Pacer and Sprinter replacement

[tbtc]

It would require a total rebuild as they are diesel hydraulic units. So you would need to strip out all the diesel engines and the existing transmissions and replace them with electric traction motors and the other bits and pieces. I think it would probably be quite an expensive and complex conversion.

Cheers - just an idle thought - you are right of course

I'd guess a 22x with a pantograph car would be a better option...

Agreed, I was just thinking that the 220/221/222s are decent enough DMUs (albeit short) and very reliable, so converting a 180 to EMU would get rid of an obvious problem (rather than converting a Voyager/Meridian but being stuck with a useless 180 DMU)

The problem: Pacers need replacing

More carriages are needed for capacity and much of the current rolling stock is 25 years old or more. We have a factory in Derby that can build trains and has just produced the class 172 dmu. Whether you like bombardier or not, they have a product that works

Problem is, Bombardier don't seem to want business, look at how they have apparently refused to build 377s for Southern (because they'd rather build something else) - not the kind of "customer knows best" attitude that attracts much new business...

 

[ainsworth74]

Thank you for common sense. Get more 172s or a 378 diesel version and then with a mass bombardier stock, parts would be in good supply and cheaper.

You could say the same for Siemens and their Desiro with the 185, 350, 360, 380, 444, 450 and the rolling stock for Thameslink that's a lot of vehicles built by the same manufacture and of the same family. I make it about 1168 with another 1000+ on the way as part of Thameslink that means probably more than 2000 will be in service within the next 5-10 years.

Also unlike Bombardier, Siemens seem to be happy to try and meet their customers requirements rather than just trying to force them to buy whatever they feel like making that week.

 

[BR Blue]

I`d like Bombardier to offer a British gauge friendly version of the French B82500 bi mode trains. It would put an end to running diesels under wires. A long term Sprinter replacement, maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_Class_B_82500

 

[northwichcat]

Problem is, Bombardier don't seem to want business, look at how they have apparently refused to build 377s for Southern (because they'd rather build something else) - not the kind of "customer knows best" attitude that attracts much new business...

Oh dear, this is sounding like a Chinese Whisper. First we had Bombardier offering them 379s as a better alternative to 377s, then trying to force them to change their mind on a 377 order and now it's got the stage where they are refusing to build 377s. Tomorrow I expect Bombardier will be offering them 379s as replacement to their existing 377s and next week Southern will have to take on an entirely 379 fleet.

I'd like Bombardier to offer a British gauge friendly version of the French B82500 bi mode trains. It would put an end to running diesels under wires. A long term Sprinter replacement, maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_Class_B_82500

I think we should look for inspiration on rolling stock in Europe. The best regional train I've ever been on is The Renfe Media Distancia R-599. It's like someone got a Class 175 and then said how can we make a better train than this and then implemented every idea given.

http://translate.google.co.uk/trans...=renfe+Media+Distancia+R-599&hl=en&prmd=imvns

http://www.renfe.com/EN/empresa/comunicacion/productos_trenes/md_599.html

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Do you envisage three-coach sets as per the information and pictures? Incidentally, what are "provision axes" that are referred to in the specification?

It is interesting to note the comment that whilst these are to the Iberian gauge, there would be no difficulties into converting the bogies to other gauges (within reason).

 

[cslusarc]

Ultimatley the single car Sprinter is doomed, to meet the requirements for a disabled toilet without losing a high ratio of seating they would have be permanently coupled in pairs.

Do single care Sprinters require a toilet at all? If they didn't have a toilet they could still have a high ratio of seating and wouldn't need to be permanently coupled in pairs.

 

[tbtc]

Do single care Sprinters require a toilet at all? If they didn't have a toilet they could still have a high ratio of seating and wouldn't need to be permanently coupled in pairs.

Nothing *needs* to have a toilet, but if it does have a toilet then (post 1 January 2020) that needs to include at least one "disabled" toilet.

So its either build the units with one or (roughly) twelve extra seats.

However, given increased loadings on most lines, and the space taken up by two cabs (etc), a single coach unit (with or without toilet) wouldn't really be enough for most lines anyway (unless we build a new class of unit for "Parliamentary" services like Stockport - Staleybridge...)

 

[Nym]

Theres a stupidly long justification for this somwhere, but theres no point, like tbtc said, in ordering 2 car units, I can't remember what thread I put the numbers in, but the're in here somwhere.

 

[northwichcat]

Nothing *needs* to have a toilet, but if it does have a toilet then (post 1 January 2020) that needs to include at least one "disabled" toilet.

Yes but the issue is if there's no toilets on trains then more toilets at stations will be required and toilet stops may be required on longer services slowing down the service in the process.

 

[Nym]

Doesn't NEED a toilet no.. but you'd get a few damp vestibules and seats without one.

 

[northwichcat]

Do you envisage three-coach sets as per the information and pictures?

It depends on the route they are being used on.

What really stands out about those units over our DMUs is how quiet they are and how well they can accelerate on steep track, it puts our 185s to shame.

 

[WatcherZero]

There was some 00's legal specification for toilet requirements proportional to carriage quantity in the regulations (e.g. something like one toilet for 1-2 car, two for 3-4 car, three for 5-7, 4 for 8-11 etc) but I cant find it anymore, its possible it was superceded when we switched to European standardised rail regulations a couple of years ago.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There was some 00's legal specification for toilet requirements proportional to carriage quantity in the regulations (e.g. something like one toilet for 1-2 car, two for 3-4 car, three for 5-7, 4 for 8-11 etc) but I cant find it anymore, its possible it was superceded when we switched to European standardised rail regulations a couple of years ago.

Can someone give information as to the situation that now exists under the European standardised rail regulation with regard to toilet provision, when compared to the standard of provision in Britain.

 

[BR Blue]

I`m not aware of any laws or legislation that requires toilet provision on board trains. I have, though, discovered a British Toilet Association:

http://britloos.co.uk/

I`ve seen a news story, somewhere, about Crossrail trains. Apparently they won`t be built with toilets onboard. Due to them being on `metro` services.

 

[RobShipway]

Can someone give information as to the situation that now exists under the European standardised rail regulation with regard to toilet provision, when compared to the standard of provision in Britain.

I believe if the journey time is over an hour then a toilet must be provided on the train which is how Southern gets away with the Class 313's doing the Seaford to Brigton route because it is less than an hours Journey.

 

[swt_passenger]

I believe if the journey time is over an hour then a toilet must be provided on the train which is how Southern gets away with the Class 313's doing the Seaford to Brigton route because it is less than an hours Journey.

No legislation exists - despite so many people claiming it does.

SN's 313s will be doing Brighton - Southampton in the next timetable, it's around 1 hr 45 m; and they already cover Brighton - Portsmouth at 1 hr 15 m. When the class was introduced on the west coastway was the start of the claims that there was a 1 hour limit, no-one has ever found anything laid down officially.

 

[tbtc]

No legislation exists - despite so many people claiming it does

I've never seen any evidence - I think its one for the old Railway Myths thread tbh

 

[WatcherZero]

There isnt, closest is the 20 minute rule, its okay for tocs to have passengers standing for less than that but if a passengers standing for more than 20 minutes its officially an overcrowded service.

 

[Batman]

I've never seen any evidence - I think its one for the old Railway Myths thread tbh

Is that just like the myth that 150's were banned from the Lickey incline?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There isnt, closest is the 20 minute rule, its okay for tocs to have passengers standing for less than that but if a passengers standing for more than 20 minutes its officially an overcrowded service.

I thought the official definition of an over-crowded train (as defined by the DfT) is a train where more than 35% of passegers are required to stand for more than 30 minutes either side of the principle station. I'm not 100% sure what the definition of a principle station is, but common sence will tell you what the prinicple station is for most commuter trains.

For example, on my local line (the Chase line), the principle station would be Birmingham New Street.

So a morning peak time train would be classed as overcrowded if 35% of passengers are standing by the time a Rugeley - Birmingham train gets to Bloxwich.

 

[WatcherZero]

If you search you will find it, for example Arriva response to London South East Consultation

We also suggest the standing rules on which some of the gaps are calculated are
discussed further with DfT. In particular the ‘20 minute rule’ does not reflect real
passenger choices and has anomalies caused for example by intermediate stops. It
would be better replaced with defined points on each line, perhaps around the 30 minute
travel contour from the relevant central London station, and the test be averaged over
the peak hour.

 

[MCR247]

But what about them working Brighton - Southampton runs in the future?

EDIT: oh there was another page

 

[Class172]

Is that just like the myth that 150's were banned from the Lickey incline?

It is a myth, 150s regularly run up the Lickey Incline on BHM-HFD services.

 

[BR Blue]

Speaking of railway myths............Is it true that ROSCO`s are not willing to fund new diesel rolling stock? Due to rising fuel costs.

If this is true, then how is it that both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are able to order new diesel DMUs?

 

[Nym]

Because the're not owned by any of the British ROSCOS...

And it's more to do with the uncertantly about electrification aswell as fuel costs, why buy new stock that will render all of your zero cost units useless...?

Especially when any units from 150 > 168 can be life extended for a long time for less money than it would cost to buy a new unit, the problem would be taking the unit out of service for long enough to re-build it.

Rebuilding a 150 for example, before rust takes hold, would mean replacing anything broken and would proberbly be a 2 month excersise, but they'd leave re-build looking and feeling like a brand new unit, at half the cost.

 

[BR Blue]

Rebuilding a 150 for example, before rust takes hold, would mean replacing anything broken and would proberbly be a 2 month excersise, but they'd leave re-build looking and feeling like a brand new unit, at half the cost.

NXEA's nine strong class 156 fleet will undergoing a C6 overhaul from May 2012 - May 2013. The work is being done by Railcare in Wolverton, to make the 156s PRM TSI compliant. The units will be fitted with a universal access toilet, two wheelchair places and priority seating. The regular seating capacity will, inevitably be reduced by the adaptations.


Approximately, there are 450 Sprinter units in use today. With only 8 years to the 2020 deadline, 60 units will need to be updated every year. Can the TOC's cope with a large number of sprinters out of service?

 

[Nym]

Proberbly not...

 

[WillPS]

It wont be 60 out per year between now and then though, there'll be a rush in the last 3 years. If I had a lot of money, I'd say now would be a good time to start up a Wabtec-style operation - it's gonna be a bonanza decade for them I'm sure.

 

[WatcherZero]

Thats going to be the interesting thing. The longer the Government puts off refurbing them the more expensive it will become due to capacity of workshops and the cost of replacing so many units in service temporarily.

While it would be the cheaper option now, if the Government leaves it with only a couple of years spare the cost of totally replacing a large number of them and refurbing a small number taken out of service to act as spare capacity becomes much more attractive. Essentially your losing revenue twice, lost revenue while one train is out of service and lost revenue as your having to lease a second as a replacement while the first has the work done. It would be far easier to construct a second fleet test and introduce them into service then retire the existing fleet than to manage a huge replacement programme with hundreds of units out of service at the same time.

 

[BestWestern]

There'll be a deadline extension... :roll:

 

[WatcherZero]

Theyve already given them 20 years to do it, remember these rules came in 1999.