Is electrification needed to avoid a DMU order by 2020?

[Haydn1971]

There is probably enough very rural lines to justify 125 DMUs but with such a small order DfT has calculated the design costs would be too high.

And of course, the DfT have a track record of getting it right every time !

/sarcasm

 

[edwin_m]

That's a bit of a straw man, because clearly new DMU's ordered "today" would have full life in service, because once electrification spreads and EMU's become more widespread, the oldest or most unsuitable DMU's would always be retired first.

The key point is how the end-of-life profile of the existing fleets fits with the profile of units being made redundant by electrification.

The original plan seems to have been that electrification would render several DMU classes redundant (probably the Pacers and 153s) before 2020 so these would not require accessibility mods. Most of the electrification schemes have slipped back, but only by a couple of years. So there are several choices in respect of these classes:

- Pay for accessibility mods for units that will remain in use for only a few more years. Arguably not a worthwhile way to spend money.

- Obtain derogation from accessibility mods to minimise spend on technical life extension. Cheaper but may be politically unacceptable with disability groups or just passengers fed up with worn out Pacers, so risks having to spend even more to do the mods at short notice.

- Buy new units. This would lead to arguably premature replacement of other classes such as 150 once the committed electrification schemes are delivered. Merit of this depends on whether the 150s etc will last another few years without drastic costs or plummeting reliability, and on whether further electrifications will be authorised for delivery in the 2020s. The latter depends to some degree on whether NR can recover its current difficulties and persuade DfT that it can deliver electrification schemes.

- Buy short-life "new" units such as D78s. This is a good option if you believe the D78s will work and be suitable and attractive to passengers on the routes they are assigned to, and if you also believe the 150s etc can reasonably be kept going until the mid to late 2020s and that there will be more electrification authorised during that decade.

Most of the above are unknowns at present (to me at least). If I ruled the world I think I'd plump for the D78s, assuming the prototype is promising, to tide us over for a decade or so by which time there should be more certainty on many of them.

 

[northwichcat]

The original plan seems to have been that electrification would render several DMU classes redundant (probably the Pacers and 153s) before 2020 so these would not require accessibility mods. Most of the electrification schemes have slipped back, but only by a couple of years.

There was a plan. Really?

The last detailed plan I saw for the North was the ITT for 202 new DMU vehicles for extra capacity at Northern, FGW and TPE by December 2012. That was replaced by electrification and an unspecified number of EMUs instead. Then somehow the idea that additional electrification alone could replace Pacers surfaced without any proper analysis having been done either on how much electrification would be required to achieve that or without doing any growth estimates for CP5 and CP6.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Procrastination coupled with transport budget reallocations has been a sorry tale that sees us discussing this matter on this thread in 2015...

 

[northwichcat]

This would lead to arguably premature replacement of other classes such as 150 once the committed electrification schemes are delivered.

A Network Rail RUS from 2007 said Pacer replacement options should be examined in CP4 (by 2014) as they are not fit for purpose for many of their current routes, while the oldest of the Sprinters (150s) should start to be withdrawn in CP5 (by 2019.) All the DMUs seem to have magically added 5 years added to their life expectancy due a combination of rising passenger numbers and no proper rolling stock replacement plan but unlike the oldest EMUs (313s, 507s and 508s) the oldest DMUs (142s and 150s) have not been given a major overhaul.

I think the last premature withdrawal of rolling stock was the Southeastern 508s due to them not having been well looked after. Yet the 142s are in a terrible state and are being kept in service longer than intended, with the original interiors and being used on routes they weren't designed for.

 

[tbtc]

I didn't realise there would be that many freed up by electrification. It appears the shortage is very much going to be of cheap sprinters not DMUs and Disel loco hauled services.

Yes, if we wire everything up we’ve said we’ll wire up then we could be looking at almost three hundred DMUs, which would allow all the Pacers and 153s to be replaced with plenty of stock left over for growth (and, worth repeating that a 69m long three coach 170 or 185 will have around double the capacity of a 23m long 153 or a 30m long Pacer, so “three hundred DMUs” will have significantly more seats than the combined total of around two hundred Pacers/153 that are in most need of replacing).

However, as you rightly say, we are freeing up The Wrong Kind Of DMUs for Pacer replacement. Apart from thirty Pacers on the Valley Lines, few of the DMUs directly replaced by electrification are Pacers - most of the DMUs directly replaced by electrification are 100mph (or faster).

Then again, there are plenty of complaints that Pacers/ 150s/153s are used on routes that are too long for them (Manchester to Blackpool, Newcastle to Carlisle etc), so maybe the surplus of longer distance trains isn’t such a bad thing (?).

CP5 electrification doesn’t solve every problem, of course, the challenge of replacing the remaining 1980s DMUs remains (given that Sprinters vastly outnumber Pacers), but if we use CP5 as a benchmark for what we can expect in CP6 then (given that much of the electrification in CP5 is on “main lines” – GWML/ MML/ “TPML”) there are rich pickings for DMU replacement in CP6.

I’ve used the examples before, but once you wire the MML to Sheffield, there are some “low hanging fruit” between Sheffield and Doncaster/ Moorthorpe/ Hazel Grove... once you wire the “TPML” then the business case for wiring the Calder Valley improves... once you have Nottingham to Belper wired then the single track Matlock branch looks a better case... once you have Manchester – Bolton – Wigan electrified then the Manchester – Atherton – Wigan – Southport branch looks within sight... and these are the kind of lines with lots of 75mph DMUs.

I think that a similar amount of wiring in CP6 would mean that by 2024 we could be withdrawing the last of the 1980s DMUs. In those circumstances, I think it’s very hard to justify a new build of DMUs (above and beyond the short term remedy of D78s).

Since any new DMUs might not be in operation until 2017, you'd be paying a lot of money for extra capacity for a few years, just so you can start withdrawing the first Turbostars after only around twenty five years of service.

So, with maybe three hundred DMUs freed up in the CP5 plans (fifty in central belt Scotland, fifty in the Thames Valley, fifty in south Wales, thirty on Transpennine, thirty replaced by HSTs in Scotland, thirty in the Lancashire Triangle, thirty in the East Midlands... add in various infill schemes in the West Midlands, GOBLIN... - happy for anyone to argue with the maths here...) plus D78s on the horizon, I think any business case for brand new DMUs in the next decade is going to be fairly weak...

...but, at the same time, with enough “jam tomorrow”, I don’t think that we need to rush into trying to wire even more projects in CP5 – if we have any iota of spare resource for electrification then we should be concentrating on wiring existing projects faster to avoid them slipping into CP6.

Sorry for giving the answer of being reasonably confident about things (rather than demanding new units everywhere)! I appreciate that timescales are slipping on some electrification schemes, but with around three hundred DMUs on the horizon even a little slippage may allow Pacer withdrawal by 2020.

(and before someone comes back with the “what about the Far North/ West Highland/ Heart Of Wales” argument, remember that the forty 172s recently built should last until the 2040s, by which time technology for self powered units may be unrecognisable to today – though these rural lines are hundreds of miles long, the actual number of DMUs to run them are pretty low – e.g. just two on the Heart Of Wales – so the 172s could cover thousands of miles of unelectrified lines for another thirty years – the idea that electrification means we must go straight to a Swiss system and therefore wire up thousands of miles of rural routes that only see a handful of trains a day is a strawman)

I didn't know the numbers of Pacers without looking it up, but the original post made me wonder, when suggesting that a single order of EMUs couldn't possibly provide for that number of trains.

Of course, when expressed as vehicle numbers the Class 700 'single order' would cover the Pacers with about 800 vehicles left over, and the displaced 319 fleet itself is big enough to replace the number of Pacer vehicles with a few spares.

There have been EMU orders in the past of 100 or more units at once, such as the 450s which originally provided 440 vehicles. So the original proposition seems flawed in that respect.

Interesting point - one that I don't think we've really discussed (enough) on here - given how fixated people seem to be with Pacer withdrawal there's little said about new DMUs.

The 86 319s can replace a lot of DMUs in the first few years of electrification, but they are obviously a finite number.

315s will be freed up by Crossrail, which people assume will head to south Wales.

There's going to be some 317/321s freed up by Thameslink, which may just get absorbed into GA - same with the handful of 360s from Heathrow Connect.

But, eventually we are going to need a new order of EMUs - either to replace older stock on franchises like GA (which can then be cascaded onto newly electrified routes) - which is the old BR kind of cascading - or ordering brand new DMUs for newly electrified routes (something that has happened very rarely - Manchester's 350/4s aside).

I suppose Transpennine would be the obvious place to start such an order, but is the industry united enough to arrange for lots of one thing (like your example with the 450s) or will it end up ordering lots of smaller batches of similar trains?

It's simple, order some DMU's that can be lengthened in later orders and start scrapping the outdated stock, passengers will be happy, more people will transfer to rail as a nicer alternative to screaming at drivers in the motorway jams that the DfT have allowed to develop over the last 30 years.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

H. L. Mencken

 

[The Ham]

If no new DMU's are ordered (and assuming all DMU's last 35 years) then the number of DMU coaches (excluding 22x's and 180's) will fall from 2486 at the end of CP5 to 1588 by the end of CP6 and to 798 by the end of CP7, it then stays broadly the same until the end of CP9 when it will fall to 93 and CP10 would see all existing DMU's withdrawn.

Basically that breaks down as the following types of trains being withdrawn:
CP6 - Pacers ad half the Sprinters
CP7 - the other half of the Spriters and the Turbos
CP8 - none
CP9 - Coradias
CP10 - 5/6 Turbostars and Desiros
CP11 - remaining Turbostars

If however a new order (let's say 500 coaches) is made during CP5 to start in service in CP6 that would see the number of coaches at the end of each control period alter:

CP5 - 2486
CP6 - 2088 vs 1588
CP7 - 1298 vs 798
CP8 - 1298 vs 798
CP9 - 1228 vs 728
CP10 - 593 vs 93

Those are approximations as there may be things which mean that the number of units goes down faster/slower. But it does shown that by the end of CP7 a new order of DMU's would likely be needed as the fleet would be about 1/3 of the current size without any new trains (although there will still be about 1000 coaches from the 22x fleets). Which, even with the best will in the world, is likely to be going it somewhat in terms of electrification. Yes 500 coaches maybe a little too many, but probably isn't that far adrift.

 

[northwichcat]

So, with maybe three hundred DMUs freed up in the CP5 plans (fifty in central belt Scotland, fifty in the Thames Valley, fifty in south Wales, thirty on Transpennine, thirty replaced by HSTs in Scotland, thirty in the Lancashire Triangle, thirty in the East Midlands... add in various infill schemes in the West Midlands, GOBLIN... - happy for anyone to argue with the maths here...) plus D78s on the horizon, I think any business case for brand new DMUs in the next decade is going to be fairly weak...

Re: Scotrail. At present Scotrail are to release 50 x 170s. Any DMUs released over that would be kept by Scotrail for new services/extra capacity. There's an option under consideration for more electrification and an additional 10 x 4 car EMUs in CP6 but that's not confirmed. Also at present Scotrail are the only DMU operator who we know confirmed post-2019 plans for - what trains, how many extra carriages etc.

Use of converted D78s is still a potential project. While Vivarail have acquired the vehicles and are building a prototype it's not been tested and approved for NR use yet.

 

[Grumpy]

What we don't have is any form of "official" spreadsheet showing exactly what is planned for the emu/dmu fleets over the next few years, with sensitivity applied for traffic growth.

Lots of vague statements and assumptions about what might go where but no detailed document to analyse.

Thus there are currently some 8500 emu vehicles. If you get 4%pa growth over the next 5 years then you need 1700 additional vehicles just to keep existing load factors. That's the equivalent of the combined 387's,700's, and 345's more or less.

It may be wishful thinking that there are to be large numbers of EMU's free to cascade. That's before anyone asks with the emerging higher costs of electrification and reduced oil costs, together with slippage to present schemes, whether some of the proposed electrification schemes are likely to be deferred/cancelled.

 

[southern442]

I definitely don't think we can avoid any new DMU orders before electrification, but we shouldn't need lots more. All we need is perhaps a fleet of local duty DMUs, perhaps '278' converted D stock trains, and a small fleet of 4-car express DMUs, perhaps modelled on the 158 but 100mph capable, to replace 156's that will be coming to the end of their life soon. These trains, added with the slightly newer 158's, networkers etc. that still have some life in them, plus battery electrics for short lines, should see us through untill most lines in the UK are electrified.

 

[Class 170101]

I would say that Newcastle to Carlisle has some chance rather than no chance of electrification.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I would say that Newcastle to Carlisle has some chance rather than no chance of electrification.

I agree - it is not just the DMUs replaced -it is
1. In northern constituencies
2. A valuable ECML/WCML diversionary route
3. Both ends are already electrified

So definitely some chance IMHO

 

[ed1971]

I definitely don't think we can avoid any new DMU orders before electrification, but we shouldn't need lots more. All we need is perhaps a fleet of local duty DMUs, perhaps '278' converted D stock trains, and a small fleet of 4-car express DMUs, perhaps modelled on the 158 but 100mph capable, to replace 156's that will be coming to the end of their life soon. These trains, added with the slightly newer 158's, networkers etc. that still have some life in them, plus battery electrics for short lines, should see us through untill most lines in the UK are electrified.

If any new DMUs were to be built, it would make sense to go for a DEMU that could easily be converted to a EMU later as more lines are electrified.

For example: Adelaide Metro in Australia operate a fleet of 3000/3100 class DEMUs. In the 2008/09 State Budget it was announced that five out of six of Adelaide's railway lines were to be electrified commencing with the Noarlunga and Gawler lines.

This was to have resulted in 58 of the 3000/3100 class railcars being converted to EMUs with the remaining 12 to be retained as DEMUs for operation on the Belair railway line. However, with the Gawler line electrification now in doubt after funding was withdrawn, this may change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3000_class_railcar

 

[HSTEd]

The ECML diversionary case has been gutted by the mass deployment of bimode IEPs though.
They should be able to cover everything north of Newcastle during blockades with ease.

 

[WatcherZero]

What we don't have is any form of "official" spreadsheet showing exactly what is planned for the emu/dmu fleets over the next few years, with sensitivity applied for traffic growth.

Lots of vague statements and assumptions about what might go where but no detailed document to analyse.

Thus there are currently some 8500 emu vehicles. If you get 4%pa growth over the next 5 years then you need 1700 additional vehicles just to keep existing load factors. That's the equivalent of the combined 387's,700's, and 345's more or less.

It may be wishful thinking that there are to be large numbers of EMU's free to cascade. That's before anyone asks with the emerging higher costs of electrification and reduced oil costs, together with slippage to present schemes, whether some of the proposed electrification schemes are likely to be deferred/cancelled.

Well you know, apart from the official rolling stock strategy....

http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/Portals/0/News_Downloads/Rolling Stock Strategy 2014 v10.pdf

 

[The Ham]

If however a new order (let's say 500 coaches) is made during CP5 to start in service in CP6 that would see the number of coaches at the end of each control period alter:

CP5 - 2486
CP6 - 2088 vs 1588
CP7 - 1298 vs 798
CP8 - 1298 vs 798
CP9 - 1228 vs 728
CP10 - 593 vs 93

Let's compare my figures above with the figures from the strategy (both excluding the 22x's and 180's):

CP5 - 2073 to 2156
CP6 - 1418 to 1547
CP7 - 1149 to 1384
CP8 - 1037 to 1352
CP9 - 1066 to 1368

Although it would appear that the strategy works without any new DMU's there are a few key points which need to be considered.

First off we currently don't have enough DMU's to run all the services which should have started (i.e. Portishead)and Scott Rail are using short form HST's rather than DMU's during the next franchise, meaning that the base level could be argued to be too low.

Secondly the strategy assumes that 1900 miles of electrification happens totally within CP5 (which given the current delays may not happen) as well as a further 2100 miles within CP6 (which could be a bit too much if the delays currently seen continue).

Individual each of these is unlikely to cause much of a difference to the total number of DMU's each franchise needs, however combined it could make a big difference to the total number the country needs.

 

[edwin_m]

First off we currently don't have enough DMU's to run all the services which should have started (i.e. Portishead)and Scott Rail are using short form HST's rather than DMU's during the next franchise, meaning that the base level could be argued to be too low.

Surely ScotRail using HSTs will reduce the number of DMUs needed? Previously it was assumed those routes would continue to use DMUs with the surplus HSTs probably going for scrap. The 170s used on ScotRail express services today will become unexpectedly available for cascade. This does partly depend on completion of enough IEP units and possibly on GW electrification too.

 

[Grumpy]

Well you know, apart from the official rolling stock strategy....

http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/Portals/0/News_Downloads/Rolling Stock Strategy 2014 v10.pdf

Which is an interesting document but what I posted was "We don't have any form of "official" spreadsheet showing exactly what is planned for the emu/dmu fleets over the next few years, with sensitivity applied for traffic growth."

I don't see such a spreadsheet in the document. There is certainly a reference to a bottom up route-specific spreadsheet but we don't get to see it.

Something that showed, by route, the current requirement, the extra requirement by 2020 to cater for growth, and the source and type of vehicles planned to be provided to meet that growth would answer most of the questions raised on this and similar threads.

The Strategy document follows the party line that 1900 track miles will be electrified by the end of CP5 and also that there are no compliant diesel engines capable of being fitted in new DMU's (which must have been a surprise to the builders of IEP and the LU stock converting team).

 

[petersi]

One problem is that rolling stock is a strange mixture of free market and government interference.
If you look at the sitituation with the 321's and London Midland you see what a mess it is (sensible thing would have been sending the 319's to direct to Scotland)
There are a lot of promises to order new trains this spread sheet lists the ones I know about
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Iw2hC40sjuVAZA8c4pJKJEMW-3EPuDmAsSi8-3tga_0/edit?usp=sharing

On rolling stock I just do not think there is an over all strategy

 

[northwichcat]

If you look at the sitituation with the 321's and London Midland you see what a mess it is (sensible thing would have been sending the 319's to direct to Scotland)

Possibly not.

The 7 x 321s will remain at Scotrail for the duration of the new franchise.

LM may have finished up taking on the 350/4s and releasing the 321s in a few years time anyway.

If Scotrail had taken on 319s, they may have had to release them to Northern/FGW in a few years time and then taken on the LM 321s in lieu which would have created a bigger mess.

 

[petersi]

Possibly not.

The 7 x 321s will remain at Scotrail for the duration of the new franchise.

LM may have finished up taking on the 350/4s and releasing the 321s in a few years time anyway.

If Scotrail had taken on 319s, they may have had to release them to Northern/FGW in a few years time and then taken on the LM 321s in lieu which would have created a bigger mess.

Or Northern would prefer the 321's for use on the Yorkshire side as they already have a micro fleet. (Before I get Jumped on this Playing devils advocate)

 

[The Ham]

Surely ScotRail using HSTs will reduce the number of DMUs needed? Previously it was assumed those routes would continue to use DMUs with the surplus HSTs probably going for scrap. The 170s used on ScotRail express services today will become unexpectedly available for cascade. This does partly depend on completion of enough IEP units and possibly on GW electrification too.

It reduces the number of DMU's in the short term, but they will need to be replaced (either with DMU's and/or electrification) at some point. The point was, that in reality there should be more DMU's than there are.

 

[WatcherZero]

Which is an interesting document but what I posted was "We don't have any form of "official" spreadsheet showing exactly what is planned for the emu/dmu fleets over the next few years, with sensitivity applied for traffic growth."

I don't see such a spreadsheet in the document. There is certainly a reference to a bottom up route-specific spreadsheet but we don't get to see it.

While it doesn't break down by individual class it breaks down by type and applies the sensitivity for traffic growth that you ask for along with several other relevant tables as well as being 'official'.

 

[edwin_m]

While it doesn't break down by individual class it breaks down by type and applies the sensitivity for traffic growth that you ask for along with several other relevant tables as well as being 'official'.

Anything that comes from a ROSCO can't be "official", as they are an interested party in the market not a neutral observer. However it may well be an informed analysis by someone with good industry knowledge.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It reduces the number of DMU's in the short term, but they will need to be replaced (either with DMU's and/or electrification) at some point. The point was, that in reality there should be more DMU's than there are.

Yes indeed.

The HSTs will be refurbished and good for at least a decade in service in Scotland, so helping to get over the short-term need for DMUs between now and about 2023 when committed but delayed electrifications are completed. I'm sure the Scots would expect to have most of their HST routes electrified before those units are withdrawn, which is why they've gone for refurbished "cast-offs" rather than paying higher rentals for new trains.

So this is in fact another reason why any new DMU order need not be for another ten years or so. As well as knowing then how long classes 150-185 can be economically kept going, we will know how much Scottish or other electrification programmes not yet committed will affect the long-term need for DMUs. It is quite possible by then that pretty much every line where electrification is worthwhile will be either electrified or committed for electrification, so the fleet requirement for self-powered units in the decades after that will be reasonably steady and predictable.

 

[Greybeard33]

Anything that comes from a ROSCO can't be "official", as they are an interested party in the market not a neutral observer. However it may well be an informed analysis by someone with good industry knowledge.

The strategy report that WatcherZero linked states that:

This Long Term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy has been
produced by a Steering Group chaired by Richard Brown,
and comprising senior representatives of:
• Angel Trains
• ATOC Engineering Council
• Eversholt Rail Group
• Network Rail
• Porterbrook Leasing
• Rail Delivery Group Executive Team
• Train Operating Company Owner Groups

Angel Trains merely acted as the publisher on behalf of the rail industry as a whole.

 

[edwin_m]

The strategy report that WatcherZero linked states that:

Angel Trains merely acted as the publisher on behalf of the rail industry as a whole.

OK thanks, that might make it worth reading! I will go and do so...

 

[deltic08]

This is a bit of a hybrid infrastructure / rolling stock thread. Different aspects of this have been discussed in different threads. I don't want this to end up another whinge about pacers and North/South divide. I am interested in the numbers! On the assumption that all pacers are scrapped by 2020 and no new DMU order is made, how much (if any electrification) would be needed to have enough rolling stock? If so, which lines would be the most likely to be electrified to free up DMUs? My understanding is that there will be enough express DMUs and loco hauled sets and that the shortage will be for services that currently uses pacers and slower sprinters. Are there any "low hanging fruit" lines were allot of them are used and would be worth considering electrifying just to free up DMUs?

ATW has 15 pacers which are likely to be replaced by Valley lines electrification. FGW has 8 and are likely to have preferential treatment over Northern when DMUs become available and will be given 8 sprinters to replace the pacers. Northern Rail needs to replace 102 Pacers, leaving 125 Class 150s, 153s, 155s and 156s plus however many DMUs that can be obtained from other parts of the country. I have divided Northern Rail services into three groups, those that have no chance of electrification, those that might and those that are being electrified. There is a tendency on the forum to want to electrify everything now, which can't happen! However, I think its possible that the government will fund a few hundred million of extra electrification in order to replace the pacers and avoid a DMU order.

No chance:

Manchester Victoria/Airport - Wigan Wallgate/Southport/Kirkby,
Leeds - Morecambe/Lancaster
Colne - Blackpool South,
Cumbrian Coast,
Newcastle - Hexham/Middlesbrough,
Bishop Auckland/Darlington - Saltburn,
Middlesbrough - Hexham,
Manchester Victoria - Clitheroe
Manchester Piccadilly - Buxton
Preston - Ormskirk,
Newcastle - Carlisle,
Helsby - Ellsemere Port,
Middlesbrough - Whitby,
Middlesbrough - Carlisle

The MP for Hexham stated on television today that electrification of the Newcastle-Carlisle line is being considered by the "committee" for CP6 as a way of withdrawing Pacers.

The Minister stated on the same programme during his visit to Teesside last week that the Government will electrify its way out of the Pacer problem.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If the route between Brighton and Ashford International (forgot the name of the route) is electrified (hopefully overhead), would that free up many DMUs? Is that the only section of non-electrified route in 3rd rail territory (apart from GOBLIN)?

 

[northwichcat]

The strategy report that WatcherZero linked states that:

Angel Trains merely acted as the publisher on behalf of the rail industry as a whole.

Yep. Exactly the same document is on the Porterbrook site.

 

[WatcherZero]

Government did publish the original, guess they wanted the annual refresh to be seen to be published by the industry itself so that they could claim to be hands off.