Why were electric trains not ordered in the early 1990's for West Yorkshire?

[Harlesden]

Assuming major rail projects are planned in detail a year or more in advance of the work actually starting, why was no rolling stock ordered to serve newly electrified lines from Leeds to Bradford and Skipton?
What they got was Class 308 units that were over 30 years old and had already seen heavy use in London and so only lasted 5-6 years in Yorkshire before becoming totally clapped out.
My question is why the DMU's (class unknown) that had been serving the line, presumably more modern than the 308's, did not continue in service until new rolling stock was delivered.
If I had been a Yorkshire passenger at the time, I would have much preferred a reasonably smart modern DMU than an obviously elderly EMU.

 

[yorkie]

... I would have much preferred a reasonably smart modern DMU than an obviously elderly EMU.

I don't think people prefer a Paer, which is bus on train wheels (which would have been the likely alternative) than an EMU with deep sprung seats, and many more seats too

The answer is simple: cost. EMUs are much cheaper to run, and quicker, than DMUs, and there were spare EMUs, so why not use them?

 

[yorksrob]

The incumbent DMU‘s on the route were 144 pacers which were needed elsewhere. Plus the 308‘s still represented an improvement (the 144‘s may even still have had bus seating at the time, although I didn't move to the area until 99 so am not sure on that).

 

[455driver]

The costs of electrifying the route and ordering new trains meant that it was too expensive and so wouldnt be signed off.

The costs of electrifying and using second hand stock fell within the cost base (BCR in todays speak) and so could be signed off.

Once the lines were electrified and the passenger numbers were proved a fresh order for new stock was submitted and approved.

When the Doncaster to Leeds lines was electrified they had to use second hand stock as well (305s I think) until the passenger numbers were proved and the 321s were ordered.

Its just the games that have to be played.

 

[northwichcat]

The costs of electrifying the route and ordering new trains meant that it was too expensive and so wouldnt be signed off.

The costs of electrifying and using second hand stock fell within the cost base (BCR in todays speak) and so could be signed off.

I thought it was signed off on the basis that new 323s would be ordered for the newly electrified routes. However, there were funding problems after electrification work started and the 323 order didn't go ahead and Hunslet collapsed as a result of not getting the work.

 

[Harlesden]

Thank you 455driver. But why do passenger numbers need to be proved? If the passengers weren't already there in quantity, electrification surely wouldn't have gone ahead. Passengers numbers are probably the reason why NNG-GMB will never be electrified in my lifetime

 

[ianhr]

To the best of my memory most regular (i.e. non rail enthusiast) passengers thought that the 308s were a vast improvement on the newer DMUs. Some people thought that they were new trains! There were many comments about them being "clean", "warm", "such comfy seats" and even "like the trains they have in London"!!!!

Yesterday I travelled on the 323s Man Picc to Congleton, and later Kidsgrove to Man Picc. I was impressed and thought that they would have been well suited to West Yorks whereas the 333s seem rather 'over specified' for suburban routes.
323s seem to have excellent acceleration, a good top speed, good suspension, virtually every seat lines up with the windows. The seats are fairly basic but adequate for shorter journeys and far better than anything in any Pacer or 150. They also seem much quieter than when they were new, at that time I disliked the horrid whining noise when they started up rather than the pleasant hum of other electric stock.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I heard a different tale, at the time. It went like this:

The case for electrification was easily made and the wires were strung up. It was (part) funded by the EU based on passenger volumes.

WYPTE had sufficient budget to sponsor the purchase/lease of brand spanking new trains. However, the third party financiers had a concern: what if some future Government did away with the PTE? Who would fund the rolling stock then?

A request was made to the Government not for central funding - that was already available locally - but merely for a guarantee that if WYPTE were to cease to exist, their commitment would be underwritten. It was this guarantee - something that would have cost central government absolutely nil in fact - that was refused. And understandably the financiers weren't happy that despite the deal being well funded, it had no guaranteed future.

And so consequently thirty+ old trains were imported from the south.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Thank you 455driver. But why do passenger numbers need to be proved? If the passengers weren't already there in quantity, electrification surely wouldn't have gone ahead. Passengers numbers are probably the reason why NNG-GMB will never be electrified in my lifetime

It was the way the nationalised railway was funded - hand to mouth.
BR got approval to do the wiring but a couple of years later the Treasury did not like the business case for the trains (there was a recession on at the time).
Even then the new 333s were acquired on a convoluted deal with the PTE funding part of it.
The 365s (the last trains ordered by BR) were leased rather than purchased because the Treasury would not allow the outright purchase.

The approach is still evident today with "30-year-old trains" being part of the NW, GW and Valleys business cases.
Old hands will tell you its better to go this way than go all out for a new fleet and get the whole scheme rejected.

 

[9K43]

Healey Mills men started in March 1993 on the electrification trains out of Donny.
We were all making more over time than you could shake a stick at.
All the money went to HM for the wages, thats why it ended up not buying more locos.

 

[tbtc]

Its the way that most electrification schemes outside London have been over the past generation.

Edinburgh - North Berwick got cascaded EMUs from London, similar to the Airedale/ Wharfdale lines.

Even Airdrie - Bathgate got older 334s (with Ayrshire getting brand new 380s to free up the 334s).

The important point is that passenger numbers grew significantly when older longer EMUs replaced younger shorter DMUs - something to bear in mind next time you see a "why are we getting London cast-offs on our newly electrified line" argument about Merthyr/ Blackpool/ Stalybridge etc.

 

[306024]

It was the way the nationalised railway was funded - hand to mouth.
BR got approval to do the wiring but a couple of years later the Treasury did not like the business case for the trains (there was a recession on at the time).
Even then the new 333s were acquired on a convoluted deal with the PTE funding part of it.
The 365s (the last trains ordered by BR) were leased rather than purchased because the Treasury would not allow the outright purchase.

The approach is still evident today with "30-year-old trains" being part of the NW, GW and Valleys business cases.
Old hands will tell you its better to go this way than go all out for a new fleet and get the whole scheme rejected.

Old hand here. Look at London Overground. 3 car trains, extended to 4 cars, and now extended again to 5 cars. If you had asked for 5 cars at the outset the cost would have scuppered the scheme.

 

[theblackwatch]

Its the way that most electrification schemes outside London have been over the past generation.

Edinburgh - North Berwick got cascaded EMUs from London, similar to the Airedale/ Wharfdale lines.

Even Airdrie - Bathgate got older 334s (with Ayrshire getting brand new 380s to free up the 334s).

The important point is that passenger numbers grew significantly when older longer EMUs replaced younger shorter DMUs - something to bear in mind next time you see a "why are we getting London cast-offs on our newly electrified line" argument about Merthyr/ Blackpool/ Stalybridge etc.

You can add the Birmingham Cross City line to that - operated by a mix of 304s/308s/310s prior to the introduction of 323s. Manchester also gained some 305s for Airport services when it first opened, prior to the 323s there making an appearance.

 

[edwin_m]

Business cases for new services have to be produced with a good degree of prudence, making cautious assumptions about how many people will travel. It is sometimes also necessary to de-scope the scheme so as to reduce costs enough to make a worthwhile benefit:cost ratio.

So it often happens that patronage once the service starts is quite a bit more than expected. Hopefully the promoters will then be in a position to re-introduce some of the cancelled parts of the scheme, the new trains in this case.

 

[Darren R]

To the best of my memory most regular (i.e. non rail enthusiast) passengers thought that the 308s were a vast improvement on the newer DMUs.

And there are many rail enthusiasts who think the 308s were a vast improvement on the 333s! (I am not one of them though, by the way!)

My recollection is that the whole Yorkshire triangle electrification was a PTE-driven project. I also recall that passenger numbers were not huge when the project was started; only a few years earlier the Ilkley line was under threat of closure as passenger numbers were so low, and (at least off-peak) weren't much better on the Airedale Line neither.

 

[yorksrob]

And there are many rail enthusiasts who think the 308s were a vast improvement on the 333s! (I am not one of them though, by the way!)

My recollection is that the whole Yorkshire triangle electrification was a PTE-driven project. I also recall that passenger numbers were not huge when the project was started; only a few years earlier the Ilkley line was under threat of closure as passenger numbers were so low, and (at least off-peak) weren't much better on the Airedale Line neither.

I don‘t know. They were the routes that justified 3 carriage pacers, so patronage can‘t have been too low by West Yorks standards. Perhaps the closure proposals were a remnant of poor sixties era planning.

 

[Bald Rick]

You can add the Birmingham Cross City line to that - operated by a mix of 304s/308s/310s prior to the introduction of 323s. Manchester also gained some 305s for Airport services when it first opened, prior to the 323s there making an appearance.

Happy to be corrected, but I'm pretty sure the 323s were ordered as part of the Cross City electrification. But due to them being one of, if not the first, production run of units with AC drive, it took a looooong time to get them into service reliably. Hence the use of a real mash up of older stock for about 3 years.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Other "regional" orders were cancelled / annulled by the then DfT - for example new DMU sets for the Glasgow conurbation (so ex Regional Met-Cam sets were refurbed and sent up to Scotland) - there were huge rows when it was realised that Track Access costs were so high in the PTE areas following 1994 , thus making new trains non affordable for a while. At least Leeds NW got the 33x units and got them lengthened. The 308's saved the day. No conspiracy theories here - thank you !.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Other "regional" orders were cancelled / annulled by the then DfT - for example new DMU sets for the Glasgow conurbation (so ex Regional Met-Cam sets were refurbed and sent up to Scotland) - there were huge rows when it was realised that Track Access costs were so high in the PTE areas following 1994 , thus making new trains non affordable for a while. At least Leeds NW got the 33x units and got them lengthened. The 308's saved the day. No conspiracy theories here - thank you !.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Sorry - double post. Steam age computer....

 

[Grumpy]

I don‘t know. They were the routes that justified 3 carriage pacers, so patronage can‘t have been too low by West Yorks standards. Perhaps the closure proposals were a remnant of poor sixties era planning.

Not only 3 carriage Pacers. Many trains were formed of at least 4 cars (ie 2* 2cars). I commuted to Leeds on these every day and they were full and standing-passengers from Guiseley to Leeds rarely got a seat.

I would also dispute that the 308's were better than the 144's. The latter had better views out, better doors and the ride was at least as good. They were better for people with prams/luggage etc to access.

The 308's had seats that looked more comfortable but in reality weren't. I could never sit straight in them and the awkward slam doors to each bay meant if you were sat by the door/window the other passengers joining/leaving tended to stand on your feet as they passed.

 

[yorksrob]

Not only 3 carriage Pacers. Many trains were formed of at least 4 cars (ie 2* 2cars). I commuted to Leeds on these every day and they were full and standing-passengers from Guiseley to Leeds rarely got a seat.

I would also dispute that the 308's were better than the 144's. The latter had better views out, better doors and the ride was at least as good. They were better for people with prams/luggage etc to access.

The 308's had seats that looked more comfortable but in reality weren't. I could never sit straight in them and the awkward slam doors to each bay meant if you were sat by the door/window the other passengers joining/leaving tended to stand on your feet as they passed.

We'll have to disagree about whether the 308's or 144's were better.

Did you ever manage to bag one of the former first class bays without the door and 2+2 seating

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't think people prefer a Paer, which is bus on train wheels (which would have been the likely alternative) than an EMU with deep sprung seats, and many more seats too

I would have never known what a Paer was until I read this posting..

 

[Taunton]

I remember all the types involved in the transition, and the 308s were by no means poor relations.

They were built around 1961 but had a big refurbishment in the mid 1980s and most interior items were new from that time. They were pleasant to ride in and were well appreciated by the passengers of the time. The multiple doors were substantially draughtproofed, done better than much sliding door stock.

The 333s however don't have a quality feel about them. The windows are cheaply done to the extent that vision can be quite severely distorted - they should never have been accepted from the manufacturer like that.

In the coldness of the east side of the Pennines in winter, you can have slam doors, open-step in-close, or you can have modern sliding doors, open-stay open-all the rain blows in and the heat blows out-stay open-stay open- finally close, on to the next station where it is repeated. The cost of heating compared to the 308s must have skyrocketed.

 

[Harpers Tate]

My recollection is that the whole Yorkshire triangle electrification was a PTE-driven project. I also recall that passenger numbers were not huge when the project was started; only a few years earlier the Ilkley line was under threat of closure as passenger numbers were so low......

Ah yes. British Rail's self-destruct policy, as implemented by their Dirty Tricks Dept. A policy which saw the off-peak service pattern on this route so arranged as to require anybody wishing to travel from {anywhere beyond Guiseley, including Ilkley itself} to the larger of the two cities - Leeds - to change trains at an unstaffed unequipped halt (Guiseley). Hardly surprising that people weren't using it. Surely that was the intention of such a move; I can think of no other possible explanation.

 

[barbarajohn]

i was a driver at skipton when they elecrified the line, an agreement with the banks fell though so they had to get the 308,s as a stop gap till the new trains came.

 

[Bayum]

It's such a shame really.

Especially with the 323 build in '92.

I'd have thought so much better of the train system around Leeds had we had something like the 323s.

 

[30907]

Ah yes. British Rail's self-destruct policy, as implemented by their Dirty Tricks Dept. A policy which saw the off-peak service pattern on this route so arranged as to require anybody wishing to travel from {anywhere beyond Guiseley, including Ilkley itself} to the larger of the two cities - Leeds - to change trains at an unstaffed unequipped halt (Guiseley). Hardly surprising that people weren't using it. Surely that was the intention of such a move; I can think of no other possible explanation.

To be accurate - it was the Bradford service that terminated at Guiseley in the early 70's, which was logical as the service was poorly used (the whole Wharfedale line was up for closure under Beeching).

It was described as an economy measure by BR. There were rather a lot of those, all over the country including the Southern suburban network, and I don't think this one was down to the Dirty Tricks Department.

Once the PTE took charge, things began to change - in response to the growth of commuting between towns - Bradford-Keighley was reinstated and Crossflatts reopened as well as Bradford-Ilkley through trains restored by 1975. But even today Ilkley-Bradford is far less busy than Leeds.

 

[aylesbury]

I read somewhere that the 304s needed two units together so as to stop properly.