Northern Class 150s should be replaced by a further order of 195s

[387star]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #10 originally in this thread.

Add in order to replace 150s would make sense

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Add in order to replace 150s would make sense

Do the 2-car Class 195/0 fulfil that requirement?

 

[krus_aragon]

Do the 2-car Class 195/0 fulfil that requirement?

Numbers-wise, the existing 195/0 order are part of the replacement of the Pacers.

Did you mean to ask if a further order of 195/0s would be suitable?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Numbers-wise, the existing 195/0 order are part of the replacement of the Pacers.

Did you mean to ask if a further order of 195/0s would be suitable?

Indeed I do.

 

[krus_aragon]

Indeed I do.

I think that a follow-on order of class 195 (or 196) units for replacement of 150s would be a good idea, but I would expect to see it placed by the next franchise holder. (CAF are going to be delivering units to TfW until 2023, so the production line will probably still be active in 2025.)

As for numbers, and two-car vs three-car, I'm not going to read the tea leaves on that this early on. I reckon it'll depend an awful lot on electrification and availability of alternative post-privatisation stock from elsewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd suggest lengthening the 2s to 3 and the 3s to 4 may be a good "follow on order" bet. These units are likely to cause a big "sparks effect".

 

[Neptune]

I'd suggest lengthening the 2s to 3 and the 3s to 4 may be a good "follow on order" bet. These units are likely to cause a big "sparks effect".

Should definitely have ordered 3 cars instead of 2. Very shortsighted.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Should definitely have ordered 3 cars instead of 2. Very shortsighted.

They obviously haven't learned anything from the 185 farce. Should've been orders for 3 & 4 cars.

 

[jonesy3001]

they do have an option to add more carriages but it is the DaFT and they favour london more then anyone else.

 

[Bevan Price]

they do have an option to add more carriages but it is the DaFT and they favour london more then anyone else.

Yes, 2 coach 195s are definitely a bad idea. Their published capacity of only 124 seats is less than on most 156s or 158s, so they will do little to solve overcrowding problems on many routes.

 

[samuelmorris]

Are there many places currently served by Pacers / Single 150s where anything bigger than a 2-car 195 would be impractical to use?

 

[hexagon789]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #10 originally in this thread.

Add in order to replace 150s would make sense

Having seen some of the refurbs, I think you're right! Besides which, the end from the 150s can't be that far away, they'll probably be replaced or need replacing within 10 years.

They obviously haven't learned anything from the 185 farce. Should've been orders for 3 & 4 cars.

They should've, but then this happens time and again and still they don't order to match demand or projected demand.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They should've, but then this happens time and again and still they don't order to match demand or projected demand.

Unlike the previous time with the Class 185 units, this time they surely cannot claim not to have enough historical evidence of passenger demand.

 

[tbtc]

Unlike the previous time with the Class 185 units, this time they surely cannot claim not to have enough historical evidence of passenger demand.

You say this, Paul, but one of the justifications given by the anti-HS2 crowd is that they believe passenger numbers to be flatlining - with the threat of more economic uncertainty, who knows. AIUI passenger numbers on Northern are down over the past year (mainly due to the strikes).

That said, it's daft ordering two coach trains (especially two coach trains with no corridor connections that can't therefore work well in multiple), and the idea of running a 124 seat train on Nottingham - Bradford services (to soak up passengers from Cross Country between Sheffield and Leeds) is just laughable.

I remain convinced that Arriva were more interested in being seen to order a large number of trains to tick a box in the franchise bid (rather than, say, ordering a large number of carriages over a smaller number of trains).

 

[hexagon789]

Unlike the previous time with the Class 185 units, this time they surely cannot claim not to have enough historical evidence of passenger demand.

Exactly, they can surely look at the relevant passenger figures and make an informed decision about how much capacity they need or get a projection on potential needs in the future but we keep seeing new trains ordered (not all the time though, some new trains have provided a capacity lift) with insufficient capacity for the short-term let alone any future rise in travellers.

 

[6Gman]

Northern Rail has one of the highest subsidy rates in Britain.

And some of the lowest fares.

More units/ carriages would be brilliant but do the advocates want higher subsidies or higher fares?

 

[samuelmorris]

Northern Rail has one of the highest subsidy rates in Britain.

And some of the lowest fares.

More units/ carriages would be brilliant but do the advocates want higher subsidies or higher fares?

Neither. The whole point of subsidising a rail service is to normalise the fares in areas that make big losses.

 

[Killingworth]

Exactly, they can surely look at the relevant passenger figures and make an informed decision about how much capacity they need or get a projection on potential needs in the future but we keep seeing new trains ordered (not all the time though, some new trains have provided a capacity lift) with insufficient capacity for the short-term let alone any future rise in travellers.

They can look at the passenger figures based on ticket sales, and by guards' reports of overloading. They shouldn't tally because the guard can't get along the train to check tickets (and many don't when they can) and there are no barriers at most stations Northern serve. Revenue loss must be considerable. Running Pacer units on lines that had 3 coach steam and first generation DMUs is not an improvement.

As 150s will be with us for 10 years it's too early to be specifying what shoold replace them, although cascaded 195s now being deployed might be replaced by an updated version, or something else completely.

 

[route101]

Heck i didnt even realise there were two car 195s !

 

[bramling]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #10 originally in this thread.

Add in order to replace 150s would make sense

I don’t get the sudden hate for the 150s. Yes they’re not particularly nice to travel on, but that’s entirely because few TOCs have bothered to refurbish them with a decent interior, nor take care of them. Like most of the Sprinters they’ve been completely thrashed over the years.

A decent interior (like the FNW interior), running in pairs, and kept in good condition and they’d be absolutely fine.

 

[hexagon789]

They can look at the passenger figures based on ticket sales, and by guards' reports of overloading. They shouldn't tally because the guard can't get along the train to check tickets (and many don't when they can) and there are no barriers at most stations Northern serve. Revenue loss must be considerable. Running Pacer units on lines that had 3 coach steam and first generation DMUs is not an improvement.

Exactly, they can look but often don't or if they do, still under specify capacity requirements.

 

[edwin_m]

As a diesel-only train that can't easily be converted to bi-mode or electric, the 195 is something of a technological dead-end. If we are to take elimination of diesel seriously then the next order should be of bi-modes or at least of DMUs that are capable of being converted. If that isn't possible at an economic price then perhaps it is the right thing to keep the 150s for another decade or so and see what happens in the meantime.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As a diesel-only train that can't easily be converted to bi-mode or electric, the 195 is something of a technological dead-end. If we are to take elimination of diesel seriously then the next order should be of bi-modes or at least of DMUs that are capable of being converted. If that isn't possible at an economic price then perhaps it is the right thing to keep the 150s for another decade or so and see what happens in the meantime.

I'm not sure how hard it would actually be to convert to battery operation, though - in the end, the input is a rotating shaft at a given torque and speed - diesel is not the only way of providing that.

25kV rather more difficult due to a need to modify the body, though. And OHLE at the mainline junction is probably the easiest way to charge a battery unit on a branch line.

 

[6Gman]

Neither. The whole point of subsidising a rail service is to normalise the fares in areas that make big losses.

You'll have to explain that to me.

If extra units are to be bought/ leased there is an extra cost.

How is this to be met? Fares or subsidy?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As a diesel-only train that can't easily be converted to bi-mode or electric, the 195 is something of a technological dead-end.

Perhaps we should view the 2-car version as something of a stop-gap to replace part of the Class 142 Pacer fleet. What would be the expected life-expectancy of these new units?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps we should view the 2-car version as something of a stop-gap to replace part of the Class 142 Pacer fleet. What would be the expected life-expectancy of these new units?

I believe the reason for ordering 2-car sets was indeed that they would, in the end, be the only DMUs left on non-viable-for-electrification branches unlikely to ever justify more (e.g. Ormskirk, Kirkby etc).

Having said that, ordering units which will mostly work in pairs without gangways was the work of an utterly imbecile organisation.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Having said that, ordering units which will mostly work in pairs without gangways was the work of an utterly imbecile organisation.

Where "paired 2-car" units are to be used (as a 4-car set) on non-electrified lines, on such lines (here I am thinking of the Clitheroe line as an example), would not the 3-car version provide seating capacity to meet the expected demand on such services which would allow the on-board rail staff to move freely the length of the train?

 

[krus_aragon]

Where "paired 2-car" units are to be used (as a 4-car set) on non-electrified lines, on such lines (here I am thinking of the Clitheroe line as an example), would not the 3-car version provide seating capacity to meet the expected demand on such services which would allow the on-board rail staff to move freely the length of the train?

Nearly. Looking at the franchise agreement, the 3-car version is listed as having 204 seats, whereas a pair of 2-car units would total 248. But when you add in the specified standing capacity, it becomes 346 for the 3-car, against 442 for the pair of 2-cars.

The 3-car will be sufficient for some passenger loads, but I don't know the Clitheroe line well enough to say whether that is (or will be) one of them.

The pair of 2-car units also have the advantage of being able to operate different routes, or couple up for the morning rush then go to the depot for booked maintenance. (Of course, they'd be even better if they had end gangways...)

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Are there many places currently served by Pacers / Single 150s where anything bigger than a 2-car 195 would be impractical to use?

In the short-term, yes. Huddersfield to Sheffield is planned to have platform extensions to allow 3-car 150s (60m) which would still fit a 2-car 195 (46-48m), but that would then be the limit without digging up yet more of Huddersfield platform 1. Until the TRUG (Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade) is finalised and completed, bay platform lengths at Huddersfield are a problem. The need for the short platform 5 could be negated by interworking the Castleford and Bradford Interchange services, but this would result in a lot of fresh air being carried on the former (as it did in the days of the "Grand Tour" from Selby to Wakefield).

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not sure how hard it would actually be to convert to battery operation, though - in the end, the input is a rotating shaft at a given torque and speed - diesel is not the only way of providing that.

25kV rather more difficult due to a need to modify the body, though. And OHLE at the mainline junction is probably the easiest way to charge a battery unit on a branch line.

You could attach a motor to the body in place of the diesel engine, but that would use some of the space that might otherwise be allocated for batteries. The bogies may even be convertable to the 331 configuration with traction motors considering they probably use a lot of the same components. But as you say I presume they don't include a pantograph well or any fixings for a transformer. A battery hybrid is probably more likely to be assigned to a duty where each journey is partly under OLE, so it can be earning some money during its charging time, and for that a pantograph and transformer are essential.

Perhaps we should view the 2-car version as something of a stop-gap to replace part of the Class 142 Pacer fleet. What would be the expected life-expectancy of these new units?

That was pretty much why they were ordered, although it's more of a cascade with the 195s directly replacing some of Northern's better units which are then transferred to more humble duties and most routes with Pacers now will probably get 150s. I assume they'd be expected to last 30+ years like other new units.

I believe the reason for ordering 2-car sets was indeed that they would, in the end, be the only DMUs left on non-viable-for-electrification branches unlikely to ever justify more (e.g. Ormskirk, Kirkby etc).

That's probably so, but if more were ordered now (with a withdrawal date a couple of years further into the future than those now being delivered) would there still be a use for them towards the end of their lives? If the leasing company isn't confident of that then the leasing costs will go up.

Having said that, ordering units which will mostly work in pairs without gangways was the work of an utterly imbecile organisation.

At least if more are ordered they could be the gangwayed variant like those being built for WMT and TfW.