Petition for Northern Rail to get more suited rolling stock

[pemma]

I was planning to set up a petition for more appropriate rolling stock to replace Pacers being used on busy commuter services and found this one had been set up:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/northtrains/

I think it could have been better worded but still think it's worth signing.

 

[asylumxl]

In the end, this petition is pointless. There isn't the money. Another area of government spending will suffer as a result. The entire country is in need of investment, Northern is not the only TOC using Pacers remember.

 

[Greenback]

Most of the petitions on there are pointless. My favourite is the one petitioning the PM to stop Zimbabwean farms being taken away from farmers. There are probably lots more, but I;ve only looked at a few!

 

[pemma]

Yes that's why I said the petition wasn't well worded. Although, proportionally Arriva Trains Wales and First Great Western don't have so many Pacers that they have to use them on some of their most crowded routes and Manchester is the 3rd largest city in the UK so having a number of commuter services run by 142s isn't really acceptable.

 

[Oswyntail]

...so having a number of commuter services run by 142s isn't really acceptable.

Just to play Devil's advocate a little, perhaps those are just the services that 142s are suited for. The commuter flow is heavy twice a day; outside those times, the stock required for the services is effectively idle. The ideal stock for use on commuter services should therefore be the cheapest available - so that the idle time is least expensive - and on which you can cram the most passengers in the least stock. Just look at the "EPB" philosophy in south London. Having modern, sophisticated stock with comfortable seating for everyone in the peak just does not make sense. The 376 is a fair stab, but still carries too much sophistication.

 

[me123]

Most of the petitions on there are pointless. My favourite is the one petitioning the PM to stop Zimbabwean farms being taken away from farmers. There are probably lots more, but I;ve only looked at a few!

Looking at transport only, what about:

"Ban Standing Passengers on Trains Travelling at Speeds in Excess of 80 m.p.h.": Does this mean that you limit passengers boarding these trains, or that a heavily loaded train travels slower and causes delays?

I honestly hope that this one is a joke.

I'm curious where the funding would be for this crackpot suggestion.

I'd like to hear how on earth you would switch every road, including dual carriages and motorways, to Right Hand Side driving overnight.

Don't get me wrong, there are some sensible ones. Increasing the motorway speed limit to 80mph isn't barmy, although I do not agree with it. And there's plenty of sensible rail ones as well, such as reopening stations and lines, ensuring a full catering service on intercity trains...

 

[Oswyntail]

....
I'd like to hear how on earth you would switch every road, including dual carriages and motorways, to Right Hand Side driving overnight. ...

I remember seeing the switch-over in Sweden (IIRC) on the telly - very well behaved, but perhaps that means it wouldn't work here.
Actually, this petition requests that the Prime Minister drive on the right, so I presume it has been put up by one of his cabinet colleagues in the hope he does.

 

[pemma]

Just to play Devil's advocate a little, perhaps those are just the services that 142s are suited for. The commuter flow is heavy twice a day; outside those times, the stock required for the services is effectively idle.

I don't know exactly what you're getting at. Is it that 142s are sitting empty in the off-peak hours or that you're implying off-peak trains don't get many passengers?

Northern certainly don't only use 142s at peak times. Then stock for the evening peak can come in to use before 1.30pm e.g. because of school traffic the 15:07 Chester to Manchester service is strengthened, as Northern's stock is based in Manchester the 13:17 to Chester is also strengthened and once the 15:07 arrives in Manchester it forms an even busier Buxton service. (In this case it's 2x sprinters but I'm illustrating the point about how early evening peak trains can come in to operation)

In school holidays Northern's 142s have left passengers behind at off-peak times. Northern say that they can't bring extra units in to operation in school holidays for strengthening purposes due to maintainence schedules.

 

[Oswyntail]

Yes, I agree that the evening "peaks" are now more like plateaus. But, in your example, the strengthening of the MC-Chester service is really the equivalent of an empty stock movement. What I was trying to get at was that (from a business point of view) provision for the capacity peaks should be as cheap and cheerful as possible, getting the most passengers into the fewest carriages. Because it is, by definition, "peak" provision, that capacity is going to be unused for much of the day. Now, on my local line we have 4-coach 333s. Off peak the service only really requires 2 coaches (in terms of passenger numbers - that would make the regular 2-coach service full and standing). So we have 50% of the stock that could be standing idle, but, instead, is running round the network picking up faults and the occasional chav, so is quite expensive. (OK, I realise that that 50% is actually spread out over all four coaches of a unit) As far as I can see, there are three approaches to this question of resource management:-
1) Hold surplus stock to be able to build or maintain peak capacity - for this approach the 142 is ideal, cheap in terms of passenger/journey cost. This is the traditional way, from back where we saw acres of full carriage sidings outside all major stations.
2) Use stock to the same expensive standard, offering peak capacity throughout the day, but encouraging greater usage off-peak. This is the model most TOCs seem to favour, but is vulnerable to the fact that off-peak travel is most frequently optional. As above, stock goes through the maintenance cycle with a large proportion of miles covered not earning revenue.
3) Using stock to the same expensive standard throughout the day, but massaging passengers journeys, so that the "peak" is much shallower and broader, so meaning you do not have to hold as much surplus stock. This seems to be the approach in, for example, SWT. The problem with this is that the window for cheaper, optional travel becomes squeezed, and the even cheaper season ticket becomes more prevalent.
I can see the merits in all three, and the place of a 142-type unit in the system

 

[pemma]

I still think you're under the impression that there's a period when almost all lines can have smaller units than in the morning and evening peak periods. That may be the case with 333s in West Yorkshire, it's also the case with 323s on Manchester to Alderley Edge/Crewe. From experience it's not uncommon for 80-90% of the seats to be taken on a train in the off-peak period. Hyperthetically if you ran single 153s on Chester-Manchester, Manchester-Liverpool and Hazel Grove to Preston at off-peak times instead of 2 car pacers or sprinters you'd have as many crowding problems at off-peak times as at peak times.

If 142s could be the best solution then why is a modified 170 being built for Birmingham, rather than something similar to a 142?

 

[90019]

I honestly hope that this one is a joke.

Best No. 10 petition ever

 

[HH]

To hark back to the earlier point, buses, which aren't pre-specified by the DfT, traditionally work exactly like Oswyntail suggested. The oldest, crappiest stock is used on school runs, which happen only twice a day.

Actually though, this isn't always a smart policy, as things are a little more complex. If you have a long run to school, then using old stock, which usually has a high maintenance + fuel cost per mile, may end up costing more.

Generally on rail, it's the newer trains that cost more to maintain due to things like aircon and computer controls, and the fact that they are heavier for safety reasons means the fuel cost is also higher. So it does make sense to use older trains on poorly used routes.

As far as spreading the load is concerned then the three approaches detailed by Oswyntail are not mutually exclusive. For instance the old GER used 1 & 3 on the GE mainline and 2 & 3 on the Shenfield "stoppers".

 

[142094]

Most of the points raised against 142 are equally as good against 144s, 150s, and 153. They could all do with being replaced or refurbished but we all know it's not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[poshbakerloo]

I honestly hope that this one is a joke.

lmao!!!

 

[4SRKT]

I lurve pacers. I'll sign any petition campaigning to get them shared out more fairly, so that commuters everywhere can feel the pacer love!

 

[Kneedown]

With the announcement of the electrification schemes in the northwest, then surely that already spells the beginning of the end for Pacers?

 

[tbtc]

With the announcement of the electrification schemes in the northwest, then surely that already spells the beginning of the end for Pacers?

I doubt it - they'll be moved to Yorkshire where they'll couple three together at a time - we'll never get rid of them!

 

[142094]

I bet they are around for at least another 10 years, they'll just be moved around the north every so often until new trains are ordered.

 

[Drsatan]

Or they'll be hoisted back to FGW or ATW in return for 150s.

 

[TrainBrain185]

I was planning to set up a petition for more appropriate rolling stock to replace Pacers being used on busy commuter services and found this one had been set up:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/northtrains/

I think it could have been better worded but still think it's worth signing.

And what appropriate stock would you prefer dear sir?

 

[Lampshade]

Northern's 158s back from ScotRail for a start, and maybe for Northern to shift some of its eastern bias westwards to give Greater Manchester some better trains; the ex-ATN area has 144s, 155s and 158s aplenty, we're lumbered with 150s and 142s.

 

[TrainBrain185]

Northern's 158s back from ScotRail for a start, and maybe for Northern to shift some of its eastern bias westwards to give Greater Manchester some better trains; the ex-ATN area has 144s, 155s and 158s aplenty, we're lumbered with 150s and 142s.

What would you provide ScotRail in return for repatriation to Northern of the 158 units? Just wondering?

 

[Lampshade]

What would you provide ScotRail in return for repatriation to Northern of the 158 units? Just wondering?

Exactly what ScotRail are giving Northern in return for keeping the 158s for a further four years.

 

[tbtc]

Northern's 158s back from ScotRail for a start, and maybe for Northern to shift some of its eastern bias westwards to give Greater Manchester some better trains; the ex-ATN area has 144s, 155s and 158s aplenty, we're lumbered with 150s and 142s.

True, but Northern do run "bigger" services east of the Pennines (e.g. Sheffield to Hull/ Bridlington and Middlesbrough to Newcastle are suited to 158s), whilst the only Northern diesel routes west of the Pennines that suit a 158 (e.g. Manchester Airport to Liverpool and Manchester to Blackpool) will be run by 319s when these routes are wired up in a few years.

Once the wires are up in Lancashire, things will be very different.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, I agree that the evening "peaks" are now more like plateaus. But, in your example, the strengthening of the MC-Chester service is really the equivalent of an empty stock movement. What I was trying to get at was that (from a business point of view) provision for the capacity peaks should be as cheap and cheerful as possible, getting the most passengers into the fewest carriages. Because it is, by definition, "peak" provision, that capacity is going to be unused for much of the day. Now, on my local line we have 4-coach 333s. Off peak the service only really requires 2 coaches (in terms of passenger numbers - that would make the regular 2-coach service full and standing). So we have 50% of the stock that could be standing idle, but, instead, is running round the network picking up faults and the occasional chav, so is quite expensive. (OK, I realise that that 50% is actually spread out over all four coaches of a unit) As far as I can see, there are three approaches to this question of resource management:-
1) Hold surplus stock to be able to build or maintain peak capacity - for this approach the 142 is ideal, cheap in terms of passenger/journey cost. This is the traditional way, from back where we saw acres of full carriage sidings outside all major stations.
2) Use stock to the same expensive standard, offering peak capacity throughout the day, but encouraging greater usage off-peak. This is the model most TOCs seem to favour, but is vulnerable to the fact that off-peak travel is most frequently optional. As above, stock goes through the maintenance cycle with a large proportion of miles covered not earning revenue.
3) Using stock to the same expensive standard throughout the day, but massaging passengers journeys, so that the "peak" is much shallower and broader, so meaning you do not have to hold as much surplus stock. This seems to be the approach in, for example, SWT. The problem with this is that the window for cheaper, optional travel becomes squeezed, and the even cheaper season ticket becomes more prevalent.
I can see the merits in all three, and the place of a 142-type unit in the system

I don't really see your point on this one. If there's too much of a lull during the off-peak period to justify modern four carriage trains, there's no reason not to build trains to a shorter unit length - particularly as they don't tend to need guards vans anymore. For example, if the 333's had been built as two-car units you could have two carriages running around in the off-peak.

I think the petitions a good idea. Whatever the economic situation, all the while there is a railway, there will need to be investment and replacement of stock. It is important that Northern rolling stock is kept on the agenda otherwise it will inevitably go to the back of the queue.

 

[royaloak]

I don't really see your point on this one. If there's too much of a lull during the off-peak period to justify modern four carriage trains, there's no reason not to build trains to a shorter unit length - particularly as they don't tend to need guards vans anymore. For example, if the 333's had been built as two-car units you could have two carriages running around in the off-peak.

If you build 2 coach trains as opposed to 4, it works out more expensive per coach due to the extra cabs and you have less seating area. You have to leave enough time to uncouple/ re-attach the spare coaches and what do you do with the coaches during the off peak period while only running your 2 coach train, also remember you will need extra drivers to take the uncoupled coaches away to a siding somewhere and bring them back which will require extra paths in the timetable. Attaching/ uncoupling coaches can be a pain at times of disruption as well.

 

[yorksrob]

If you build 2 coach trains as opposed to 4, it works out more expensive per coach due to the extra cabs and you have less seating area. You have to leave enough time to uncouple/ re-attach the spare coaches and what do you do with the coaches during the off peak period while only running your 2 coach train, also remember you will need extra drivers to take the uncoupled coaches away to a siding somewhere and bring them back which will require extra paths in the timetable. Attaching/ uncoupling coaches can be a pain at times of disruption as well.

Yes, those are all reasonable points, although I don't think they are insurmountable. For example, most units in the North are 2-car anyway, so there is already much experience of strengthening and splitting trains at Leeds. Also, on modern units, the driving cab is usually accessed directly from the passenger area, so whilst the extra cab would take up some room it wouldn't be anything more than around 1 seating bay for every four carriages.

 

[ukrob]

Yes, those are all reasonable points, although I don't think they are insurmountable. For example, most units in the North are 2-car anyway, so there is already much experience of strengthening and splitting trains at Leeds. Also, on modern units, the driving cab is usually accessed directly from the passenger area, so whilst the extra cab would take up some room it wouldn't be anything more than around 1 seating bay for every four carriages.

But all new build require seperate crew access.

Two cabs per train, I make that two seating bays lost at each cab, or four per unit.

 

[yorksrob]

OK. TWO bays - as a four car set would already have had two cabs.

 

[ukrob]

OK. TWO bays - as a four car set would already have had two cabs.

No, four. One on each side of the train at each end.

Actually - double it as new build needs seperate crew access.

Less another two (at least) for a universal toilet in each two car unit.

That is at least 10 bays lost having two 2 carriage trains as opposed to one four carriage.