Transport for London Looking for New DMUs?

[tbtc]

153s could have trouble on the line after DDA comes in though.

In 2020, yes. By which time the line may well be part of the East West link and the goalposts will have changed significantly from what we are arguing about today.

 

[Bald Rick]

No Network Rail HAS to do the work if a Toc asks and it cant charge them for it, say you have a line with four car long platforms and a toc says it wants to run 6 car trains then NR HAS to lengthen all the platforms and cant charge them for the work as its part of their service obligations. The funding comes from their 5 year settlements from Government as part of regular maintenence requirements. If they wanted upgrades in station facilities like ticket office, platform shelters, etc.. then the Toc has to find the money itself.

In the seperation of funding and maintenence responsibility to trackside and station side platform length is considered a trackside improvement.

It's very little to do with what the TOC wants, requests or needs. NR will only do the work if DfT specifies it and provides the funding. At the same time the DfT will (usually) also specify amendments to the franchise requiring The TOC to provide longer trains. There are exceptions, the Tilbury loop being case in point.

The other, much rarer option is if a TOC or third party enters into a contract with NR; Essex CC, BAA, WYPTE have all done this recently.

Anyway, back to the original point, the problem platform on the T&H is at South Tottenham.

 

[WatcherZero]

It's very little to do with what the TOC wants, requests or needs. NR will only do the work if DfT specifies it and provides the funding. At the same time the DfT will (usually) also specify amendments to the franchise requiring The TOC to provide longer trains. There are exceptions, the Tilbury loop being case in point.

They have a £150m annual budget for discretionary improvements, things not in the Governments plan but highly beneficial or required to be done. They are set required outputs of the five year plans but they dont only have to produce the key outcomes written in at the start.

 

[IanXC]

As I understand it, the Bedford line is operated by a 153 and a 150 each day. The reason for the 150 is that one morning service is busy with school kids. Were it not for this, the line could comfortably be run by two 153s (and LM wouldn't need any 150s) - the other services on the Bedford line can cope with a single unit.

Can anyone confirm whether this is the case? Because if it is (?) then we have a TOC hanging on to some 150s/ requiring expensive platform extensions/ unable to rationalise their DMU stock... is this the tail wagging the dog?

(please correct me if I'm wrong, as I appreciate that these stories can grow legs sometimes)

Does anyone know what the problematic platform length is?

Given the rolling stock issues, and the future of the line being as part of the East-West route, would transferring the route to Chiltern, who could then use 45.82m 2car 165s (compared to 40.12m 2car 150s and 47.24m 2car 172s) instead? After all its a diesel island along way from LMs other diesel operations, but then I suppose its equally difficult for Chiltern!

Chiltern would then be compensated with some of the 172s released by London Overground, with the 3x 150s released to FGW/ATW/NT.

 

[Eagle]

Does anyone know what the problematic platform length is?

Bow Brickhill (both), Apsley Guise (eastbound) and Stewartby (eastbound) are all 37 metres long. Everything else is at least 51.

 

[IanXC]

Bow Brickhill (both), Apsley Guise (eastbound) and Stewartby (eastbound) are all 37 metres long. Everything else is at least 51.

Ah, so the 150s only fit as a result of their door positions.

On the plus side, none of those 4 platforms appear to have any physical, or expensive problems preventing them being extended.