the rolling stock that exists is being used.

its a shame there's probably no good enough business case for converting them to straight electrics by ripping out the engine (s?) / generator and replacing with pantograph and transformer/rectifier but using existing traction package. Or that it would probably cost nearly as much as ordering something new and more suitable

 

[HSTEd]

Use Cl60s to displace the Cl66/67s freight workings.

Attach an AAR equipped DVT/stripped DBSO with a generator like the one that Chiltern just finished to a Cl66, fit through ETS cabling to the Cl66 (should fitting the Cl66 with an ETH tap be too expensive), and then use them to displace Cl67s/57s that are on the sleepers and drags to fit them to passenger workings.

Or just fit the DVT/DBSO/generic cab-fitted four wheel wagon with the generator to the Cl60......

 

[RichmondCommu]

its a shame there's probably no good enough business case for converting them to straight electrics by ripping out the engine (s?) / generator and replacing with pantograph and transformer/rectifier but using existing traction package. Or that it would probably cost nearly as much as ordering something new and more suitable

Exactly! The way forward is new EMU's and DMU's. Its up to the TOC's and the DfT to order them which of course requires wonga! Mind you there was at least some good news this week with the Southern Trains order.

 

[colchesterken]

I am thinking whats going to happen to the 9 trains ( Cl 317 )being given bach by the
Dutch when they take over our services

Makes you sick NXEA managed to get them now the new lot are giving them back save money make the journies less confortable...good aint it

Have you seen the dutch prime minster she is nice !!!!!

 

[RichmondCommu]

Have you seen the dutch prime minster she is nice !!!!!

?? The Dutch Prime Minister is a bloke who goes by the name of Mark Rutte.

 

[A0wen]

Yes - take the ex SouthEastern 508s as an example, left to rot

But they're not exactly versatile units. They were designed for shortish services and are 3rd rail only.

So where exactly would you have deployed them?

Bearing in mind offering 2 or 3 around doesn't work as you need drivers who are cleared to drive them.

Like it or not the TOCs have been progressively standardising the units they use which is far more cost efficient than having to train drivers to drive a certain unit once in a blue moon.