• 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!

What stock will Doncaster to Cleethorpes get then...

Status
Not open for further replies.

dstrat

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
194
So...it appears that the powers that be are deciding (and most likely will decide) that Transpennine Express will not run trains between Cleethorpes to Doncaster (and onwards to Manchester Airport).

As such, they propose that the current dogsbody stopping service between Doncaster and Scunthorpe will be extended through to Cleethorpes.

So....does it look like this line will be operated by Pacers (which I believe DON-SCU is)???

So passengers will go from one of the newest trains out (Class 185) to a shopping trolley?????? Or do we think they shall get something better?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

pennine

Member
Joined
8 Aug 2010
Messages
168
Location
Redcar
So...it appears that the powers that be are deciding (and most likely will decide) that Transpennine Express will not run trains between Cleethorpes to Doncaster (and onwards to Manchester Airport).

As such, they propose that the current dogsbody stopping service between Doncaster and Scunthorpe will be extended through to Cleethorpes.

So....does it look like this line will be operated by Pacers (which I believe DON-SCU is)???

So passengers will go from one of the newest trains out (Class 185) to a shopping trolley?????? Or do we think they shall get something better?

Pacer delight!
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,338
Doesn't the consultation talk of extending the stopper, or running a Sheffield-Cleethorpes express? That'll make a major difference to the stock. Remember if it terminates at Doncaster there'll be a 1tph reduction Sheffield-Doncaster which SYPTE might have a view on...
 

David Barrett

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2013
Messages
554
Firstly Could somebody consolidate this into one Northern/TP consultation discussion?

Secondly, the proposal is to truncate the TP service at Doncaster so a Cleethorpes to Sheffield service would need an additional path west of Doncaster and would require to cross the ECML which, I get the impression, that Network Rail would like to eliminate so as to create more main line paths. Further on in the document it is then suggested that the truncated TP service could be extended to Hull implying an additional working each hour between Thorne Junction and Sheffield if both services come about which is highly unlikely.

Muddled thinking on the part of the DfT, and NR not being able to resolve north south/east west passenger conflicts at Doncaster.

As ever I remain confident in the ability of the DfT to have learned from its past mistakes and be able to replicate them perfectly (with apologies to Peter Cook).
 
Last edited:

brompton rail

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2009
Messages
754
Location
Doncaster
So, ....
If Manchester - Cleethorpes becomes Manchester - Hull via Sheffield, and Sheffield - Doncaster - Hull becomes Sheffield - Cleethorpes the number of crossings of the ECML at Doncaster is unchanged. Hull gets class 185/170 and Cleethorpes gets class 158. The main loser is the Yorkshire Coast line which would loose through services beyond Hull, pretty useful the tourism trade I would have thought?

Scunthorpe locals are a problem - SYPTE wants SY supported stations to have through services to Sheffield, but when the Sheffield - Doncaster line is electrified this is a problem.

Kirk Sandall, Stainforth and Thorne are served on the Hull line anyway, though Thorne South serves the opposite end of Thorne. Crowle and Althorpe are not in South Yorkshire and probably don't warrant an hourly service.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,338
Secondly, the proposal is to truncate the TP service at Doncaster so a Cleethorpes to Sheffield service would need an additional path west of Doncaster and would require to cross the ECML which, I get the impression, that Network Rail would like to eliminate so as to create more main line paths. Further on in the document it is then suggested that the truncated TP service could be extended to Hull implying an additional working each hour between Thorne Junction and Sheffield if both services come about which is highly unlikely.

There wouldnt be an extra path required west of Doncaster because the proposed diversion of the TP service to Hull would replace one of the 2 Northern services between Hull and Doncaster, presumably the express rather than the stopper, so as the express currently continues to Sheffield this path could be available for Cleethorpes with no increase in crossing moves at Doncaster.
 

David Barrett

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2013
Messages
554
There wouldnt be an extra path required west of Doncaster because the proposed diversion of the TP service to Hull would replace one of the 2 Northern services between Hull and Doncaster, presumably the express rather than the stopper, so as the express currently continues to Sheffield this path could be available for Cleethorpes with no increase in crossing moves at Doncaster.

Got it finally thanks. Does seem a lot of upheaval though and disruption to well established patterns. I think, that as already pointed out, electrification will create more upheaval and will ultimately lead to the truncation of North Lincolnshire services at Doncaster as it seems that the financial case for wiring west thereof depends upon everything being electric with little room for diesel incursions.

I recall, a number of years back, NR fielding an idea about cutting a bay into the northern end of P1/3 permit the splitting Scunthorpe/Cleethorpes/Hull-Sheffield services at Doncaster.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,338
Interesting. There is a proposal knocking around Network Rail's London North Eastern plans for a further platform at Doncaster, but the context has always suggested a through platform.

The bit I really can't get my head around is, who is supposed to benefit from this transfer of South TPE from Cleethorpes to Hull? The South Bank looses, the Yorkshire Coast looses as the express HUL-DON are the through services onto the coast line, and all so that Hull gets a second Manchester service... That you'd still be quicker to take the Northern York to Selby and change to TP at Leeds (or Selby) in future.

The only benefits seem to be the provision of First class, Manchester services for Goole, and Hull services for Stockport... Which all seem like rather small markets!

Unless... We assume that the TP South Hull/Nottingham plan is based on forthcoming electrification plans...
 

David Barrett

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2013
Messages
554
Interesting. There is a proposal knocking around Network Rail's London North Eastern plans for a further platform at Doncaster, but the context has always suggested a through platform.

The bit I really can't get my head around is, who is supposed to benefit from this transfer of South TPE from Cleethorpes to Hull? The South Bank looses, the Yorkshire Coast looses as the express HUL-DON are the through services onto the coast line, and all so that Hull gets a second Manchester service... That you'd still be quicker to take the Northern York to Selby and change to TP at Leeds (or Selby) in future.

The only benefits seem to be the provision of First class, Manchester services for Goole, and Hull services for Stockport... Which all seem like rather small markets!

Unless... We assume that the TP South Hull/Nottingham plan is based on forthcoming electrification plans...

I think I might have come across the through platform thing too but I definitely recall the bay business being stated as being for the splitting of South Humberside services. I don't know what a new through platform would be used for but as I understand it the big issue at Doncaster is the conflict of east/west and north/south traffic about which nothing much can be done without grade seperation, and with increasing pressure for ECML paths something will have to be sacrificed elsewhere.

As it stands the proposals seem to bring more disbenifits than anything else; the local authorities are most certianly busy working on submissions to the DfT. Personally, and this is where I have to declare my self interest, as most of my rail journeys involve North Lincolnshire to the North West and in particular the Furness area, already affected by changes to TP services over there, or South Wales via Stockport you will appreciate that I am not particularly enamoured of the current thinking.

I think that you are correct with your rematks on electrification and I also wonder if the messing about with services east of Sheffield is a part of some re-jigging around the system in connection with a third fast path between there and Manchester.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Interesting. There is a proposal knocking around Network Rail's London North Eastern plans for a further platform at Doncaster, but the context has always suggested a through platform.

The bit I really can't get my head around is, who is supposed to benefit from this transfer of South TPE from Cleethorpes to Hull? The South Bank looses, the Yorkshire Coast looses as the express HUL-DON are the through services onto the coast line, and all so that Hull gets a second Manchester service... That you'd still be quicker to take the Northern York to Selby and change to TP at Leeds (or Selby) in future.

The only benefits seem to be the provision of First class, Manchester services for Goole, and Hull services for Stockport... Which all seem like rather small markets!

Unless... We assume that the TP South Hull/Nottingham plan is based on forthcoming electrification plans...

I suggested on the "Norwich - Liverpool" thread (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1838530#post1838530) that the plan for a Liverpool - Warrington - Manchester - Sheffield - Hull service and a Liverpool - Warrington - Manchester - Sheffield - Nottingham service (chopping other services) seems to be with an eye on CP6 electrification.

Swapping the eastern ends of the current Sheffield - Hull and (Manchester Airport) - Sheffield - Cleethorpes services would probably not affect the vast majority of passengers, but potentially good use of six coach 185s and potentially suited to EMUs in a few years time when we start filling in the gaps between the bits being wired up in CP5.

If Cleethorpes retains an hourly service to Sheffield (basically a 158 operated replacement for the current Northern service from Hull to Sheffield) then that means Scunthorpe retains a half hourly service to Doncaster/ Meadowhall/ Sheffield, it means that most popular links are retained - it seems a reasonable price to pay to fit in with electrification plans.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
The re jigging is linked to the electrification potential of the Hope Valley Line - it's not economic to electrify east of Doncaster (maybe one day it will) so reading between the lines, the current plan is that when wires do get strung between Sheffield and Manchester, they will already works underway for Sheffield to Doncaster and the link between Swinton and Moorthorpe so that creates a nice starter package of wired services for South Yorkshire. Running diesel trains under wires isn't going to happen, the consultation is asking a question it already knows the answers to, it's simply gauging public outcry at the idea of dropping Cleethorpes off the TPE map
 

Grimsby town

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2011
Messages
399
It's all well and good saying that cutting back the Cleethorpes service to Doncaster is for the greater good but this leaves Cleethorpes with services to Barton, Newark and Doncaster. Hardly thriving metropolises. Grimsby is an area of 150,000 people but because of freight the passenger service is disregareded. Also I don't think I've ever seen the Sheffield to Hull service full whereas the Cleethorpes service is generally full by Doncaster.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,397
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
The only benefits seem to be the provision of First class, Manchester services for Goole, and Hull services for Stockport... Which all seem like rather small markets!

Hello there...one of the "rather small market" speaking. Every time that my wife and I have travelled from Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes in the past, it has been in the first-class compartment of a Class 185.
 

David Barrett

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2013
Messages
554
Hello there...one of the "rather small market" speaking. Every time that my wife and I have travelled from Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes in the past, it has been in the first-class compartment of a Class 185.

Food for thought here, from what a number of passengers have indicated it seems that there are a good few small markets affected in this case, high fare paying small markets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
the consultation is asking a question it already knows the answers to, it's simply gauging public outcry at the idea of dropping Cleethorpes off the TPE map

Yes, in the case of a question already answered, no in the case of the map; few care about which map the service appears on, through services and connectivity is the issue.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It's all well and good saying that cutting back the Cleethorpes service to Doncaster is for the greater good but this leaves Cleethorpes with services to Barton, Newark and Doncaster. Hardly thriving metropolises. Grimsby is an area of 150,000 people but because of freight the passenger service is disregareded. Also I don't think I've ever seen the Sheffield to Hull service full whereas the Cleethorpes service is generally full by Doncaster.

If I was connected with Grimsby, in the event of this happening I would be pushing for some sort of quid pro quo, notably a vastly improved Newark service.
 
Last edited:

Mark62

Member
Joined
3 Apr 2014
Messages
312
Bring back the 31's and mk2 stock that used to run between Manchester and Sheffield/Cleethorpes many years ago. That would be an improvement on any stock thats runs at present between the Towns
 

Dunc108

Member
Joined
10 Jun 2013
Messages
270
Location
Morecambe
Pacer delight!

Exactly! More Pacers for Cleethorpes I say, then they can match West Coast resorts like Southport that already suffer a 142 plague!! :lol:;) In fact if Northern took over where TPE left, you just cannot rule out a 142 appearance at Cleethorpes..
 

David Goddard

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
1,503
Location
Reading
If crossing the ECML is the problem here, then the solution would be to divert the Manchester-Cleethorpes trains through Retford and Brigg. This would create new links from Retford (with it's London service) and Gainsborough to Manchester.
If through services were withdrawn then the Cl185 servicing facility at Cleethorpes would go to waste.

A third Hope Valley service could then run to Doncaster to fill the gap, with an appropriate (Grimsby-Doncaster?) shuttle Eastwards.
 
Last edited:

David Barrett

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2013
Messages
554
If crossing the ECML is the problem here, then the solution would be to divert the Manchester-Cleethorpes trains through Retford and Brigg.
A third Hope Valley service could then run to Doncaster to fill the gap, with an appropriate (Grimsby-er?) shuttle Eastwards.

Excepting that the Brigg Line is largely single and, when it's not out of use (06.00-14.00) fitting in passenger trains with freight raises pathing difficulties. I've tried it as part of the campaign to restore a stopping service on this route and, when account is taken of line occupation and junction margins elsewhere along the seventy or so miles of route you would most likely find that in the absence of major infrastructure spending Brigg is not in the running for a large increase in passenger workings at present. I suppose that we could suggest a review of freight pathing but I doubt that any of the current owners of paths would take kindly to a major upheaval which brings no benifit to themselves.
 

David Goddard

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
1,503
Location
Reading
Fully appreciate the problems with the Brigg line, and agree that money would be needed to upgrade it, but this is the kind of investment the network needs.
MONEY is pretty much the principal obstacle to most proposals, and an upgrade here could have much wider benefits than just releasing two paths on the ECML at Doncaster.
Didn't they use the route during the blockage at Stainforth?
 

David Barrett

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2013
Messages
554
If through services were withdrawn then the Cl185 servicing facility at Cleethorpes would go to waste.

Perhaps not, if the whole of Lincolnshire went over to EMT then a quite tightly knit operation could be established without multiple operators working relatively infrequent or irregular services as is now the case. A Doncaster shuttle could be done with 3 or 4 units and Sheffield with 2 more. In both cases there would probably be no need for crews other than those from Cleethorpes to work the services and with the Barton units and one Newark unit stabling overnight a human presence at the fuel point could well be justified. Perhaps with the extension of a couple of Leicester/Lincoln workings the movement of stock to/from Eastcroft could be catered for and fill a commercial gap along with the linking of Newark and Barton diagrams to provide a more regular Newark-Cleethorpes service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Didn't they use the route during the blockage at Stainforth?

Of a fashion, all that eventually happened was, after much talking, a Saturday morning Sheffield-Cleethorpes TP working with an evening return which largely duplicated the Northern Parly.

There may be something in mind for the Brigg line though as I understand that cable troughs and other equipment needed for the resignalling is being laid in such a manner as not to obstruct any future trackwork reinstatement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Exactly! More Pacers for Cleethorpes I say, then they can match West Coast resorts like Southport that already suffer a 142 plague!! :lol:;) In fact if Northern took over where TPE left, you just cannot rule out a 142 appearance at Cleethorpes..

Please accept this as being a little tongue in cheek but if the fares were also infected by the plague to reflect the change of status from premium service, there being an issue over here over the fares via Brigg being set by TP also, with the walk on fare being similar mile for mile as Southport to Manchester then the local users might just be a tad more understanding.
 
Last edited:

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
9,656
Location
Nowhere near enough to a Pacer :(
If the overall aim of this is to have more additional fast capacity on the hope valley, couldnt the stock be jumbled about to use the 170s on Liv, Man, Sheffield in formations of 6 or even 8 car with units being attached and detached as needed? This would also aid bording times on Liverpool Knorage runs which require commuter door alignment but not the grunt of a 185, thus retaining this service too? If more 170s are needed, get a new DMU order in sharp for other areas with 170s, cascade and refurb these and fit new cabs and gangways as needed.↲
 

dstrat

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
194
My understanding of the dilemma is as follows...

Chiltern railways is to get the Class 170s in 2015. As such a stock issue could arise (this is speculative) with the sheer mileage / time that the current Class 185s / Class 170s spend between Doncaster and Cleethorpes.

Therefore, the DfT proposes that the TPE [franchise] abandons stations east of Donny to better accomodate its current services.

As such, this leaves the following options.

1. The above doesn't go ahead actually things stay the same.
2. Above goes ahead and Northern operates between Sheffield and Cleethorpes, perhaps with a nice refurbished Class 158.
3. Around Grimsby the haddock is spat out of the residents' mouths in disgust at being handed a 'service' by having the existing Sheffield-Scunthorpe pacer service extended to Cleethorpes, making a totally unattractive 1hr 30min service between Cleethorpes and Grimsby with overcrowding worse than it already is on heavily loaded services.

Seriously....the DfT say there is not heavily loaded services between Clee and Grimsby. Have they not travelled on some Saturdays when a 2 car 170 is laid on and it is standing room only from Scunthorpe onwards ????
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
Seriously....the DfT say there is not heavily loaded services between Clee and Grimsby. Have they not travelled on some Saturdays when a 2 car 170 is laid on and it is standing room only from Scunthorpe onwards ????


Services between Manchester and Leeds/Sheffield are like that right through the day, I've not riden Manchester-Leeds much but certainly you need to be canny to get a seat inbetween all the pre-booked day trippers - this is why more seats are needed elsewhere as a priority
 

dstrat

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
194
That is fair enough. It still is damning on the DfT for knowing these issues have existed presumably for a fair while and yet orders for new stock have remained at the low that they have.

Reshuffling stock around the network really doesn't get to the crux of the problem that needs to be sorted.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
As much as I like to have a good moan about the DfT both as a customer and as a consultant who uses their budgets, growth has come as a bit of a surprise to everyone, coupled with the biggest cuts to government spending in a generation, coupled with poorly considered franchise terms that may have seemed a good idea a decade ago, but not now...

We are on the brink of a big revolution, 1000's of new units for the South East, GWML & ECML will push old stock around the rest of the network, most won't be happy with what cast offs are allocated to their route, but gradually the situation will move into a more positive situation, with EMU's from the south displacing major DMU's routes in the north, other DMU services being strengthened or provided with better stock, making way for further electrification as new fleets come to the regions - which they will - it's a fantastic future ahead, it's just a pig that it's taking so long :-/
 

David Barrett

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2013
Messages
554
My understanding of the dilemma is as follows...

Chiltern railways is to get the Class 170s in 2015. As such a stock issue could arise (this is speculative) with the sheer mileage / time that the current Class 185s / Class 170s spend between Doncaster and Cleethorpes.

Therefore, the DfT proposes that the TPE [franchise] abandons stations east of Donny to better accomodate its current services.

As such, this leaves the following options.

1. The above doesn't go ahead actually things stay the same.
2. Above goes ahead and Northern operates between Sheffield and Cleethorpes, perhaps with a nice refurbished Class 158.
3. Around Grimsby the haddock is spat out of the residents' mouths in disgust at being handed a 'service' by having the existing Sheffield-Scunthorpe pacer service extended to Cleethorpes, making a totally unattractive 1hr 30min service between Cleethorpes and Grimsby with overcrowding worse than it already is on heavily loaded services.

Seriously....the DfT say there is not heavily loaded services between Clee and Grimsby. Have they not travelled on some Saturdays when a 2 car 170 is laid on and it is standing room only from Scunthorpe onwards ????

Whilst the 170 fiasco is relevant and enough cause for concern, it is not actually what has caused the rioting. It's the attempt at forward planning by the DfT to give Humberside some sort of post electrification service long before authorisation of either the Hope Valley or Sheffield-Doncaster schemes let alone the actual hardware being in place.

Of course as Haydn has referred to the capacity elsewhere situation, the re-franchising element of the consultation document could well be a thin disguise for a someone else somewhere is more important than you so they can have your rolling stock attitude at the DfT. Worse still, that same department has been less than helpful, and honest for that matter, on their muddled thoughts upon what will do for South Humberside as, post electrification dreams we are told, it will not likely be acceptable to operate diesel under the wires so the Sheffield-Cleethorpes express option is probably a non starter. It comes down to a Doncaster-Cleethorpes fast which is self defeating if rolling stock is so desperately needed elsewhere and a cheap and nasty extension of the Scunthorpe stoppers implying a two hour journey between Grimsby and Sheffield perhaps tempered by the futile gesture of omitting Althorpe/Crowle on alternate journeys to speed up the service overall.

Cleethorpes to Doncaster is no different from anywhere else in respect of use and numbers, there are some services off peak which are relatively lightly loaded and others in the peak where, west of Scunthorpe, one would be hard pressed to find a seat, it's what 185s were all about instead of 158s in the first place and is applicable as much in Northern Lincolnshire as it is elsewhere. Likewise there are some services west of Sheffield which are likely to be lightly loaded in the off peak periods too and I think that I have spent enough time travelling between North Lincolnshire and the North West at all hours of the day over the years to have observed this.

After experiencing the Central Trains and EMT farce in Lincolnshire to remove rolling stock for more deserving causes elsewhere, the first of which goes back well over a decade, I must ask why wasn't what is now going on picked up on back then, to-day's situation of rising use just didn't jump up out of nowhere, it came gradually and persistently and only those who were asleep at the controls could have failed to notice.

Having been involved in both road and rail transport since the early 1970s I have seen all too many promises of jam tomorrow and I only wish that I shared your optimism Haydn over the bright future.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,338
I think a difficult question for the DfT in terms of Cleethorpes is, if the electric spine is such a great idea for freight, why isn't electrification of a line which sees such a large proportion of UK railfreight on the agenda?

I'm beginning to think the only way Cleethorpes will retain a Manchester service is if the third hourly south transpennine service goes ahead.
 

David Barrett

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2013
Messages
554
I think a difficult question for the DfT in terms of Cleethorpes is, if the electric spine is such a great idea for freight, why isn't electrification of a line which sees such a large proportion of UK railfreight on the agenda?

I'm beginning to think the only way Cleethorpes will retain a Manchester service is if the third hourly south transpennine service goes ahead.

Indeed, does this say something about the long term future of a large chunk of this traffic feeding Scunthorpe's ageing blast furnaces and hauling processed steel from thereabout?

As for passenger services your guess is as good as anyone's although long after the removal of the remaining through services from Cleethorpes to Nottingham/Birmingham during the already mentioned Central purge and the apparent implications of the Northern/TP consultation document it seems that the future for much of Lincolnshire(s) will be change at Wherever Junction. This might be tolerable in the bright future talked about but I remain unconvinced and, as yet, have seen nothing that would sell any of what's apparently on the table to Northern Lincolnshire.
 
Last edited:

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,717
Location
North
As much as I like to have a good moan about the DfT both as a customer and as a consultant who uses their budgets, growth has come as a bit of a surprise to everyone, coupled with the biggest cuts to government spending in a generation, coupled with poorly considered franchise terms that may have seemed a good idea a decade ago, but not now...

We are on the brink of a big revolution, 1000's of new units for the South East, GWML & ECML will push old stock around the rest of the network, most won't be happy with what cast offs are allocated to their route, but gradually the situation will move into a more positive situation, with EMU's from the south displacing major DMU's routes in the north, other DMU services being strengthened or provided with better stock, making way for further electrification as new fleets come to the regions - which they will - it's a fantastic future ahead, it's just a pig that it's taking so long :-/

Hopefully by the end of CP5, enough routes will be electrified to release enough DMUs to cover shortage of stock on non electrified routes due to unprecedented growth but it will be a rough ride (Pacers) for many beyond non compliant 2020.

We don't want to newbuild DMUs when electrification is the way forward. We need to electrify routes that will release the maximum number of diesel units as fast as possible and not pratt about with panels of MPs deciding which route justifies upgrading.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
I've long argued on here that we will still need new DMU's regardless of the electrification plans, the plans are ambitious and are very prone to risks of delay. Much of our DMU fleet isn't fit for purpose now, let alone in 2020 - We need substantial order of DMU's now to meet capacity, followed by an ongoing trickle contract to replace the 14x/15x fleets and ultimately the 16x fleets. We won't eventually need as many DMU's but that time isn't now, nor will the displacement by the new 345/700 fleets fix things, the displacement is just a sticking plaster solution for the DfT who won't invest in what they see as a short term DMU solution
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top