Were 101s retired too early?

[Philip]

In view of the overcrowding which occurred on many Northern services in the North West (especially Greater Manchester) up until recent electrification schemes and the introduction of CAF trains, do you think FNW/Northern should have held onto the 101s at least until extra Sprinter stock started arriving from ATW and London Midland? This would have meant Northern holding onto first generation slam-door stock into the early 2010s, generating negative publicity headlines about the trains being ancient and not fit for a 21st century railway, however, balanced against the extra stock providing a good bit more capacity through the 2000s, would Northern have been better retaining the 101s for anything up to another 10 years?

 

[DanNCL]

Getting rid of them was the right decision. They were almost 50 years old already when they were withdrawn. The mistake was not ordering more 175s and 185s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, they were utterly knackered. Much as I liked them.

The 175s provided the added capacity, and would have been enough had FNW not pursued excessive frequency increases that were mostly reversed.

 

[ac6000cw]

Getting rid of them was the right decision. They were almost 50 years old already when they were withdrawn.

100% agree with that. They should have all have been scrapped 10 years earlier - noisy, rattly, poor riding on CWR, draughty, slam doors etc. OK in the 1960s/70s but not in the 21st century. If BR had been able to get the money I'm sure they would have gone before privatisation.

 

[Efini92]

They had a room at newton heath dedicated to keeping the batteries on charge.
They were worn out after 50 years service.

 

[Philip]

100% agree with that. They should have all have been scrapped 10 years earlier - noisy, rattly, poor riding on CWR, draughty, slam doors etc. OK in the 1960s/70s but not in the 21st century. If BR had been able to get the money I'm sure they would have gone before privatisation.

Were 142s really that much better?

It's interesting that Northern/DfT were content to run 142s for the best part of another 20 years after the last 101 left FNW.

There is the argument that a train, however tatty it might be, is better than either no train at all or better than having people squashed into a short-formed train.

 

[Wolfie]

Can you imagine the howls from people up north if Northern had ended up not only with Pacers but also as the last redoubt of knackered old sixty year old DMUs?

 

[bramling]

In view of the overcrowding which occurred on many Northern services in the North West (especially Greater Manchester) up until recent electrification schemes and the introduction of CAF trains, do you think FNW/Northern should have held onto the 101s at least until extra Sprinter stock started arriving from ATW and London Midland? This would have meant Northern holding onto first generation slam-door stock into the early 2010s, generating negative publicity headlines about the trains being ancient and not fit for a 21st century railway, however, balanced against the extra stock providing a good bit more capacity through the 2000s, would Northern have been better retaining the 101s for anything up to another 10 years?

On balance, probably not. They were pushing on 50 years old, which is old especially for a diesel train, so always the risk of running into performance issues. But there is a case to say extra capacity would have been useful. Some more of something else seems to be the right answer, although again there is the valid point that there possibly wasn’t anything else readily available. A few more Turbostars would have done the business, either directly or indirectly.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Were 142s really that much better?

It's interesting that Northern/DfT were content to run 142s for the best part of another 20 years after the last 101 left FNW.

There is the argument that a train, however tatty it might be, is better than either no train at all or better than having people squashed into a short-formed train.

Even putting my enthusiasm aside, the 101s were a marginally nicer environment than the worst of the 142s. If in the unlikely event that FNW had decided to dump the Merseytravel 142s and kept an equivalent number of 101s instead, it would have been an improvement in the short-term...

However for staff it would be a nightmare. They would have needed far more work to keep going, would almost certainly have needed door locking fitted, otherwise guards would be constantly worrying about someone falling out and them being held responsible.

 

[6Gman]

Were 142s really that much better?

It's interesting that Northern/DfT were content to run 142s for the best part of another 20 years after the last 101 left FNW.

There is the argument that a train, however tatty it might be, is better than either no train at all or better than having people squashed into a short-formed train.

If you're strengthening (e.g.) a Manchester-Southport 156 then a 142 is a much better option than a 101 for the simple reason that coupling a 156 to a 101 ain't going to work!

I was a unit diagrammer when we had a mixed fleet in the midlands and it was a nightmare.

 

[DanNCL]

Were 142s really that much better?

It's interesting that Northern/DfT were content to run 142s for the best part of another 20 years after the last 101 left FNW.

There is the argument that a train, however tatty it might be, is better than either no train at all or better than having people squashed into a short-formed train.

The Pacers may have lasted another 17 years after the last 101s were withdrawn, but they were 30 years newer, so ultimately they still served 13 years less than the 101s did. The longevity of the 101s is in part down to their relatively good reliability compared to other first generation DMUs, but they’d had it by the time they went.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Getting rid of them was the right decision.

I have to concur in all honesty. Any mention of old school DMU's pricks my ears. As a late 60s/70's enthusiast I have fond (rose tinted perhaps) memories of the 101's (and other classes). Of all the old DMU's, I always thought the Met Camm external cab design was very pleasing to look at, but one of my last rides on the type in BR service was something else. Bone shaking and rattly I could put up with, but I boarded a 2-101 somewhere or other, and on seeing the leading car was rammed, I elected to head to the rear car, which was empty, so I plonked myself down behind the rear cab (as you do) not stopping to wonder why everyone else was sat in the front car, and off we went. I remember it was a warm summers day, and after a while the eyelids became a tad heavy. My next memory is the guard asking to see my ticket, and asking if if I was ok (sitting where I was). Only then did I turn round and look towards the front car, and noticed the car I was sitting in, was full of a blue haze!!!! Given all the windows were open, not least because it was a warm day, don't think I suffered too many ill effects, but again, one of those few moments in life one tends to remember for all the wrong reasons

 

[Trestrol]

They were knackered by the end but you have to admit that the build quality must have been good to get to nearly 50. Metro Cammell built quality vehicles. I volunteer for a group that has Met-cam and BRCW carriages. The build quality and rust proofing were much better on a Met-cam even in a wooden bodied carriage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They were knackered by the end but you have to admit that the build quality must have been good to get to nearly 50. Metro Cammell built quality vehicles. I volunteer for a group that has Met-cam and BRCW carriages. The build quality and rust proofing were much better on a Met-cam even in a wooden bodied carriage.

I would be astonished if 150s and 156s didn't reach or surpass that age.

 

[mmh]

I would be astonished if 150s and 156s didn't reach or surpass that age.

156s were built by Metro Cammell, of course.

 

[LowLevel]

No. The state of the latter vehicles was something to be seen, plenty of them have more filler than metalwork (I say have as lots of them survive in preservation). Ironically I am a member of an owning group that has examples both from the early 90s withdrawals that were converted to Sandite cars and the life extended 1016xx vehicles and the earlier withdrawals are in much better condition bodywork wise.

They more than served their time and I don't think at the time that the Regional network capacity issues were as acute as they became a few years later - 170 and 175 fleets had recently come along in various places.

 

[nw1]

100% agree with that. They should have all have been scrapped 10 years earlier - noisy, rattly, poor riding on CWR, draughty, slam doors etc. OK in the 1960s/70s but not in the 21st century. If BR had been able to get the money I'm sure they would have gone before privatisation.

Not so sure about retiring them 10 years earlier, having travelled on North Western 101s multiple times between 1997 and 2000 and not having any problem with them. If they had gone by the start of the 90s I suspect the North West would have had a stock shortage problem; generally I am strongly opposed to retiring stock before its sell-by date as I consider it wasteful (for more recent examples, see: 365s, 442s, etc)

It could be argued that more Sprinters should have been ordered in the 80s but they weren't, so essentially: better a seat on a 101 than no seat.

That said, extending their life to 2010 would likely have been a non-starter as they would have been seriously old by then.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The overcrowding argument actually confuses the timeline. It wasn't too many years after the 101s finished that Northern actually had a surplus of capacity and was able to put a number of 142s in store. Some of them were then sub-leased to FGW for Devon Metro services and when those units returned they were proudly sporting Devon flag stickers in the windscreens. Contemporary overcrowding has much more to do with a reluctance to adequately replace the 142 fleet as much on reliability grounds as anything else. Northern found a way to muck a way through each day such that the DfT didn't believe that an overall increase in diesel powered capacity was really necessary. But now decarbonising the railway means that any capacity increases will have to be by non-diesel powered trains which of course requires investment spending that the country is struggling to afford right now.

 

[delt1c]

The 101’s were retired to late. As much as I loved the 1st gen DMU’s they should have been replaced by the mid 80’s at latest , unfortunately finance was available for a replacement.

 

[Strathclyder]

Quite honestly, as much as I like them and even with Metro-Cammell's build quality in mind, it still surprises me somewhat that they (6 were left by November/December 2003) managed to last as long as they did (much like how the 303s lasted to the end of 2002 in Strathclyde, though I know they were a few years younger, were EMUs and were built by Pressed Steel). They were life-expired by then, crucical parts were getting harder to source and door locking would have been a necessity after a certain point as @61653 HTAFC notes above.

That said, their persistence and longevity alllowed at least some relief to any potential rolling stock shortages and the non-appearence of proposed new-build DMUs in the 90s, namely the 157s which would have likely seen the Strathclyde 101s ousted a lot sooner than they were in the end (July/August 2000, they were pushed out by a cascade triggered by the arrival of the first ScR 170s IIRC).

 

[Bevan Price]

I think that those 101s which survived longest were those from which asbestos was removed. Others were withdrawn & replaced by inadequate numbers of Sprinters / Pacers in the 1980s and early 1990s. Some other 1st generation dmus were withdrawn due to bodywork problems (corrosion) and asbestos removal was not completed.

Personally, if it had been feasible, I would have preferred Class 104 to have survived longer than Class 101 - from a passenger's viewpoint, they had more comfortable seating, and mostly seemed to have better riding qualities. Certainly when Woodhead closed, replacement of hauled stock (Sheffield / Manchester) by 101s (via Hope Valley) was a very retrogade choice in terms of comfort and ride quality,

 

[Robert Ambler]

The answer to the original question posed is no.

The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems Safety Regulations 2006 would have banned their use in everyday service anyways without extensive and expensive modification (if that were even possible). Railway operators knew these regulations were coming well in advance and their impending introduction hastened the demise of a lot of older stock.

Whilst some older stock did continue in use with derogation or specific exception from the regulations that was either time limited or involved significant restriction on use. There is no way 101s would have been allowed to continue in normal frontline service after 2006.

Older stock does of course remain in use but either uses the exceptions contained in the regulations with appropriate mitigation of risk (such as heritage railways where the mitigation is the maximum permitted speed of 25mph) or a derogation (such as older stock being permitted for limited amounts of occasional excursion use - the derogation for which expires shortly).

 

[warwickshire]

No could have stayed a couple of years maximum extra due to 175 reliability.
However if at the time had a massive extra order gone in for 175 and possibly 170 units maybe the 142s also would have gone with them. However same reason as the op states. Due to work needed on them plus Central door locking However question is this was actually achieved on The Chiltern Railways bubble car between Princess Risbourgh and Aylesbury. Maybe possible on the northern 101s? However costs and other work related issues etc most likely not.
However should have been kept a couple of years maximum because a few 175 reliability issues did occur due to 156 150 142 cover for them.
But no 101 to go out on the Romiley line though. So a little short despite extra coverage being done by Class 47 and mk2 coaches from North Wales Coast services and Some peak services Chester to Manchester Piccadilly.

 

[Ashley Hill]

They were wonderful things but sadly couldn’t go on for ever. If we had them back on the branches tomorrow you could shove your IETs where the sun don’t shine I’d be back on the local stoppers!!