Possible fleet reorganisation for new Northern franchise

[pemma]

I spoke to someone official looking on a Northern service earlier. I don't think he was Northern staff but he was taking passenger numbers. He was talking about a fleet reorganisation in two years time affecting the Northern area. He said about the following being possibilities:

1. Northerns 155s and 16x153s will go to EMT and 156s will come in the other direction.
2. 2x153s and 2x150s from Northern will go to ATW and 8x150s from Northern will go to FGW, with the ATW 142s going to the Northern area and the FGW 143s going to ATW.
3. The 20-40 of the least reliable 142s will be scrapped as cascaded EMUs arrive following electrification. While 20-40 142s may be replaced by tram-trains.


There does seem logic to the above for fleet consistency. However, the above would seem to have inconsistencies with the proposed LM 150 cascade.

 

[sprinterguy]

If this is true then reality is getting ever nearer to my prediction that Northern will become the dumping ground for the entire Pacer fleet before the trains are withdrawn. These cascades don’t seem fantastic in terms of passenger capacity for Northern:

Northern lose seven 155s, all eighteen 153s and four (EDIT: TEN)150s: A total of forty carriages.

They gain eleven 156s from EMT and fourteen 142s from ATW: That’s a total of fifty carriages, so an increase by ten, although 28 of those are shorter Pacer carriages with fewer seats.

Although if this proposed set of cascades occurs after the North West electrification, then it should be just fine in terms of the size of the DMU fleet, even if it will result in an increased number of Pacer diagrams and the resulting reduction in passenger comfort!

And it’s reassuring to see that the legacy of Pacers in the north will live on for many years after their withdrawal, in the form of tram-trains, which are surely the twenty first century equivalent of the 1980s short-sightedness of the Pacer design. :roll:

 

[WatcherZero]

What do you expect, as we come to the point where Pacers have to be replaced by 2019 (would be uneconomic to adress height issues plus their unloved anyway) and the governments desperetly short of cash. Their being offered something by the PTE's which wont be cheaper to build as the Pacers were, but will be cheaper to run with less track wear.

 

[DarloRich]

Sprinter - is it any suprise that Northern will be a dumping ground for Pacers? Cant have those things running about down south now can we. Just give them to the dirty northern monkeys - most of thme dont even have electic or wash so they wont know it is a pile of sh*tm they are riding on!

Why cant FGW have all the bloody pacers? Why not LM? Why not ATW? Why not Scotrail? Why cant the elcetric trains in the North West be brand new ones? Why cant the Southern types have the second/third/fourth hand stuff?

Why is it we get palmed off with all the crap! It really makes my blood boil

 

[rail-britain]

Northern lose seven 155s, all eighteen 153s and four 150s: A total of forty carriages

What about the Class 150 units from LM to Northern
Seems rather pointless to lose and acquire...

 

[pemma]

Northern lose seven 155s, all eighteen 153s and four 150s: A total of forty carriages.

I didn't mention 4x150s anywhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What about the Class 150 units from LM to Northern
Seems rather pointless to lose and acquire...

It does seem strange but Northern probably won't do anything with any LM 150s they receive. It'll be too close to the end of the franchise. And how long did FGW have 12x142s for before sending 5 back?

 

[sprinterguy]

I didn't mention 4x150s anywhere.

Good point. TEN 150s moving from Northern, not four as I somehow bizarrely miscalculated. That's even worse. That won't be far off essentially going back to how things are currently, even after gaining trains from the London Midland cascade.

 

[tbtc]

Presumably this would only be possible if/when WY Metro "sell" the 155s to a ROSCO? I've tried "cascades" in my head before, and agree that it makes more sense to have all the 155s at one TOC and give Northern a bigger 156 fleet, but the negative is always that WY Metro's involvement with the 155s means they can't leave.

There's a lot of logic in the moves suggested by jcollins, FGW would have no Pacers, ATW would only have one type of Pacer... Northern don't need 153s (we have Pacers for "quieter" routes) - makes sense to have one or the other (not both).

In fact, this could be A Good Thing for Northern, as operator of most Pacers, *if* the Pacer replacement happens in the next decade, with over 100 new units required - we could actually have modern DMUs running around whilst FGW etc make do with 1980s 150s. This is being a little naive on my behalf, however...

 

[pemma]

Presumably this would only be possible if/when WY Metro "sell" the 155s to a ROSCO?

I don't see any reason why WY Metro won't sell any 2 car DMUs they own especially as the government is to cut their subsidy significantly.

 

[tbtc]

I don't see any reason why WY Metro won't sell any 2 car DMUs they own especially as the government is to cut their subsidy significantly.

I know its rumoured that the rules will change so that they will have to sell assets like the 155s (and 144 centre coaches). However, at the moment they own them, which puts a spanner in the works of any potential casecades...

 

[sprinterguy]

Presumably this would only be possible if/when WY Metro "sell" the 155s to a ROSCO? I've tried "cascades" in my head before, and agree that it makes more sense to have all the 155s at one TOC and give Northern a bigger 156 fleet, but the negative is always that WY Metro's involvement with the 155s means they can't leave.

There's a lot of logic in the moves suggested by jcollins, FGW would have no Pacers, ATW would only have one type of Pacer... Northern don't need 153s (we have Pacers for "quieter" routes) - makes sense to have one or the other (not both).

In fact, this could be A Good Thing for Northern, as operator of most Pacers, *if* the Pacer replacement happens in the next decade, with over 100 new units required - we could actually have modern DMUs running around whilst FGW etc make do with 1980s 150s. This is being a little naive on my behalf, however...

The idea of consolidating TOCs' train fleets is possibly the one thing I like from this proposal: EMT get a big standard fleet of Leyland Super Sprinters, while Northern take on operation of all 90ish of the 142s whilst having fewer DMU classes on its’ books overall. And FGW and ATW also have larger, more standard DMU fleets. That’s quite tidy.

However that doesn’t stop me being concerned that Northern are getting a raw deal in such an exchange, and being drowned in short, low capacity Pacers. And the prospect of a squadron fleet of tram-trains to act as Pacer replacement would just be repeating the same mistake that was made with building the Pacers in the first place.

 

[tbtc]

The idea of consolidating TOCs' train fleets is possibly the one thing I like from this proposal: EMT get a big standard fleet of Leyland Super Sprinters, while Northern take on operation of all 90ish of the 142s whilst having fewer DMU classes on its’ books overall. And FGW and ATW also have larger, more standard DMU fleets. That’s quite tidy.

However that doesn’t stop me being concerned that Northern are getting a raw deal in such an exchange, and being drowned in short, low capacity Pacers. And the prospect of a squadron fleet of tram-trains to act as Pacer replacement would just be repeating the same mistake that was made with building the Pacers in the first place.

Believe me, I share your concerns regarding Northern and their capacity. Gaining a Pacer and losing a Sprinter is a bit like losing fifty pence down the drain then spotting a five pence...

I think it all depends on the Pacer replacement. With Northern having increased passenger numbers (despite no new stock), my agument would be that they should get something like corridor-connected 172s on a "coach for coach" basis (a three coach Pacer has around the same capacity as a two coach Sprinter, so this would be an overall increase, given the number of Pacers that Northern will run). They don't need to travel at 100mph, they just need a lot of seats and the ability to work in multiple.

However, the danger is that we get a rock-bottom "tram train", which downgrades passenger experience further and gives nothing better than "a brand new Pacer".

Hard to know which way the wind is blowing...

 

[sprinterguy]

Believe me, I share your concerns regarding Northern and their capacity. Gaining a Pacer and losing a Sprinter is a bit like losing fifty pence down the drain then spotting a five pence...

I think it all depends on the Pacer replacement. With Northern having increased passenger numbers (despite no new stock), my agument would be that they should get something like corridor-connected 172s on a "coach for coach" basis (a three coach Pacer has around the same capacity as a two coach Sprinter, so this would be an overall increase, given the number of Pacers that Northern will run). They don't need to travel at 100mph, they just need a lot of seats and the ability to work in multiple.

However, the danger is that we get a rock-bottom "tram train", which downgrades passenger experience further and gives nothing better than "a brand new Pacer".

Hard to know which way the wind is blowing...

Agreed. If Pacer replacement takes the form of 172s or something similar, then that'll be fantastic and Northern will suddenly get an explosion of investment in brand new rolling stock. However, if a fair proportion of Pacer replacement goes down the Tram-train road (I view it as unlikely that Tram-trains would be specified for all the duties currently covered by Pacers), then the benefits are rather more questionable.

 

[DarloRich]

The idea of consolidating TOCs' train fleets is possibly the one thing I like from this proposal: EMT get a big standard fleet of Leyland Super Sprinters, while Northern take on operation of all 90ish of the 142s whilst having fewer DMU classes on its’ books overall. And FGW and ATW also have larger, more standard DMU fleets. That’s quite tidy.

However that doesn’t stop me being concerned that Northern are getting a raw deal in such an exchange, and being drowned in short, low capacity Pacers. And the prospect of a squadron fleet of tram-trains to act as Pacer replacement would just be repeating the same mistake that was made with building the Pacers in the first place.

Agree - Why cant Northern have the standard sprinter fleet and let everyone else have the sh*t!

When the Pacer replacement comes, and by god i hope it is soon, PLEASE dont just replace thmem with a like for like replacement. Please can we have some thought and care put into tender,design and build. Can people actually look at the services, the usage and the potential for growth.

To me the new units will need to have gangway connections so they can be worked in multiple, without the need for seperate crews. They will need to be much better internally than the pacer, they need proper bogies and they need to be modular so that extra vehicles can be brought in if required.

Please NOT tram trains ever - a 21st centuary pacer if ever there was one

 

[yorksrob]

The idea of consolidating TOCs' train fleets is possibly the one thing I like from this proposal: EMT get a big standard fleet of Leyland Super Sprinters, while Northern take on operation of all 90ish of the 142s whilst having fewer DMU classes on its’ books overall. And FGW and ATW also have larger, more standard DMU fleets. That’s quite tidy.

However that doesn’t stop me being concerned that Northern are getting a raw deal in such an exchange, and being drowned in short, low capacity Pacers. And the prospect of a squadron fleet of tram-trains to act as Pacer replacement would just be repeating the same mistake that was made with building the Pacers in the first place.

I pretty much agree with your assessment. Whilst there are undoubtedly operational benefits to having all the Pacers in the one place (and if some decent refurbs could be specified this might not be the end of the world), It does worry me that these tram trains are being promoted as a cheapo catch-all idea to offload railways which the Government doesn't want on it's books. Isn't it possible for someone to come up with a relatively light weight but high enough quality DMU which can be made in large numbers and is suitable for middle distance journeys? This would also do away with the large capital costs of digging up roads and putting in catenary etc.

 

[tbtc]

The trouble with the "tram train" idea is that there really aren't a lot of places they could be used.

You could make a case for the Knutsford line to have some "tram trains" on it, maybe one from Meadowhall to Rotherham, but apart from that.... no.

Trams are good at what they do - self contained frequent networks - but mixing light rail and heavy rail is complicating things far too much.

Also, since every tram network in the UK has different requirements, its not as if you could design one class of "tram train" which could work on (say) both the Sheffield and Manchester systems...

 

[pemma]

Isn't it possible for someone to come up with a relatively light weight but high enough quality DMU which can be made in large numbers and is suitable for middle distance journeys? This would also do away with the large capital costs of digging up roads and putting in catenary etc.

Didn't Northern propose that but DfT said they can't bring in new carriages from outside the EU?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/oct/20/china.transportintheuk

 

[DarloRich]

but there are lots of routes that could have tram trains forced upon them- Bishop-Boro/Saltburn
Newcastle - Metro Centre
York-Harrogate/Leeds
Sheffield-Meadowhell
and that is what worries me - they will be put on routes for which they are not really suitable and lead to a poor service.

I just think they are a bad idea - to me trams are for running on city streets, not fairly long distance intensive passenger services.

 

[pemma]

The trouble with the "tram train" idea is that there really aren't a lot of places they could be used.

You could make a case for the Knutsford line to have some "tram trains" on it, maybe one from Meadowhall to Rotherham, but apart from that.... no.

Tram trains should be additional to existing train services not replace them.

From tram-train routes I'd suggest:
Northwich-Sale-Man Victoria
Stockport-Denton-Man Victoria-Media City
Rawtenstall-Bury-Man Piccadilly
Rotherham-Meadowhall-Sheffield

I've also heard the following suggestions which may be worth further consideration:
Liverpool Albert Dock-Liverpool South Parkway-Liverpool Airport
Middlesbrough-Teeside Airport (the actul terminal not the train station.)
Warrington Central-Cornbrook-Man Victoria

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Didn't Northern propose that but DfT said they can't bring in new carriages from outside the EU?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/oct/20/china.transportintheuk

DfT has never said that any TOC can't bring rolling stock in from outside the EU, nor could they under public procurement rules.

The tram-train reference is odd. would these be diesel, electric or hybrid?

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps the DFT put the kybosh on these new trains due to cost rather than origin.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Perhaps the DFT put the kybosh on these new trains due to cost rather than origin.

Maybe. It's probably virtually impossible to make a business case on financial grounds alone for Pacer replacement.

Had it been necessary to do so, it would probably also have been impossible to make a financial business case to replace slam door stock with Electrostars.

Fate intervened and due to a number of accidents, Mk I slam door stock was deemed to be unsafe and new rolling stock was ordered.

I really hope for all concerned that Pacer replacement doesn't end up happening for similar reasons.

 

[pemma]

DfT has never said that any TOC can't bring rolling stock in from outside the EU, nor could they under public procurement rules.

So the government can't block imports from outside the EU? I wonder if Iran realises that.

Northern proposed 100 new trains which would be a mix of 2 and 3 cars to be built in China to keep costs low. DfT expressed concerns and said that the order should be British built and they would not be happy if an order was sent to outside the EU. Northern looked at an EU order and decided it was too expensive even for 50 new trains without DfT funding and DfT weren't going to give Northern any funding.

The tram-train reference is odd. would these be diesel, electric or hybrid?

Diesel or Hybrid. Electric only tram-trains have never been proposed for the Manchester area as the cost of electrification would be too high.

 

[starrymarkb]

Why cant FGW have all the bloody pacers? Why not LM? Why not ATW? Why not Scotrail? Why cant the elcetric trains in the North West be brand new ones? Why cant the Southern types have the second/third/fourth hand stuff?

Why is it we get palmed off with all the crap! It really makes my blood boil

I thought the North West got Brand new in the early 1990s with the 323s? The new EMUs on the Southern were replacing much older stock.

Pacers are a no-go for FGW too, they are banned from most Cornwall because of the curvature, they were damaging the track and going through wheelsets at a phenomenal rate. The routes around Exeter are fairly pacer friendly and they work well there in pairs, but there are enough units between the 142s and 143s to cover those turns

 

[Old Hill Bank]

You only get 10 more seats on an LM 172 than you get on a 142, just more room to stand!!!
172's in there current form can not be the answer to all the crowding problems, we all need lots more!!!!!!!

 

[142094]

Just seen this thread. From what I have heard recently the only place in the near future (2-3 years) that could be used for tram-train testing is Liverpool South Parkway (along with Rotherham). Nothing new about the Harrogate line or Penistone line. I have to say I don't see anything tram-realted coming on stream for a good few years, especially when you think of all the new infrastructure that is needed and station remodelling. Leeds is still looking for the trolleybuses and York is planning new park and rides, no mention of tram trains.

Putting all the Pacers together with one TOC makes sense for maintenance reasons, but I don't see any getting scrapped soon - no replacement in the pipeline and they are needed to double up services. I still stick to my belief that they will be around for 5-10 years yet.

 

[tbtc]

Putting all the Pacers together with one TOC makes sense for maintenance reasons, but I don't see any getting scrapped soon - no replacement in the pipeline and they are needed to double up services. I still stick to my belief that they will be around for 5-10 years yet.

Pacers will still be with us in five years, no doubt. Alan Pardew, on the other hand... :roll:

 

[47741]

I share the concerns expressed by others about tram-trains. The Leeds-Harrogate-York line is, I believe, under particular threat. It is due for S&T renewal, and it could well suit NR if this could be done at lower cost that would be necessary for heavy rail.

The prime mover in this regard is WYPTE however. Despite Leeds Supertram being cancelled twice (the second time arguably forever) and replaced with proposals for a trolleybus system, WYPTE are still hankering after a tram scheme. They want a fixed link to Leeds Bradford Airport, and the only realistic way to achieve this is by attaching a street-running tram spur to the Harrogate line at Horsforth. They then talk about this running on-street from Kirkstall viaduct to the city centre, 'to relieve congestion at Leeds Station'. There are, I believe, still references to this as an aspiration on the WYMETRO website.

If this were not done by using white elephant diesel or 'hybrid' trams, then the route (or part of it) would end up being electrified at 1500Vdc, or similar, which would severely curtain its future development for heavy rail use.

I find this all infuriating. WYPTE should concentrate on improving links between economic centres in the region, as this is what generates wealth. What does not generate wealth is building a very expensive link to a minor tourist airport that serves only to leak money out of the region / country. Vanity project.

The days of cheap air travel are over, and I wouldn't be surprised if LBA is in for some difficult times over the next few years. How quickly WYPTE wake up to this is another matter, and the longer this goes on, the longer NR will prevaricate about the investment needed in the route.

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe. It's probably virtually impossible to make a business case on financial grounds alone for Pacer replacement.

Had it been necessary to do so, it would probably also have been impossible to make a financial business case to replace slam door stock with Electrostars.

Fate intervened and due to a number of accidents, Mk I slam door stock was deemed to be unsafe and new rolling stock was ordered.

I really hope for all concerned that Pacer replacement doesn't end up happening for similar reasons.

I think the Southern’s slammers would have been replaced eventually regardless of accidents, albeit more gradually - afterall, they were being replaced north and south of the Thames throughout the eighties.

With regard to the Pacers, I hope any newer stock is used to deal with overcrowding rather than replacement for the time being with a gradual replacement coming later.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Northern proposed 100 new trains which would be a mix of 2 and 3 cars to be built in China to keep costs low. DfT expressed concerns and said that the order should be British built and they would not be happy if an order was sent to outside the EU.

Unless you can produce a credible reference point for that, I shall regard it as complete nonsense.