Potential stock for future Nottingham to Liverpool services?

[MML]

mods note - split from this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...way-construction-introduction-updates.195052/

I have just read the following article in which a wool-rich moquette and leather headrests are mentioned. Hooray for common sense.
Leather headrests are easier to wipe clean and a wool-rich moquette should deliver comfort and durability.
East Midlands Railways unveils newly designed seats for state-of-the-art Aurora fleet (prgloo.com)

The cloth trimmed armrests and headrests on the Meridians must be a nightmare to keep clean. And the armrests well worn by continual use. The padding in the seats is definitely past it's best, you can feel the seat structure bar beneath. I guess it will be for the next operator to perform a full refurbishment on these units. EMR certainly won't be spending any money on them now.

 

[Nym]

Unless of course they end up retaining them for the Liverpool to Nottingham services, reformed as 6 car... But I doubt that even if that where to happen, that anything would be done to try and improve the passenger experience.

 

[edwin_m]

Unless of course they end up retaining them for the Liverpool to Nottingham services, reformed as 6 car... But I doubt that even if that where to happen, that anything would be done to try and improve the passenger experience.

I can't see why they would prefer them over the 158s or 170s on that route. Fewer seats for the same train length, higher fuel consumption, nowhere they can exceed 100mph and they might even be slower due to not being able to use SP differential speeds.

 

[43102EMR]

Unless of course they end up retaining them for the Liverpool to Nottingham services, reformed as 6 car... But I doubt that even if that where to happen, that anything would be done to try and improve the passenger experience.

Liverpool to Norwich is to be retained with EMR (albeit split at some point), although what will be running on it is a big question mark at the moment… a topic for another thread.

 

[STINT47]

I don't understand why the leasing company / DFT will not authorise a refurbishment on the Meridians?

If the trains were ancient fair enough but once they are finished with EMR they will surely be used by another operator so the cost of a refurbishment will not be wasted. I understand that EMR cannot justify it but can no one else look at the longer term?

At the very least some extra padding would be nice. I can feel the seat frame pressing into the bottom of my legs and it quickly becomes unvonfottanlr and starts to hurt, not pleasant for a short journey let alone using one for over two hours.

 

[py_megapixel]

If the trains were ancient fair enough but once they are finished with EMR they will surely be used by another operator so the cost of a refurbishment will not be wasted. I understand that EMR cannot justify it but can no one else look at the longer term?

If another operator takes them on they will want them done to a different spec.

 

[LowLevel]

Unless of course they end up retaining them for the Liverpool to Nottingham services, reformed as 6 car... But I doubt that even if that where to happen, that anything would be done to try and improve the passenger experience.

Latest rumour in the ever changing Liverpool - Nottingham feast is EMR with SDO fitted 159s ex SWR *shrug*

 

[Killingworth]

Latest rumour in the ever changing Liverpool - Nottingham feast is EMR with SDO fitted 159s ex SWR *shrug*

A refurbished 3 car 159 unit with first class accommodation, making 6 car possible, would be an improvement when covering the core Liverpool - Sheffield section opposite the TPE 185s or Nova 3s from December 2022. Currently few will buy a first class ticket for an hourly service but more might at half hourly.

However getting released stock from anywhere seems to be rather problematic for EMR, and with time for refurbishment, it's probably from someone's dreams. But I quite like the idea.

 

[NoOnesFool]

A refurbished 3 car 159 unit with first class accommodation, making 6 car possible, would be an improvement when covering the core Liverpool - Sheffield section opposite the TPE 185s or Nova 3s from December 2022. Currently few will buy a first class ticket for an hourly service but more might at half hourly.

However getting released stock from anywhere seems to be rather problematic for EMR, and with time for refurbishment, it's probably from someone's dreams. But I quite like the idea.

If First Class provisions are either advertised appropriately or improved with a dedicated host & substantial items such as salads available, then great. The worry is it becoming like CrossCountry 170 services, where the customer expects more and gets so little. The current seating on this route works very well, even after the PRM mods, seating everyone is done with ease. Luggage stowage is a considerable problem though! It could be a good idea to permanently couple two 158 or 159 units together and convert the cab space in between in to bicycle & luggage stowage, perhaps even a trolley stowage point!

 

[liamf656]

Unless of course they end up retaining them for the Liverpool to Nottingham services, reformed as 6 car... But I doubt that even if that where to happen, that anything would be done to try and improve the passenger experience.

This topic gets covered a lot on this forum. There’s no chance Meridians will be used on the Liverpool service

Latest rumour in the ever changing Liverpool - Nottingham feast is EMR with SDO fitted 159s ex SWR *shrug*

It doesn’t sound feasible to me. Although SDO fitted sprinters would work wonders on the Liverpool service, SWR don’t have a replacement fleet for the 159s

 

[supervc-10]

The SWR 159s aren't going anywhere unless they're replaced with a hypothetical 3rd rail/diesel bi-mode unit IMO. I think they'll end up lasting their entire lives on the West of England line. They're 30 years old now, and won't survive *that* much longer.

I could see more 158s for the Liverpool route, fitted with SDO to allow 6-car operations, but the 159s won't be leaving Salisbury until it's a one-way trip to Booths.

 

[Clansman]

Unless of course they end up retaining them for the Liverpool to Nottingham services, reformed as 6 car... But I doubt that even if that where to happen, that anything would be done to try and improve the passenger experience.

Passenger experience means nothing if you can't provide more seats. Especially if it decreases facilities on board including luggage storage, bike space, toilets, and standing room.

Along with greater maintenance costs and diminished regional operational flexbility, these are many reasons why the 222s will never be a realistic alternative to existing regional DMUs.

If the downgrades listed above can't be reasonably justified, then 222s (and Voyagers for that matter) will never replace DMUs like the sprinters or turbostars - no matter how many people perceive them as an upgrade simply on passengers experience.

 

[Nym]

Or FLEX up something more modern, Porterbrook...?

 

[Wivenswold]

The optics aren't great though, TPE get flashy new trains every ten years, EMR transport people cross-country in 30 year old BR units.

 

[JonathanH]

The optics aren't great though, TPE get flashy new trains every ten years, EMR transport people cross-country in 30 year old BR units.

The optics are realistic though.

Obviously there has been a bit of indecision about the Liverpool to Nottingham stock but EMR thought it had sourced secondhand 170s for most of its network as that is what the revenue and available subsidy justifies. That would have included Norwich to Nottingham.

A fair part of the TPE network will have 185s for a while longer which are now around fifteen years old.

At some point the EMR 158s will be replaced with hand-me-downs from elsewhere.

 

[43096]

The optics are realistic though.

Obviously there has been a bit of indecision about the Liverpool to Nottingham stock but EMR thought it had sourced secondhand 170s for most of its network as that is what the revenue and available subsidy justifies. That would have included Norwich to Nottingham.

A fair part of the TPE network will have 185s for a while longer which are now around fifteen years old.

At some point the EMR 158s will be replaced with hand-me-downs from elsewhere.

If the order for hybrid 195s for Northern materialises then displacing the 170s to EMR is an obvious option. It removes a small fleet from Northern and gives EMR a homogenous regional fleet of 170s.

 

[JonathanH]

If the order for hybrid 195s for Northern materialises then displacing the 170s to EMR is an obvious option. It removes a small fleet from Northern and gives EMR a homogenous regional fleet of 170s.

That suggestion is made repeatedly on this forum with a frequent rebuttal to the effect that the 170s are well employed on Sheffield to Hull / Scarborough services. (I thought the other option sometimes explored is trying to get 170s from Wales.)

I still think getting Greater Anglia to run Nottingham to Norwich with their spare 755s is a better option for displacing EMR's need for 170s.

Finding stock to displace the continued use of 158s on the Liverpool to Nottingham route does seem to be complicated (but of course 158s are quite good at the job they are doing.)

 

[randyrippley]

mods note - split from this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...way-construction-introduction-updates.195052/

I have just read the following article in which a wool-rich moquette and leather headrests are mentioned. Hooray for common sense.
Leather headrests are easier to wipe clean and a wool-rich moquette should deliver comfort and durability.
East Midlands Railways unveils newly designed seats for state-of-the-art Aurora fleet (prgloo.com)

The cloth trimmed armrests and headrests on the Meridians must be a nightmare to keep clean. And the armrests well worn by continual use. The padding in the seats is definitely past it's best, you can feel the seat structure bar beneath. I guess it will be for the next operator to perform a full refurbishment on these units. EMR certainly won't be spending any money on them now.

Wool? Leather? What's this rush back to natural materials, trying to save oil use? How about horsehair for the seat padding to make the seat plastic-free? (And fire resistant)

 

[The Ham]

Passenger experience means nothing if you can't provide more seats. Especially if it decreases facilities on board including luggage storage, bike space, toilets, and standing room.

Along with greater maintenance costs and diminished regional operational flexbility, these are many reasons why the 222s will never be a realistic alternative to existing regional DMUs.

If the downgrades listed above can't be reasonably justified, then 222s (and Voyagers for that matter) will never replace DMUs like the sprinters or turbostars - no matter how many people perceive them as an upgrade simply on passengers experience.

With the 222's it would be possible to get close to the seating capacity of a 9 coach 159 if they were a fixed length 10 coach unit.

That could allow some 159's to be released to be used elsewhere, although that would require the new 10 coach units to be limited to off peak/near peak diagrams.

The other way (which is much less likely and would certainly be a longer term plan) it could be possible to reduce the number of 159's needed would be if 1/2 (so 1 every two hours) the Exeter and Yeoivil services ran the whole route whilst the other 1/2 split at Salisbury with a change to a battery EMU for the rest of the way to Waterloo and the Salisbury services all being run with battery EMU's.

However that would be dependent on a battery train having a range of circa 90 miles our having some extra electrification, potentially an extra 10 miles (although if we're getting more electrification it would be possible to have the split at Yeovil with an extra ~55 miles, to Tisbury, which would remove the need for the Yeovil services to be split).

Although both have problems. For instance the latter would take several years to implement, even for the battery only option. Whilst the 222 option would require a lot of end coaches to be scrapped, for every 10 coach unit produced it would be at least 2 (assuming the pairing of a 7 and 5 coach unit), bit potentially 4 (joining two 5 coach units with a 4 coach unit) end coaches being scraped.

 

[tbtc]

If the plan is for an hourly Cleethorpes - Liverpool service (to replace the old Cleethorpes - Manchester Airport service) then my view is that the same people/ trains should run this as run the hourly Nottingham - Liverpool service

Ideally that'd be a common fleet for the other semi-fast services through Sheffield (Nottingham - Leeds, Sheffield - Hull plus Sheffield - Lincoln if it returns to dropping the local stops west of Worksop)

222s seem like a non-starter for the Nottingham - Liverpool service - firstly because there's not going to be any 125mph operation (so the space taken up by "crumple zones" and slanted cabs is wasted), secondly because it wouldn't be enough for the entire class (so just shifts the problem onto "what use do you find for half a class of 222s") and thirdly because XC is the natural fit

I wouldn't have a problem with 158s, as long as they were long enough - if you can have 90mph trains with corridor connections and the flexibility to run them as any length then that sounds perfect (even if they are from the 1980s) - given that some routes elsewhere have split 158s up to provide three car operation (I'm not talking about the handful of centre cars) - whereas any 170/175/185 would mean no corridor connection and a lot less flexibility re train lengths (e.g. 185s are either three or six coaches)

 

[JonathanH]

With the 222's it would be possible to get close to the seating capacity of a 9 coach 159 if they were a fixed length 10 coach unit.

That could allow some 159's to be released to be used elsewhere, although that would require the new 10 coach units to be limited to off peak/near peak diagrams.

Creating inappropriate rolling stock for another route that doesn't fit in its depots to free up units that are essentially the same as those already operating on Liverpool to Nottingham cannot possibly be the answer.

222s seem like a non-starter for the Nottingham - Liverpool service - firstly because there's not going to be any 125mph operation (so the space taken up by "crumple zones" and slanted cabs is wasted), secondly because it wouldn't be enough for the entire class (so just shifts the problem onto "what use do you find for half a class of 222s") and thirdly because XC is the natural fit

...and perhaps add that there isn't the infrastructure to service or maintain them without significant investment.

 

[43096]

Creating inappropriate rolling stock for another route that doesn't fit in its depots to free up units that are essentially the same as those already operating on Liverpool to Nottingham cannot possibly be the answer.

Agreed! It’s a solution that’s looking for a problem.

The 159 is the perfect train for the Waterloo-Exeter route: replacing them will be a tough job.

 

[Class83]

Stock with mid saloon doors would be best for services through the Castlefield Corridor. I've always thought it was a good retirement home for the 185s, replace the 1st Class with additional standard and run as 6 car sets. Though might need Network Rail to take track maintenance a bit more seriously. I don't really see 222s making a huge amount of sense on this route, they'd be more use for XC.

 

[The Ham]

Agreed! It’s a solution that’s looking for a problem.

The 159 is the perfect train for the Waterloo-Exeter route: replacing them will be a tough job.

I'm minded to agree, I wasn't overly clear in my post. In that whilst possible, it wouldn't be overly desirable as there'd only be a need for about 6 units plus a spare, which would be a fairly inefficient way of doing it.

Although as I said it would likely require some electrification to make it possible, something which is likely to be beyond the life of the 159's anyway.

 

[MattRat]

The optics aren't great though, TPE get flashy new trains every ten years, EMR transport people cross-country in 30 year old BR units.

The optics are realistic though.

Obviously there has been a bit of indecision about the Liverpool to Nottingham stock but EMR thought it had sourced secondhand 170s for most of its network as that is what the revenue and available subsidy justifies. That would have included Norwich to Nottingham.

A fair part of the TPE network will have 185s for a while longer which are now around fifteen years old.

At some point the EMR 158s will be replaced with hand-me-downs from elsewhere.

With TPEs penchant for replacements, I can see the 185s getting replaced, which means they can then go to EMR, and any units they replace (158s, maybe 170s too), can then be given to Northern to get rid of some of their more elderly DMUs.

 

[JonathanH]

With TPEs penchant for replacements, I can see the 185s getting replaced, which means they can then go to EMR, and any units they replace (158s, maybe 170s too), can then be given to Northern to get rid of some of their more elderly DMUs.

It is not about 'given', there is a financial impact of moving train fleets around. Electrification may well lead to displacement of 185s but they were built for a specific route with thirsty engines for hill climbing and are very heavy. They would make EMR's operation much more expensive than using 170s.

Previous discussions have struggled to find any routes which would be suited to 185 operation other than the one they work.

 

[MattRat]

It is not about 'given', there is a financial impact of moving train fleets around. Electrification may well lead to displacement of 185s but they were built for a specific route with thirsty engines for hill climbing and are very heavy. They would make EMR's operation much more expensive than using 170s.

Previous discussions have struggled to find any routes which would be suited to 185 operation other than the one they work.

I said maybe the 170s. The 158s of course are easier to replace, unless you are trying to tell me Liverpool to Nottingham isn't hilly.

 

[JonathanH]

I said maybe the 170s. The 158s of course are easier to replace, unless you are trying to tell me Liverpool to Nottingham isn't hilly.

It has been noted before that 185s aren't ideal for Liverpool to Nottingham because of their weight and cost of operation. Clearly they operate Manchester to Cleethorpes services but it doesn't mean they are ideal for those.

Here is a previous comment about 185s on the Hope Valley.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...gham-norwich-route.204067/page-8#post-4614252

Class 185 cannot take full advantage of its higher power on the Hope Valley line - they are too heavy, so are not allowed to run at the higher "Sprinter" speed limits.

And as I have commented before, replacing 4 coach 158s by 6 coach 185s will create a big increase in running costs (Fuel, etc.), and probably an increase in track access fees.

 

[That1Squirrel]

I'd suggest some Class 800 series unless anyone here could think of any potential suitability issues?

 

[MattRat]

I'd suggest some Class 800 series unless anyone here could think of any potential suitability issues?

Surely if we are talking brand new, a FLIRT would be better.