Most Inappropriate Stock

[DarloRich]

When you travel on a Voyager you have to wonder what they rejected to buy those things.

I wonder what other options were put forward during tender response. I wonder what the cost differential was between the successful & rejected tenders. I wonder how different the specs were. I wonder if anyone bothered to look a prototype ( I wonder if there was one!) I wonder how much tender evaluation, beyond finances, took place.

 

[northwichcat]

Not this again. :x Sorry, but myself and other objective users keep telling you exactly why 158s are used on the Lymington line and what you can do to allieviate the situation (buy us more 444s), yet you continue to bang on and on and on about how brilliant 508s would be on there.

I think we need a moratorium on this subject like the Norwich - Liverpool argument that kept coming up in practically every thread to do with 158s and 222s a while back. :roll:

IIRC it's been mentioned that SWT have enough EMUs to not use DMUs on wholly electrified routes at weekends. Therefore, they shouldn't need to use 158s on the Lymington line all day on weekdays anyway, just in the morning and evening peaks so if they get the 508s they'd only need to be used for a few peak time journeys if SWT used their other EMUs more effectively.

I never mentioned Liverpool-Norwich specifically, I mentioned EMT being short of carriages. Crewe-Derby now has 75 seater 153s running the majority of services when previously it had 130+ seater 150s.

Most train routes need extra capacity and new carriages aren't produced overnight. There are quite a lot of 3rd rail EMU carriages sitting out of use and a severe lack of DMU carriages, so putting them on the Lymington line is the only sensible short term solution of adding capacity to the network.

If Northern were operating 158s on the Manchester-Stoke service due to a lack of EMUs, there were 317s in store and SWT were short of DMUs, how would you feel then? Would you be happy to hear people say Northern should only release the 158s if they get brand new EMUs as the 317s aren't good enough?

 

[starrymarkb]

If you run a 158 in the Rush Hour and a 450 in the Daytime then all you are doing is tieing up two units instead of one. How far could the 158 from the branch get in the time between the peak extra 450 arriving at Brockenhurst and it having to leave to get back to Waterloo in time for the evening peak.

Something else to remember is that a pair of 508s would be unique to the area, in terms of coupling, spares etc. The 158 is part of the much larger 158/159 fleet.

Finally some the spare 158s were aquired for an enchanced service between Exeter and Honiton which is dependant on a new passing loop and station as part of the Cranbrook development. Construction of the access roads for the development has now started so there might be some movement there.

 

[northwichcat]

Something else to remember is that a pair of 508s would be unique to the area, in terms of coupling, spares etc. The 158 is part of the much larger 158/159 fleet.

There are plenty of 508s around for spares and as I said it would be a short term solution to get more stock on to the railways now not in a few years time.

Like has been mentioned in this thread already Northern got the 3x180s (that aren't compatible or similar to any of Northern's other DMUs) as a short term solution. However, the 'short term' bit became longer than it should have been.

Finally some the spare 158s were aquired for an enchanced service between Exeter and Honiton which is dependant on a new passing loop and station as part of the Cranbrook development. Construction of the access roads for the development has now started so there might be some movement there.

I wish Northern could have some spare stock for the Halton, Burscough and Todmorden curves which they could use elsewhere until they are reinstated. It seems in the last few years that DfT have seen LM and SWT as their children who they want to spoil, while Northern, FGW and EMT are seen as the orphans who they give the old toys to.

The replacement for the slam door stock in the FNW franchise was the 175s (although the slam door stock came back to the North West for a while when FNW subleased units to TPE) but the 175s were given to ATW as extra trains.

 

[starrymarkb]

Construction was due to start in 2007 with the station and loop was due to be in place for the 2009 timetable (the Timetable alreadly allows for a stop at the station) However no work could be done until the Highways agency upgraded Junction 29 of the M5 to handle the extra traffic the new town (of 20-30k pop) would generate (that was a condition of planning permission)

 

[Zoe]

Highways agency upgraded Junction 29 of the M5 to handle the extra traffic the new town

I'm not sure I'd call the it an upgrade, A30(T) westbound to M5 southbound will no longer be freeflow but will be controlled by a set of traffic lights. M5 northbound to A30(T) eastbound traffic will have to pass through three sets of traffic lights when currently there is only one. At least the main high standard route to London via the M5 and M4 is available though as if it wasn't I doubt the junction would cope well with all the traffic.

 

[LE Greys]

• 158s on anything in Scotland, they're a bad compromise of a design and are rubbish for dedicated main-line or local work
• Pacers/Sprinters on slow journeys with short sections of main-line running in England, that's what the Scottish 158s can do instead (they were built for it, which is why they're such a terrible fudge)
• Voyagers on journeys longer than 4 hours
• 170s on XC (the solution is to use ex-GW/MML HSTs after electrification and cascaded the Voyagers to replace the 170s)
• 185s on Trans-Pennine, they should be longer and have buffets
• 166s on anything that uses the GW fasts, too slow and uncomfortable
• Pacers on Leeds-Morecambe, or any other journey over 2 hours
• 66s on trip workings and light permanent-way trains, it's about time they ordered a half-size (Bo-Bo Type 3) version
• Any diesel when more than 50% of the line is electrified

 

[Zoe]

• MML HSTs after electrification and cascaded the Voyagers to replace the 170s)

• 
  As far as I know, no-one has comitted to electrifying the MML so HSTs will have to be retained there.

 

[thefab444]

Most train routes need extra capacity and new carriages aren't produced overnight. There are quite a lot of 3rd rail EMU carriages sitting out of use and a severe lack of DMU carriages, so putting them on the Lymington line is the only sensible short term solution of adding capacity to the network.

How is using a fleet of non-standard and knackered units that would require extensive refurbishment, overhaul and crew training the "only sensible short term solution"? The current solution is more sensible!

If Northern were operating 158s on the Manchester-Stoke service due to a lack of EMUs, there were 317s in store and SWT were short of DMUs, how would you feel then? Would you be happy to hear people say Northern should only release the 158s if they get brand new EMUs as the 317s aren't good enough?

I would be absolutely against Northern taking on a handful 317s to run a single service, but I would support Northern taking on a full fleet of 317s as part of a service upgrade plan. It's rather irrelevant anyway because the 317s are in nowhere near as bad a state or as non-standard as the 508s. Sorry, but Northern's need for stock is far less - since when have they needed to run 10/12 carriage trains during the peak?

Perhaps I should suggest you try and get the 141s back.

 

[LE Greys]

I would be absolutely against Northern taking on a handful 317s to run a single service, but I would support Northern taking on a full fleet of 317s as part of a service upgrade plan. It's rather irrelevant anyway because the 317s are in nowhere near as bad a state or as non-standard as the 508s. Sorry, but Northern's need for stock is far less - since when have they needed to run 10/12 carriage trains during the peak?

Perhaps I should suggest you try and get the 141s back.

That's quite a good idea. Assume a repeat order of 379s and a few more 350s release a few 321s to replace the FCC 317s, while the NXEA 317s get squeezed out. They finally get round to electrifying a few more lines in the West Riding, and the 317s go up north to replace Pacers and 150s. That's swapping 2-car trains for 4-car trains, but length is more important than unit numbers in relieving overcrowding, and anyway the famous "sparks effect" might well bring an increase in passenger numbers. Presumably, there would be a full internal refurb as well. Everyone's a winner, but it might cost quite a bit.

 

[northwichcat]

How is using a fleet of non-standard and knackered units that would require extensive refurbishment, overhaul and crew training the "only sensible short term solution"? The current solution is more sensible!

I challenge you to find one rail passenger who thinks it's a good idea that they can't board a train because it's too full and have to wait an hour for the next service, when there is a solution to put extra carriages on the said train that's too crowded.

I wonder how many thousands in compensation is paid out because of the current situation?

Sorry, but Northern's need for stock is far less - since when have they needed to run 10/12 carriage trains during the peak?

They wouldn't be allowed as platform lengths are too short and Network Rail won't fund platform extensions. Also Pacers are unreliable enough doubled up without putting them in triple or longer formations.

You should be aware that Virgin's 9 car Pendolinos leaving Manchester for London between 16:30 and 18:30 are mainly used for journeys not beyond Crewe/Stoke.

Perhaps I should suggest you try and get the 141s back.

I'm in the former Regional Railways North West area, we never had 141s. On the same basis should we send the Cornish 142s to Portsmouth? I can't see the North West getting back the RRNW 158s from Yorkshire if the 141s did return.

They finally get round to electrifying a few more lines in the West Riding, and the 317s go up north to replace Pacers and 150s. That's swapping 2-car trains for 4-car trains.

Which lines are you proposing electrifying in West Yorkshire then? Apart from Huddersfield-Sheffield there's very few lines in West Yorkshire that are only 2 car 142/150s.

Calder Vale would be the most sensible local service to switch to EMU and that will have some 5 car DMU operation from December.

 

[starrymarkb]

I'm not sure I'd call the it an upgrade, A30(T) westbound to M5 southbound will no longer be freeflow but will be controlled by a set of traffic lights. M5 northbound to A30(T) eastbound traffic will have to pass through three sets of traffic lights when currently there is only one. At least the main high standard route to London via the M5 and M4 is available though as if it wasn't I doubt the junction would cope well with all the traffic.

I know - but that was the condition of Cranbrook. Apparently the Council want rid of the racing start from the current set of lights - which was fun when Sowton was kicking out and a lot of the estate traffic would use the Sowton Village flyover to double back and join the M5 South - Traffic from the M5 was trying to get in the right hand land from the left, traffic from the Estate was trying to move the other way to do the doubleback, when I worked on Sowton I'd use the Airport junction and the lanes to pick up the Budleigh Road from Halfway House/Newton Popp

 

[Zoe]

I think they made a mistake with the A30(T) Honiton to Exeter improvement, they should have taken the route to a new junction with the M5. At the time it was planned to upgrade all of the other single carriageway sections on the A303(T)/A30(T) and so this would have become the main route from London to Exeter. The junction most likely wouldn't have coped with the extra demand even without these improvements. It is no longer the plan for this to be the main route from London to Exeter due to environmental concerns with the Blackdown Hills and the issue of Stonehenge so with hindsight the Honiton to Exeter dual carriageway maybe should not have been built.

 

[thefab444]

I challenge you to find one rail passenger who thinks it's a good idea that they can't board a train because it's too full and have to wait an hour for the next service, when there is a solution to put extra carriages on the said train that's too crowded.

I challenge you to find rail passengers down here who think it's a good idea to waste not insignificant amounts of money refurbishing and training crews on non-standard rolling stock when the TOC already has sufficient suitable rolling stock available to cover the requirement in the short term.

I'm in the former Regional Railways North West area, we never had 141s. On the same basis should we send the Cornish 142s to Portsmouth?

Absolutely not, we're always one step ahead. By back, I meant repatriated from Iran rather than back to their original allocation.

 

[LE Greys]

Which lines are you proposing electrifying in West Yorkshire then? Apart from Huddersfield-Sheffield there's very few lines in West Yorkshire that are only 2 car 142/150s.

Calder Vale would be the most sensible local service to switch to EMU and that will have some 5 car DMU operation from December.

All the lines that should have been done as part of the ECML scheme. Namely, Leeds-York (for diversionary purposes), the Hull Triangle (to push into the East Riding), Fitzwilliam-Sheffield, Sheffield-Wakefield Kirkgate-Leeds, Wakefield-Knottingley-Goole (including the Castleford lines), Barnsley-Huddersfield, Leeds-Bradford Interchange-Halifax-Huddersfield-Leeds (Trans-Pennine being an obvious next step) and the Harrogate Line (intruding into the North Riding). Remember that there is no South Riding, despite the existence of South Yorkshire, Sheffield is in the West Riding.

 

[Zoe]

All the lines that should have been done as part of the ECML scheme. Namely, Leeds-York (for diversionary purposes), the Hull Triangle (to push into the East Riding), Fitzwilliam-Sheffield, Sheffield-Wakefield Kirkgate-Leeds, Wakefield-Knottingley-Goole (including the Castleford lines), Barnsley-Huddersfield, Leeds-Bradford Interchange-Halifax-Huddersfield-Leeds (Trans-Pennine being an obvious next step) and the Harrogate Line (intruding into the North Riding). Remember that there is no South Riding, despite the existence of South Yorkshire, Sheffield is in the West Riding.

Would you have accepted ending the wires at Newcastle on the ECML in return for electrifying the sections you listed above?

 

[LE Greys]

Would you have accepted ending the wires at Newcastle on the ECML in return for electrifying the sections you listed above?

Only if it included a 125 mph Co-Co diesel loco to haul trains north of there. Sticking a 50 or 47 on the front would incur a significant speed penalty, putting a 43 on either end would take ages and be a bit impractical and at least 20 HST services doing 268 miles under the wires every day rather defeats the object of electrifying the line. The cost of the new class is why that was rejected in the first place.

 

[Zoe]

Only if it included a 125 mph Co-Co diesel loco to haul trains north of there. Sticking a 50 or 47 on the front would incur a significant speed penalty, putting a 43 on either end would take ages and be a bit impractical and at least 20 HST services doing 268 miles under the wires every day rather defeats the object of electrifying the line. The cost of the new class is why that was rejected in the first place.

If only bi-mode had been an option back then. That said, could you not have put a 43 on one end of the formation permanently?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I know quite a few people will have already said pacers, but for some routes they are fine.
What they are not fine is for a 150 minute Cardiff Central - Exeter run. The Barnstaple branch line is also a bit long and bumpy / twisty for pacer IMO.

I've also seen 150's for a Cardiff Central - Holyhead service which seems a bit pathetic for such a long journey (though I recognise that most people using that service probably won't be making the whole journey).

And I have seen a single 153 being used for the great malvern to weymouth service. Again, probably similar to the above in that most passengers will only be having a short journey, but it still seems a little small for such a service (that can be very very busy at times too).

 

[northwichcat]

All the lines that should have been done as part of the ECML scheme. Namely, Leeds-York (for diversionary purposes), the Hull Triangle (to push into the East Riding), Fitzwilliam-Sheffield, Sheffield-Wakefield Kirkgate-Leeds, Wakefield-Knottingley-Goole (including the Castleford lines), Barnsley-Huddersfield, Leeds-Bradford Interchange-Halifax-Huddersfield-Leeds (Trans-Pennine being an obvious next step) and the Harrogate Line (intruding into the North Riding). Remember that there is no South Riding, despite the existence of South Yorkshire, Sheffield is in the West Riding.

So you would end the through Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham service then?

You've still named a lot of routes that have 3 car DMUs or doubled up 2 car DMUs, so a 4 car EMU isn't going to be the double capacity you seemed to be making out in an earlier post.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I challenge you to find rail passengers down here who think it's a good idea to waste not insignificant amounts of money refurbishing and training crews on non-standard rolling stock when the TOC already has sufficient suitable rolling stock available to cover the requirement in the short term.

I think that post has summed up the major differences between north and south. You can't imagine the 508s being in service for a short term in the south without a refurbishment, while we had 10x150s running around just a couple of years ago that had the original BR seats, seat covers and passenger notices. We also had 31 hauled mk2 stock in the North West on short term loan to allow TPE to loan FNW 158s to cover a capacity shortage.

I imagine the challenge you set me would be far easier to do than the one I set you. To the average passenger a train driver drives any train and they would see actually signing a train being 5 minutes to just show the position of all the controls, so they certainly wouldn't see that as costly. Most passengers would understand electric trains can't run where there's no electrics and diesel trains can run anywhere.

 

[junglejames]

No, the dft specified the 4/5 coach Voyager trains, Virgin went to the dft to get them extended to 7 coaches but the dft wouldn't listen and so Virgin got stuck with the exact dft specification. It had nothing to do with the SRA as the SRA did not exist at the time. Virgin had not been stupid at all, in fact they had been very clever in working out that the dft specification would not work and tried to get the Voyagers to be 7 coahces but as I said, the dft would not listen to it. If the dft had listened to someone that actually knew what they were doing (like Virgin) then there wouldn't have been any need for Virgin to go to the SRA later.

If that is true then i apologise. I had heard different. I thought the application for 7 coaches happened quite a bit later, and after virgin realised their mistake.

However, as I have often said, the voyagers are not inappropriate because of their length. Its because of a dozen other things. Things the DFT would have had nothing to do with, including the fitting out of them.

 

[Malton Seadog]

153 doing the Doncaster-Sheffield stopping route. Always packed at peak time.

Then off-peak, they'll shove a 3-car 158 on there with six people on it. :roll:

 

[WestCoast]

Sorry, but Northern's need for stock is far less - since when have they needed to run 10/12 carriage trains during the peak?

I feel that is irrelevant in this case. It's about establishing the right level of capacity in the network area. Northern doesn't need as much capacity as SWT (platforms aren't long enough either!), but it does urgently need longer and better quality units to fulfil passenger demand. They shouldn't be put to the back of the queue. It's one thing I very much dislike about the fragmented state of the franchised UK network as a whole. Each area has to stride to manage its own issues and we should all be looking at similar standards of units, rather like you would find in most other European countries.

As for SWT, there's not much more you can do after 12-car trains I'm afraid. Of course if the UK had a more expansive loading gauge, then SWT could operate double deckers (NS in the Netherlands operates 12-car DDs on peak services, effectively providing around 24 carriages of seating!).

 

[Schnellzug]

If only bi-mode had been an option back then. That said, could you not have put a 43 on one end of the formation permanently?

They did do that, more or less, remember the HST power cars they converted to DVTs, now with Grand Central, which operated with a 91 at the other end.

 

[ushawk]

Class 171's on the Brighton-Ashford service - its usually always full with people standing and it is only a short section which isnt electrified. Then there is the electrification arguement which has been mentioned enough already.

 

[LE Greys]

So you would end the through Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham service then?

You've still named a lot of routes that have 3 car DMUs or doubled up 2 car DMUs, so a 4 car EMU isn't going to be the double capacity you seemed to be making out in an earlier post.

There's no reason why Leeds-Nottingham can't continue running under diesel power, at least until they electrify the MML. Actually, I might transfer that service to EMT anyway, since it mostly uses former Midland Railway lines. I'm not entirely familiar with the service patterns in the area. The paired 2-car DMUs would be replaced by paired 4-car EMUs. It's not quite a direct unit-for-unit replacement, because EMUs have lower maintenance requirements, so you don't need as many to operate the same service. I'd estimate about a 160% increase in seating capacity from a 95% unit replacement.

 

[sprinterguy]

If only bi-mode had been an option back then. That said, could you not have put a 43 on one end of the formation permanently?

The timings with such a formation would be quite slow, it would be similar to the performance of an HST on one power car: If it was on one end of a mark 4 rake, then even more so. Even if the East Coast services only called at Berwick between Newcastle and Edinburgh, then it'd still probably be back to timings from the 1960s which were based on the performance of 47s and Deltics.

I don't think such a formation would be useable on the Aberdeen/Inverness turns: HSTs on one power car used to be piloted over the banks on the Highland Main Line by 37s or 47s in Intercity days.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's no reason why Leeds-Nottingham can't continue running under diesel power, at least until they electrify the MML. Actually, I might transfer that service to EMT anyway, since it mostly uses former Midland Railway lines. I'm not entirely familiar with the service patterns in the area. The paired 2-car DMUs would be replaced by paired 4-car EMUs. It's not quite a direct unit-for-unit replacement, because EMUs have lower maintenance requirements, so you don't need as many to operate the same service. I'd estimate about a 160% increase in seating capacity from a 95% unit replacement.

You might want to look at some platform lengthening work to accomodate 8-car EMU services, some of the Yorkshire platforms are a bit short. Even if all services were formed of single four car units it would still be a capacity increase over the mix of 2, 3 or 4 car trains (Or 1 car, on the likes of Sheffield - Doncaster) that are seen at present.

 

[Bonemaster]

Worst one for me a 153 on a peak service between Northampton and Shrewsbury was cancelled at Birmingham International due to overcrowding

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry, but Northern's need for stock is far less - since when have they needed to run 10/12 carriage trains during the peak?
:

Considering that Northern starts off from the position of having fewer carriages to run its services in the first place, I'd say that's a bit of a non-argument. The North and South both need "more" than what they've got which is the main point.

Perhaps I should suggest you try and get the 141s back.

At least 508's would have fewer shipping costs

 

[tbtc]

All the lines that should have been done as part of the ECML scheme. Namely, Leeds-York (for diversionary purposes), the Hull Triangle (to push into the East Riding), Fitzwilliam-Sheffield, Sheffield-Wakefield Kirkgate-Leeds, Wakefield-Knottingley-Goole (including the Castleford lines), Barnsley-Huddersfield, Leeds-Bradford Interchange-Halifax-Huddersfield-Leeds (Trans-Pennine being an obvious next step) and the Harrogate Line (intruding into the North Riding). Remember that there is no South Riding, despite the existence of South Yorkshire, Sheffield is in the West Riding.

So you would end the through Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham service then?

In fairness, when the ECML scheme was done (back under BR), there was no daytime Leeds - Nottingham service (just the token HST placing journeys to/from Neville Hill).