Northern Class 195: Construction/Introduction Updates

[samuelmorris]

The gangways argument is moot though unless enough were ordered for the 2-cars to double up regularly. As far as I can tell, that isn't the case.

 

[Andyh82]

The gangways argument is moot though unless enough were ordered for the 2-cars to double up regularly. As far as I can tell, that isn't the case.

Well indeed, if they were planning to double them up, then they should either have purchased gangway versions or purchased half as many 4 car versions.

If they aren’t planning on doubling them up, I’d like to see what diagrams they think they have where a 2 car train is sufficient. It’s Voyagers and TPE 185s all over again.

 

[supervc-10]

How about ordering enough intermediate cars to bring the 2-cars up to 4-car?

Although back to reality.... logic is not something commonly seen at Northern or the DfT!

 

[samuelmorris]

How about ordering enough intermediate cars to bring the 2-cars up to 4-car?

Although back to reality.... logic is not something commonly seen at Northern or the DfT!

Nothing to do with logic, all about keeping costs down.The 195s are primarily a capitulation to the perpetual demands for them to withdraw Pacers.

 

[darloscott]

Leeds - Nottingham & Lincoln is 10 diagrams so that’s another unit spare from your estimate of 11. I wonder if they planned to replace the single 158s with 2 car 195s on routes such as these

 

[Bertie the bus]

Nothing to do with logic, all about keeping costs down.The 195s are primarily a capitulation to the perpetual demands for them to withdraw Pacers.

The Pacers are knackered. Even if they had been looked after they are well past their use by date. They would have been withdrawn irrespective of demands or disability legislation. Politicians just used the demands to show how they are listening to the North and investing in it.

 

[samuelmorris]

The Pacers are knackered. Even if they had been looked after they are well past their use by date. They would have been withdrawn irrespective of demands or disability legislation. Politicians just used the demands to show how they are listening to the North and investing in it.

So are 150s, but there's no sign of them going anywhere yet. If there was no legislation necessitating their removal, the Pacers would be sticking around.

 

[ainsworth74]

They would have been withdrawn irrespective of demands or disability legislation.

You wanna bet? The DfT Civil Servants were dead against mandating Pacer withdrawal from the Northern franchise. As I sated recently:

If we wind back time to February 2015 it required a ministerial direction from then Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin to Permanent Secretary of the DfT Philip Rutnam release the Invitation to Tender documents with a requirement to retire all Pacers by 2020 and introduce at least 120 new build vehicles.

The letters that were released make it quite clear that the DfT's preferred view was that no such requirement should feature in the ITT (I've found copies here) with some choice quotes below:

This note explains why I have reservations about the proposal to issue Invitations to Tender (ITT) for the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises containing obligations to withdraw all Pacer vehicles by 2020 and bring into operation a minimum of 120 new build vehicles.

...

There are two reasons why I am seeking a written direction in relation to this proposal. The first is that the assessment of the business case we have undertaken suggests it is poor value for money...

The analysis recognises that the Pacers will need to be replaced when they reach the end of their useful life, if the current level of service is to be maintained. The fundamental reason for the poor BCR [Benefit to Coast Ratio] is that there will be a large cost from bringing forward that replacement to 2020 ..., but relatively few benefits. ... It would be possible as an alternative to maintain the Pacers in use for longer but to modify them to bring them into compliance with disability legislation.

There are good reasons why this analysis may underestimate the true BCR. ... Withdrawal may help attract new users to rail and thus improve benefits. ... But my view supported by sensitivity analysis, is that one would need to make implausible assumptions about the size of these effects to conclude that the proposal is likely to represent value for money.

...

Finally, I should note that the extra cost of the proposal is likely to be just under £250m over the life of the franchise. Whether or not this is affordable will depend on the outcome of the next Spending Review, but I should draw attention to the pressures expected on the Department's budget.

...

So let's not lose sight of the fact that we only have Pacer replacement and brand new trains because Mr McLoughlin took the political, not financial, decision to require bidders to do just that. If it had been up to the DfT we would have had no guarantee of any of this as it would have been solely down to bidders to determine their rolling stock mix (a point which Mr Rutnam also makes to be fair). But it seems very unlikely indeed that without that requirement we'd have seen total Pacer replacement and 91 brand new units.

I'm not sure therefore there is any guarantee that Pacers would have been withdrawn in large numbers expect for an utterly political decision to do so.

 

[Bertie the bus]

So are 150s, but there's no sign of them going anywhere yet. If there was no legislation necessitating their removal, the Pacers would be sticking around.

No, they wouldn't be sticking around. The ORR said years ago they wouldn't approve any life extension work on them. They would have been withdrawn.

 

[samuelmorris]

No, they wouldn't be sticking around. The ORR said years ago they wouldn't approve any life extension work on them. They would have been withdrawn.

No life extension work doesn't necessarily indicate withdrawal, however. It's only the disability regs which have provided justification for their replacement. If it weren't for those regulations I genuinely believe they'd still be around, at least for a few more years.

 

[ic31420]

IIRC There was a solution proposed to prevent the telescoping seen in the Winsford collision. Rather like the cup and cone solutions for the Mk I southern stock.

I believe there was some argument against doing the work to pacers due to their short life anticipation (in 1999)

Was this work ever done? Or was it watered down?

 

[Bovverboy]

Only too common a start this morning, I'm afraid.
0650 Manchester Airport - Liverpool Lime Street: Cancelled, a problem with the doors. (What's new?)
0613 Liverpool Lime Street - Wilmslow reduced to single unit (195116) and departed 29L, after being late from Allerton Depot. (Reason for late departure from Allerton not known). Departed Liverpool at 0642, well behind the stopper (scheduled 0620) and only just in front of the EMT (scheduled 0647). Skipped Liverpool South Parkway (it probably didn't need to, since it caught the stopper up by just gone Urmston anyway). Much to my own surprise it did continue to Wilmslow, and left there 17L on the return journey.

 

[lammergeier]

IIRC There was a solution proposed to prevent the telescoping seen in the Winsford collision. Rather like the cup and cone solutions for the Mk I southern stock.

I believe there was some argument against doing the work to pacers due to their short life anticipation (in 1999)

Was this work ever done? Or was it watered down?

Work was carried out but whether it was watered down I'm not sure. ISTR that if you get on the pacer by the cab end doors you can see two rows of extra rivets or bolts in the frame that, apparently, weren't there pre-Winsford modification.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Pacers are knackered. Even if they had been looked after they are well past their use by date. They would have been withdrawn irrespective of demands or disability legislation. Politicians just used the demands to show how they are listening to the North and investing in it.

Another think to note in comparison to the 2 car Class 195/0 units and the Class 142 Pacers is that some people feel the lack of gangways on the Class 142 unit make it difficult for train staff when these units run as a 4 car train as 2 x 2 units is that the very same problem will occur when running a train comprised of 2 x Class 195/0 2 car units.

 

[Paul_10]

One positive on a lack of gangways is you can fit a nice large destination screen instead which could be useful to tourists and passengers alike.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One positive on a lack of gangways is you can fit a nice large destination screen instead which could be useful to tourists and passengers alike.

With pretty much every station now having platform PIS, do people actually look at those much these days? In any case, one on the side of each vehicle (which they also have) is probably more use. I think they were typically just on the ends in the days of manual roller blinds because it was easy for the staff to adjust them there.

 

[samuelmorris]

With pretty much every station now having platform PIS, do people actually look at those much these days? In any case, one on the side of each vehicle (which they also have) is probably more use. I think they were typically just on the ends in the days of manual roller blinds because it was easy for the staff to adjust them there.

On crowded stations, platform displays aren't always visible. If you're rushing to get a train and can catch a glimpse of the front display as the train pulls in, they're useful for that. Also useful on those odd occasions you're hoping to make a connection and the service you're swapping to draws alongside.

 

[mrcaa]

On crowded stations, platform displays aren't always visible. If you're rushing to get a train and can catch a glimpse of the front display as the train pulls in, they're useful for that. Also useful on those odd occasions you're hoping to make a connection and the service you're swapping to draws alongside.

Unfortunately I've found the train-front displays often don't show the correct destination anyway so it's safer to rely on the platform displays.

 

[krus_aragon]

Another think to note in comparison to the 2 car Class 195/0 units and the Class 142 Pacers is that some people feel the lack of gangways on the Class 142 unit make it difficult for train staff when these units run as a 4 car train as 2 x 2 units is that the very same problem will occur when running a train comprised of 2 x Class 195/0 2 car units.

And also the class 150/1s (which aren't due to be withdrawn yet). I think that contributed to Northern's decision to do without them on the 195s.

 

[Halifaxlad]

2-cars wouldn't have been too bad if they had been ordered with gangways.

But as it is they are indeed near useless.

Really?

2 car 142 (121 seats)

2 car 195 (123 seats)

Gangway or NO ganway they still offer only 2 seats more!

I always suspected they're would be little difference in capacity.

 

[HSTEd]

No, they wouldn't be sticking around. The ORR said years ago they wouldn't approve any life extension work on them. They would have been withdrawn.

The ORR would have capitulated in the face of a total collapse of rail services with the Pacer fleet being scrapped without replacement.

Really?

2 car 142 (121 seats)

2 car 195 (123 seats)

I always suspected they're would be little difference in capacity.

Yes?
But with gangways the two car unit effectively becomes a four car unit when coupled.
Without gangways it remains two coupled two car units.

 

[supervc-10]

+2 seats, +disabled access, + significant amounts of standing space

IE a significant uplift in capacity. Although the more I think about it the more I think that ordering lots of 4-car units would have been the best idea! Only one large disabled toilet required in a 4-car unit, and only 2 cabs, compared to 4 cabs and 2 toilets in a pair of 2-cars.

 

[Bovverboy]

Another think to note in comparison to the 2 car Class 195/0 units and the Class 142 Pacers is that some people feel the lack of gangways on the Class 142 unit make it difficult for train staff when these units run as a 4 car train as 2 x 2 units is that the very same problem will occur when running a train comprised of 2 x Class 195/0 2 car units.

I've always felt that little effort is put into pairing a gangwayed-Sprinter with a gangwayed-Sprinter anyway. In particular, I rarely seem to see a 150/2 coupled to another 150/2, more often they seem to be coupled to a 150/1 or a Pacer.

Really?

2 car 142 (121 seats)

2 car 195 (123 seats)

Gangway or NO ganway they still offer only 2 seats more!

I always suspected they're would be little difference in capacity.

A 2-car 142 provides approximately 31 metres of passenger space, a 2-car 195 approximately 48 metres, i.e. over 50% more. Length is a much better measure of total capacity.

 

[Bornin1980s]

According to this article the possibility of additional stock is being explored. I wonder exactly how far that will go. I would like to see plans underway by the end of the franchise that not only deal with the capacity shortfall and replace the pacers, but cater for withdrawal of the 150s as well.

Well, I would suggest simply ordering more 195s, and no more electrics, until there are more than enough units to replace the pacers.

That said, I understand the 195 carriages are 23 metres long. Are there any Northern services which still require self-propelled carriages of 20 metres or less?

 

[driver_m]

Driver gets a much better cab environment on a non gangway unit, but I suppose that isn’t really a consideration for many on here. Given some of the awful sprinter cabs that northern staff put up with, you wouldn’t begrudge it then, ..... would you??

 

[eastwestdivide]

Really?

2 car 142 (121 seats)

2 car 195 (123 seats)

Gangway or NO ganway they still offer only 2 seats more!

I always suspected they're would be little difference in capacity.

The 142 seating capacity varies according to the interior - Wikipedia has "Northern: 106, 114 or 121 seats per unit".
And the 2-car 144s are only 99 seats apparently.

 

[coppercapped]

No, they wouldn't be sticking around. The ORR said years ago they wouldn't approve any life extension work on them. They would have been withdrawn.

Please explain! I don't understand why the ORR would have been involved in what seems to me to be a commercial decision made by the train's owner.

 

[Sleeperwaking]

Please explain! I don't understand why the ORR would have been involved in what seems to me to be a commercial decision made by the train's owner.

The ORR would have had to authorise the modified (life extended) units as safe for use in passenger service - they act as the national safety authority for Britain's railways.

 

[Fez14]

You notice the sheer gulf in what northern have brought in compared to what they have, as soon as you see a class 150 approaching the platform and feel your whole body sink with dismay. Swelteringly hot with every window open, much louder, much more jolting and swaying and no tables at all. These new sets are simply what rail passengers, who pay the amount they do, should expect from every service

 

[EE Andy b1]

Driver gets a much better cab environment on a non gangway unit, but I suppose that isn’t really a consideration for many on here. Given some of the awful sprinter cabs that northern staff put up with, you wouldn’t begrudge it then, ..... would you??

Spot on that man!
I cringe when i think about how crappy the drivers and guards working surroundings (Cabs)are on all the older units.

How that "Dogbox" Class 153 was ever allowed with that very small cab at one end i don't know.

So yes no gangways on a Class 195, plenty better.




I think Northern need some money and make them 2 car Class 195s into 4 cars, makes more sense!!

You notice the sheer gulf in what northern have brought in compared to what they have, as soon as you see a class 150 approaching the platform and feel your whole body sink with dismay. Swelteringly hot with every window open, much louder, much more jolting and swaying and no tables at all. These new sets are simply what rail passengers, who pay the amount they do, should expect from every service

Totally agree!