Your Last Train Journey?

A321Pilot · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:53 am

47407 wrote:

Not forgetting we have the Olympics coming up.... Once those have been and gone im sure they'll replace the 142s.

They could have replaced them Years ago. I was on one on the way back from School the other Day and It's Interior was still in the Old Merseyrail Interior. It was rather wrecked inside too. Get Bombardier to build a load of Class 172's to replace the Pacers, that will keep them going for a while. And they should be at least 4 Cars as well.

EXTspotter · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:28 am

As for the first refusal for 150s and 158s, the reason why FGW has first refusal is because the entire operation on the local lines is completely ridiculous. When as a company you operate on a number of high capacity corridors (Plymouth/Paignton - Bristol/Cardiff, Brighton/Portsmouth - Cardiff/Great Malvern) as well as on commuter routes around two of the UK's largest cities, Bristol and Plymouth, offering 2 carriage trains on almost every service is wrong. Whilst some things have been done to solve this, such as creating the 15895# series of 3 carriage 158 hybrids for the Portsmouth route, it has taken all of the 158s away from the services they were providing before. Using class 150s or even single 153s to operate the cornish main line is ridiculous. In accordance with this the use of hired in units and loco hauled trains has helped, however until more 158s come on line, 150s will be operating 5 hour long journeys, which they are simply not suited to in terms of passenger comfort.

The 143s have found a new home on the devon metro services around exeter, and whilst jiglly as can be, are still bearable for the short journeys and excess wheel wear isn't too bad due to the lack of small radius corners (well except just after leaving Exeter St Davids to go up the hill to Central which has a ridiculously tight corner, but it is tackled at very low speed which must help...). The problem with many of the lines down here is the change is occupancy between the seasons. In january, each of the cornish branch lines can be easily operated by just 153s, whereas in summer, the St Ives and Newquay lines are usually upgraded to 4 carriages. These extra units have to be taken from somewhere and other lines suffer with overcrowding instead. The new 150/1s should help this problem, but again, as I said before the only thing that would truely help this problem is by receiving 158s (or other fast DMUs like the 90mph Turbos or 170s), which would allow the 150s currently used on the mainline services to augment the branchlines. In other areas of the country, a 150 would never be used for such a long trip. In scotland it would be 158 or 170 - their worst DMU is only a 156, which is better than everything we have except the 158s - in wales, 158 or 175, even Northern would use 158s on their longest routes like York - Blackpool or Leeds - Carlisle.

Whilst I agree that Northern gets the worst trains at the low end, you have more trains which are supposedly nicer than most of ours...

47434 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:35 pm

You make A LOT of good points, and I agree that the Cornish branches present a problem in terms of the usage patterns that change throughout the year. Maybe a solution for that would be to refurbish some low-density 'Heritage' units such as 101/108s (maybe those currently/until recently used as Track Recording units by NR as they'll have been maintained to a high standard- NR could always have some 142/143s for those jobs!), fit them with CDL and they'd be perfect for the Looe/St. Ives/Newquay/Gunnislake branches in summer, not least because they offer far better visibility for tourists. In particular the Looe and St. Ives line would be suitable for this as they're almost completely isolated from the mainlines (providing the St. Ives services run to the St. Erth bay rather than through to Penzance) so the fact that these are Mk.1-based stock would be far less of an issue. A refurbished and overhauled 101 power-twin would have more power than a pacer too, and in terms of power/weight would possibly out-perform a 150 on the gradients of the St. Ives line: If it's good enough for Aylesbury-Princes Risborough and the Cardiff Bay branch, then it's good enough for the Cornish branches too! 104/108s would be better with the deeper windows, but there's less of them about sadly. Sure, they'd require more looking after, but they'd only be needed in the summer and during winter could be put into warm store and maybe loaned/babysat by heritage railways before being polished up ready for the summer again. I'd imagine that the extra cost of the specialist maintenance would almost be covered by no longer needing to borrow stock from up North.

For the record, Northern currently uses pacers on services as long as Leeds-Morecambe/Heysham and Middlesbrough-Carlisle. There's also a handful of services such as Leeds-Sheffield via Huddersfield; Huddersfield-Retford via Sheffield; and Southport-Huddersfield via Manchester, but these are to move the units around without needing an ECS working, so I guess that doesn't count

EXTspotter · **Posted:** Fri Apr 06, 2012 12:32 am

Another point to make is that the DMU fleet in this country is getting old. The bulk of it (Sprinters, Pacers, Turbos) come from the 80s and early 1990s. Obviously trains are designed to have a 25 or 30 year lifespan, but when TOCs are clamouring for 20 year old units to augment 30 year old ones, surely it sends a message that there is still a great need for new build DMUs. Whilst progressive electrification over the next 30 years can help reduce the DMU fleet necessary for maintaining services, the network is seeing an upturn in passenger numbers, hence more capacity is needed. Replacing life-expired stock is needed, hence the gap between replacing old stock and increasing capacity points directly to procurement of more units. As I believe someone said earlier that further orders for 172s would be a fantastic way of achieving this, through providing more work for Bombardier at Derby, as well as at their suppliers and improving the service quality on rail services nationwide. Even though we are in recession, the only way to break the cycle is to stimulate the economy by creating a demand for goods and services, in turn keeping hundreds or thousands of workers in jobs both directly and indirectly linked to a new train order.

Another benefit is that because of the low demand for goods in the current market, the cost of said units would be lower than during a time of economic growth. The best example I have of this is also in the transportation industry - in the wake of 9/11, aircraft sales plummeted through the floor. As a desperate measure to stay bouyant, aircraft manufacturers were selling their products for ridiculous prices. Ryanair approached boeing to purchase a number of 737-800 aircraft (list price around $80m US). A standard discount from list price for an airline is 40 to 50%, so in a normal market $40-45m is a normal price for each. American Airlines, one of Boeing's longest customers recently said that each of their 737-800 aircraft cost an average of $35m when they were ordered at various points in the last 13 years. Ryanair ordered 155 737-800s in late 2001 and apparently paid $27-28m each, 35% of the original list price, which is made even more ridiculous as it was their first ever order for new aircraft from a manufacturer. In this way, given the desperation of Bombardier to continue in business in the UK, the government could probably get a pretty sweet deal for more 172s...

Ameecher · **Posted:** Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:43 pm

In my opinion there should be no need to build new DMUs except perhaps for some remote lines, a rolling programme of electrification would allow 185s and 170s to be sent to do the donkey work in many places. When Scotland finishes its electrification plans there will be a large number of 158s and 170s that are available for use elsewhere. I suspect they'd elect to keep the 158s over the 156s (and get the former cleared for the WHL). Then continual rolling electrification schemes would see everything cascaded and the pacers drop off the end.
Valley line electrification would ditch a large number of pacers and allow 150s to rid pacers from elsewhere.
So yeah, just so long as they actually come up with an electrification scheme then a matching rolling stock plan can be created and the requirement for new build DMUs would be next to none.

JamieLei · **Posted:** Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:09 pm

Currently on my usual train - the 2043 Virgin Trains Euston - Birmingham New Stret. My bike's sitting next to the cab, so I hope they remember that I'm getting off at New Street because this continues to Wolverhampton.

I swear I spend half my life on Virgin Trains nowadays!

47434 · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:06 pm

Earlier today...

Huddersfield-Manchester Piccadilly (FTPE 185); Piccadilly-Piccadilly Gardens (M5000).

and the return:

Market Street-Victoria (T68); Victoria-Stalybridge (Northern 150/1); Stalybridge-Huddersfield (Northern 156). Northern units were stacking up at both Victoria and Stalybridge, dread to think how bad it'll get when the Ordsall Chord opens and crowds even more services onto the Deansgate-Piccadilly viaduct, because of course everyone wants to go to the flipping Airport...

FLHerne · **Posted:** Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:23 pm

Ameecher wrote:

In my opinion there should be no need to build new DMUs except perhaps for some remote lines, a rolling programme of electrification would allow 185s and 170s to be sent to do the donkey work in many places. When Scotland finishes its electrification plans there will be a large number of 158s and 170s that are available for use elsewhere. I suspect they'd elect to keep the 158s over the 156s (and get the former cleared for the WHL). Then continual rolling electrification schemes would see everything cascaded and the pacers drop off the end.
Valley line electrification would ditch a large number of pacers and allow 150s to rid pacers from elsewhere.
So yeah, just so long as they actually come up with an electrification scheme then a matching rolling stock plan can be created and the requirement for new build DMUs would be next to none.

Agreed. If there was a shortage of modern DMUs during such a program, surely electrification of the Snow Hill lines would be a good way to cascade nearly all the 172s relatively quickly? Actually, with the traffic density on that bit, I can't see why it wasn't done before buying a load of brand-new stock for it... :wink:

Dave · **Posted:** Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:21 pm

FLHerne wrote:

Ameecher wrote:

In my opinion there should be no need to build new DMUs except perhaps for some remote lines, a rolling programme of electrification would allow 185s and 170s to be sent to do the donkey work in many places. When Scotland finishes its electrification plans there will be a large number of 158s and 170s that are available for use elsewhere. I suspect they'd elect to keep the 158s over the 156s (and get the former cleared for the WHL). Then continual rolling electrification schemes would see everything cascaded and the pacers drop off the end.
Valley line electrification would ditch a large number of pacers and allow 150s to rid pacers from elsewhere.
So yeah, just so long as they actually come up with an electrification scheme then a matching rolling stock plan can be created and the requirement for new build DMUs would be next to none.

Agreed. If there was a shortage of modern DMUs during such a program, surely electrification of the Snow Hill lines would be a good way to cascade nearly all the 172s relatively quickly? Actually, with the traffic density on that bit, I can't see why it wasn't done before buying a load of brand-new stock for it... :wink:

Infrastructure issues. I can think of at least two places where electrification may cause an issue.

JamieLei · **Posted:** Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:42 pm

Also although there's 6tph on the core route, where do you stop electrifying? Obviously we wouldn't electrify past Kidderminster or Shirley, which means at least 1tph would have to be diesel.

Jolteon · **Posted:** Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:18 am

47434 wrote:

Earlier today...

Huddersfield-Manchester Piccadilly (FTPE 185);

Spooky, i did the same ride the same day, at about 11:30 on the service from Scarborough to Liverpool L Street.

I wonder if any of the companies will model the 185s. I do love them

Also, whilst we're having a big discussion irrelevant to the topic. The Northern franchise is due to expire in 2013, does anyone know what they intend to do? Will Northern get an extension, or will its routes and what not be redistributed to others? I've gotten vaguely attached to them

EXTspotter · **Posted:** Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:33 am

In my (very limited) experience with Northern, they have been fantastic. Whilst the unsuitability of the rolling stock cannot be helped (which I have taken into consideration as it is not the company's fault), every other aspect, especially the staff, have been wonderful.

Ameecher · **Posted:** Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:54 pm

Hopefully the Northern franchise will be re-let, this time with the expectation of growth rather than the last cock up franchise agreement :roll:

All that said, Northern haven't exactly heaped glory upon themselves, how did FGW manage to make the 142s from Neville Hill that lived in Exeter for a bit more than twice as reliable than Leeds could manage? Also the general interiors of their trains is shocking.
Finally I have issues with their stock allocations at times. Why are 158s being sent on the grand tour from York when 142s clatter up and down the ECML?

A321Pilot · **Posted:** Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:05 pm

EXTspotter wrote:

In my (very limited) experience with Northern, they have been fantastic. Whilst the unsuitability of the rolling stock cannot be helped (which I have taken into consideration as it is not the company's fault), every other aspect, especially the staff, have been wonderful.

Northern are a great Operator. They operate a great many Services with the limited Stock they have. The staff are always great help. And, they are very rarely late, especially considering the Crap that they Operate.
And, Ameecher, wouldn't that depend mostly on the Load Density of the Train. If a route is busier, why not have the Better stock on it, even if the Route is an extremelly Round-about one. And then, the Class 142's and 144's can get routes that are less densly used. One route bigger stock wouldn't go a miss on is the Manchester - Chester route via Altrincham and Knutsford. Every time I have been on that route the Train has been packed. It gets worse at Knutsford, Large Town, extremely Limited Bus service and a Train only once an Hour causes nightmares.

JamieLei · **Posted:** Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:10 pm

It really is a shame the crap they get. The only hope for new stock atm is the cascaded stuff away from other franchises. TPE have some lovely stuff and are getting the 350s. Anyone know what will operate on the newly electrified lines?

A321Pilot · **Posted:** Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:20 pm

Class 319's cascaded from Thameslink.

47434 · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:10 am

As far as I'm aware (and Badger may well correct me) very few of Northern's diesel services are timetabled for more than 75mph, especially the locals (one obvious exception is the Leeds-Nottingham which I think is always a 158). I suppose they've probably had to eek out the most possible miles between exams to make the most of the limited stock and resources they have, so it makes sense to have a largely common pool within each depot. There's also an argument that the Pacers are better suited to stopping services on mainlines (Leeds-Sheffield via Rotherham; Leeds-Huddersfield) as they won't give quite so rough a ride on the CWR, whereas 150s will cope better with jointed track on branches and lightly-used lines, hence 156s on the Esk Valley. It does seem weird to get off a (fairly crowded) 158 at Huddersfield from Denby Dale, and then have to take an even more crowded ex-MerseyTravel 142 to Victoria or a 153 to Bradford!

As for the 142s, they're likely to be with us for another 7 years, so surely it'd still be worth the DFT funding work to standardise the fleet, and maybe a refresh to match the Valley Lines units or the 144s... but then maybe that's just throwing good money after bad!

JamieLei · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:57 am

I really do agree with Kevin that what we need is a new breed of pacer. Cheap to build, cheap to run and hopefully one man operation. As the Tarka line in Cornwall shows, some of these rural lines you can drastically increase patronage by increasing the frequency (in that case, replacing a 2-car 1tph with a 1-car 2tph, which is now so crowded they need more cars!). The old trains are getting so expensive to run that I'm sure that two trains (with OMO) could be run at the same cost.

Ameecher · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:18 am

I think everything is timed for 75mph because it allows them to substitute anything when it inevitably goes wrong.

EXTspotter · **Posted:** Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:28 pm

JamieLei wrote:

...As the Tarka line in Cornwall shows...

Not quite right, what you meant to say is the Maritime Line running from Truro to Falmouth Docks, which recently had a passing loop installed at Penryn, allowing for 2tph. Extra units have been made available to extend the services to 2 cars each. The Tarka line (Exeter - Barnstaple) is in Devon and has not recieved an upgraded service.

The use of 75mph running on most Northern services begs the question why not swap some of the 158s on the stopping routes with a number of 150s or 143s used on mainline running in the southwest which would be helped by higher speed running...

Transport Tycoon Forums

Your Last Train Journey?

Who is online