Next units to go?

[transmanche]

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

Why is that?

Most likely due to the accessible toilet and wheelchair space

If you have just one toilet in a unit, it has to be an accessible one. That takes up quite a bit of space. (2-car units only need one toilet - longer units can have extra toilets, but they don't all need to be accessible ones.) Add in a wheelchair space and you might lose a couple of seats. (Agan, longer units don't need wheelchair spaces in every carriage.)

Basically, you lose capacity - which it's argued could make a single coach train uneconomic.

 

[WatcherZero]

Parry seem to be perpetually a company on the rocks so im always dubious about their ability to live up to their boasts. That said they seem to be back from the brink again and have had a research grant confirmed for bogie development work for their PPM120 model (capacity 40 standing 60 seated in high density seating arrangement). As its light rail they arent required to provide toilets.

 

[Bevan Price]

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 The new order is set to be for a greater number of carriages than Merseyrail currently have so all 50xs can be withdrawn once all the new trains are delivered.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.

Local info. suggests that all the Merseyrail 507s & 508s are to be refurbished, which may extend their lives by several years.

 

[ed1971]

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

Northern is so strapped for units with severe peak time overcrowding, they cannot afford to lose any units at the moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twach5TVFsE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX1BaE98hWY

Such overcrowding warrants the return of loco haulage on some routes during the rush hour, which is what BR used to do.

I understand that in 2007 it was planned that Northern were to get an extra 200 brand new DMU carriages by 2012. They were likely to be Class 172s.

The order was cancelled following the electrification announcements. However, it would have been prudent to have still built these, as they would have provided extra capacity, then afterwards used to replace 142s on non electrified lines as well as making a start on replacing those claustrophobic units with the very sickening loud interior engine howling noise - Class 150/1s. These have also become long in the tooth having been built around 1985-6.

As for Class 142s being scrapped years ago, you may as well say that the Metrolink M5000 trams shouldn't have been built, as their ride quality is far worse than a 142 and have much lower seating capacity.

 

[swt_passenger]

...I understand that in 2007 it was planned that Northern were to get an extra 200 brand new DMU carriages by 2012.

It wasn't as straightforward as that, I think. The 200+ (202 rings a bell) was the national total figure, and Northern had a fair majority, but only around 120 of them. IIRC FGW were down for 40 - 50, there was an idea going around at the time that they'd replace the Portsmouth - Cardiff 158s, in four car format...

 

[NotATrainspott]

Northern is so strapped for units with severe peak time overcrowding, they cannot afford to lose any units at the moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twach5TVFsE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX1BaE98hWY

Such overcrowding warrants the return of loco haulage on some routes during the rush hour, which is what BR used to do.

I understand that in 2007 it was planned that Northern were to get an extra 200 brand new DMU carriages by 2012. They were likely to be Class 172s.

The order was cancelled following the electrification announcements. However, it would have been prudent to have still built these, as they would have provided extra capacity, then afterwards used to replace 142s on non electrified lines as well as making a start on replacing those claustrophobic units with the very sickening loud interior engine howling noise - Class 150/1s. These have also become long in the tooth having been built around 1985-6.

As for Class 142s being scrapped years ago, you may as well say that the Metrolink M5000 trams shouldn't have been built, as their ride quality is far worse than a 142 and have much lower seating capacity.

Ordering the 200 DMU carriages would have damaged the business case for electrification though. The real 'deadline' for electrification is to allow the Pacers and 153s to be withdrawn before the TSI-PRM (disabled access) deadline of Jan 1 2020. The 200 DMU order would have ensured this deadline were met with considerable time to spare, but it would have severely damaged the business case for real electrification beyond then as the service quality difference between new DMUs and electric trains is nowhere near as great as the difference between the average Northern DMU and the average EMU. We would have to delay or slow down the electrification program so that these new diesels would have a reasonable working life ahead of them of around 30 years. At the current rate almost all non-RETB (e.g. the West Highland or Wick) lines could be electrified well before this time and most reopenings would be better served with immediate electrification than using the remaining diesels. Overall the plan is for short-term pain but for long-term gain as for every metre length of DMU being scrapped there will be several metre lengths of EMU built to replace them.

 

[ed1971]

Overall the plan is for short-term pain but for long-term gain as for every metre length of DMU being scrapped there will be several metre lengths of EMU built to replace them.

The commuters that face overcrowding daily in the above Youtube videos may not agree and want something doing straight away.

Another idea not looked at may have been to build new DEMUs then convert them to EMUs when electrification was complete. Adelaide bought new DEMUs in the mid 1990s. Now all but one of the lines are being electrified, but the 70 3000/3100 class railcars are being retained and 58 of them converted to EMUs, which should be quite straightforward:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3000_class_railcar

Electrification is fine when everything is running okay, but the recent bad weather has brought down OHLE in 33 places stranding trains. Had the line through Dawlish been electrified, the centenary may well have ended up in the sea too!

It cannot be denied that diesel trains are a lot more flexible than electric ones and I feel a lot more confident traveling on the former. EMUs may cost 33% less to run and maintain than DMUs, but does this figure take account of OHLE maintenance costs?

 

[edwin_m]

If new DMUs were ordered tomorrow the lead time would be long enough that the electrification would be finished first, and assuming the industry and government get their collective acts together the EMUs would therefore be providing relief of overcrowding sooner.

I agree a modular convertible EMU/DMU/bi-mode design is the way to go. IEP and Aventra seem to be heading that way.

 

[whhistle]

I wonder if they do reform them as 155's, whether they will be wise enough to put the larger cabs on the outer ends?

Then again, they should have just build a load more 172's and replaced all 14x, 150's, 153's and 156's with a bunch of 2-car units, which can be strengthened if required.

 

[northwichcat]

If new DMUs were ordered tomorrow the lead time would be long enough that the electrification would be finished first, and assuming the industry and government get their collective acts together the EMUs would therefore be providing relief of overcrowding sooner.

The first electrification projects can provide extra capacity but it's only when things like North TPE and Valley Lines are electrified that we can start to withdraw DMUs.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I wonder if they do reform them as 155's, whether they will be wise enough to put the larger cabs on the outer ends?

I'd hope so, as they'd probably not leave the smaller cabs in situ, meaning the vestibules would return to their original full width. Then again, apparently a lot of drivers find the 'new' cabs less cramped despite them appearing significantly smaller!

Then again, they should have just build a load more 172's and replaced all 14x, 150's, 153's and 156's with a bunch of 2-car units, which can be strengthened if required.

The engines in the 172s are no longer compliant with emissions regulations, so any new 172s would have to be a new sub-class. Assuming any new DMUs were to be ordered (which is unlikely), Bombardier might even be more likely to offer a diesel 'Aventra' variant as opposed to another Turbostar derivative.

 

[northwichcat]

The engines in the 172s are no longer compliant with emissions regulations, so any new 172s would have to be a new sub-class. Assuming any new DMUs were to be ordered (which is unlikely), Bombardier might even be more likely to offer a diesel 'Aventra' variant as opposed to another Turbostar derivative.

Wouldn't it depend on the specification in the invitation to tender? Siemens didn't really want to build more 350s but as LM said in the invitation to tender 'compatibility with existing EMUs in the LM fleet' they knew that offering 350s would almost certainly mean they'd be winning bidder but offering Desiro City trains or 380s would mean they wouldn't have an edge over Bombardier, should they have offered 379s.

 

[SuffolkRaider]

would we expect to see any being purchased by heritage lines

Funny you should ask that mate I was thinking the other day as to whether the heritage lines they keep on about opening up local community services would have to have their stock DDA and would you as a heritage want to keep using your old DMU's all the time when the 153's like we have here on east suffolk would probably cover the requirements in capacity even dare i say if for short hops.....a....pacer there sorry i said it.

 

[WatcherZero]

If you take Blackpool as an example and I believe similar was pointed out in the ELR commuter study, if they are used for a regular commercial service even on a 'heritage' line then they would have to be DDA compliant.

The non-converted cars at Blackpool have a limit on how often their allowed to legally run (Something around 40 days per year?)

 

[Haydn1971]

Northern is so strapped for units with severe peak time overcrowding, they cannot afford to lose any units at the moment.

Another important point not touched on is that some key points on the Northern network will struggle to accommodate the replacements to the 2/3 car Pacers and 2 car sprinters - off the top of my head, both Leeds and Sheffield will need platform work or a major rework of platform use to run the much needed 3 & 4 car replacements - Leeds Platform 17 & Sheffield Platforms 3 & 4 in particular could not accommodate two separate 3 car units as they do now with two separate 2 car units now. It's not just cascades, infrastructure too !

As for Class 142s being scrapped years ago, you may as well say that the Metrolink M5000 trams shouldn't have been built, as their ride quality is far worse than a 142 and have much lower seating capacity.

I was quite stunned by the shocking vehicle body shaking of the M5000 on the Altrincham line at 45-50mph !

 

[6Gman]

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

Sea defences?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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

Class 442s must be on borrowed time.
Leases expire at the end of 2015 and it remains to be seen what the TSGN winner will do with them.
They are already earmarked for scrap in the ITT which says they are unsuitable for cascade elsewhere (can't see Merseyrail wanting an express train, but it's a tempting thought!).
They will probably survive until the full class 700 fleet is running and all Thameslink cascades are resolved.
Southern's class 313s are in the same category.

On the DMU front there is a lot of electrification/cascade/refranchising water to go under the bridge before any of them are scrapped.

 

[47802]

Class 442s must be on borrowed time.
Leases expire at the end of 2015 and it remains to be seen what the TSGN winner will do with them.
They are already earmarked for scrap in the ITT which says they are unsuitable for cascade elsewhere (can't see Merseyrail wanting an express train, but it's a tempting thought!).
They will probably survive until the full class 700 fleet is running and all Thameslink cascades are resolved.
Southern's class 313s are in the same category.

On the DMU front there is a lot of electrification/cascade/refranchising water to go under the bridge before any of them are scrapped.

Good grief your not suggesting scrapping the 442's are you, the 40 year rule police will be along shortly to suggest otherwise such as re tractioning and turning them into AC units, pantograph might be tricky, still no matter insert an electrostar pantograph carriage and there you have it, new stock for the TPX or Norwich route!

 

[YorkshireBear]

Sea defences?

Not a bad idea to be honest, nice reef and breakwater :P

 

[hwl]

Class 442s must be on borrowed time.
Leases expire at the end of 2015 and it remains to be seen what the TSGN winner will do with them.
They are already earmarked for scrap in the ITT which says they are unsuitable for cascade elsewhere (can't see Merseyrail wanting an express train, but it's a tempting thought!).
They will probably survive until the full class 700 fleet is running and all Thameslink cascades are resolved.
Southern's class 313s are in the same category.

On the DMU front there is a lot of electrification/cascade/refranchising water to go under the bridge before any of them are scrapped.

Southern 313s heading to strengthen the GN Moorgate services.

Agree on the 442s not surviving as an EMU but remove the central motor car and LCHS looks possible for some cars particularly the driving ones i.e. use instead of DVTs to add more seats for a given train length?
Would the doors on the 442s be too narrow for use after 2020 and need a Chiltern style rebuild any way?

 

[WatcherZero]

Interesting!

Northern’s Client and Stakeholder Manager West presentation to Liverpool Chamber of Commerce
http://www.mcrua.org.uk/chairmansblog/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Northern-Rolling-Stock.pdf

In 2006 in anticipation of HLOS Northern provided two positive BCR business cases for the retirement of Class 142's, one retired them all, the other retired 55. However they needed additional capacity and so even with a positive business case retiring them was rejected. iThey did looki at options for new trains made in China amongst other options. Around that time they had 22 142's in warm store in 2007 15 were reactivated to cover for the stock commandeered for Scotland and 7 were reactivated in 2011 moving to FGW.

The 182 EMU and DMU units in the HLOS were indeed all for Northern based on 17 Class 323 being transferred to London Midland and replaced with new or cascaded stock to Northern. The DfT then decided it was only cost efficent to replaced services over 100% loading. In November 2008 the Dft met with Northern and TPE with a plan to order 69-72 new build vehicles configured into 3 car sets for Northern. This was then cancelled by the Government in July 2009 when they decided to electrify. Since the 319's couldnt match 323 timings they would have to be retractioned if they were to be used in South Manchester.

Allerton depot is the planned home depot for cascaded electric stock in future. Says Northern expect 142's to be retired by end of 2019 and dont think its worthwhile to refurbish 142's to PRM (Passengers Reduced Mobility) compliance for the short life after 2019 that they would be required, especielly when the units would be 40 years old and compliance with DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) is assumed to be impossible.

 

[northwichcat]

The thing that interests me about that is they refer to a great deal of planning going in to deciding where up to 72 x brand new 3 car trains could have been used ahead of Lord Adonis saying they'll get cascaded 319s instead. While we knew the new EMUs were expected to replace the 321s and 323s (and a few extra to allow some 6 car EMU workings) where the new DMUs would have been used was kept quiet.

 

[WatcherZero]

I assume that some semblance of the plan must be evident from their plan C a couple of years later of reallocting units to closely match demand on a individual level. I.e. that the new DMU's would have been where 3 or 6 car demand was required and where services were strengthened a couple of years ago (probably relieving the same number of services in the short term but providing much less breathing room before the problem reoccured).

Baring in mind that the original plan A was 182 units replacing around 79 pacers (a handful in storage at the time) and supplementing capacity and plan B was keep ther pacers and acquire 72 new vehicles (and therefore the number required solely to relieve services over 100% loading was 72) and plan C to use stock most efficently required the hiring of 20 extra train crews then plan C must have achieved around 3/4 of what the earlier plans set out to achieve which is most impressive.

 

[northwichcat]

I think the Northern diesel routes that got extra capacity were:
1. Manchester-Bolton-Preston corridor with the hourly Buxton-Blackpool service being replaced by 2 hourly services between Manchester and Preston.
2. Victoria-Rochdale-Dewsbury-Leeds (New service)
3. Leeds-Nottingham (New service)
4. Airport-Southport (4 car Pacers replacing 2 car Sprinters)

As well as various other services which got larger 156s and 158s to replace 142s and 150.

 

[swt_passenger]

Would the doors on the 442s be too narrow for use after 2020 and need a Chiltern style rebuild any way?

Found this DfT letter when looking for something else, it describes exactly what needs to be done to make the 442s compliant, certain issues such as the exact position of door open/close buttons would be given dispensations, e.g. there's this section about the doors. Looks like they are wavering...

The external doors on this fleet have only a narrow throughway. Ideally this would be increased but it is recognised that this would involve modifications to the structure of the vehicle and is likely to have a high cost. I tested with the reference wheelchair and found that it is possible - but certainly not easy - to board. Therefore, although the Department does not require the doors to be widened we would certainly encourage Angel to consider whether something similar to the new powered door solution fitted to Chiltern's Mk3s would be appropriate here.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/203816/class-442-angel-covering-letter.pdf

 

[ed1971]

Hi,

I have a query: How much wider are the doors on 156s than 442s? The narrow doorways on 156s can be a problem for passengers with luggage or shopping and of course people in wheelchairs.

 

[Fudgefrog]

Found this DfT letter when looking for something else, it describes exactly what needs to be done to make the 442s compliant, certain issues such as the exact position of door open/close buttons would be given dispensations, e.g. there's this section about the doors. Looks like they are wavering...

While I'm sure it wouldn't be cheap, I wonder if there'd be a better business case for replacing only one set of doors, presumably near a dedicated wheelchair space? If the other doors are still wider enough for wheelchairs, and the new wider set was made easily identifiable, that would seem like a good compromise (if affordable) than replacing all the doors.

Side note: what's the highest speed a 442 would be allowed to operate at if under a locomotives power? And how complicated would it be to reconfigure the cabs (or even just one per set) to operate like a DVT, as opposed to as an EMU?

 

[59CosG95]

Southern 313s heading to strengthen the GN Moorgate services.

Agree on the 442s not surviving as an EMU but remove the central motor car and LCHS looks possible for some cars particularly the driving ones i.e. use instead of DVTs to add more seats for a given train length?

That seems doable enough: Amtrak did it with their Metroliners, why can't we do the same with the 442s? A formation could be like this: [90]~{5 442 coaches, 5 442 coaches} with one end turned into a DVT.
Or, the central coaches of the 442s could be extracted, with a few cab carriages retained for use as a seats+DVT combo, while still being 90-hauled.

 

[southern442]

That seems doable enough: Amtrak did it with their Metroliners, why can't we do the same with the 442s? A formation could be like this: [90]~{5 442 coaches, 5 442 coaches} with one end turned into a DVT.
Or, the central coaches of the 442s could be extracted, with a few cab carriages retained for use as a seats+DVT combo, while still being 90-hauled.

I remember vaguely hearing about a plan for them being used on the Edinburgh-Glasgow services. Or you could fit them with diesel equipment and use them for chiltern.