Is electrification needed to avoid a DMU order by 2020?

[joeykins82]

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)?

GOBLIN isn't in 3rd rail territory; it's north of the Thames and has some sections with OHLE electrification already.

The Ashford-Ore section of the Marshlink line is not electrified
Hurdt Green-Uckfield is not electrified
Doing both of those would release all of the Class 171 trains (6x 4-car, 10x 2-car).

The only other un-electrified route in "3rd rail land" is sections of the North Downs Line (Reading-Redhill). I think that requires 8 units to operate the normal service but don't quote me.

 

[Chris125]

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.

Surely these retained HSTs stand a good chance of being replaced by Voyagers/Meridians/180s/IEP bi-modes which, if I understand correctly, you've excluded from your calculations.

 

[Altnabreac]

Surely these retained HSTs stand a good chance of being replaced by Voyagers/Meridians/180s/IEP bi-modes which, if I understand correctly, you've excluded from your calculations.

Indicative plans for electrification in Scotland imply that most of the routes* to be served by HSTs will be electrified in either CP7 (2024-2029) or early in CP8 (2029-2034).

Given the refurbished HSTs will enter service in 2018 it is assumed that they will have a design life of 10-15 years to justify the extensive refurbishment, fitting of power doors etc, taking their retirement date to 2028-2033 or so.

That seems to fit quite well with the electrification plans in theory. What happens in practice may of course be different.

HSTs to serve routes:

• Edinburgh - Aberdeen
• Glasgow - Aberdeen
• Edinburgh - Inverness
• Glasgow - Inverness
• Aberdeen - Inverness

Scottish electrification phases:

• Phase 1 - Committed improvements as part of the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvements, comprising Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk route, Diversion , and electrification on the route via Cumbernauld and to Dunblane / Alloa; and
• Phase 2 - Electrification of the remaining routes in the Central Belt (Shotts, Whifflet, Paisley Canal, Glasgow North Suburban, East Kilbride and Kilmarnock).
• Phase 3 - Electrification of routes between Edinburgh, Perth and Dundee including the Fife Circle;
• Phase 4 - Electrification from Dunblane to Aberdeen; and
• Phase 5 – Electrification from Perth to Inverness.

Phase 1 is all committed schemes for completion by December 2018;
Phase 2 is also in progress with 2 lines complete, 1 committed scheme due for completion by December 2019 and the remaining 3 schemes assumed for completion in early CP6;
Phase 3 is then assumed to follow in CP6.

*The one route served by HSTs not in current electrification plans is Aberdeen - Inverness. Given current plans for upgrading this line and increasing frequencies, it may follow for electrification after completion of Phase 5.

 

[po8crg]

Incidentally, phases 4 and 5 of the above electrification programme are one reason why I would favour a northern spur on any future high speed line in Scotland, connecting somewhere between Larbert and Stirling stations, so that Scottish intercity trains can run (as classic-compatibles) on HS into Edinburgh/Glasgow, releasing their paths on the conventional Central Belt network, and also allowing a few direct trains to England from Aberdeen and/or Inverness. It's about ten miles of track, plus a more complex junction - perhaps one to two billion pounds extra on a 20 billion+ project.

 

[Altnabreac]

Incidentally, phases 4 and 5 of the above electrification programme are one reason why I would favour a northern spur on any future high speed line in Scotland, connecting somewhere between Larbert and Stirling stations, so that Scottish intercity trains can run (as classic-compatibles) on HS into Edinburgh/Glasgow, releasing their paths on the conventional Central Belt network, and also allowing a few direct trains to England from Aberdeen and/or Inverness. It's about ten miles of track, plus a more complex junction - perhaps one to two billion pounds extra on a 20 billion+ project.

It's very difficult to make a business case stack up for England - Aberdeen / Inverness services that don't stop at one of Edinburgh or Glasgow. The passenger numbers just aren't high enough to justify it.

Also depending on whether and East or West caost HS2 route is chosen it's worth noting that the largest English markets for rail travel to Aberdeen are Newcastle and Leeds. So if HS2 is following a western axis, it may be that a Leeds to Aberdeen service on the classic network is more useful than a HS service down HS2.

My guess is there will be a mix of Leeds - Aberdeen and HS2 services reversing at Edinburgh Waverley continuing to Aberdeen by the current ECML. Anything else is very tricky to generate enough passengers.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Apart from 150s and 153s are there any other DMU classes that have potential structural issues that could lead to early scrapping?

 

[po8crg]

It's very difficult to make a business case stack up for England - Aberdeen / Inverness services that don't stop at one of Edinburgh or Glasgow. The passenger numbers just aren't high enough to justify it.

Agreed entirely. The main benefit is that it lifts all the Glasgow/Edinburgh-Aberdeen/Inverness services off the Central Belt lines, releasing paths for more frequent commuter traffic (and removing faster, skip-stop trains from stopping commuter lines).

Direct services to England bypassing the Central Belt are just a bonus, and, even with a four-hour service to London, almost certainly don't add up for more than one or two trains a day.

 

[Altnabreac]

Agreed entirely. The main benefit is that it lifts all the Glasgow/Edinburgh-Aberdeen/Inverness services off the Central Belt lines, releasing paths for more frequent commuter traffic (and removing faster, skip-stop trains from stopping commuter lines).

Direct services to England bypassing the Central Belt are just a bonus, and, even with a four-hour service to London, almost certainly don't add up for more than one or two trains a day.

Ah. I see what you meant, I misunderstood.

You're suggesting using a Scottish high speed line to run Edinburgh / Glasgow to Aberdeen services via Larbert / Stirling.

I can see the logic of that idea although it might not be easily compatible if a Edinburgh - Glasgow HS route is following a more southerly alignment than the via Falkirk route.

 

[pemma]

Apart from 150s and 153s are there any other DMU classes that have potential structural issues that could lead to early scrapping?

The shelf-life on a DMU is 25 years. If the 142s, 143s, 144s, 150s, 153s, 155s and 156s were all scrapped tomorrow it wouldn't be 'early' scrapping. Trains can have life extension work to keep them in service longer but at present the 153s are the only ones of those which have had any major modifications since build (and those were 25 years ago.)

 

[Wolfie]

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)

I completely disagree. The 321s are a micro-fleet in LM which in an ideal world LM would doubtless have replaced with more 350s - perhaps not a coincidence that the 350 options LM had would have given them an additional 20 (thus releasing the 7 321s) had DfT not chosen to use 10 of those for TPE instead (thus requiring retention of an older EMU by LM for the peak, the other 10 being for growth). Having a micro-fleet of 319s instead hardly changes the price of fish for LM.

Meanwhile Scotrail is already operating Class 320s which are for all intents and purposes a 3 coach 321. In terms of simplifying logistics it seems a bit of a no-brainer...

Giving Scotrail Class 319s would result in two microfleets, one there and one at LM...

Mind you, quite why Scotrail released 5 Class 322s in 2011 only to lease 7 more or less identical Class 321s four years later is a slight mystery...

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)

There could be some sense in Northern releasing the 321/322s (to say GA which could then release 317s) in exchange for more 319s. It would certainly simplify Northern's logistics even if the actual trains are at different depots.

GOBLIN isn't in 3rd rail territory; it's north of the Thames and has some sections with OHLE electrification already.

The Ashford-Ore section of the Marshlink line is not electrified
Hurdt Green-Uckfield is not electrified
Doing both of those would release all of the Class 171 trains (6x 4-car, 10x 2-car).

The only other un-electrified route in "3rd rail land" is sections of the North Downs Line (Reading-Redhill). I think that requires 8 units to operate the normal service but don't quote me.

Well, except for a certain line where SWT run a whole load of 159/158s.....

Apart from 150s and 153s are there any other DMU classes that have potential structural issues that could lead to early scrapping?

Well, the 153s are essentially half of a 155 which might suggest that they merit some investigation also...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I completely disagree. The 321s are a micro-fleet in LM which in an ideal world LM would doubtless have replaced with more 350s - perhaps not a coincidence that the 350 options LM had would have given them an additional 20 (thus releasing the 7 321s) had DfT not chosen to use 10 of those for TPE instead (thus requiring retention of an older EMU for the peak). Having a micro-fleet of 319s instead hardly changes the price of fish for LM.

Meanwhile Scotrail is already operating Class 320s which for all intents and purposes a 3 coach 321. In terms of simplifying logistics it seems a bit of a no-brainer...

Giving Scotrail Class 319s would result in two microfleets, one there and one at LM...

Mind you, quite why Scotrail released 5 Class 322s in 2011 only to lease 7 more or less identical Class 321s four years later is a slight mystery...



There could be some sense in Northern releasing the 321/322s (to say GA which could then release 317s) in exchange for more 319s. It would certainly simplify Northern's logistics even if the actual trains are at different depots.

How suitable would 319s be for the route that TPE use their 350s on? I've not seen mentioned how many 319s LM are getting but if it's enough to replace the the 321s and 10 move on top of that could 10 319s goto TPE and the TPE 350s goto LM?

 

[Wolfie]

How suitable would 319s be for the route that TPE use their 350s on? I've not seen mentioned how many 319s LM are getting but if it's enough to replace the the 321s and 10 move on top of that could 10 319s goto TPE and the TPE 350s goto LM?

Perhaps my message wasn't clear.. my understanding is that LM are getting 7 319s ie a one for one replacement of the 321s. Others posters have previously questioned 319s replacing 323s due tro acceleration issues. If acceleration is indeed an issue with 319s I can't see how they could be used on TPE to replace 350s... they would probably be more reliable than that batch of 10 though

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Perhaps my message wasn't clear.. my understanding is that LM are getting 7 319s ie a one for one replacement of the 321s. Others posters have previously questioned 319s replacing 323s due tro acceleration issues. If acceleration is indeed an issue with 319s I can't see how they could be used on TPE to replace 350s... they would probably be more reliable than that batch of 10 though

Looking on wikipedia, assuming 321s and 322s can work together in service, would this work (apart from being 1 unit short):

The 319s goto Northern and Northern's 321s and 322s goto LM?

There can't be too much difference between 321s and 322s from either a train crew or maintenance position and it would eliminate a microfleet

 

[Wolfie]

Looking on wikipedia, assuming 321s and 322s can work together in service, would this work (apart from being 1 unit short):

The 319s goto Northern and Northern's 321s and 322s goto LM?

There can't be too much difference between 321s and 322s from either a train crew or maintenance position and it would eliminate a microfleet

I still think them going to GA would be more sensible. That would leave only two operators of the 320/321/322 classes..

LM already have a 321 micro-fleet...

 

[AM9]

The shelf-life on a DMU is 25 years.

That's your opinion (and probably of any manufacturers who might profit if replacements were tendered). Of course they don't have any such time limit. If they still provide the required service at an appropriate cost, and/or there are reasons why they can't be replaced just because they aren't the newest stock on the track, they will continue in service. It's just wishful thinking that they will be replaced just because they are over some nominal age.
I presume you mean 'service life'. 'Shelf life' would be how long they would be kept in a depot before needing lifed items/processes to be refreshed.

 

[Wolfie]

That's your opinion (and probably of any manufacturers who might profit if replacements were tendered). Of course they don't have any such time limit. If they still provide the required service at an appropriate cost, and/or there are reasons why they can't be replaced just because they aren't the newest stock on the track, they will continue in service. It's just wishful thinking that they will be replaced just because they are over some nominal age.
I presume you mean 'service life'. 'Shelf life' would be how long they would be kept in a depot before needing lifed items/processes to be refreshed.

Of course, there may well be a design life. This is the intended life, at the design stage, up to which it will be economically sensible to operate. Beyond that point a very hard-headed view will likely be required about whether it is more cost-effective to extend the life or replace. It is almost always possible to keep something operating (unless an irreplacable component breaks) but whether it is economically sensible to do so is a rather different issue....

 

[pemma]

That's your opinion (and probably of any manufacturers who might profit if replacements were tendered).

No it isn't! I've pointed out many times it was Network Rail who came up with it and apparently it was considered industry standard long before that. If you can't be bothered to looked at official documents then you're not in a position to determine what is a fact and what is an opinion. It may have been called something different but it was referring to the how long they would last without major modifications.

 

[AM9]

No it isn't! I've pointed out many times it was Network Rail who came up with ut and apparently it was considered industry standard long before that. If you can't be bothered to looked at official documents then you're not in a position to determine what is a fact and what is an opinion.

But that doesn't mean that just because something is of a certain age it needs or should be replaced and rightly it shouldn't. If it (a DMU in this case) does its job then NR, TOCs, ROSCOs and the DfT have no problem in it continuing to do so.
Trains are not toys or fashion items, they are high-cost public transport vehicles and each type of train has different issues as regards functionality, reliability, running costs and customer acceptance. That last item usually sits below the other two, except where the service makes an absolute profit, when it may be desireable to court customers with newer stock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course, there may well be a design life. This is the intended life, at the design stage, up to which it will be economically sensible to operate. Beyond that point a very hard-headed view will likely be required about whether it is more cost-effective to extend the life or replace. It is almost always possible to keep something operating (unless an irreplacable component breaks) but whether it is economically sensible to do so is a rather different issue....

I agree with you, that design life is determined during design. It is used by planners and bean counters to establish whether it is cost effective before acquisition. After the product has been manufactured and delivered, the factors that determine the service life of a train include:
reliability (including availability)
serviceability (maintenance and spares availability)
suitability (speed/acceleration/capacity/loading gauge/length/image*)
regulatory compliance (environmental/accessibility/H&S)
Each of the DMUs being discussed on this thread has a different mix of the attributes above, of which some are more significant on different deployments. E.g. a Pacer may be quite appropriate for a low density branch line but not for a heavily used interurbal route. Similarly, as has been mentioned several times here, 156s are not suited to services with frequent stops, but 150s are. When there are no more requirements (anywhere) for trains with a particular attribute set, then it may be time to retire that stock or at least those that don't have a role. Whether the trains were older or younger than some magic age determined by the designer during the design's creation is much less of a consideration. The cost of replacing trains that are still doing the job, or storing those that don't having any use is the driver of the decision to dispose of them.

 

[pemma]

But that doesn't mean that just because something is of a certain age it needs or should be replaced and rightly it shouldn't. If it (a DMU in this case) does its job then NR, TOCs, ROSCOs and the DfT have no problem in it continuing to do so.

Agreed but the post I was responding to was referring to early withdrawal of 150s and 153s. As neither will likely be withdrawn for at least 2 years (subject to no accidents resulting in write offs) both will achieve over 30 years in service with is hardly an early withdrawal.

I think the only DMUs that have been withdrawn 'early' since 1980 are the 141s but then did we really expect Pacers to last as long as other trains like 150s?

 

[AM9]

Agreed but the post I was responding to was referring to early withdrawal of 150s and 153s. As neither will likely be withdrawn for at least 2 years (subject to no accidents resulting in write offs) both will achieve over 30 years in service with is hardly an early withdrawal.

I think the only DMUs that have been withdrawn 'early' since 1980 are the 141s but then did we really expect Pacers to last as long as other trains like 150s?

Not all 150s are ready for withdrawl, after all they are diesel equivalents of 455s and 319/321s. If maintaining the Cummins engine or the Voith transmission in service becomes troublesome, I guess that they will go early, otherwise, there's no reason why like the 455s and 319/321s they can't carry on until there are enough 170/172s to supplant them. Obviously a similar situation arises with the 153/155/156s traction wise.

The big bonus with all the 14x, 15x and 170/171s is that they can couple together, a feature that will likely delay decisions to retire them as they can be held as relief stock with compatible couplers even when 170/2s are used.

Another factor in DMUs end-of-life decisions is corrosion. Those operated on coastal lines may well have shorter expectations.

Notwithstanding more 'cosmetic' issues, like the passenger perception of their age/suitability, I don't think there will be any significant move to acquire new DMUs until at least 2024 when the impact of current and forthcoming electrification schemes have bedded in. Passenger perceptions of trains drive transport politics more than operational decisions about rolling stock replacement. By the '20s, many of the busiest DMU operated lines will have been electrified.

 

[pemma]

Not all 150s are ready for withdrawl, after all they are diesel equivalents of 455s and 319/321s. If maintaining the Cummins engine or the Voith transmission in service becomes troublesome, I guess that they will go early, otherwise, there's no reason why like the 455s and 319/321s they can't carry on until there are enough 170/172s to supplant them. Obviously a similar situation arises with the 153/155/156s traction wise.

So now you're conveniently ignoring the fact EMUs are expected to last 5-10 years longer than equivalent DMUs. If serious corrosion issues are found with any 319s, 321s (like they found on 150135 which recently spent 18 months out-of-service) then fixing them would be more economically viable as they have more years left in them. I'm not sure about the 455s by the time they apparently have recycled parts.

The 153s and 155s have Leyland bus parts like 142s so like the 142s they probably weren't expected to last as long as the 156s will last.

The big bonus with all the 14x, 15x and 170/171s is that they can couple together, a feature that will likely delay decisions to retire them as they can be held as relief stock with compatible couplers even when 170/2s are used.

142s can't couple with Turbostars. Only 170s can couple with Sprinters, 171s can not - they have a different class number specifically to ensure no-one tries to couple them with a Sprinter by mistake. Pacers are also banned from being used in formations longer than 8 carriages (even during ECS movements.)

 

[AM9]

So now you're conveniently ignoring the fact EMUs are expected to last 5-10 years longer than equivalent DMUs. If serious corrosion issues are found with any 319s, 321s (like they found on 150135 which recently spent 18 months out-of-service) then fixing them would be more economically viable as they have more years left in them. I'm not sure about the 455s by the time they apparently have recycled parts.

I'm not ignoring the notional lifetime of EMUs being longer than DMUs but in reality, both types' futures are decided by the circumstances at the time. Look at my posts #108 & 110. Now arguably, a serviceable DMU has a higher deployment value, (particularly at the moment until the current electrification schemes are all completed), than an ac EMU. The DC EMU has a lower deployment value as there are very few opportunities north of the Thames. Note that I said serviceable. If it is riddled with corrosion, or its diesel engine is clapped-out, then that places it much nearer the breakers yard. You may think that Pacers are rolling scrap material, but they can be used on many lines, are cheap to run, and most importantly are available!

The 153s and 155s have Leyland bus parts like 142s so like the 142s they probably weren't expected to last as long as the 156s will last.

Be that as it may, expectations have been overtaken with time and many of them (153s and 142s) are still working on diagrams for which there are no replacements.

142s can't couple with Turbostars. Only 170s can couple with Sprinters, 171s can not - they have a different class number specifically to ensure no-one tries to couple them with a Sprinter by mistake. Pacers are also banned from being used in formations longer than 8 carriages (even during ECS movements.)

Yes my mistake, that was a typo. I know that 171s have Dellner couplings so that they can be freely mixed with SE/Southern Electrostars. Wikipedia does say however that all Pacers, Sprinters (except 159s) and 170s can be coupled at will. Maximum train length limits may apply though as you say.

 

[The Ham]

Surely these retained HSTs stand a good chance of being replaced by Voyagers/Meridians/180s/IEP bi-modes which, if I understand correctly, you've excluded from your calculations.

I have excluded IC DMU's but I doubt the 22x's, especially the shorter ones, are unlikely to be able to replace the short HST's. However, even if they do, the HST's are replacing replacing DMU's which are included.

 

[pemma]

You may think that Pacers are rolling scrap material, but they can be used on many lines, are cheap to run, and most importantly are available!

I think the cheap to run is a bit a misconception. 3 x 142s would be required to provide the same capacity as 2 x 156s but the latter formation is cheaper to run. If services only need a single 142 then OK the 142 is a cheap solution but that isn't the case in many instances.

Since the 172s have come along the 142s don't have the cheapest track access charges per diesel carriage (even though the 172 carriages are 23.8m and the 142 carriages are 15.5m) but apparently at the moment the 172 leasing costs are much higher per carriage mainly due to them being newish.

Yes my mistake, that was a typo. I know that 171s have Dellner couplings so that they can be freely mixed with SE/Southern Electrostars. Wikipedia does say however that all Pacers, Sprinters (except 159s) and 170s can be coupled at will. Maximum train length limits may apply though as you say.

I thought I read somewhere it was only 14xs and 15xs that Pacers were compatible with. The Angel Trains website says compatibility with Turbostars but in the Porterbrook 143/4 brochure it mentions the PIS they are proposing would be compatible with the PIS on Sprinters (but no mention of Turbostars.)

 

[The Ham]

I think the cheap to run is a bit a misconception. 3 x 142s would be required to provide the same capacity as 2 x 156s but the latter formation is cheaper to run. If services only need a single 142 then OK the 142 is a cheap solution but that isn't the case in many instances.

Since the 172s have come along the 142s don't have the cheapest track access charges per diesel carriage (even though the 172 carriages are 23.8m and the 142 carriages are 15.5m) but apparently at the moment the 172 leasing costs are much higher per carriage mainly due to them being newish.

Although the leasing costs per seat maybe similar on the 172's than the 14x's, as the 143's have 90 seats over two coaches, whilst the 172/3 have 188 seats over three coaches. Which means that the lease cost per coach can be 25% cheaper for the 143's compared with the 172's whilst still costing the same per seat.

Then of course that then also means that the track access charges will be less as a pair of 143's would be 18.56ppm compared with a single 172/3 which would be 13.38ppm. If a train is doing an average of 500 miles a day over 300 days a year that is a saving of about £8,000.

 

[Class 170101]

Looking on wikipedia, assuming 321s and 322s can work together in service, would this work (apart from being 1 unit short):

Class 321s and 322s can work together in service and did so deuring the Ipswich Tunnel Blockade in Summer 2004 when the 322s moved from Scotland to Anglia to cover for extra stock needed during said blockade.

 

[AM9]

Although the leasing costs per seat maybe similar on the 172's than the 14x's, as the 143's have 90 seats over two coaches, whilst the 172/3 have 188 seats over three coaches. Which means that the lease cost per coach can be 25% cheaper for the 143's compared with the 172's whilst still costing the same per seat.

Then of course that then also means that the track access charges will be less as a pair of 143's would be 18.56ppm compared with a single 172/3 which would be 13.38ppm. If a train is doing an average of 500 miles a day over 300 days a year that is a saving of about £8,000.

As I said, Pacers are available. So where would all these 172s come from?

 

[Class 170101]

Chancellor Osborne has just made an announcement in a speech in Derby (at Bombardier I believe)broadcast on BBC News that he has instructed Network Rail for electrification to be looked at between Bristol and Derby via Birmingham New Street.

 

[AM9]

Chancellor Osborne has just made an announcement in a speech in Derby (at Bombardier I believe)broadcast on BBC News that he has instructed Network Rail for electrification to be looked at between Bristol and Derby via Birmingham New Street.

These election promises are coming thick and fast now.

 

[pemma]

As I said, Pacers are available. So where would all these 172s come from?

An argument people keep putting forward is LM got new 172s because they could afford them and Northern couldn't but given:
a) Subsidy figures aren't available on a line by line basis
b) The exact leasing costs of 142s and 172s are not known because they are commercially sensitive information
No-one can say for certain that the Snow Hill lines had a better case for new DMUs than the commuter routes around Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Bristol, Cardiff or any other city. (Well some people will know the exact figures but will likely have a contract of employment which forbids them from making those figures public.)

Given 50 x 170s should be off-lease from December 2018 it should be possible for bidders of the next Northern franchise to propose using the LM and LO 172s from December 2018. LO won't require 172s post-December 2018 while LM could take on Scotrail 170s as replacements, which could give them a more consistent fleet and reduce the need for them to operate 2 car 170s with a 153 tagged on the back.