Unfair fleet sharing.

[whhistle]

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.

But then replacing all DMU's pre-165's would probably cover what is needed. By the time the 165's/166's need replacing, electrification will probably be in their local area, therefore scrapping this stock or cascading as required would be more than welcome I should think.

 

[WillPS]

If you ask me it's completely political. When Central Trains was split, the West was favoured simply because of the amount of swing seats over there compared to the East.

 

[BestWestern]

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)

I agree that loco hauled coaching stock may well be worth another look in the near future. The rise and rise of the multiple unit would take some serious undoing, however now that we have reached something of a conundrum with the issues of whether to build diesel and lose long-term value, or go electric and spend lots in the short term, it's clear that what is needed most is flexibility. We only have to look at the farce that is 'HST2'/IEP and the indecision over whether it should be an oil burner, a hummer or both, to see how tricky the situation is likely to become when those same decisions are needed on a nationwide basis.

I'd argue that there are two solutions, either design and order a very cheap DMU with a shorter lifespan and so less value for money issues, or go for LHCS. The DMU option seems unlikely given the expense of all the kit new diesel trains will need, the enormous weight and other complexities. Coaches of course are cheaper, likely to last longer and a lot more flexible throughout their lifespan.

 

[455driver]

I know that! I mean why do the DFT allow this?

P.S you don't need to be so rude.

Eh? how is my reply rude, "take it up with (the DafT)" is an answer. Jeez if you are that easily offended.

If you knew the answer already why ask the question?