Preserved EMU Question

[4SubAsociation]

2311 is, like 2315, a 4-CEP.

2311 has, as far as I am aware, never been used in passenger operation at the Eden Valley Railway. 2315 is the one used in passenger service, hauled/propelled by a pair of MLVs (S68003 and S68005) on battery power.

The only time I recall 2311 moving beyond the Warcop Station area was during the filming of a BBC TV programme called Paradox in 2009, when the two units formed an 8-CEP, moved around as required by the MLVs.

Sorry that was a typo. Since corrected.

I seem to remember reading that the lease costs of a Pacer were very much less than a Class 150. Their economy probably saved a number of branch lines from closing.

The best proposition for a battery operated EMU is the lightweight class 503. All up its three cars weigh only 77tons and its motor ratings are only 135kW. There's plenty of room underneath the trailers and the interiors are pleasant. It would fill the gap for a heritage line early/late in the day and season, when the traffic doesn't justify steam. If the heritage movement gave it a fraction of the support given to conjectural steam realisations and new bridges....

WAO

On the 503 front. That is part of the Hertiage Electric Trains trust which is the same group that has 4 SUB 4732. 4 SUB 4732 is the priority at the moment due to the offer to display at the One One Collection. It is proposed for installation of bi-mode technology to make the unit propelled. However from what i understand the 503 cannot be hauled by say another locomotive due to height differences (clarification - this is only on the cab ends, so the only way to haul it is to have the two cab ends facing each other which would not look right to be honest.)

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Balderdash, charters are regularly run all over the network. There's no reason why an EMU should be any different.

Run them on the branch lines, e.g. Seaford, Lymington, Medway Valley...

 

[yorksrob]

Run them on the branch lines, e.g. Seaford, Lymington, Medway Valley...

Exactly, there are plenty of them available.

 

[paul1609]

Exactly, there are plenty of them available.

I think the Seaford Branch would be problematical as unless you are running a Newhaven to Seaford Shuttle you'd have to run in to Lewes over the Coastway mainline. Medway Valley and Lymington have self contained routes.
However if you look in to the operations of Hastings Diesels which is probably the closest thing to an EMU mainline running they only see the market as sufficient to support 4 or 5 charters a year and then mid distance at premium prices. Im not convinced you'd make enough revenue to cover the costs of an occasional branch line run.

 

[colchesterken]

I am waiting to see Gordon Pettit 421 pushed up and down the Bluebell by a 33or73
pushed always please so we can get the feel of the train being driven from the cab.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the Seaford Branch would be problematical as unless you are running a Newhaven to Seaford Shuttle you'd have to run in to Lewes over the Coastway mainline. Medway Valley and Lymington have self contained routes.
However if you look in to the operations of Hastings Diesels which is probably the closest thing to an EMU mainline running they only see the market as sufficient to support 4 or 5 charters a year and then mid distance at premium prices. Im not convinced you'd make enough revenue to cover the costs of an occasional branch line run.

To be fair, I look at the operations of Hastings Diesels quite regularly (in terms of propping up their buffet car ) and whilst they are limited to a certain numberof turns a year, I can't help think that the steam runs on LU show that such things are possible.

 

[UP13]

I can't help think that the steam runs on LU show that such things are possible.

Devil's advocate - don't LUL run their own charters, usually with their own museum pieces (I know you they do hire the Bluebell owned Met carriages) and thus don't have to pay track hire costs etc to themselves?

 

[yorksrob]

Devil's advocate - don't LUL run their own charters, usually with their own museum pieces (I know you they do hire the Bluebell owned Met carriages) and thus don't have to pay track hire costs etc to themselves?

They probably do, although I don't regard Johnny Major's privatisation fiasco as a reasonable excuse for not running charters.

 

[Journeyman]

Charters tend to run on quieter lines, the majority of steam ones run with a diesel attached in order that they can be rescued in the event of a failure and not cause chaos.

If there was such a demand for EMU railtours, I'm fairly sure somebody would have engineered a way to run them by now, the fact there hasn't been suggests not. And the only imminent one will be the 5BEL pullman, which won't particularly be targeting the enthusiast fraternity.

Absolutely, there was demand for things like the SUB, the BIL and the 306 while BR were willing to maintain them and use them on special shuttles etc., but those days are gone. They were often used on short trips on open days etc, and there's no way that a private organisation preserving something like that would ever be able to make enough money, even if the considerable technical obstacles could be overcome.

The BEL is the only type of EMU I can think of that could earn the revenue to support its operation long term, and even then the thing has had such a massive rebuild to conform to modern safety standards that its authenticity has been massively compromised. There's barely an original component left.

Saying that a preserved CIG/VEP/SUB/EPB could earn its keep and cover restoration and running costs trundling up and down to Seaford now and again is laughable.

 

[181]

According to the June Railway Magazine, the preserved 4-VEP is being restored for main line running (including GSM-R, central door locking, etc.), so presumably somebody thinks it's worthwhile.

There are a number of preserved/tourist tram operations (e.g. Crich, Seaton, Beamish). Presumably low-voltage overhead wiring as used on tramways is the safest and simplest form of electrification other than batteries (Volk's Electric Railway uses a third rail, though), and I can easily believe that electrifying even a short stretch of a preserved railway wouldn't be viable when you looked into the practicalities, but it's not a completely absurd idea.

 

[43096]

They probably do, although I don't regard Johnny Major's privatisation fiasco as a reasonable excuse for not running charters.

Some people have short memories. BR had a block on preserved “modern traction” operating on the mainline (but allowed kettles for some reason). Privatisation removed that block.

 

[Journeyman]

Some people have short memories. BR had a block on preserved “modern traction” operating on the mainline (but allowed kettles for some reason). Privatisation removed that block.

Exactly. And the reasonable excuse for not running charters is that there's far, far more trains running on most lines than there were in the past, and spare capacity is at much more of a premium.

 

[yorksrob]

Some people have short memories. BR had a block on preserved “modern traction” operating on the mainline (but allowed kettles for some reason). Privatisation removed that block.

The preserved 2BIL and 4SUB seemed to work well enough.

I also had some good trips on prototype EPB 5001 which went to the cutters torch, thanks to privatisation.

BR was far better at EMU preservation than todays railway.

 

[XAM2175]

BR was far better at EMU preservation than todays railway.

What, because they clung onto all that knackered old stock and kept using it in service?

 

[Journeyman]

The preserved 2BIL and 4SUB seemed to work well enough.

I also had some good trips on prototype EPB 5001 which went to the cutters torch, thanks to privatisation.

BR was far better at EMU preservation than todays railway.

They weren't "preserved" as such - BR owned them, and were able to use them as they pleased. The 2-BIL wasn't able to operate after about 1990, as it had wooden body framing, and was subject to a ban due to DfT regulations. Quite rightly so, to be honest - even a low-speed collision would have reduced it to matchwood.

The SUB also fell victim to changing safety standards, and increasing difficulty and expense keeping it going. Pretty much the only reason the SUB was kept was to run with the BIL anyway, which wasn't allowed to operate alone due to reliability concerns.

5001 was scrapped because no-one thought it was important enough to save, and it's not BR's fault, or privatisation's fault - it was offered for sale, and no-one wanted it. It wasn't saved because EMUs have no use to heritage railways, and no-one cared enough about it. As discussed elsewhere recently, a 4-EPB and several 2-EPBs exist in preservation anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

They weren't "preserved" as such - BR owned them, and were able to use them as they pleased. The 2-BIL wasn't able to operate after about 1990, as it had wooden body framing, and was subject to a ban due to DfT regulations. Quite rightly so, to be honest - even a low-speed collision would have reduced it to matchwood.

The SUB also fell victim to changing safety standards, and increasing difficulty and expense keeping it going. Pretty much the only reason the SUB was kept was to run with the BIL anyway, which wasn't allowed to operate alone due to reliability concerns.

5001 was scrapped because no-one thought it was important enough to save, and it's not BR's fault, or privatisation's fault. It wasn't saved because EMUs have no use to heritage railways, and no-one cared enough about it. As discussed elsewhere recently, a 4-EPB and several 2-EPBs exist in preservation anyway.

You are incorrect. The 2BIL was owned by the NRM and only looked after by BR. I'm pretty certain that 5001 would still be with is if BR had remained.

The fact remains that BR preserved and looked after various EMU's and enabled them to run on the main line under their own power. The privatised railway does not. That is the crux of the matter.

 

[Journeyman]

You are incorrect. The 2BIL was owned by the NRM and only looked after by BR. I'm pretty certain that 5001 would still be with is if BR had remained.

The fact remains that BR preserved and looked after various EMU's and enabled them to run on the main line under their own power. The privatised railway does not. That is the crux of the matter.

The 2-BIL still exists, but the ownership is effectively irrelevant. I've explained it's not able to operate any more because of the wooden body framing, and that ban came in 1990, long before privatisation happened.

I think you need to get over 5001 and stop acting like it's some sort of injustice. There were plenty of chances to save it, but they weren't taken. The SUB/EPB family is by far the best-represented EMU type in preservation by a very long way. The fact that none operate on the main line any more has more to do with different rules and standards, and the increasingly busy nature of the railway, than anything else.

 

[yorksrob]

The 2-BIL still exists, but the ownership is effectively irrelevant. I've explained it's not able to operate any more because of the wooden body framing, and that ban came in 1990, long before privatisation happened.

I think you need to get over 5001 and stop acting like it's some sort of injustice. There were plenty of chances to save it, but they weren't taken. The SUB/EPB family is by far the best-represented EMU type in preservation by a very long way. The fact that none operate on the main line any more has more to do with different rules and standards, and the increasingly busy nature of the railway, than anything else.

Nice attempt to divert attention from the assertion that the privatised railway is somehow better at EMU preservation than BR was. It has been shown to be nonsense.

 

[Journeyman]

Nice attempt to divert attention from the assertion that the privatised railway is somehow better at EMU preservation than BR was. It has been shown to be nonsense.

It's pretty much irrelevant anyway. In the grand scheme of things, it's a trivial matter and I'm not convinced a massively taxpayer-subsidised industry should be using public money for enthusiast jollies. We have a huge heritage sector that does a (largely) good job, and a very impressive cross-section of rolling stock has been saved for posterity. The 2-HAP at Shildon has had a superb restoration recently, and the 306 is getting one.

 

[yorksrob]

The 2-HAP at Shildon has had a superb restoration recently, and the 306 is getting one.

That at least we can agree on.

 

[XAM2175]

Nice attempt to divert attention from the assertion that the privatised railway is somehow better at EMU preservation than BR was. It has been shown to be nonsense.

How is the railway meant to serve the genuine social purpose you keep insisting that it serve if you also continue to insist on it acting as an immense free-range museum to your personal fascinations?

 

[Journeyman]

How is the railway meant to serve the genuine social purpose you keep insisting that it serve if you also continue to insist on it acting as an immense free-range museum to your personal fascinations?

Exactly. EPBs have virtually zero appeal to the charter market anyway! No toilets, no buffet, pretty rancid and cramped interiors.

 

[yorksrob]

How is the railway meant to serve the genuine social purpose you keep insisting that it serve if you also continue to insist on it acting as an immense free-range museum to your personal fascinations?

Ask BR. They managed it.

 

[Journeyman]

Ask BR. They managed it.

Under a completely different safety regime, on a railway with far fewer trains on it. All of that has changed, and would have done whether BR still existed or not.

The BIL and SUB also had a large amount of common parts with EPBs, and when they went, most of the resources and expertise to operate them went too.

 

[yorksrob]

Exactly. EPBs have virtually zero appeal to the charter market anyway! No toilets, no buffet, pretty rancid and cramped interiors.

Before we get trapped down one of your EPB hate wormholes, I should point out that BR also maintained and operated both a 1930's Mersey electric and one of the original Barking electrics. I would assume that this enabled their traction engineers to gain some broader knowledge.

Under a completely different safety regime, on a railway with far fewer trains on it. All of that has changed, and would have done whether BR still existed or not.

The BIL and SUB also had a large amount of common parts with EPBs, and when they went, most of the resources and expertise to operate them went too.

Our current safety regime allows mk1's on charters so its not difficult to imagine at least the SUB being allowed out in some form. Also, the busyness of the railway isn't relevant as there are always quieter lines, Sundays ..... etc

 

[Journeyman]

Before we get trapped down one of your EPB hate wormholes, I should point out that BR also maintained and operated both a 1930's Mersey electric and one of the original Barking electrics. I would assume that this enabled their traction engineers to gain some broader knowledge.

They were usually maintained by older staff who were familiar with them. It was much harder to keep them going when these people retired.

The green 302 on the Barking lines went at the same time as all the other unrefurbished ones, in the late 80s, and was never considered "preserved". The preserved 503 was last operated on Merseyrail in 1988, so the withdrawal of those cannot be blamed on privatisation. Likewise the last unrefurbished 303, which was full of asbestos.

 

[XAM2175]

Ask BR. They managed it.

And would your gurus be required to comply with today's regulatory requirements, or today's safety rules? Would they be required to serve the far greater number of passengers seen pre-Covid, or just 1980s numbers?

I seem to recall also that BR managed to close the Woodhead Line, and that they wanted to close the S&C and such other lines - are these parts of BR included in your fetish or are we ignoring all the bits that don't contribute to the construction of your perfect pure living museum?

 

[Journeyman]

Our current safety regime allows mk1's on charters so its not difficult to imagine at least the SUB being allowed out in some form. Also, the busyness of the railway isn't relevant as there are always quieter lines, Sundays ..... etc

Each door has to be individually bolted and there have to be a lot of stewards on board to ensure the doors are kept safe and secure. Pretty much all Mark 1s now have the centre doors sealed. How do you propose doing that on a SUB, with 20 doors per carriage? Fancy designing a bespoke CDL system for that? How much money have you got?

That's before you get started on TPWS, on train monitoring, and even speedometers, which the SUBs never had.

 

[yorksrob]

And would your gurus be required to comply with today's regulatory requirements, or today's safety rules? Would they be required to serve the far greater number of passengers seen pre-Covid, or just 1980s numbers?

I seem to recall also that BR managed to close the Woodhead Line, and that they wanted to close the S&C and such other lines - are these parts of BR included in your fetish or are we ignoring all the bits that don't contribute to the construction of your perfect pure living museum?

We are discussing EMU preservation on this thread and it is something that BR was very good at.

You may well not have seen any of my other posts, but I can assure you that I am not blind to the deficiencies of BR in some areas and at particular times, and have argued extensively against the closure programme on this forum. That doesn't detract from the excellent work done by BR in the 1980's and 90's on EMU preservation.

Each door has to be individually bolted and there have to be a lot of stewards on board to ensure the doors are kept safe and secure. Pretty much all Mark 1s now have the centre doors sealed. How do you propose doing that on a SUB, with 20 doors per carriage? Fancy designing a bespoke CDL system for that? How much money have you got?

That's before you get started on TPWS, on train monitoring, and even speedometers, which the SUBs never had.

Well, I can't second guess how BR would have approached these issues. What I can say is that the privatised railway disposed of these assets long before the general mk1 withdrawal, so its clear that it didn't even get to the stage of contemplating a workaround.

 

[Journeyman]

We are discussing EMU preservation on this thread and it is something that BR was very good at.

No, they weren't. I've already explained that most "preserved" EMUs that BR operated had ceased operation by 1990 for some reason or another.

Well, I can't second guess how BR would have approached these issues. What I can say is that the privatised railway disposed of these assets long before the general mk1 withdrawal, so its clear that it didn't even get to the stage of contemplating a workaround.

BR still existed when operation of most of these "preserved" EMUs ceased operation, so no attempt was made to keep them going. It was done for a short period while it was still easy to do so, but as soon as difficulties arose, BR sold them off, way before privatisation occurred. They didn't have the time, money or expertise to keep these old assets going. In most cases, units like the SUB and 306 were overhauled right at the end of their classes' careers, and were kept going until major attention was required again, at which point they stopped operating. There was never any guarantee or intention to keep them going forever.