• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Transport for London Looking for New DMUs?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
Dft rather than Tfl would set the wider national rolling stock policy, since they subsidise most fleets in service and therefore judge the value for money of older stock versus never stock and quantity they also usually get the say on what stock is ordered or used. Franchises can however order extra stock themselves for commercial routes that arent subsidised against Dft wishes for example the most recent order of 130 carriages by Southern when it became apparent the cascade would take longer than expected. Without Dft involvement they can process an order a heck of a lot faster (also freeing them from Government procurement even handedness red tape)

Considering that it's the DfT's fault the order got delayed in the first place, the DfT was involved in the tender. The fact the DfT have stated £80m of money to have Southern order the units and the require of £100m in cash from the new franchisee of Thameslink is further proof of this.

With current platform lengths it's needs to be 4 car units on stoppers and 6 car units on express services, with both having 23m carriages. The express services can split at Preston if desired.

I can see the proposed 4 car 350s and 4 car 319s causing problems in the coming years as the platforms won't be long enough to take doubled up units and the cars are only 20m so we'll be stuck with 4 car units on all services. In this case I think 3 car units with corridor connectors, similar to 172/3s or 37xs are the best solution for the express services, provided there are enough for the busy services to be doubled up.

Why do a half measure. Get everything upto 8 cars allowing for a more standard fleet size across the UK. This would mean any AC capable EMU could be cascaded much easier.

At some point or other the north is going to need 8 cars. Let's do it now why we upgrade the routes with wires.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
With current platform lengths it's needs to be 4 car units on stoppers and 6 car units on express services, with both having 23m carriages. The express services can split at Preston if desired.

I can see the proposed 4 car 350s and 4 car 319s causing problems in the coming years as the platforms won't be long enough to take doubled up units and the cars are only 20m so we'll be stuck with 4 car units on all services. In this case I think 3 car units with corridor connectors, similar to 172/3s or 37xs are the best solution for the express services, provided there are enough for the busy services to be doubled up.

The stoppers could proberbly cope with 4x20m carriages all day (Class 319s) but anything that goes through Oxford Road needs to be 6x23m.

Hence why any plans for future service patterns on this route that I have been coming up with involve class 323s being used on all services via Bolton. (Hazel Grove and Airport - Preston or Beyond) but I'd be looking at a big re-cast of all services around Manchester when electrification is complete, and as some of you know I'm an advocate of a northerly link from HS2 to Manchester being used by 'Javalin' style services to Liverpool and Preston or Beyond, so that everything via Bolton and Eccles runs there to serve there. Then if it is something like 3tph Preston - Manchester Piccadilly then 6x23m carriages should be able to cope fine.

Why do a half measure. Get everything upto 8 cars allowing for a more standard fleet size across the UK. This would mean any AC capable EMU could be cascaded much easier.

At some point or other the north is going to need 8 cars. Let's do it now why we upgrade the routes with wires.

Because it would mean re-building Salford Crescent (that needs doing anyway) and a full re-build of Oxford Road to take 8x20 or 8x23m carriages. It can be done, as I have discribed before but it is a hell of a lot of work.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Why do a half measure. Get everything upto 8 cars allowing for a more standard fleet size across the UK. This would mean any AC capable EMU could be cascaded much easier.

At some point or other the north is going to need 8 cars. Let's do it now why we upgrade the routes with wires.

We certainly don't need 8 car units on Manchester to Alderley Edge services, 323s are more than generous enough. It would be stupid for Alderley Edge services to have 6-7 empty carriages while non-electrified lines struggle with 2 and 4 car DMUs.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
This order was placed because the DfT financed it. Southern did not order them as a commercial exercise.

They financed £80m which is a contribution towards the leasing costs for the length of the franchise, they were already providing the leasing costs for the stock that was delayed so it was no extra commitment from them, Southern picked up the other £108m costs as a commercial transaction.

Essentially Southern 'upgraded' the stock it was to use and its own expense. Never underestimate the penchant for a government seizing an opportunity to claim others work for themselves or to reannounce as if new something they already previously announced.
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
So to take this thread back on to the topic of a LOROL order and notthing to do with the north nor Southern(why do threads get allowed to be taken off topic so wildly?) how long till they announce who will build these new units/extra carriages?
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
So to take this thread back on to the topic of a LOROL order and notthing to do with the north nor Southern(why do threads get allowed to be taken off topic so wildly?) how long till they announce who will build these new units/extra carriages?

That's exactly why these topics do go off-topic. There is also a very limited amount of information available to discuss, there is obviously more to the story which we don't yet know so speculation and people's wish lists start getting posted. The information given doesn't even confirm if an order will be placed for certain, just that it's being looked at.
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
That's exactly why these topics do go off-topic. There is also a very limited amount of information available to discuss, there is obviously more to the story which we don't yet know so speculation and people's wish lists start getting posted. The information given doesn't even confirm if an order will be placed for certain, just that it's being looked at.

I can see its limited but I had to trawl through 4 pages of unrelated bumph to try and find out anything which is a waste of my time. Its rather distracting.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
GOBLIN DMUs to North West EMUs, not a bad litte diversion we have achieved here.

I do agree with above though, we could do with a serious program of platform exensions. Although as discussed it isn't really possible.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,631
We need HST capability for Oxford road in advance of GWML electrification completing for when the first tranche of released HSTs arrive, although I imagine the first few would be grabbed by Chiltern to displace the loco hauled rakes.

So a complete reconstruction.

In the mean time I think six 23m carriage units should comprise all future orders for EMUs in that region.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,631
Yep, as the 172s use the inside bearing Eco Flexx bogie, there is nowhere to mount the tripcocks - unless something could be done to mount them on the chassis?

Don't they use the Ecoflexx bogies on an order of Electrostars fitted with shoebeams though? How does that work?
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,250
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
Are you sure theres any Electrosars using the Ecoflexx? Unless the Guatrain uses them i cant think of any of ours using them - Bombardier still seem to use the ex Adtranz design on all UK units.

However, this Aventura thing was supposed to use Ecoflexx - some Bombardier must some idea up their sleve!

Thinking about it for a moment, it's going to be interesting to see how Siemens come up with the shoe beam design for the Desiro city units - again, inside mounted bearings, disk brakes for the non motorised and tread brakes for the motorised bogies.
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
Are you sure theres any Electrosars using the Ecoflexx? Unless the Guatrain uses them i cant think of any of ours using them - Bombardier still seem to use the ex Adtranz design on all UK units.

However, this Aventura thing was supposed to use Ecoflexx - some Bombardier must some idea up their sleve!

Thinking about it for a moment, it's going to be interesting to see how Siemens come up with the shoe beam design for the Desiro city units - again, inside mounted bearings, disk brakes for the non motorised and tread brakes for the motorised bogies.

http://www.railnews.co.uk/img/medium/news01348.jpg
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Yep, as the 172s use the inside bearing Eco Flexx bogie, there is nowhere to mount the tripcocks - unless something could be done to mount them on the chassis?

Then you couldn't have any tripcocks on a corner unless you had a beam running between the two pairs of boogies to give it some yaw movement so it would hit the tripcock on a curve.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
GOBLIN DMUs to North West EMUs, not a bad litte diversion we have achieved here.

Most 'new' stock we have got in the North since privatisation is cascaded from outside the area:
* The Scottish 101s
* The Welsh/Scottish 150s (replacing similar aged 142s)
* The LM 150s
* The CT 156s (which went to FNW to replace some mk1 stock)
* The CT 158s (some of which were subleased to FGW before going in to service with Northern)
* The Wessex 158s (with FGW getting the TPE 158s as replacement)
* The SWT 170s (and the 1 from CT which went to TPE)
* The 308s
* The 322s - twice - once from Anglia to the North West
* The 508s

Plus likely a number of the 319s in the future.

In comparison the brand new stock received has been:
* The 175s (replaced by 185s on routes north of Manchester)
* The 185s
* The 333s

Therefore it's not an unreasonable assumption to assume when you hear about new stock being ordered elsewhere to assume the North will be cascaded something as a result of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
As shown, Siemens have certainly nailed mounting shoe-gear- and I'd guess something similar can be done for tripcocks.

Musing- with the modular design of the units (if Bombardier reckon they can relatively easy swap to corridor connectors from plain fronts) presumably sections as toilets are pretty much modular too? I wonder how difficult fitting a loo module would be, if the new units/centre cars were ordered loo-less but then transferred elsewhere where they need loos?
 

RPM

Established Member
Joined
24 Sep 2009
Messages
1,466
Location
Buckinghamshire
I'm quite sure it isn't impossible to fit the 172s with tripcocks. They managed to find a way to fit them to the RHTT 66s. It is more a case that it requires time and resources to solve and with only 4 units it is easier and cheaper at the moment to simply keep them off the Met. If more 172s are ordered, or if the LOROL ones get cascaded to Chiltern, the operational inconvenience of the Met restriction might begin to outweigh the tripcock development & fitment costs and the job might then get done.

Incidentally, the 172s are not completely banned from the Met. They can be used as long as they are boxed in between two 165s, although as far as I am aware this has yet to happen in practice.

The plan is to use them on Stratford services from December, or possibly before. Banbury drivers and guards are being trained up on them at the moment.

Apologies for taking the thread slightly off topic!
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
It is more a case that it requires time and resources to solve and with only 4 units it is easier and cheaper at the moment to simply keep them off the Met. If more 172s are ordered, or if the LOROL ones get cascaded to Chiltern, the operational inconvenience of the Met restriction might begin to outweigh the tripcock development & fitment costs and the job might then get done.
Presumably some time after the S stock deliveries are complete the Met will be resignalled (with some sort of ATO?) and they'll no longer need tripcocks? Does anyone know when this might happen?
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Presumably some time after the S stock deliveries are complete the Met will be resignalled (with some sort of ATO?) and they'll no longer need tripcocks? Does anyone know when this might happen?

Would be nice if the met gets re-signalled and then additional services can run. This is taking it very far off topic now, but post olympics, does Stanmore really need all the services it gets on the Jubilee Line?

How about having some services running from Met line stations, onto the Jubilee Line and either onwards to Stratford or N Grenwich as currently, or bring the platforms back into use at Charring Cross to have, say 20tph through to Stratford, 10tph onto Charring Cross, and at the other end, split services up onto one of the Met line branches to take some pressure off Baker Street High Level. Or am I completely missing the point here?

ie. No charring Cross re-open but still possibly split services between Stanmore and oh, I dunno, Harrow on the Hill terminators? Uxbridge?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,263
Presumably some time after the S stock deliveries are complete the Met will be resignalled (with some sort of ATO?) and they'll no longer need tripcocks? Does anyone know when this might happen?

Back in 2009, in the advance explanation for the 2010 'T-cup' Circle and H&C changes, TfL's programme was that the whole of the SSL would be running S stock at and be fully resignalled for the extra frequencies by 2018.

If the resignalling of individual lines is to be phased, and major work can start once the stock for that line is 100% replaced, it looks like the Met mainline will be the first to be resignalled, ie some time in advance of 2018?
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,018
Back in 2009, in the advance explanation for the 2010 'T-cup' Circle and H&C changes, TfL's programme was that the whole of the SSL would be running S stock at and be fully resignalled for the extra frequencies by 2018.

If the resignalling of individual lines is to be phased, and major work can start once the stock for that line is 100% replaced, it looks like the Met mainline will be the first to be resignalled, ie some time in advance of 2018?
That's good news. It suggests that the 'tripcock' problem might disappear in 3-5 years, thus meaning that cascading 172s onto the Chiltern (if that happens and if they aren't/ can't be fitted tripcocks) will no longer be an issue then.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Back in 2009, in the advance explanation for the 2010 'T-cup' Circle and H&C changes, TfL's programme was that the whole of the SSL would be running S stock at and be fully resignalled for the extra frequencies by 2018.

If the resignalling of individual lines is to be phased, and major work can start once the stock for that line is 100% replaced, it looks like the Met mainline will be the first to be resignalled, ie some time in advance of 2018?

Met resignalling starting later this year
Circle and H&C starting 2013
District starting 2014

Increased capacity provided by resignalling:
Circle and Hammersmith & City 65 per cent
District 24 per cent
Metropolitan 27 per cent

Obviously being phased after delivery of new rolling stock so the outer Met beyond Baker street will be done first - it is the only bit with exclusively new stock so far.
 

trivran

Member
Joined
23 Apr 2012
Messages
184
How about having some services running from Met line stations, onto the Jubilee Line and either onwards to Stratford or N Grenwich as currently, or bring the platforms back into use at Charring Cross to have, say 20tph through to Stratford, 10tph onto Charring Cross, and at the other end, split services up onto one of the Met line branches to take some pressure off Baker Street High Level. Or am I completely missing the point here?

No chance, with platform heights on the Met and Stratford needing all the trains it has, although a good idea that Amersham and Chesham folks would surely like is for the Jubilee to take over Northwick Park and Preston Road. Then, like you said, run them onto Uxbridge (which would be good, just raise the trackbed and you have two tube stocks there instead of mixed)
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
5,632
Location
Croydon
Given that the LOROL 172s have no end connection it seems to me they would be more use as longer units so adding 1 or 2 centre cars would reduce the need for them to be coupled to other units. I know its been said before that the cabs could be replaced with the London Midland variant so at least its technically feasible and already done. Might make them have a better residual value from a ROSCOs point of view ?.

Drifting off but. Someone suggested replacing Southerns 171s (which are class 170s with changed couplings iirc ?). But how about sending SWTs 159s and 158s to strengthen an operators services which already uses and maintains the same class ?. That would then provide one kind of DMU for all the London and SE services currently supported by four types (158, 159, 171 & 172) and bolster Northern's fleet with already trained on DMUs. Likewise for FGW or perhaps LM ?.

Of course we should be electrifying enough lines to obviate the need for new DMUs shouldnt we ? :oops:.
 
Last edited:

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
Of course we should be electrifying enough lines to obviate the need for new DMUs shouldnt we ? :oops:.
I don't tend to worry very much about regional/suburban DMUs, you'd be hard done by to get all UK lines electrified in the 30 year lifespan of a DMU, esspecially given how many Pacers there are with their 2020 deadline coming up. However, Intercity services is another matter entirely. We could have most of the Intercity network electrified by the time the class 22x series is life-expired so I'm dead against ordering Intercity stock with diesel engines (other than a handful of locos to haul services beyond the wires to the Pembroke Docks of this world).
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
5,632
Location
Croydon
I agree. Main thing is to electrify the big suburban hubs which is obviously where the main intercity flows would be anyway. So that leaves a few shoots beyond the main intercity flows, outer urban and regional. Wonder how many pacers will still be needed.
 

Metrailway

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2011
Messages
575
Location
Birmingham/Coventry/London
Presumably some time after the S stock deliveries are complete the Met will be resignalled (with some sort of ATO?) and they'll no longer need tripcocks? Does anyone know when this might happen?
Back in 2009, in the advance explanation for the 2010 'T-cup' Circle and H&C changes, TfL's programme was that the whole of the SSL would be running S stock at and be fully resignalled for the extra frequencies by 2018.

If the resignalling of individual lines is to be phased, and major work can start once the stock for that line is 100% replaced, it looks like the Met mainline will be the first to be resignalled, ie some time in advance of 2018?

I think the plan is to keep trainstops after resignalling on the Met to allow Chiltern units to run on the Met. 3 Aspect colour light lineside signalling is likely to be installed between Harrow and Amersham with trainstops protecting them. Chiltern units would not be compatible with Met moving block ATO and installing Chiltern ATP on the Met is unlikely. The original plan was for resignalling to be completed by 2016, but this has been pushed back to 2018 and with large cuts to the TfL grant on the horizon, it could get further delayed. Thus, 172s without tripcocks will still be in issue in the future.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Or possibly just installing TWPS alongside the coloured light signalling, using TWPS in place of tripcocks (or in combination with them, keeping them for the Met units) for Chiltern units.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top