New type of train needed for secondary routes ?

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

A post elswhere on these forums has suggested the possible need for a new but relatively cheap and simple train for secondary routes, class 148 was suggested !

In recent years, trains have become hugely costly and complicated, and arguably over specified for local or secondary routes.
I would agree that a new design is called for with emphasis on modest cost, reliability and long working life.
A reasonable specification might be

2 car DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)
Top speed 60 MPH (unless a higher speed is achievable for little extra cost)
Single glazed windows that all open.
Basic heating from engine waste heat only, controlled by gaurd.
No air conditioning
No wifi
No at seat power outlets
Second class only
No buffet, possibly a trolley if worthwhile
A single, very wide power operated door operated by the gaurd (emergency exit at each end also)
A manualy controlled ramp for wheelchairs, prams and light freight.
A large open area for wheelchairs, prams, cycles, and a single "york container" as used by Royal mail.
One vehicle to consist entirely of 2+2 seating at least half at tables.
Other vehicle to be about 50% seating as in the other vehicle, the other half being the open area refered to above, and a gaurds office.

Within the lifetime of todays new trains, I expect that mail, light freight, and parcels will return to the railways. It would therefore be desirable to have an area designed for light freight, parcels, mail, heavy luggage, prams, cycles, and wheelchairs. Tip up seats could be usefully installed in this area.

Such a train should be relatively affordable provided that as many parts as possible are standard and not specially developed.

One engine should automaticly shut down when not needed, to save fuel.
Multiple operation should be possible, but would not be the norm as a gaurd would be needed in each unit.

I do not claim my thoughts to be entirely original, see the post in the "how flexible is your hometime" on which I partialy base my thoughts.

[Umberleigh]

Some interesting points, but...

Tarka^▸ (Line from Barnstaple to Exeter) Line already has at least one 70mph stretch, so 60mph needs to be revised upwards (not to mention mainline running).

[ellendune]

A post elsewhere on these forums has suggested the possible need for a new but relatively cheap and simple train for secondary routes,

First question is how we define a secondary route?

I think we all agree that Paddington Cardiff is a primary route, but what about Plymouth Penzance?

What you are defining seems fine for Branch lines, but it would be seen as a step down for those on the Henley branch. 

Are there really primary, secondary and tertiary routes?  In which case what you seem to be talking about are the tertiary routes.

A reasonable specification might be

2 car DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)
Top speed 60 MPH (unless a higher speed is achievable for little extra cost)

Multiple operation should be possible, but would not be the norm as a guard would be needed in each unit.

I can think of many secondary routes where 2 car would cause chaos.  And as has been said Tarka^▸ (Line from Barnstaple to Exeter) line already has some 70 mph.  Don't forget some secondary route trains need to do some mainline running occasionally and if they go too slowly they will soon eat up valuable paths.

A reasonable specification might be

Single glazed windows that all open.
Basic heating from engine waste heat only, controlled by guard.
No air conditioning
One engine should automatic shut down when not needed, to save fuel.
Multiple operation should be possible, but would not be the norm as a guard would be needed in each unit.

Double glazing and opening windows may not be the best way to optimise energy consumption

A manualy controlled ramp for wheelchairs, prams and light freight.
A large open area for wheelchairs, prams, cycles, and a single "york container" as used by Royal mail.
One vehicle to consist entirely of 2+2 seating at least half at tables.
Other vehicle to be about 50% seating as in the other vehicle, the other half being the open area refered to above, and a gaurds office.

Bean counters would say not very good use of space.  I thought you were trying to keep the cost down?

Overcrowding is still an issue on many secondary lines.

A reasonable specification might be

No air conditioning
No wifi
No at seat power outlets
Second class only
No buffet, possibly a trolley if worthwhile

I think public expectation have changed on some of these.  WiFi and power outlets are starting to be seen as the an expectation on anything but a very short distance.  This would soon be seen as laughable in my opinion.

Within the lifetime of todays new trains, I expect that mail, light freight, and parcels will return to the railways. It would therefore be desirable to have an area designed for light freight, parcels, mail, heavy luggage, prams, cycles, and wheelchairs. Tip up seats could be usefully installed in this area.

What we can surely learn from the past is that the future is unpredictable.  An interior that can be changed easily would perhaps be the best insurance.

The question is whether diesel traction has a long tern future?

Would an electric transmission, to allow future conversion be prohibitive. Culd a low cost electric traction package be developed?

Such a train should be relatively affordable provided that as many parts as possible are standard and not specially developed.

Can only agree that this is the ideal.  Some interchangeability standards for some components would perhaps help here rather than everything being tied to a manufacturer.  However, we would not want this to freeze innovation.

[broadgage]

Regarding single glazed opening windows "not being ideal for energy conservation" there is no energy to conserve ! no air conditioning to be fitted, and heating to be free from the engine coolant, it being no more wastful to open a window than it is to dispose of the heat from the engine cooling system.

[grahame]

A post elsewhere on these forums has suggested the possible need for a new but relatively cheap and simple train for secondary routes,

First question is how we define a secondary route?

No definition was made in the original post elsewhere, but example routes were given.

Are there really primary, secondary and tertiary routes?  In which case what you seem to be talking about are the tertiary routes.

Maybe - the routes where a half price train would make a real difference to the financial case - at least at the starting point for investors / doubting Thomases!

I can think of many secondary routes where 2 car would cause chaos.  And as has been said Tarka^▸ (Line from Barnstaple to Exeter) line already has some 70 mph.  Don't forget some secondary route trains need to do some mainline running occasionally and if they go too slowly they will soon eat up valuable paths.

Yep, noted. These are not units to replace other - rather to augment.  And if a 2 car causes chaos through growth on a newly hourly service, run every half hour instead ;-) .     That may seem an odd suggestion but there's something of a parallel on service like Portsmouth - Cardiff which was occasional 5 or 6 car trains when it was class 33 diesel and coaches; when dropped to 2 carriages and run hourly, the loadings rocketed.

A reasonable specification might be

No air conditioning
No wifi
No at seat power outlets
Second class only
No buffet, possibly a trolley if worthwhile

I think public expectation have changed on some of these.  WiFi and power outlets are starting to be seen as the an expectation on anything but a very short distance.  This would soon be seen as laughable in my opinion.

As a difference between some service and no service, these things are acceptable.  And I was very surprised asking around about what people thought when we had the LHCS^▸ (Locomotive Hauled Coaching Stock) sets on Taunton - Cardiff ... they were popular and acceptable.  Remember too that we don't have WiFi on local journeys such as Penzance to London, no buffets on Bedwyn to Paddington, no first class on Portsmouth to Cardiff, no power points on Swindon to Southampton, and so on.

What we can surely learn from the past is that the future is unpredictable.  An interior that can be changed easily would perhaps be the best insurance.

Agreed - airline can convert in a few hours from one class to another, or to freight.  So a weekday commuter train would become a weekend train with luggauge and cycle space (and, yes, a modest fee for dogs and cycles is reasonable)

Such a train should be relatively affordable provided that as many parts as possible are standard and not specially developed.

Can only agree that this is the ideal.  Some interchangeability standards for some components would perhaps help here rather than everything being tied to a manufacturer.  However, we would not want this to freeze innovation.

And agreement from me to.  Let's build a three figure number of these units.

[swrural]

I had a look at your suggested 'secondary routes' Graham.

It seems to me they were mainly 'local' routes.  Of course you included your own at the front  but I don't think the nature of a journey from Chippenham to Yeovil is the same as one from Stapleton Road to Clifton Down.

I think we are talking of local services and long distance services, rather than routes.  Lawrence Hill is on a 'primary' route (a 'long distance route' then, as well as a 'local' one (especially when we get the four tracks, eh, FTN    ).

So no toilets is acceptable Truro to Falmouth, but not Weymouth to Bristol (it's just too far, or too slow is another way of looking at that facility).  I don't see whether supplying first class or not has anything to do with it as that is just a commercial and political decision, just as it was for Brunel and Saunders in 1840 not to cater for hoi poloi.

As an aside I dislike the expression 'Cross Country'.  Bristol to London is Cross Country, if you like.  I don't see why people who have a O or a D in London should be able to travel quicker and more comfortably than someone travelling from Bristol to Leeds. 

So Broadgage has a good suggestion for local journey provision but the notion that these bus things are acceptable to travel from Bristol to Portsmouth is to me, not where we should be at.

[broadgage]

I would anticipate that these class 148*s would not be used as a downgrade from existing longer or better specified trains, but that they would be an improvement versus overcrowded or outmoded single car units.
Also a relatively cheap and simple unit for new routes that might not be viable if more costly higher specified trains had to be used.
Another application would be to provide a regular weekday commuter service on heritage lines that at present provide only a limited steam hauled service.
By use of a simple design with the minimum to go wrong, all but major overhauls should be within the capabilities of a heritage railway workshop.

If passenger numbers dissapointed, then the low leasing and running costs of these units might allow continuation of a service that would otherwise cease.
If passenger numbers exceeded expectations and resulted in overcrowding, then that sugests that either better trains or a more frequent service could be justified.

On routes primarily operated by longer or better specified units, a few 148s might allow additional early morning or light night services to be provided at modest cost.

*please do not call them "broadgage trains" lest foolish persons think that different track will have to be built!

[paul7575]

*please do not call them "broadgage trains" lest foolish persons think that different track will have to be built!

That would only be the case if you ever spelled gauge correctly though...   

Paul

[thetrout]

2 car DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)
Top speed 60 MPH (unless a higher speed is achievable for little extra cost)
Single glazed windows that all open.
Basic heating from engine waste heat only, controlled by gaurd.
No air conditioning
No wifi
No at seat power outlets
Second class only
No buffet, possibly a trolley if worthwhile
A single, very wide power operated door operated by the gaurd (emergency exit at each end also)
A manualy controlled ramp for wheelchairs, prams and light freight.
A large open area for wheelchairs, prams, cycles, and a single "york container" as used by Royal mail.
One vehicle to consist entirely of 2+2 seating at least half at tables.
Other vehicle to be about 50% seating as in the other vehicle, the other half being the open area refered to above, and a gaurds office.

Hmmm. I think I disagree with some of those points. Infact, nearly all of them...

2 Car DMU would perhaps not be considered future proof. How about a DEMU^▸ (Diesel Electric Multiple Unit) which could be converted to an EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) when we eventually run out of crude oil? Say a generator powering an electric engine which could be removed and swapped for OHLE or 3rd Rail at a later date.

60mph is again not future proof. Not to mention that some of these trains *may* need to run on lines cleared for 100mph+ which consequently could be disastrous for any late running services whether InterCity or Regional.

No air conditioning I also disagree with. Being able to open windows is one thing, but you are affectively creating a greenhouse affect if the trains stand empty for most of the day (Strong example of this was the Summer TransWilts Swindon - Weymouth runs, where the 158 sat in the siding for most of the day and was like a sauna on departure from Weymouth)

Heating generated from the engine is a sensible idea, but has such technology ever been successfully trialed and what are the costs vs. Electric Heaters. Say if the unit was a DEMU would it be cheaper to use electric heaters?

No WiFi: Despite my previous rants about this on the forum, 3G on some networks has improved considerably in recent years. On the Westbury - Bath stretch I get a very good signal for most of the way. There is a dropout on 2 stretches of the line which isn't a huge problem for sending emails etc. Even running Video Streaming isn't too bad if the video has buffered enough ahead by the time you reconnect. Also with the deployment of 4G in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) I would say that Train WiFi would soon become obsolete. Of course there are some areas where Cellular Data coverage is cr*p, but then essentially that is what Train WiFi really uses.

Power Sockets I would say should be installed on all new trains. Lots of people are becoming increasingly reliant on Laptops, Smart Phones etc. Any opportunity I get to charge my iPhone I do even if it's for 15 minutes as that could mean the difference between knowing if my train is on time or knowing my battery is dead! Again I would say to include this is a modest cost.

Second Class only, I would perhaps suggest having a section similar to Virgin Trains or Southern Railway which can alternate between First and Standard Class as required. Personally I would use First Class if it were on routes such as Bristol - Weymouth if it meant access to a power socket and a table.

Agree with the No Buffet. Use a trolley instead but perhaps have a small area where Hot Water can be boiled and a microwave for hot food. Occupied Space would be minimal with a small stock cupboard with microwave and the hot water can be heated with a plug socket to an Urn on the trolley.

Also agree with a wide space for cycles, wheelchairs and prams. Maybe have a toilet or 2 and the trolley cupboard in the same location?

Doors should be automatically operated by the Guard with SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) fitted for stations such as Avoncliff and Melksham.

Guards Office isn't necessary IMO^▸ (in my opinion) as they can use the rear cab at the back of the train. Also agree with the use of 2+2 seating. 3+2 is awful and I personally won't take a seat in the 3 seats row. I'd rather stand or perch against the wall near the door such as on Class 357 c2c units

Well thats my 2p worth

[swrural]

I think the use of such trains on such services as Bristol to Weymouth is not to be encouraged, and agree with TheTrout that such long distance (or 'long time' in the case of the afore-mentioned service     ; essentially anything over an hour) should have the same degree of comfort and convenience that you would expect if you travelled Swindon to London.  That latter trip is only 80 miles (yes I know it's 77, pedants) and is less than an hour's travel time (if you are lucky) so why should Swindonians enjoy an air-conditioned Wifi'd IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and Weymouth-onians sit in a draughty rail bus for two hours with none of those things?

I think I am repeating myself (see earlier post) but in summary, buses on rail are only suitable for bus trips.  It is for this reason that I dislike the concept of 'community rail', which tries to do both things, well, only one really.  I would prefer that there was a fast service between Bournemouth, Weymouth and Bristol that called only at Dorchester, Yeovil, Trowbridge and Bath.  One would expect for these areas, that were defined in the late lamented SW Regional Spatial Strategy as (indeed) strategically significant, that they would be connected by fast connections with stock of a very high standard on a line that would be of the same speed standard as the Main Line.  The same pattern of service would be provided on Bristol to Portsmouth route, which is also trying to be all things to all men at present.

The places in between ('farmyards', as my Bristol to Pompey student travelling wife used to call them) could be served by BroadGage's  bus-trains.  These would connect with the above inter-cities in a two tier service.

   

[John R]

so why should Swindonians enjoy an air-conditioned Wifi'd IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and Weymouth-onians sit in a draughty rail bus for two hours with none of those things  

But you're comparing Swindonians travelling to London with Weymouth-onians travelling to Bristol, when the correct comparison would be the quality of stock on the Weymouth to London route.

Though I agree that the proposed stock would be unsuitable for the Bristol to Weymouth service for several reasons. I think the original poster had in mind relatively short journeys where top speed and degree of comfort would not be quite so critical, such as some of the rural branches.

I think the debate is fairly academic anyway, as the volume of dmus displaced over the rest of the decade will mean there are more than enough to go around, even if all the pacers are withdrawn. As well as the obvious dmu cascades of Thames and Cardiff valleys services, Edinburgh - Glasgow, Transpennine and (at the top end of the cascade) Midland Main Line will yield lots more. The Meridian cascade will be interesting, and offer the opportunity for some relatively good quality longer distance stock to enhance secondary routes.   
 

[eightf48544]

I have been reading this thread with interest as I first mentioned the idea of cheap DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) to replace teh 14Xs and provide more capacity. in another post.

I think that there are couple of things that should be looked at.

Most most modern EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit)/DMU units in Europe are articulated which means more train with less wheels in agiven length so they could be three car or even 4 car.  So there would be room for lugage and bikes and small freight

Secondly they could have a power unit similar to the Stadlers which have a short section in the middle which houses the power pack. It also has through communication within the unit. The advantage of this would be you could take the diesel engine out and put a pan on top or even make them bi-mode.

Top speed should be 100 for short mainline sprints.

As to bells and whistles I think probably a/c is required plus good heating if our climate is going to fluctuate between extremes. Probably power points and wi-fi although even when working I regarded train journies for business as my time and wasn't obssessed with doing work. Luckly i did the bulk of my travelling before mobile phones and wi-fi. Brreakfast on the St. Pancras Derby train was my favourite.

Off the subject maybe another thread, in the lighter side?  I do feel sorry for all you people who think you have to work on a train journey. Chill out enjoy the ride. 

[Rhydgaled]

A post elswhere on these forums has suggested the possible need for a new but relatively cheap and simple train for secondary routes, class 148 was suggested !

In recent years, trains have become hugely costly and complicated, and arguably over specified for local or secondary routes. I would agree that a new design is called for with emphasis on modest cost, reliability and long working life.

Class 148? Personally, I think we need to be looking a Sprinter-like rather than Pacer-like, so class 157? Agreed, newer trains are getting too expensive to run though.

2 car DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)

Several posters seem to have disagreed with you here. However, I think 2-car is the right solution (a mix of 2-car and single car units would be better, but universal-access toilets waste too much space for a single car unit to be worthwhile), but would add a VERY important element to the specification. The units MUST have corridor connections on the ends, to allow passengers to walk between units in multiple without disembarking.

Top speed 60 MPH (unless a higher speed is achievable for little extra cost)

Even Pacers have a 75mph top-speed I think, so the top-speed of these new units should be at least that. Also, there seem to be plenty of class 150s and Pacers around anyhow, the real shortage seems, to me, to be in cheap-to-run, lightweight, regional express units (like the class 158).

Assuming you want to replace 150/1s and Pacers though, I'll carry on (provided you are only planning on using them on relatively short (journey time, certainly no more than an hour and prefrably much less than that) branch line services).

Single glazed windows that all open.
Basic heating from engine waste heat only, controlled by gaurd.
No air conditioning
No wifi
No at seat power outlets
Second class only
No buffet, possibly a trolley if worthwhile

Agreed. Probablly don't need the trolley given the short duration of journey.

A single, very wide power operated door operated by the gaurd (emergency exit at each end also)
A manualy controlled ramp for wheelchairs, prams and light freight.
A large open area for wheelchairs, prams, cycles, and a single "york container" as used by Royal mail.
One vehicle to consist entirely of 2+2 seating at least half at tables.
Other vehicle to be about 50% seating as in the other vehicle, the other half being the open area refered to above, and a gaurds office.

Guards don't have an 'office' (other than the rear cab) on Sprinters and Pacers do they? One door isn't enough, it'll take too long to board/unload. A Pacer door layout might work (remembering we are only talking about short branch lines, which tend to have lots of stations, something as long as Pembroke Dock to Swansea needs doors in vestibles at the ends of coaches, like a 153 or 158). I agree with 2+2 seating, and a luggage area in one coach, but if you are losing half a coach for the latter you might need a third coach in the unit.

Within the lifetime of todays new trains, I expect that mail, light freight, and parcels will return to the railways. It would therefore be desirable to have an area designed for light freight, parcels, mail, heavy luggage, prams, cycles, and wheelchairs.

I would very much like freight and parcels to return to rail on mass (could mixed traffic trains be made to work on the modern railway, with single-car 'frieght multiple units' attached to the back of passenger trains as required?) but sadly I don't think it very likely.

One engine should automaticly shut down when not needed, to save fuel.

Why not only have one engine anyway (or two in a 3-car set)?

Multiple operation should be possible, but would not be the norm as a gaurd would be needed in each unit.

As I said above, corridor connections between units should be a key component of the specification. You then have the option of portion working if half a branch needs 4-car but the other half can make do with 2-car, and can more easily lengthen services if 2-car turns out to be insufficent.

does the train really need a loo and / or public address and / or LCD "next station is ..." signs

Sadly yes.

Toilet because branch line stations are normally hopelessly lacking in facilities (for bus-rail connections, provide a waiting room, and prefrablly toilets, at the interchange point or else).

Public Address AND LCD next station because TSI PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) (Technical Specification for Interoprability Persons of Reduce Mobility, or somthing like that) regulations say so (after 2019) I beleive.

Another application would be to provide a regular weekday commuter service on heritage lines that at present provide only a limited steam hauled service.
By use of a simple design with the minimum to go wrong, all but major overhauls should be within the capabilities of a heritage railway workshop.

Agreed on the first count, and largely on the second count (the heritage railway workshop should be able to handle day-to-day maintenance, but I don't see a problem with going elsewhere for really major work). When the steam service is running (normally in busy holiday periods), the reduction/removal of National Rail services would free up the multiple units to strengthen other services.

How about a DEMU^▸ (Diesel Electric Multiple Unit) which could be converted to an EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) when we eventually run out of crude oil? Say a generator powering an electric engine which could be removed and swapped for OHLE or 3rd Rail at a later date.

Sounds like a good idea on the face of it, but running out of crude oil is not a problem (there's enough left to fry us all, using it up would probably wipe out our species and many others) and more importantly it will probably be 2040 before enough of the primary and secondary routes are electrified so a start can be made on wiring local branches, so plenty of time for new diesel branch-line units to become life expired before local branches are electrified anyway.

No air conditioning I also disagree with. Being able to open windows is one thing, but you are affectively creating a greenhouse affect if the trains stand empty for most of the day (Strong example of this was the Summer TransWilts Swindon - Weymouth runs, where the 158 sat in the siding for most of the day and was like a sauna on departure from Weymouth)

But a 158 has air conditioning, and not many windows that open (and the ones that do are hard to open, and cannot be opened by passengers).

No WiFi: Despite my previous rants about this on the forum, 3G on some networks has improved considerably in recent years. On the Westbury - Bath stretch I get a very good signal for most of the way. There is a dropout on 2 stretches of the line which isn't a huge problem for sending emails etc. Even running Video Streaming isn't too bad if the video has buffered enough ahead by the time you reconnect. Also with the deployment of 4G in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) I would say that Train WiFi would soon become obsolete. Of course there are some areas where Cellular Data coverage is cr*p, but then essentially that is what Train WiFi really uses.

Don't laptops tend to have WiFi network cards but not 3G/4G ones? If so, a change in standard computer hardware would be needed to facilitate the use of 3G/4G in place of WiFi.

Maybe have a toilet or 2 and the trolley cupboard in the same location?

A 2-car unit, given any train with a toilet must have a fully accessible one by 2020, should only have one toilet I think, we need the space for seats. Putting the luggage space etc. near the toilet seems to be a good plan though as it could help optimise seating layout in the rest of the unit.



Edit note: One quote mark amended, for clarity. CfN.

[Southern Stag]

Heating generated from the engine is a sensible idea, but has such technology ever been successfully trialed and what are the costs vs. Electric Heaters. Say if the unit was a DEMU^▸ (Diesel Electric Multiple Unit) would it be cheaper to use electric heaters?

AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) that is exactly how the heating works on most older units. Not sure about 158s, but believe that's how most 15x units are heated.

[ellendune]

One engine should automaticly shut down when not needed, to save fuel.

Why not only have one engine anyway (or two in a 3-car set)?

But if there is only one when it fails there is nothing!



Edit note: Quote marks amended, for clarity. CfN.