Unfair fleet sharing.

Status
Not open for further replies.

150222

Member
Joined
9 Jul 2011
Messages
1,002
Why do TOC's such as Scotrail & LM under-utilise their respective SuperSprinter fleets? If Scotrail/Northern gave just one class 156 to East Midlands Trains then it would allow them to significantly improve the overcrowding on the Crewe to Derby route. They could use the 156 on a 153 diagram on the route and use the released 153 to double-up another 153 diagram on the route. If London Midland gave just one 153 to Greater Anglia that could greatly improve their capacity issues around Norwich. Any ideas on this? I'll stop sounding like a water aid appeal and open the discussion. :)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
Because unit allocation is nothing to do with the TOCs and everything to do with DafT, take it up with them!
 

David

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2005
Messages
5,111
Location
Scunthorpe
Why do TOC's such as Scotrail & LM under-utilise their respective SuperSprinter fleets? If Scotrail/Northern gave just one class 156 to East Midlands Trains then it would allow them to significantly improve the overcrowding on the Crewe to Derby route. They could use the 156 on a 153 diagram on the route and use the released 153 to double-up another 153 diagram on the route. If London Midland gave just one 153 to Greater Anglia that could greatly improve their capacity issues around Norwich. Any ideas on this? I'll stop sounding like a water aid appeal and open the discussion. :)
And where do Northern get a spare 156 from?
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
7,738
I think the more important question is, why haven't the Dft made a large scale order of DMUs that would solve the problem more easily.
 

Wath Yard

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Messages
864
I think the more important question is, why haven't the Dft made a large scale order of DMUs that would solve the problem more easily.
One reason is because there are a lot of electrification schemes which have either started or will soon be starting. Therefore, a large scale DMU order would be a total waste of money.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,521
Location
Macclesfield
I believe that London Midland are now getting much better utilisation out of their remaining (Is it 8 units, with the two at FGW?) 153s. There are an awful lot of 170/5s lying spare at Tyseley during the middle of the day, but they are very well used during the peaks.

Scotrails' class 156 and 158 fleets are historic allocations that have remained largely unchanged since they were delivered to Scotrail in the late eighties to early nineties, although they did lose two 158s to Wales and West in the nineties and then four more to Transpennine Express in around 1999 when they took first deliveries of the original batch of 170s, though more recently they have gained seven more 158s that makes up for this loss. Where Scotrail have triumphed is that they have accumulated a large number of new class 170s without losing very many Sprinters at all, though they did lose their 150s and the last 117s.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
7,738
One reason is because there are a lot of electrification schemes which have either started or will soon be starting. Therefore, a large scale DMU order would be a total waste of money.
I dont think any of us on here believe the current electrification schemes are going to be anywhere near enough to get rid of pacers and cater for 8 years of growth by 2020
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,521
Location
Macclesfield
One reason is because there are a lot of electrification schemes which have either started or will soon be starting. Therefore, a large scale DMU order would be a total waste of money.
Unfortunately, the currently announced electrification schemes are unlikely to allow for the withdrawal of all Pacers by 2019 (DDA deadline or not: Pacers really shouldn't still be in service into 2020 when they'll be around 35 years old) as well as allowing for an increase in passenger capacity so a future build of new DMUs is still likely to be required.

Though of course if this new build of DMUs had already occured then it might have created an over supply of DMUs in the future when the currently announced electrification schemes had been completed that would have seen many Sprinters withdrawn before they really need to be, even if that would probably be desirable from a passenger perspective.
 

Wath Yard

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Messages
864
2020 is fairly irrelevant. If there is a need for a small number of non-DDA compliant DMUs to continue beyond that date then they will, in exactly the same way as MK 1 EMUs on the former Southern Region continued for a few years after they should have been withdrawn. No Government is going to allow the railway to just shut up shop.

What is relevant is that DMUs have a life of 30 - 40 years. In that time large parts of the network could be electrified. We don't know what the plan is beyond what has been announced and there could be a rolling program.

There will be a serious number of spare DMUs made available. With the TPE, Northern, Great Western and Scottish schemes. It may not be enough to replace all Pacers but there is still 8 years before 2020 for other electrification schemes to happen.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
7,738
Unfortunately, the currently announced electrification schemes are unlikely to allow for the withdrawal of all Pacers by 2019 (DDA deadline or not: Pacers really shouldn't still be in service into 2020 when they'll be around 35 years old) as well as allowing for an increase in passenger capacity so a future build of new DMUs is still likely to be required.

Though of course if this new build of DMUs had already occured then it might have created an over supply of DMUs in the future when the currently announced electrification schemes had been completed that would have seen many Sprinters withdrawn before they really need to be, even if that would probably be desirable from a passenger perspective.
What i said...

I do worry because this oversupply could create problems in the short-medium term (Ie not ordered to prevent over supply so capcaity issues in short - medium term).
Now i don't know if this is possible. Could you build DMUs that could be turned into EMUs should they need to. Like the 222s?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
there is still 8 years before 2020 for other electrification schemes to happen.
Considering that the recently announced TPE electrification is going to take until 2019 id say that they only had another year to announce stuff.
 
Last edited:

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,521
Location
Macclesfield
2020 is fairly irrelevant. If there is a need for a small number of non-DDA compliant DMUs to continue beyond that date then they will, in exactly the same way as MK 1 EMUs on the former Southern Region continued for a few years after they should have been withdrawn. No Government is going to allow the railway to just shut up shop.

What is relevant is that DMUs have a life of 30 - 40 years. In that time large parts of the network could be electrified. We don't know what the plan is beyond what has been announced and there could be a rolling program.

There will be a serious number of spare DMUs made available. With the TPE, Northern, Great Western and Scottish schemes. It may not be enough to replace all Pacers but there is still 8 years before 2020 for other electrification schemes to happen.
2020 is very relevant when Pacers will be nearly 35 years old and not really fit for purpose in a world with ever more demanding standards of comfort, as I said irrelevant of any DDA compliance deadlines.

Once again elaborating on what James has said above me, there is going to be a need for a considerable number of DMUs far beyond 2020. I did some maths that suggests that getting rid of all Pacers through electrification alone would require the carrying out of the following series of projects:
1. North West Triangle
2. Transpennine North (Including Hull and Middlesborough)
3. Valley Lines
4. Midland Mainline (Including all the local roots and branches around South Yorkshire that would make for a unified local electric network radiating out from Wakefield)
5. North West Phase 2 (Southport, Buxton and the like)

And even then, if a rolling programme of electrification was to be continued upon completion of all of those projects, such as the Chiltern main line and the Southern diesel routes to free up a goodly number of Turbostars, mostly in four carriage formation, there would still be many lines that are unlikely to ever be electrified.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
7,738
Technically speaking, yes.
By that response i gauge that its not easy or cheap so probably not a suitable business idea?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
2020 is very relevant when Pacers will be nearly 35 years old and not really fit for purpose in a world with ever more demanding standards of comfort, as I said irrelevant of any DDA compliance deadlines.

Once again elaborating on what James has said above me, there is going to be a need for a considerable number of DMUs far beyond 2020. I did some maths that suggests that getting rid of all Pacers through electrification alone would require the carrying out of the following series of projects:
1. North West Triangle
2. Transpennine North (Including Hull and Middlesborough)
3. Valley Lines
4. Midland Mainline (Including all the local roots and branches around South Yorkshire that would make for a unified local electric network radiating out from Wakefield)
5. North West Phase 2 (Southport, Buxton and the like)

And even then, if a rolling programme of electrification was to be continued upon completion of all of those projects, such as the Chiltern main line and the Southern diesel routes to free up a goodly number of Turbostars, mostly in four carriage formation, there would still be many lines that are unlikely to ever be electrified.
And to add to what sprinterguy is saying above. A lot of those routes that won't see electrification may see some pretty major growth so more diesel units than what is needed for current network may be needed for less of a network if that makes sense (in terms of diesel).
Examples being the settle to carlisle (big growth over last few decades) devon and cornwall branches general branches on the entire FGW network, particularly bristol area. This could go on for a fair while. Also got to consider that in the next few decades there could be a fair number of new diesel services start operating. As this countries population increases people are only going to defer to rail more, not including the green agenda becoming more at the front of peoples lives than in the current climate. One example being East West link which is not going to be electrified (as far as i am aware???)
 
Last edited:

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
8,258
Location
Somewhere, not in London
By that response i gauge that its not easy or cheap so probably not a suitable business idea?
Well, a 172 comes in at about £1.2mil/carriage, a 185 today would be £1.5mil, a 'hybrid' (oh god how I hate the term) would come in at something around £1.6mil from Bombardier or £1.9mil from Siemens.

I'm not doing anything more complex here than extrapolating the cost of a Voyager Carriage £1.1mil and adding on development, short run, etc costs.

The problem comes when you consider the minimum length for any such unit would be 3 carriages, two with generators and motored bogies and one with panto, transformer, etc. Two 750hp generators should be plenty for a 3 car unit. But then where is the market for new diesel, let alone a whole new expensive development that may not be needed in 10 years anyway? Especially when with Derby's development costs, or Siemens' short run costs you'd be looking at such a unit costing nearly twice as much. In 30 years time this will have a market, when the diesel supplies are much more scarse and TOCs want to eek out every last Watt from the grid.

There are better ways IMO to address the stock shortage problems, and personally I'd say that a big one of them is the production of a new series of LHCS that can be diesel hauled, electric hauled or both.

Reigonal branch services can be hauled by a freight locomotive, god knows we have plenty going spare, mainline services over 75mph (diesel) can be hauled by a new series of Eurolights running at 110mph, easilly do-able and will be needed for years to come on the GW Cornish services etc. Anywhere that frequently uses formations of 5, 6car or longer DMUs will move over to LHCS, the HST replacements would be these as well, possibly seeing if one can push the speed on Diesel up to 125 with two locomotives. (Or simply change from Leccy to Diesel Loco)

If this was combined with continued electrification, one could simply move all of the long distance scottish services over to LHCS and release 156/8 and 170 units to replace the remaining pacers from the current electrification plans, and increase capacity.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,249
Where Scotrail have triumphed is that they have accumulated a large number of new class 170s without losing very many Sprinters at all, though they did lose their 150s and the last 117s.
"lose" is perhaps the wrong word to use with regards Scotrail not having 150s any more; they couldn't get rid of them quick enough!
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
What is relevant is that DMUs have a life of 30 - 40 years. In that time large parts of the network could be electrified. We don't know what the plan is beyond what has been announced and there could be a rolling program.
30 years life expectancy without a life extension program, which is why the DDA deadline was set to be when the 158s would be around 30 years old.
 

theblackwatch

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
15 Feb 2006
Messages
10,369
Four Northern 156s were transferred to EMT just a couple of months ago. If it had been five, would you have still thought it should be one more? And when that peak hour train out of Glasgow Central is a single 156 instead of a pair and not all the passengers can fit on....
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
1. North West Triangle
2. Transpennine North (Including Hull and Middlesborough)
3. Valley Lines
4. Midland Mainline (Including all the local roots and branches around South Yorkshire that would make for a unified local electric network radiating out from Wakefield)
5. North West Phase 2 (Southport, Buxton and the like)
Some observations:

1. The Thames Valley electrification can get rid of the small fleet of FGW 143s as well as adding extra capacity across the FGW network.

2. Most of the EMUs arriving in the North West are supposed to give extra capacity, the first lot of which is what the previous government originally said would be needed by December 2012 and then there is further additional capacity required to cope with higher expected demand between 2012 and them finally arriving in the North West.

3. The 153 DDA issue in single formation will reduce fleet flexibility.

4. The released 222s will not be that useful to replace DMUs with North TPE being electrified, they'd probably finish up providing extra capacity for the XC network.

In view of this over 150 DMUs would need to be withdrawn by 2,3,4 and 5. While you don't state every line that will be electrified under your plans, I think 150 is too many.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Or Scotrail!!! Bloody hell I'm not planning a serious cascade here! It's just an idea!

If it had been a Scotrail 156 people would have complained about it having the original interior. Remember the extra 156 would not finish up designated to a Crewe-Derby service and some people would spend 2 hours on it going to Skegness.

If it'd had been a Northern 156 then they would have needed an extra 150 as replacement so FGW may have lost out on one of the extra 150s they got.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,521
Location
Macclesfield
4. The released 222s will not be that useful to replace DMUs with North TPE being electrified, they'd probably finish up providing extra capacity for the XC network.

In view of this over 150 DMUs would need to be withdrawn by 2,3,4 and 5. While you don't state every line that will be electrified under your plans, I think 150 is too many.
I also don't consider that displaced 222s from an electrified Midland Mainline would be much use in replacing Pacers or Sprinters; as I mentioned in the post you quoted inroads into Pacer replacement would only likely be made through Midland Mainline electrification if the scheme included all the various local routes radiating from Wakefield, joining up with TPE North electrification.

My electrification influenced Pacer replacement proposals also take into account the reformation of 153s into two-car 155s, although I'm not sure this thread is the place to elaborate in great detail. The post was simply intended to illustrate that there is a lot of electrification needed to be done, above and beyond that already announced, if it is hoped that it will replace Pacers on its' own.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
15,935
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
Why do TOC's such as Scotrail & LM under-utilise their respective SuperSprinter fleets?
Before this becomes another "Pacer" thread (and someone suggests spending the entire GDP of the country on building thousands of additional trains etc) I'd be interested in how you quantify "under utilised" DMUs?

Some TOCs appear to have lots of spare DMUs at weekends/ off peak (see the threads about SWT 158/159s for example as well as your mention of LM and FSR), but these are needed on peak hour capacity into/out of London/ Birmingham/ Edinburgh etc.

Should they be allowed all of these DMUs for just a couple of trips a day? Dunno, it'd be politically unpopular to pinch them from commuters in big cities.

The other point is that the handful of DMUs you could "save" by doing this really wouldn't make much of a difference against the dozens and dozens of additional DMUs needed nationwide.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Some TOCs appear to have lots of spare DMUs at weekends/ off peak
What I don't understand is why the Saturday timetable doesn't usually include peak time extras. A Monday-Friday timetable can be departures at 06:30, 07:00, 07:30, 08:00, 08:30, 09:30 then hourly, while an equivalent Saturday timetable is usually hourly all day. I think on these lines a Saturday timetable of something like 06:30, 07:30, 08:30, 09:00, 09:30, 10:00, 10:30 then hourly would better suit demand than either the weekday timetable or the Saturday timetable without any 'extras'.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,298
What I don't understand is why the Saturday timetable doesn't usually include peak time extras. A Monday-Friday timetable can be departures at 06:30, 07:00, 07:30, 08:00, 08:30, 09:30 then hourly, while an equivalent Saturday timetable is usually hourly all day. I think on these lines a Saturday timetable of something like 06:30, 07:30, 08:30, 09:00, 09:30, 10:00, 10:30 then hourly would better suit demand than either the weekday timetable or the Saturday timetable without any 'extras'.
Often because the number of units being maintained increases on Saturday, and even more so on Sunday.

Just because depot X can chuck out a certain number of units each working day, it doesn't follow that they can do it all week.
 

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
4,418
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
Often because the number of units being maintained increases on Saturday, and even more so on Sunday.

Just because depot X can chuck out a certain number of units each working day, it doesn't follow that they can do it all week.
In my mainly commuter EMU experience, thats not what seems to happen. Staff levels at depots tend to be lower at weekends than weekdays - a small number of larger exams tend to be done rather than lots of units on service exams which is what happens on days/nights during the week. There must be hundereds of units over the country outstabled thoughout a weekend which could be used aswell without taking out any maintenance units.

I don't doubt some operators have very different regimes, it'd be interesting to compare that with IC operators who have little peak/off-peak variation.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
15,935
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
What I don't understand is why the Saturday timetable doesn't usually include peak time extras. A Monday-Friday timetable can be departures at 06:30, 07:00, 07:30, 08:00, 08:30, 09:30 then hourly, while an equivalent Saturday timetable is usually hourly all day. I think on these lines a Saturday timetable of something like 06:30, 07:30, 08:30, 09:00, 09:30, 10:00, 10:30 then hourly would better suit demand than either the weekday timetable or the Saturday timetable without any 'extras'.
Saturday "peaks" aren't anything like as big as the weekday rush hour, plus its hard enough for some TOCs to coerce staff to work at weekeneds without expecting them to come in and work for only an hour or two.
 

Julia

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2011
Messages
188
Reigonal branch services can be hauled by a freight locomotive, god knows we have plenty going spare...
Except you then need to upgrade a lot of branch lines to cope with something as heavy as a 66, and keep them that way. Even then, you'll probably have differential speed limits which means more trains required for the same timetable.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Saturday "peaks" aren't anything like as big as the weekday rush hour, plus its hard enough for some TOCs to coerce staff to work at weekeneds without expecting them to come in and work for only an hour or two.
On my local line the Saturday 'peak services' are busier per train than the weekday peak. Weekday peak doesn't normally see people left behind, but Saturday peak can.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top