Pacer and Sprinter replacement

[WillPS]

I'm surprised Abellio are taking the lead on this given their franchise isn't going to get anywhere near the 2020 deadline.

I expect we'll see the franchises starting from 2014 (particularly Northern) with commitments to fleet replacement and overhauls to make them 2020 compliant.

 

[tbtc]

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?

That's a good point, especially when we'll not be scrapping any Pacers any time soon either.

How long does a DDA-compliand refurb take?

 

[WillPS]

That's a good point, especially when we'll not be scrapping any Pacers any time soon either.

How long does a DDA-compliand refurb take?

How long is a piece of string?

Some units are going to need completely rebuilding (see 153s), some are going to need an interior rebuild (150s) and some will need little more than a straight forward refurb (156s).

 

[tbtc]

How long is a piece of string?

Some units are going to need completely rebuilding (see 153s), some are going to need an interior rebuild (150s) and some will need little more than a straight forward refurb (156s).

Fair point.

I was just thinking that it won't be sixty units out of service at any one time (since it won't take a year to refurb them), but I suppose its only when you investigate each unit that you realise just how badly in need of work it is.

If I were Bombardier then I'd be thinking about building some additional 172s on spec (whilst the production line is still there) - partly to keep the workforce there/ partly to ensure that the 172 becomes the "default" DMU for new orders, but I appreciate that this would be a risk...

 

[WillPS]

Fair point.

I was just thinking that it won't be sixty units out of service at any one time (since it won't take a year to refurb them), but I suppose its only when you investigate each unit that you realise just how badly in need of work it is.

If I were Bombardier then I'd be thinking about building some additional 172s on spec (whilst the production line is still there) - partly to keep the workforce there/ partly to ensure that the 172 becomes the "default" DMU for new orders, but I appreciate that this would be a risk...

I'm certain if more capacity was created speculatively (either by the ROSCOs as 'hot spares' or Bombardier) it would quickly find its way in to service.

 

[tbtc]

I'm certain if more capacity was created speculatively (either by the ROSCOs as 'hot spares' or Bombardier) it would quickly find its way in to service.

Everything built post privatisation is still in service (apart from one crocked 180, plus the 460s that are meant to be heading to SWT IIRC), even the 170s speculatively built for Porterbrook a decade ago.

We hear that a brand new unit may cost six times the cost of hiring a Pacer, but the rolling stock charges are only a small part of the overall cost of running a train (fuel, staff, track access charges...).

Plus there will always be units needed at short notice due to accidents etc (the "hot spares" you refer to), so I'm pretty sure anything "standard" like a 172 would be snapped up.

 

[BR Blue]

Some units are going to need completely rebuilding (see 153s), some are going to need an interior rebuild (150s) and some will need little more than a straight forward refurb (156s).

It has been suggested the class 153s would be uneconomical to be fitted with a universal access toilet. Their future may lie in being re-configured as class 155s. Alternatively, they could end up without a toilet and be used only for strengthening 150/156/158s on peaks.

Many rural areas, that use sprinters, are very unlikely to get electrified before the units themselves are life expired. If the government cannot give any commitments on the Northern Hub, then how confident can we be of the transpennine north electrification.

 

[pemma]

It has been suggested the class 153s would be uneconomical to be fitted with a universal access toilet. Their future may lie in being re-configured as class 155s. Alternatively, they could end up without a toilet and be used only for strengthening 150/156/158s on peaks.

There are 70 x 153s and 7 x 155s giving a total of 84 carriages.

There are 135 Class 150s, 27 of which have accessible toilets.

Could a solution be to split the 155s and make all 84 carriages fully accessible with a DDA toilet, then add those 84 carriages in to the centre of the 150s without the DDA compliant toilets? This could then mean the non-accessible toilets in the 150s can be removed and replaced with extra seating.

Then the remaining 150s that don't have a DDA complaint toilet and don't get the 153 as centre cars, can be split up and added in to the 27 Class 150s that have the accessible toilets.

After the 150s are withdrawn the 153s could become 156 centre cars.

 

[ainsworth74]

Then the remaining 150s that don't have a DDA complaint toilet and don't get the 153 as centre cars, can be split up and added in to the 27 Class 150s that have the accessible toilets.

After the 150s are withdrawn the 153s could become 156 centre cars.

But that would then mean that the new 3 car 156s would have two DDA toilets unless you go through the expensive process of ripping them out from one of the vehicles in the new formation (probably not all that long after you put them in!).

It would seem to make more sense to me to just go straight to inserting the 153s into the 156s giving a nice boost to capacity and also avoiding having a really mixed formation sprinter like you would get in a 150+153+150 formation (end doors vs 1/3 2/3, 2+2 vs a commuter layout).

 

[pemma]

But that would then mean that the new 3 car 156s would have two DDA toilets unless you go through the expensive process of ripping them out from one of the vehicles in the new formation (probably not all that long after you put them in!).

It would seem to make more sense to me to just go straight to inserting the 153s into the 156s giving a nice boost to capacity and also avoiding having a really mixed formation sprinter like you would get in a 150+153+150 formation (end doors vs 1/3 2/3, 2+2 vs a commuter layout).

The problem with that is the 150s aren't expected to last much longer after 2019, so is it really better to put expensive DDA toilets in units that are will probably should start to be withdrawn around 2022? The changes probably won't be made before around 2015 due to when current franchises end and funding not being available to make all the DDA changes in the current CP.

With 150s being used on a variety of journey lengths having a middle carriage with a more intercity style seating and door arrangement may suit the passengers who are making the end to end journeys.

Given the 156s have the highest number of seats per carriage, would one toilet really be sufficient if the 153s were plonked in the middle?

 

[starrymarkb]

Wonder what Stadler could come up with as a low cost Son of Sprinter

 

[ainsworth74]

The problem with that is the 150s aren't expected to last much longer after 2019, so is it really better to put expensive DDA toilets in units that are will probably should start to be withdrawn around 2022?

In that case personally I would be tempted to try and restrict 150s to shorter journey's if at all possible where it is possible to avoid the need for a toilet all together until they're retired. Of course if we were being sensible with this legislation we wouldn't have the ludicrous position of rolling stock that is soon to be replaced needing to either get a DDA toilet at great expense or have it's existing toilet removed to the detriment of all!

Given the 156s have the highest number of seats per carriage, would one toilet really be sufficient if the 153s were plonked in the middle?

Perhaps, but having two DDA toilets for one 3-car train would be an awful waste of space in my view. Whereas having only one with the other being a standard toilet would be fine from a usage of space point of view in my opinion.

 

[tbtc]

If the government cannot give any commitments on the Northern Hub, then how confident can we be of the transpennine north electrification

I agree, sadly.

I don't see TPE electrification before 1 January 2020, which is the date when the new DDA rules kick in.

So if we want to replace Pacers (or upgrade 150/153/155s etc) then we need to consider something else.

(not that TPE electrification would have saved sufficient DMUs to replace all Pacers anyway, of course)

 

[pemma]

I don't see TPE electrification before 1 January 2020, which is the date when the new DDA rules kick in.

So if we want to replace Pacers (or upgrade 150/153/155s etc) then we need to consider something else.

If Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds gets done by then we can at least see the Pacers/Sprinters on local services on that line being replaced by EMUs, even if all the 185s won't be freed up off North TPE.

(not that TPE electrification would have saved sufficient DMUs to replace all Pacers anyway, of course)

I'm sure Network Rail mentioned North TPE AND Valley Lines electrification before 2020 as a way of getting SOME of the Pacers withdrawn. I think LO going fully electric and the 172s being cascaded was mentioned as well.

In that case personally I would be tempted to try and restrict 150s to shorter journey's if at all possible where it is possible to avoid the need for a toilet all together until they're retired.

You really need short and regular services to be able to go toilet-less and ideally all the main stations on toilet-less train routes need to have station toilets.

Then when you look at what routes are like this they are either electrified e.g. Merseyrail or a prime candidate for electrification e.g. the LO 172 route.

Of course if we were being sensible with this legislation we wouldn't have the ludicrous position of rolling stock that is soon to be replaced needing to either get a DDA toilet at great expense or have it's existing toilet removed to the detriment of all!

To be honest it's not ludicrous at all. It was announced in 1994 with the original intention of it being the end of 2014 but the railways were given until the end of 2019 because that was the longest the pre-1986 build DMUs were supposed to be in service. It also gave 15 years notice for stock that wouldn't be withdrawn by then and really stock shouldn't not get a major refurbishment once in it's life time, unless it is withdrawn early. The problem is yet again leasing costs and the whole rail franchise system not the 'new' legislation. Also it should have been standard for new stock to have 23m carriages to compensate for the extra wheelchair space and larger toilet, yet Siemens have delivered 20m carriages by the bucket load.

 

[tbtc]

If Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds gets done by then we can at least see the Pacers/Sprinters on local services on that line being replaced by EMUs, even if all the 185s won't be freed up off North TPE

There's one train an hour from Manchester to Huddersfield and one an hour from Huddersfield to Manchester which would be "freed" by this (both Northern services).

There are around thirty 185s on the "North" TPE service, but to free these up you'd need to wire Leeds - Hull, York - Scarborough and Thirsk - Middlesbrough too. Doing it as far as Leeds would be a step in the right direction, but you need to do it to York to have a bigger impact (allowing the Blackpool - York service to be extended to Scarborough to replace the Liverpool - Scarborough service).

I'm sure Network Rail mentioned North TPE AND Valley Lines electrification before 2020 as a way of getting SOME of the Pacers withdrawn

The Valley lines are a better case to "free" Pacers, there are around thirty that use the self contained lines through Queen Street.

 

[pemma]

There's one train an hour from Manchester to Huddersfield and one an hour from Huddersfield to Manchester which would be "freed" by this (both Northern services).

Plus what's used on the Stalybridge turnbacks. There's also a couple of peak time extras thrown in.

 

[tbtc]

Plus what's used on the Stalybridge turnbacks. There's also a couple of peak time extras thrown in.

Its still not that many DMUs (essentially half hourly from Manchester to Staleybridge and hourly from there to Leeds).

There are much better candidates for electrification (e.g. the Warrington line between Manchester and Liverpool); TPE North only makes sense if you do it at least as far as Hull/ York.

 

[pemma]

There are much better candidates for electrification (e.g. the Warrington line between Manchester and Liverpool); TPE North only makes sense if you do it at least as far as Hull/ York.

Yeah I was meaning if they started on North TPE but couldn't complete it in time then there would still be some Pacers withdrawn as a result of it. If they can get up to York and run 2tph on North TPE as EMU by the end of 2019 then that would obviously be better, even if not as good as having all North TPE services operated by EMUs.

 

[Batman]

Even if Manchester to Hull was electrified, 2tph would still need to be DMU opperated for the Scarborough and Middlesborough services.

Or could IEC units be used or could passengers be forced to change for DMU's at York?

Or would electrification to Scarborough and York as part of the first phase of TPN electrification be finanical viable?

 

[sprinterguy]

Even if Manchester to Hull was electrified, 2tph would still need to be DMU opperated for the Scarborough and Middlesborough services.

Or could IEC units be used or could passengers be forced to change for DMU's at York?

Or would electrification to Scarborough and York as part of the first phase of TPN electrification be finanical viable?

Regarding the electrification of Transpennine North, I think the York to Scarborough leg would be best added into the Northern franchise as an extension of the Caldervale York-Manchester services.

I think there'd be more of a case for electrifying through to Middlesborough: Despite there only being an hourly service on both the Scarborough and Middlesborough routes, there's no obvious service that could be extended up to Middlesborough to take up the slack if the TPE service was withdrawn.

Plus, there's a fairly substantial Freightliner traffic that runs up to Teeside, which would stand to benefit from electric traction if the route north from Northallerton was electrified (Assuming that the Wilton Freightliners aren't cross-country workings, where it's back to the drawing board until there's any signs of MML electrification).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree, sadly.

I don't see TPE electrification before 1 January 2020, which is the date when the new DDA rules kick in.

So if we want to replace Pacers (or upgrade 150/153/155s etc) then we need to consider something else.

(not that TPE electrification would have saved sufficient DMUs to replace all Pacers anyway, of course)

To replace all of the Pacers without procuring any new DMUs, I've fathomed out that it would require electrification of Transpennine North, Valley Lines, the Midland Mainline, the currently announced Oxford and Newbury scheme (Assuming that it will create some sort of 165 cascade that will allow FGW to rid itself of its' remaining 143s) and a phase 2 North West electrification that would cover quite a lot of the remaining unelectrified North West local routes: Buxton, Marple and New Mills, Southport and Kirkby.

And that's assuming that the Midland Mainline and Transpennine North schemes would work to connect together with wires the vast majority of the local routes radiating from Wakefield Kirkgate.

So yeah, we're going to need some new DMUs by the end of the decade.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

1 January 2020, which is the date when the new DDA rules kick in.

Is this a legally binding date that cannot be amended, under any circumstances?

 

[WillPS]

Is this a legally binding date that cannot be amended, under any circumstances?

I believe it's set at EU level, and so is unlikely to be quietly changed.

 

[tbtc]

we're going to need some new DMUs by the end of the decade.

I think that we will.

The alternative is that we forget about "big" schemes (like MML/ TPE North) and concentrate on lots of small fill ins which have self contained DMU services, but I don't know if we could do enough of those in time?

For example, GOBLIN, the Liverpool - Warrington - Manchester line, maybe a couple of core Valley Lines (but not the long stretch from Barry to Bridgend which only has one/hour), Guide Bridge - Rose Hill Marple, Bolton - Southport... targeting lots of little schemes instead of converting a whole "main line".

 

[Nym]

But the likes of TPE North covers a hell of a lot of DMUs, as does the valley lines.

And the Valley lines can get paid for in part by the WAG, can spend their subsidy on something useful for once!

 

[YorkshireBear]

Even if Manchester to Hull was electrified, 2tph would still need to be DMU opperated for the Scarborough and Middlesborough services.

Or could IEC units be used or could passengers be forced to change for DMU's at York?

Or would electrification to Scarborough and York as part of the first phase of TPN electrification be finanical viable?

Scabrough will be added to york blackpool service (with stops between york and leeds removed) thats the plan anyway, and northallerton to middlsbrough will be done so no DMUs needed for current TPE north franchise beyong electrification.

 

[tbtc]

But the likes of TPE North covers a hell of a lot of DMUs, as does the valley lines.

And the Valley lines can get paid for in part by the WAG, can spend their subsidy on something useful for once!

TPE North would free up around thirty TPE DMUs, if you did it to Middlesbrough/ Hull etc, plus a handful of Northern DMUs (150s on Manchester - Huddersfield, 143s on Huddersfield - Leeds).

BUT, it only saves a decent number of DMUs if you do it all. As I've said in this thread, only doing Manchester - Leeds would save only a small number (unless you cut services of course), and I don't think we'll have time to do it all (bearing in mind it'll take much of the rest of the decade just to do the Lancashire Triangle). And if you don't get the wiring completed by 31 December 2019 then you are in bother...

(Same with the MML - you'd have to wire to Nottingham/Sheffield to make a difference).

However, there are some smaller scale lines that could be tackled individually which release DMUs sooner (e.g. the line through Warrington).

I agree about the WAG and the Valley Lines - that'd much more useful to many more people than some of their plans!

 

[Nym]

Except for the Barrow / Windermere - Airport and Airport - Cleethorpes yes...

Although where I stand on what should happen with the 185s is either send them wholesale to another operator to replace all their diesel fleet (SWT) or, more preferably...

Hand over additional routes to TPE from other operators of appropriate routes in the North.

Since we'll have 45 potential diagrams and 8 used up with the lake district, 8 with Cleethorpes.

Liverpool Norwich I'm informed is 14 diagrams, leaving 15...
Add in the possibility of taking a route or two off Northern, possibly combining it with a current path through Bolton maybe...

Combine Airport - Barrow/Windermere with Airport - Southport and split at Bolton, more capacity on the busy route of Oxford Road - Bolton and keeping wigan on the map for the airport with one less path used.

Leaves 7 or 8 spare unit diagrams, can be used to stengthen all services between Liverpool and Nottingham to 6 cars long.

Et voiala, better units to Norwich, and Southport, and saving a path through Oxford Road...

And there are a few silly gaps that could easilly be addressed...

Eg...

For suburban units...
Lostock Jcn - Wigan A little over 10 miles for 5 units.
Etc.

For LDPE (220 units)
Oxford - Coventry
Etc

But... wiring the TPE network in full is going to address a massive capacity gap as well as freeing up DMUs.

 

[tbtc]

there are a few silly gaps that could easilly be addressed...

Eg...

For suburban units...
Lostock Jcn - Wigan A little over 10 miles for 5 units.
Etc.

For LDPE (220 units)
Oxford - Coventry
Etc

These are the kind of lines that we need to be doing, as they are "quick wins"

But... wiring the TPE network in full is going to address a massive capacity gap as well as freeing up DMUs.

Its true, and I am all for it, but I think that we need to focus on "what is achievable by 31 December 2019", which probably means more "little" projects - doing the whole TPE North would take a long time before there were any DMUs spared. But something like Guide Bridge - Rose Hill Marple could be done pretty quickly and save a couple of DMUs (running half hourly this way with EMUs, the Marple/ New Mills services kept as DMU operated for now, because the bi-hourly extension to Sheffield wouldn't be cost-effective in the short term, and I think that we have to think quite short-term to get rid of Pacers)

 

[Nym]

Remember the lancs triangle should be done by Dec 2017, and if they speed up with electrification, they should be able to get both done by Dec 2019, they'd need an extra electrification team though, the valleys would need an additional one too, then they can move to the Midland Mainline, Oxford - Coventry, Reading - Basingstoke, etc.

 

[tbtc]

Remember the lancs triangle should be done by Dec 2017, and if they speed up with electrification, they should be able to get both done by Dec 2019, they'd need an extra electrification team though, the valleys would need an additional one too, then they can move to the Midland Mainline, Oxford - Coventry, Reading - Basingstoke, etc.

The "crew" who are taking all this time to do the Lancashire Triangle won't be able to to TPE North in the remaining couple of years, but could tackle some shorter sections (Bolton - Southport etc).

You'd need a whole "third" team to do TPE North or MML (and, even then, you'd need to be 100% certain they could complete the lot by the end of 2019)

Good shout for Reading - Basingstoke; this really ought to have been announced in the GWML electrification.