Pacer and Sprinter replacement

[Rhydgaled]

OK a bit of an unusual plan considering Network Rail's plan for the next CP does include North TPE electrification

I know, but I didn't know that at the time I made up my plan. At the time, I was going from suggestions on here that the TPE routes had too many branches at each end to free up many units. However, as I said, I'm now looking for details of NR's TPE north plan to see how many units it would replace and how many miles of wiring would be involved. NR's plan itself doesn't help me much, since I don't know where the junctions named, that they want to electrify between, are. With that information, I'd look and see which X miles of wire should be dropped from the plan I outlined above to allow it to include the TPE north scheme instead.

Lines currently operated by a single 153s would be replaced by a 150. The 153s would be reformed into Class 155s which would operate on the less crowded but longer distance 150 duties.

The 153 to 155 issue is another spanner in the works of my attempts to make up an electrfication plan allowing disability compliance without new DMUs (other than LM's optional additions to their 172 order). A shortfall of 25 Pacers is bad enough, add in half the 153s as well and I think a second 'High Output' OHLE factory train team would be needed to achive that goal.

 

[HSTEd]

Is the "high output" wiring team based on MPVs or are those only used for wire maintenance?

 

[exile]

There was a story on the BBC about pacer replacements - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15390172

Is the figure of 6 times the current leasing cost accurate? And if so how will it be paid for?

 

[Nym]

Yes, and unknown, by the people who say pacers should be withdrawn by law?

Said it before and I'll say it again, if an 8 carriage pacer turns up I'd be happier than if a 4 car 150 turned up...

 

[exile]

I have to say I dislike pacers but I wonder if there is any chance of getting a replacement at a reasonable cost which will fit the bill. The problem is the sheer lack of seats - 100-120 or so for a 2 car unit compared to 140-150 for a 156 (we have a mixture of pacers, 150s and 156s on our local route - with a load of about 150 on average at peak times - 250-300 when a train is cancelled).

 

[tbtc]

I'm not 100% about TPE North electrification taking place. Being on a Network Rail "wishlist" means nothing in the current political environment.

 

[Rhydgaled]

There was a story on the BBC about pacer replacements - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15390172

Is the figure of 6 times the current leasing cost accurate? And if so how will it be paid for?

My estimate of the current annual lease cost of ATW's 31 150s plus 30 Pacers is £8,580,000 at £90,000 per cl150 vehicle and £50,000 per Pacer vehicle (that's right, it costs £100,000 per year to lease a single 142 or 143, you could probably buy one for not much more!).

My estimates of lease costs for replacment new EMUs are:

• £19,215,000 for 61x 3-Car or
• £14,700,000 for 70x 2-Car or
• £17,325,000 for 25x 3-Car And 45x 2-Car

I estimated the capital costs of those three options at:

• £201,300,000
• £154,000,000
• £181,500,000

That sounds expensive, but multiply those annual lease figures by 30 (pretty much the lowest value you can give for the life expectancy of a modern EMU) and what do you get? My estimate:

• £576,450,000
• £441,000,000
• £519,750,000

So, if you buy rather than lease you save £375,150,000, £287,000,000 or £338,250,000 over 30 years, depending on which of the three options you go for.

 

[WatcherZero]

Remember to factor in ongoing maintence upgrades and refurbs which are done at the owners expense and the mandatory thorough mid life refurb which usually costs in the region of a quarter of the capital cost of the original purchase.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Remember to factor in ongoing maintence upgrades and refurbs which are done at the owners expense and the mandatory thorough mid life refurb which usually costs in the region of a quarter of the capital cost of the original purchase.

I have no idea about major refurbs etc. What I am pretty certain of is that these leasing cost figures I've been given (at least the ones for the Sprinters/Pacers) do not include maintenance, because maintenance costs were listed seperately. I suppose they could be charges for a so-called 'soggy lease' which includes some maintenance but not all, I don't know.

However, a quarter of £201,300,000 is £50,325,000, so quite a lot of work would have to be done at the expence of the owner to negate the savings of owning rather than leasing stock. I don't think ATW's 158 refurb is being paid for by the ROSCO that owns the units, is it?

 

[BR Blue]

The Pacers will only be replaced when someone, Dft, TOCs, ROSCOs or whoever orders some new build trains. It`s as simple as that!

The future cascade of 86 class 319`s is very unlikely to replace a single DMU, that is currently in use. This option replaced an order for 200 diesel carriages, which were additional not replacement rolling stock. So, the 319`s will be counted towards the 1300 addition carriages for the UK network.

 

[starrymarkb]

Any one know how they are going to deal with level boarding "sur le continent"?

...and if they don't have to, why do we?

They are working towards it. However the access law is a UK one rather then EU (the UIC regs are less stringent)

(note the low floor in coach 2)

OBB's Railjets have lifts fitted

 

[Jonny]

For the problems that might be associated with raising the additional finance, see the last three paragraphs here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15390172

especially about the ^cappuccino^

 

[IanXC]

I'm now looking for details of NR's TPE north plan to see how many units it would replace and how many miles of wiring would be involved. NR's plan itself doesn't help me much, since I don't know where the junctions named, that they want to electrify between, are.

As in the routes in this section?

North Trans-Pennine
Consideration is being given to the case for the electrification of the North Trans-Pennine routes from Manchester to Leeds via Huddersfield, York and Hull; Temple Hirst Junction to Selby and Northallerton to Middlesbrough. This would enable conversion of North Cross-Pennine services and services from London to Hull and providing diversionary routes from the East Coast Main Line between Doncaster and Colton Junction.

Temple Hirst Junction is where the (electrified) Selby Diversion, well diverges heading to York.
Colton Junction is where the Selby Diversion meets the York-Leeds route, just north of Ulleskelf.

I'd be extremely disappointed if this is not read to include Hambleton Junction, where the Hull-Leeds line crosses (grade separated) the ECML. 2 short sections would allow the York-Hull route and a diversionary ECML to Leeds route to be electrified.

 

[northwichcat]

Said it before and I'll say it again, if an 8 carriage pacer turns up I'd be happier than if a 4 car 150 turned up...

From my experience there are frequently delays when a 4 car Pacer formation operates due to the guard having problems with getting the doors to open on both sets. If an 8 car Pacer turns up I'd expect it to arrive at it's destination very late.

 

[Nym]

I sight poor maintenance for that, if the couplers aren't clean then that can happen a lot...

Don't get me wrong though, if a 6 car 150 shows up, I'd be even happyer, (Not as much as I would with a 9 car 185, but that would just be dreaming)

 

[northwichcat]

The future cascade of 86 class 319's is very unlikely to replace a single DMU, that is currently in use. This option replaced an order for 200 diesel carriages, which were additional not replacement rolling stock. So, the 319's will be counted towards the 1300 addition carriages for the UK network.

Yes. People keep forgetting that. Also it was an order for a minimum of 200 carriages, while unlikely it could have finished up as 280 carriages being delivered.

Northern were due to get new carriages in 2 and 3 car formation so a 4 car EMU is less flexible. A pair of 2 car DMUs could be used on a peak service, then one could continue in service in the off-peak period while another could be sent for maintenance, with a 4 car EMU it's either 4 carriages in service or 4 carriages not in service.

The 200+ was also based on projected passenger numbers for 2012 and assumed the LO and LM 150s would go to Northern and FGW anyway. We're now looking at 2015 for the 319s coming to the North West so if passenger numbers grow between 2012 and 2015 we'll need more carriages than originally proposed for that reason as well.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As a slight aside, do the rail projection figures for all rail-related matters have statistical updates at set periods, e.g every five years, where any percentage increase in the past period could be built into future projections?

 

[Rhydgaled]

As in the routes in this section?

Not quite the section I was thinking of, but thanks for that. I was refering to the Definition of proposed CP5 enhancements document from this page (I think the other link is a direct download of the .pdf). The bit in question was:

Scope of works

• The core scheme will involve provision of OLE at 25kV AC for the following sections of route (costs are included for these route sections only):
  • Guide Bridge West Junction to Copley Hill East Junction via Huddersfield; and
  • Neville West Junction to Colton Junction
• electrification between Manchester Victoria and Stalybridge is included in the remit and is being developed by the North West electrification programme; and
• a number of additional routes in Yorkshire and Greater Manchester are being considered as possible increments to the core scheme and these are not being proposed for delivery in CP5.

Network Rail are currently examining the scope for this project. There are a number of options – electrification of the core route, the addition of a key link to the East Coast main line to allow operational flexibility and diversionary routes. The headline cost is an early estimate of the costs for the core route.

Unlike your quote, that doesn't mention Hull at all, and only one of the junctions it mentioned was mentioned in your quote. I'm guessing Northallerton to Middlesbrough electrification, mentioned in your quote, is not a CP5 objective?

Temple Hirst Junction is where the (electrified) Selby Diversion, well diverges heading to York. Colton Junction is where the Selby Diversion meets the York-Leeds route, just north of Ulleskelf.

I'd be extremely disappointed if this is not read to include Hambleton Junction, where the Hull-Leeds line crosses (grade separated) the ECML. 2 short sections would allow the York-Hull route and a diversionary ECML to Leeds route to be electrified.

So, to confirm, NR plan to electrify the routes marked in orange (blue being already wired, green being non-electrified) on the attached map in CP5?

 

[IanXC]

Hmm I've not come across that definitons document, I lifted my quote from the "Initial Industry Plan for CP5 and beyond".

I wonder which document is newer? Will have a read when I get home. The map certainly tallys with my understanding of the scheme.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not quite the section I was thinking of, but thanks for that. I was refering to the Definition of proposed CP5 enhancements document from this page (I think the other link is a direct download of the .pdf). The bit in question was:

Unlike your quote, that doesn't mention Hull at all, and only one of the junctions it mentioned was mentioned in your quote. I'm guessing Northallerton to Middlesbrough electrification, mentioned in your quote, is not a CP5 objective?

So, to confirm, NR plan to electrify the routes marked in orange (blue being already wired, green being non-electrified) on the attached map in CP5?

Hmm. Well both documents are September 2011, the definitions one seems to say CP5 is limited to Guide Bridge-Copley Hill East and Neville West-Colton Junction. The IIP (linked on the same page) describes a more comprehensive scheme.

It would seem strange to deliver the limited scheme in CP5 (which presumably only covers TPE services to Newcastle) and then return to North TPE as soon as CP6 to deliver the rest of the scheme.

I thought the description of only 1 new traction supply point being required for the limited scheme was interesting, however I'm still sceptical of the table on page 88 of the definitions document which suggests (presumably the limited scheme) electrification of North Transpennine would cost £7.3-9.1m.

 

[Rhydgaled]

So where exactly are Guide Bridge, Copley Hill East and Neville West junctions?

 

[Nym]

Not to sound horrible but...

Guide Bridge Junction is at Guide Bridge...
Neville West is at the western end of Neville Hill
Copley Hill East is at Copley Hill

Bit more eleboration...
Guide Bridge is where electrification ends on the CURRENT TPE route out of Manchester towards Leeds, this will be changing to Victoria soon enough.

Neville Hill is to the East of Leeds City Station toward Selby and York

Copley Hill is where the Wakefeild Line from Doncaster meets the Huddersfeild Line from errr, Huddersfeild (TPE's route)

With TPE's network changing to victoria I'd still expect to see Electrification from Guide Bridge for diversions and stoppers, but the primary route will be into Victoria.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

With TPE's network changing to Victoria I'd still expect to see electrification from Guide Bridge for diversions and stoppers, but the primary route will be into Victoria.

The Ordsall Chord will indeed see Manchester Victoria - Miles Platting junction - Ashton under Lyne - Stalybridge as the main TPE route.....Guide Bridge west junction with its tight radius curves, has always been a problem to the running of the TPE services.

I am still finding it hard to understand why a subject such as "Pacer and Sprinter replacement" ever found a home on the Infrastructure Forum and I am pleased to see it moved to its correct sub-forum

 

[Batman]

Elctrification from Leeds to York is vital. That will fit in with Midland Mainline electrification if the line from Shefield to Wakefield is electrified.

That means that an IEP duel power cross city train from Plymouth to Edinburgh (for example) would change from diesel to electric power at Derby.

If IEP trains were introduced tomorrow, they would have to change further north at York.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Reagrding the trans Pennine route, there are a number of questions that need answering:

1) Will 350's be the new rollingstock used?

2) Are the 185's that will be displaced suitable for operating local trains, rather than inter-regional services.

3) What exactly are NR's proposed stopping patterns for the 6thp Leeds to Manchester service and where will these services start/terminate at?

4) Will the 2tph that opperate beyond York to Scarborough and Middlesborough still be opperated by 185's, or will passengers have to change for DMU services at York?

 

[142094]

It's debateable whether 185s are suitable for local lines, seeing as they have a very good top speed, so IMO they would be wasted on a lot of lines. Also, there could be problems with platform lengths at some stations.

185s could be a decent choice for replacing 158s that work on the York - Blackpool North route, where most stations are capable of handling 2x 2 car 158s. The 158s could then be used on routes currently served by 14xs and other 15xs.

 

[ainsworth74]

185s could be a decent choice for replacing 158s that work on the York - Blackpool North route, where most stations are capable of handling 2x 2 car 158s. The 158s could then be used on routes currently served by 14xs and other 15xs.

I would agree that 185s would be a good replacement for 158s on that route and probably generally for 158s as well (though I'm sure some will disagree ). But using 158s on services at present run by other 14xs and 15xs seems a bit of a waste for the same reasons that 185s would be a waste.

Somehow over the last 10-15 years we seem to have managed to order a lot of long distance or inter-regional DMU rolling stock that is not really appropriate for local services (175s, 180s and 170-172s for instance) without ordering any rolling stock that could be used on 14x or 150-156 services. TPE is in fact a good case in point, here we had brand new order of 185s to replace fairly young 158s that were perfectly suited to the TPE route rather than doing something about the rolling stock that Northern had/have. Instead of ordering new DMUs for local services we seem to have a thing for ordering new DMUs for long distance services (that don't always need replacing anyway).

 

[Ivo]

Can we not have the 185s please? Strip out the FC in half of the units, and split them into 2 and 4 -car variants. Then use the 4-car units, inclusive of FC, for Cardiff-Pompey, and use the others (without FC) for other longer distance runs such as the Cornish Main Line or Cardiff to Taunton.

/wishful thinking

It would allow 158s to take on many 150 duties, and they could then take on 14x duties.

 

[anthony263]

Can we not have the 185s please? Strip out the FC in half of the units, and split them into 2 and 4 -car variants. Then use the 4-car units, inclusive of FC, for Cardiff-Pompey, and use the others (without FC) for other longer distance runs such as the Cornish Main Line or Cardiff to Taunton.

/wishful thinking

It would allow 158s to take on many 150 duties, and they could then take on 14x duties.

Wouldn't mind seing a 4 carriage 185 work the Cardiff - Portsmouth route 4 carriage trains are needed on that route urgently.

 

[northwichcat]

Can we not have the 185s please? Strip out the FC in half of the units, and split them into 2 and 4 -car variants. Then use the 4-car units, inclusive of FC, for Cardiff-Pompey, and use the others (without FC) for other longer distance runs such as the Cornish Main Line or Cardiff to Taunton.

/wishful thinking

It would allow 158s to take on many 150 duties, and they could then take on 14x duties.

Have a look at a 185 seating plan: http://southtpe.co.uk/rfm/Class_185_Seating_Plan.pdf I think you may want to reconsider if you look at how much capacity there would be after removing centre carriages.

 

[HSTEd]

I doubt Cl185s would work very well on the Cornish Main Line or similar due to the enormous axle weight they have.

 

[142094]

I would agree that 185s would be a good replacement for 158s on that route and probably generally for 158s as well (though I'm sure some will disagree ). But using 158s on services at present run by other 14xs and 15xs seems a bit of a waste for the same reasons that 185s would be a waste.

Somehow over the last 10-15 years we seem to have managed to order a lot of long distance or inter-regional DMU rolling stock that is not really appropriate for local services (175s, 180s and 170-172s for instance) without ordering any rolling stock that could be used on 14x or 150-156 services. TPE is in fact a good case in point, here we had brand new order of 185s to replace fairly young 158s that were perfectly suited to the TPE route rather than doing something about the rolling stock that Northern had/have. Instead of ordering new DMUs for local services we seem to have a thing for ordering new DMUs for long distance services (that don't always need replacing anyway).

Depends what is happening - if there are just cascades then the 158s could go elsewhere, but if we're beginning to replace 14xs then the 158s would be useful on quite a few routes - such as Carlisle - Newcastle, Newcastle - Middlesbrough etc (and that is just up here). In any case, 158s are already on some services where they probably shouldn't (Grand Tour being one of them).