Next units to go?

[southern442]

This probably isn't that worthy of a completely new thread, but does anyone know what the next fleet of mainline trains to be withdrawn for good (and sent to scrap?) will be?

 

[anthony263]

Probably the class 142's Since Angel Trains who own them have said they will not be modifying them to operate post 2020.

Poterbrook have looked at doing their class 143/144's however

 

[southern442]

Probably the class 142's Since Angel Trains who own them have said they will not be modifying them to operate post 2020.

Poterbrook have looked at doing their class 143/144's however

Thanks. I have also heard that the 153's that operate up north will be going soon. Is this true?

 

[pemma]

It might be the 507s, 508s or 313s are withdrawn before the 142s are completely withdrawn. One new order for Merseyrail will see all 507s and 508s withdrawn, while it's unlikely that an order will be placed for 100 or so DMUs as class 142 replacement.

 

[southern442]

It might be the 507s, 508s or 313s are withdrawn before the 142s are completely withdrawn. One new order for Merseyrail will see all 507s and 508s withdrawn, while it's unlikely that an order will be placed for 100 or so DMUs as class 142 replacement.

Weren't they going to use the 507/508's for something else after they were withdrawn?

 

[pemma]

Porterbrook have looked at doing their class 143/144's however

I understand Porterbrook think that the Wales & Borders franchise could make use of complaint 143s and 144s but unless a 10 year lease is agreed then the refurbishment won't go ahead.

Rail North think the next Northern franchise need to replace the Pacers ASAP as they are unsuitable for many of the routes Northern use them on. Rail North are going to work with DfT in writing the franchise specification for the replacement franchise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Weren't they going to use the 507/508's for something else after they were withdrawn?

Not as far as I know. The new order is set to be for a greater number of carriages than Merseyrail currently have so all 50xs can be withdrawn once all the new trains are delivered. The only thing I've heard is Merseytravel pushed the order back a few years - I think originally it was supposed to be placed in 2012 for delivery in 2014.

 

[yorksrob]

Thanks. I have also heard that the 153's that operate up north will be going soon. Is this true?

If that were true it would be a big mistake IMO. They are handy for the few genuinly lightly used services and for strengthening other trains.

 

[zn1]

it will depend on design life, cost of life extension and mods to have compliance with the new regs etc...with 507/508 and 313 approaching the end of the designed life these would be i suspect the next candidates for squadrons that are switched off... a derivative of the met stock with pan could be ideal for the moorgate - lner north london services, saying taht 378s are now proven and they will i suspect become the standard for merseyrail etc

the railbus units, they have do what they were designed for, there are of course current builds that can be easily constructed to replace them...

see what happens i guess

 

[pemma]

If that were true it would be a big mistake IMO. They are handy for the few genuinly lightly used services and for strengthening other trains.

The problem is making single unit trains properly accessible is astronomical so it's likely we won't see single carriage trains beyond 2019.

There's also issues with the body shell sagging on some units. Porterbrook's preferred option seemed to be making 143s and 144s complaint, which would reduce their seated capacity to around 80 seats (except for the 3 car 144s.) However, as I mentioned they'll only do that if a TOC signs a 10 year lease for them. They may also look at reforming the 153s that aren't in too bad a state in to 155s or making them centre carriages for 156s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

saying taht 378s are now proven and they will i suspect become the standard for merseyrail etc

378s are 20cm taller than the 313s, 507s and 508s so any orders other than for LO would need to be to a modified design to allow for tunnel clearance, which would then be classed as a different type of train.

 

[NotATrainspott]

378s are 20cm taller than the 313s, 507s and 508s so any orders other than for LO would need to be to a modified design to allow for tunnel clearance, which would then be classed as a different type of train.

This piece of information comes up every time the PEP replacement discussion comes around. PEP stock (classes 313, 314, 315, 507 and 508) has a flat roof with the pantograph mounted directly on top whereas newer stock has a pantograph well. As a result the new trains aren't actually any taller overall so there won't be a problem replacing them with new EMUs. They would still need to be dual-voltage and run on 3rd rail in the tunnels but the pan can flatten just fine as it does today.

 

[dk1]

Thanks. I have also heard that the 153's that operate up north will be going soon. Is this true?

153s will probs be reformed as 155s if it's approved. Can't make them economically DDA compliant with 1 coach.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Probably the class 142's Since Angel Trains who own them have said they will not be modifying them to operate post 2020.

Poterbrook have looked at doing their class 143/144's however

would we expect to see any being purchased by heritage lines

 

[Beveridges]

142s are next for the scrap, and it should have been done many years ago.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Thanks. I have also heard that the 153's that operate up north will be going soon. Is this true?

wouldn't have thought they would be withdrawn, probably end up with GA or EMT

with passenger numbers growing I wouldn't be surprised if EMT doubled up on the Lincoln line

failing that when the resignalling is complete down there it might be a case of more diagrams with trains running earlier and later

 

[GWRtom]

142. And perhaps the 155.

 

[Qwerty133]

wouldn't have thought they would be withdrawn, probably end up with GA or EMT

with passenger numbers growing I wouldn't be surprised if EMT doubled up on the Lincoln line

failing that when the resignalling is complete down there it might be a case of more diagrams with trains running earlier and later

I reckon Derby to Crewe would get doubled up first, however if EMT get any more stock I expect it to be used to free up the last remaining 158s away from Liverpool to Norwich.

 

[43074]

I reckon Derby to Crewe would get doubled up first, however if EMT get any more stock I expect it to be used to free up the last remaining 158s away from Liverpool to Norwich.

Derby to Crewe is mostly doubled up now anyway: diagrammed for 1x156, 1x153 and a pair of 153s IIRC.

Anything on Norwich to Liverpool that isn't a pair of 158s between Nottingham and Liverpool doesn't need doubling up really: of course, they could strengthen between Nottingham and Norwich, but it isn't really necessary as it's only a small minority of services where this is an issue.

If EMT get any more stock, I reckon it would be to improve services in Lincolnshire, which they want to do.

 

[electra27000]

378s are 20cm taller than the 313s, 507s and 508s so any orders other than for LO would need to be to a modified design to allow for tunnel clearance, which would then be classed as a different type of train.

I seem to recall having read, somewhere (maybe have been the EotL forums), that a class 378 has been down to Moorgate (GN) during out of hours testing.

 

[pemma]

This piece of information comes up every time the PEP replacement discussion comes around. PEP stock (classes 313, 314, 315, 507 and 508) has a flat roof with the pantograph mounted directly on top whereas newer stock has a pantograph well. As a result the new trains aren't actually any taller overall so there won't be a problem replacing them with new EMUs. They would still need to be dual-voltage and run on 3rd rail in the tunnels but the pan can flatten just fine as it does today.

The 507s and 508s don't have a pantograph - they are 3rd rail only. So maybe the 378s can go on Moorgate based on your reasoning but I'm not sure the same reason applies to the Mersey tunnels.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I reckon Derby to Crewe would get doubled up first

A Network Rail RUS recommended when additional stock becomes available that it should be a 2 car DMU service between Manchester Airport and Derby so that Manchester Airport-Crewe is half-hourly.

 

[jopsuk]

This piece of information comes up every time the PEP replacement discussion comes around. PEP stock (classes 313, 314, 315, 507 and 508) has a flat roof with the pantograph mounted directly on top whereas newer stock has a pantograph well. As a result the new trains aren't actually any taller overall so there won't be a problem replacing them with new EMUs. They would still need to be dual-voltage and run on 3rd rail in the tunnels but the pan can flatten just fine as it does today.

Actually, the AC PEPs do have a shallow pantograph well. Clearly visible here

 

[sprinterguy]

would we expect to see any being purchased by heritage lines

Undoubtedly. There are already several of the ealier class 141 Pacer railbuses in preservation, and there perhaps would have been more if the bulk of the small fleet had not been exported to Iran. There is also a Pacer Preservation Society already up and running for just such an eventuality.

 

[pemma]

Undoubtedly. There are already several of the ealier class 141 Pacer railbuses in preservation, and there perhaps would have been more if the bulk of the small fleet had not been exported to Iran.

Apparently 12 of the 20 x 141s were exported to Iran and are now rotting in sidings in Iran. 141101 was apparently scrapped, while another was scrapped after colliding with a 156 and two went to Holland and have probably been scrapped.

 

[Beveridges]

Pacers are not even good enough for Iran

 

[tbtc]

Odd to see no mention of 442s on this thread (other than in the OP's name), since they often feature in such discussions.

I doubt it'll be 142s, mainly because of their large number; there'll be some that live on into the 2020s IMHO. The "Angel Trains won't upgrade them" argument may just be the start of arguing between the ROSCO/ DfT/ TOCs about who will pay the bill for any upgrade - we'll reach a point when we have no option but to upgrade these Pacers to struggle on for a few more years (regardless of the price to do so).

 

[pemma]

Pacers are not even good enough for Iran

Iran ordered some brand new Korean built DMUs to replace them.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Iran ordered some brand new Korean built DMUs to replace them.

And we can't lol

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The next vehicle to go might well be the centre car from 144023 that suffered a fire before christmas, then again for all I know it might have already been repaired and be back in traffic (though I've not heard anything to that effect).
Though given the level of overcrowding on services generally, I'm not sure anything will go for 2-3 years unless it suffers a severe mishap. I suppose that once the current wiring schemes in the North West are done there might be a bit more slack in the 142 fleet, leading to a handful being stopped and stripped for spares to keep the remainder going. The 507/508s would have been contenders but things have gone rather quiet on the subject of new stock for Merseyrail, and given that Merseytravel are to shortly begin a refurbishment programme I'd guess that they'll still be around for at least 5 years after that.

 

[BurtonM]

it's likely we won't see single carriage trains beyond 2019.

Not to be pedantic, but what about something along the lines of the Class 139 Parry People Movers?

 

[thealexweb]

153s will probs be reformed as 155s if it's approved. Can't make them economically DDA compliant with 1 coach.

Why is that?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Why is that?

The amount of capacity left once all the accessibility mods are done would be too low to be any use on all but the very quietest services- but as 2-car or even 3-car units they'd only need one enormous loo per set- leaving more room for seats.

As for the 139s, they're essentially a bespoke solution to the unique situation that exists on the Stourbridge Town line- I can't see a similar unit being much use anywhere else other than possibly an AC powered version on the Butetown branch once the wires are up.