New type of train needed for secondary routes ?

[whole diary]

[smokey]

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.

Such fun when Engine No 1 shuts down on a sinlge class 153! 


And I sure hope ANY new Passenger stock sits on Bogies, the long Fixed wheel base was done away with in the Victoria era, excess rail and wheel replacement costs far exceeds the cost of bogies.

[broadgage]

I base my suggestions not only on the need for a much cheaper train for secondary services, but also on the need for simplicity and reliability.
An engine in each car is IMO^▸ (in my opinion) essiential for a 2 car unit in order to provide "get you home redundancy" rather than blocking a single line or stranding passengers somewhere remote.
Transmision from engine to wheels could be electric or mechanical depending on costs.
I cant support air conditioning for low cost trains, it adds appreciably to cost and weight and absorbs significant engine power thereby reducing performance or needing larger engines.
Air conditioning is far from reliable if compared to opening windows, repairs tend to be expensive.

Heating from engine waste heat is established technology and works fine, with virtually zero running costs.
I would consider electric heaters for preheating in a depot or terminus, powered from the grid, interior lighting being powered thus also in order that the train may be cleaned or prepared without running the engines.

Multiple operation should be possible for rescue or assistance purposes or ECS^▸ (Empty Coaching Stock) moves.
I cant support through gangways, too much to go wrong and too much time taken in coupling and uncoupling, also complicates design and adds weight and cost.

If a 2 car unit is not sufficient, then that suggests that something longer is needed rather than regular multiple operation in passenger service.

[ellendune]

If a 2 car unit is not sufficient, then that suggests that something longer is needed rather than regular multiple operation in passenger service.

Leads to a thought and some (genuine) questions (I do not know the answers)

Question 1: How many lines are there in GW^▸ (Great Western) land (and beyond if you like) where a 2 car dmu is adequate for an existing service?

Question 2: If growth occurs because the new units provide a more frequent service how many of these would continue to be adequate with a  2 car unit?

[trainer]

The second question ellendune asks is especially apt as the Ebbw Vale experience has shown.  What they thought would be comfortably covered by a two car unit often requires strengthening.  I have no details from Barnstaple, but my limited observation suggests that the increased services brought extra pax.  Since the days when frequent two car trains were considered an improvement in longer less frequent ones, increases in passengers on routes like those though Bradford-on-Avon have overwhelmed the two car trains originally substituting the loco and coaches, requiring extra coaches.  Further, roads have become very much more congested and opportunities for winning traffic is even better.  Secondary routes with a good service could benefit from low cost units with, perhaps, non-powered centre cars as an option as passengers are wooed by a reliable and less crowded service.

[swrural]

In fact road traffic is reducing slightly, so congestion could only be increasing if traffic is moving from off-peak to peak.

On the lines Broadgage seems to have in mind would there be significant congestion?  The services mentioned by GrahamE were of mainly rural location IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) (but perhaps I don't 'RC'     ).

I don't like these suggestions at all.  I think TM^‡(resolve) access to the whole train and also pax comfort quality is what sells train travel, not starting out by treating them like a modern version of Brunel's third class 'parliamentary' services.  If it does not pay to provide that standard quality on any route then I think it would be better not to do the route as a rail service.  I suspect a decent local coach service could be cheaper.  In the Netherlands, I travelled on Connexxion 'buses' that were far more comfortable than National Express coaches (not that this is difficult).

I think the same applies to stations.  I know it's difficult, with the 19th century Lord Mucks having banished the stations to remote locations on the edge of towns but I feel that for pax safety and convenience, attempts have to be made, using the planning system and other incentives, to move facilities to the vicinity of stations and encourage a degree of constant social supervision thereby.

In fairness, the old station pubs were quite good in that way, but of course many have closed.  If you look at North Tawton with GE and SV, one has an example of a pub hanging on for grim death up a culde sac.  I bet they would like to see the station reopen!

In summary, I think we should be looking towards an increase in quality, not a diminution of it.

[trainer]

I stand corrected on the traffic situation, thanks. 

In terms of comfort, I couldn't agree more that this is crucial to encouraging more people to travel.  My suggestion of adding carriages as trains become full is precisely to keep a good seat pitch, sense of space and (for me vital) more window seats.

As we know, one of the (myriad) problems with the 14x units is the inability to pass between units for revenue control and on many services tickets need to be bought aboard.  IMO^▸ (in my opinion) the initial emphasis should be on improving the actual trains as that is finally what passengers want.  However, the whole ambiance of travel is important and station accessibility/environment certainly need addressing as revenues increase.

In the remotest of areas, single cars will probably always suffice, but I know some years back when the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) surveyed the Heart of Wales line communities, rail travel didn't even feature in many people's thinking when planning journeys as the service was/is so sparse.  As a tourist, I find the 153s unsuitable with high windows and children can't easily see out.  The needs of leisure travellers need to be taken into account when designing trains for use in rural areas if the landscape is being used to attract riders.

[grahame]

A handful of thoughts ...

a) Although overall traffic levels for private cars have fallen slightly, my understanding is that it's not uniform, and where there's significant population growth traffic is still on the increase.  With 2000 new homes in Melksham ... it's still on the increase here.  With higher numbers still in Chippenham and Trowbridge, and with Swindon / Royal Wootton Bassett population growth too ... It's got very hard to turn out of our road over the last 3 years - certainly not shrinking near us!

b) You may consider TransWilts "Rural".  I can get from / to the M4 motorway in a car in less than 20 minutes.  It can often take twice that at busy times, and busy times seem to have spread out from the peak.  Getting into Swindon - as (I suspect) into most towns served isn't always a clear run.   Yeovil? Exeter? Plymouth? Truro?  Par?  (Oh - wait - Par may not get too busy!)

c) If you switch from a through train to one that requires a change, you'll loose 40% of your occasional passengers and 46% of your commuters [source: Westbury campaign].  And if you replace a train by a bus, you'll loose between a further 85% and 90% [source: our own counts] of the passengers.   So - through train [from London] carries 30,000 passengers.  Add in a change and you're looking at 12,500.   Switch that to a bus and you're down to 1,500 passengers.   Yes - a coach may be cheaper to run, but it's pretty pointless to switch if if only takes a tiny proportion of the traffic that's ready, willing and able to take public transport and to pay for the privilege!

d) If we build enough features into new trains (all First class, with restaurant, hairdresser and masseur), we're going to make it so expensive that we will get the equality you may desire - the equality of no-one being able to afford it!

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

This specification for a cheap to build and run train sounds remarkably like the specification for Pacer trains from 30 year ago. Wikipedia reads: The 'Pacer' series was a project by British Rail (BR^▸ (British Rail(ways))) to create a train, with low running costs, for use on rural and suburban rail services. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacer_%28train%29.
And look how happy railusers are with these trains. I have travelled on these trains between Shefield and Lincoln and everything on the train rattles. Regulars on these trains carry a supply of paper to make up wads to try and quieten the noise nearest their seats.
What is a secondary route? Our local Cotswold Line would, I think, be classified as a secondary route and most people dislike having to travel for up to and over 2 hours on a 165 Turbo. What they would think of an even more basic train I dread to think, unless the fares were halved for travellers on such trains.

[broadgage]

I was thinking more of something cheap for routes that at present use single single car units, or for new minor routes where the cost of modern stock is prohibitive, not replacing turbos.

[swrural]

A few thoughts GrahamE about your thoughts....  (I think they are addressed to Trainer *and* me but here goes)

I am trying this editing lark for the first time. Hopefully my comments will be in italics.

a) Although overall traffic levels for private cars have fallen slightly, my understanding is that it's not uniform, and where there's significant population growth traffic is still on the increase.  With 2000 new homes in Melksham ... it's still on the increase here.  With higher numbers still in Chippenham and Trowbridge, and with Swindon / Royal Wootton Bassett population growth too ... It's got very hard to turn out of our road over the last 3 years - certainly not shrinking near us!

Well, with respect, that is perhaps a somewhat parochial and anecdotal approach to what was a general discussion of Broadgage's proposal for cheap and cheerful trains, but indeed, the irresponsible urbanisation of dear old Wiltshire is sadly a given fact.    If you really have 'congestion' then a good case for PT already exists and you should be pushing an open door there.  However my knowledge of Wilts politics tells me you are not and they are living in the 60s on Wilts Council still.  In short, the councillors are roads and car mad (see Westbury Bypass history).  I wonder you don't have 'gated communities' there already to go with the many golf courses that I bet will spring up to go with them    

b) You may consider TransWilts "Rural".  I can get from / to the M4 motorway in a car in less than 20 minutes.  It can often take twice that at busy times, and busy times seem to have spread out from the peak.  Getting into Swindon - as (I suspect) into most towns served isn't always a clear run.   Yeovil? Exeter? Plymouth? Truro?  Par?  (Oh - wait - Par may not get too busy!)

Is the foregoing about the M4 etc, supposed to be an advantageous situation?  Sounds like the Wilts urban nightmare I was already alluding to.  Nevertheless, all making a good case for equally good quality urban public transport (PT).

c) If you switch from a through train to one that requires a change, you'll loose 40% of your occasional passengers and 46% of your commuters [source: Westbury campaign].  And if you replace a train by a bus, you'll loose between a further 85% and 90% [source: our own counts] of the passengers.   So - through train [from London] carries 30,000 passengers.  Add in a change and you're looking at 12,500.   Switch that to a bus and you're down to 1,500 passengers.   Yes - a coach may be cheaper to run, but it's pretty pointless to switch if if only takes a tiny proportion of the traffic that's ready, willing and able to take public transport and to pay for the privilege!

Good (some new to me) facts here and thanks very much GE, for them.  It seems to me that there is a huge difference between a Falmouth to Truro local hop, a genuinely rural service such as a 15 mile long string of villages to a market town (Taunton to Yeovil as was?) , and an inter-urban connector such as Bristol to Swindon.  The clue here is how long you have to sit on the thing.

d) If we build enough features into new trains (all First class, with restaurant, hairdresser and masseur), we're going to make it so expensive that we will get the equality you may desire - the equality of no-one being able to afford it!

I think the idea that no first class or catering is available from Bristol to Brighton (see today's 1700 Brighton to Bristol) but *is* so available between Bristol and London is indefensible.  The fact it takes three and a half hours in the first case (130 miles) and two hours fewer in the second case (120 miles) is proof that we need a swift move away from that old railway concept of 'cross country' travel.  FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is providing the same level of 'comfort' on the Brighton for three and half hours,     as it would from Truro to Falmouth or indeed Melksham to Swindon.   

[Rhydgaled]

An engine in each car is IMO^▸ (in my opinion) essiential for a 2 car unit in order to provide "get you home redundancy" rather than blocking a single line or stranding passengers somewhere remote.

Fair enough. If you can reverse the trend in ever more powerful diesel engines under trains so that two engines are what is needed to run the train at normal performance, with the power provided by one engine (if the other fails) only being enough to limp home (say at around 30mph), that shouldn't be a problem (if your engines are beefy enough that you can have one shut down most of the time, it's wasteful to have multiple engines in my opinion).

I cant support air conditioning for low cost trains, it adds appreciably to cost and weight and absorbs significant engine power thereby reducing performance or needing larger engines.
Air conditioning is far from reliable if compared to opening windows, repairs tend to be expensive.

Agreed, just need to design windows that give good airflow (would wind-down windows like a car be possible on trains?)

Multiple operation should be possible for rescue or assistance purposes or ECS^▸ (Empty Coaching Stock) moves.
I cant support through gangways, too much to go wrong and too much time taken in coupling and uncoupling, also complicates design and adds weight and cost.

If a 2 car unit is not sufficient, then that suggests that something longer is needed rather than regular multiple operation in passenger service.

Cambrian line class 158s from Aberystwyth and Pwllheli combine at Machynlleth on a regular basis (almost every two hours) for onward travel to Birmingham. I've been traveling on the Cambrian roughly every two weeks for the past six months and I don't think the coupling action has taken more than 2 minutes. This means both branches get through services to Birmingham every two hours and the core Machynlleth - Shrewsbury - Birmingham section gets 4-coaches nearly all the time. In my opinion, nothing that does not have corridor connections on the ends should be run in multiple in passenger service, unless you can justifty full staffing in all units and passengers in any units can access all stations served by the service (as you say, there's no problem running ECS workings in multiple). That in turn means you need to add much more weight and much more cost adding more coaches to the units, that you'll only need some of the time.

The 'Pacer' series was a project by British Rail (BR^▸ (British Rail(ways))) to create a train, with low running costs, for use on rural and suburban rail services. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacer_%28train%29.
And look how happy railusers are with these trains.

The Sprinter series is much less hated than Pacers though, and a damn sight cheaper, lighter (and hence, I suspect, more fuel-efficent) than most modern stock. Therefore, I think recreating the Sprinter would be a good move, whereas recreating Pacers wouldn't be. However, there doesn't seem to be as much of a shortage of Pacers and class 150s (for the short branch routes that seem to under disscussion here) as there is of relatively cheap, longer-distance, secondary (regional express) routes (like Cardiff - Portsmouth). The class 158 is, in my opinion, THE tool for the jobs on such service but, as can be seen by the fact these 158s are 3-car formations rather than 4-car formations, there simple aren't enough class 158s. This is the gap I believe most needs filling.

c) If you switch from a through train to one that requires a change, you'll loose 40% of your occasional passengers and 46% of your commuters [source: Westbury campaign].

Which is one reason why I think the corridor connections on unit ends are so important. Running through trains from every little 2-car branch line over busy mainlines is unlikely due to taking up valuable paths with short trains, but couple the short trains from the branches into one big train for the mainline section you get more through journey opertunities from one mainline train path than you would without.

And if you replace a train by a bus, you'll loose between a further 85% and 90% [source: our own counts] of the passengers.   So - through train [from London] carries 30,000 passengers.  Add in a change and you're looking at 12,500.   Switch that to a bus and you're down to 1,500 passengers.   Yes - a coach may be cheaper to run, but it's pretty pointless to switch if if only takes a tiny proportion of the traffic that's ready, willing and able to take public transport and to pay for the privilege!

This is a problem I really would like to get to the bottom of. Buses are, apparently, much cheaper to provide than trains and are the only public transport in many rural areas. However, far more travellers seem willing to go by train over a car than by bus over a car. I think public transport should aspire to be an attractive alternative to the car just about anywhere, but to do that we need to make buses attractive as rail is.

If a 2 car unit is not sufficient, then that suggests that something longer is needed rather than regular multiple operation in passenger service.

Leads to a thought and some (genuine) questions (I do not know the answers)

Question 1: How many lines are there in GW^▸ (Great Western) land (and beyond if you like) where a 2 car dmu is adequate for an existing service?

Question 2: If growth occurs because the new units provide a more frequent service how many of these would continue to be adequate with a  2 car unit?

Fishguard has recently seen a comparatively reasonable service introduced from the previous 'no-use to locals' service. It's been a while since I used it, but I'd say the services that serve only local traffic (so excluding the boat train, with it's passengers bound for the Stena Line ferry) are fine with 2-car units as far as Carmarthen. However, as has been said above reducing the number of changes of train is important, so there are several trains which work through beyond Carmarthen, and one evening train is in the evening peak out of Swansea, where 2-car probably isn't enough (if it is, it won't be for long if rail use continues to grow). It is this sort of suituation where a fleet of 2-car units with corridor connections would come into its own, you have a 4-car (maybe even 6-car) train where you need it, and reduce that to 2-car were you don't (either by detaching a unit which terminates or splitting a portion off to serve a branch). However, if you can't have corridor connections on the unit ends (125mph INTERCITY trains for example) then, unlike the Department For Transport (DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about)), you need to build longer trains rather than short units that you expect to run in multiple.

[grahame]

A few thoughts GrahamE about your thoughts....  (I think they are addressed to Trainer *and* me but here goes)

I'm going to clarify a couple of my comments ... I suspect you may be reading far more into some of them than I ever intended!

Well, with respect, that is perhaps a somewhat parochial and anecdotal approach

Indeed it is parochial. It's our parish and the neighbouring one, and the point I was making is that any decrease isn't uniform.  Remove the parochial (i.e. more local) element, and you'll get an average figure which hides some areas of continuing growth and you'll provide an average not an appropriate answer.  And, yes, it's anecdotal.  I've not done the surveys.  I am aware from previous work that changes of less than 20% may not be noticed at all, although there is a point in road crowding where a few extra cars tip a road beyond capacity and just a sprinkimg of extra vehicles can have a significant slowing effect.

Is the foregoing about the M4 etc,

No - that trunk artery is fine.  It's the A350 corridor that continues to be an issue - Yarnbrook, north Melksham, the Chippenham bypass, and the link road from Chippenham to the motorway at its Chippenham end.

I think the idea that no first class or catering is available from Bristol to Brighton (see today's 1700 Brighton to Bristol) but *is* so available between Bristol and London is indefensible.

Err - I wasn't making a point about such long journeys (and I'm not going to express a view now).  Overall, I'm looking at / answering / commenting about routes and flows where the journey on the unit is likely to have a maximum duration of around an hour and often be far less, and where the alternative to a train carrying 80 people is a bus carrying 20, 20 private cars and 5 taxis each carrying 2, and 10 people not making the journey at all.  And even though that's 21 vehicles on the road for one train, I suspect I'm underestimating.   Stand roadside, watch cars go by and look at how many people each is carrying, and you'll see what I mean!

If you really have 'congestion' then a good case for PT already exists and you should be pushing an open door there.  However my knowledge of Wilts politics tells me you are not and they are living in the 60s on Wilts Council still.

They are a breath of fresh air compared to how things were in the days of Wiltshire COUNTY Council. However, that doesn't mean that everything changes overnight.  All the ducks were in a line untl the franchise got cancelled; now it's a question of "what comes in the next two years" - and we hope, ask and work for something that's not just a "hold on as it is" answer which would leave the provision behind as the world and requirements march on.

There are excellent / ongoing discussions - looking beyond the start of a TransWilts service - in this thread; the success of one of these "cheap as chips" new services would make it a victim of its own success, yes ... so the corridor / length / intermediate carriages issue is good discussion.   The other thing is to look at frequency but you start hitting line capacity issues and the need for extremely high standards on Network Rail routes when perhaps light rail would provide a more cost effective answer.  I'm going to answer Rhydgaled in a separate post; it is certainly worth understanding just why buses don't get the same love and use levels.

[swrural]

Yes, it was the old County Council that I had to deal with, sorry for the rant about Wiltshire, but as a boy and young man, we Bristolians loved the Wiltshire market towns of Melksham, Devises, Warminster, etc, and the surrounding soft dairy countryside.  It was a slow road to visit Stonehenge or Salisbury (not too quick by rail either!), but a joy to visit the county and sample the Wadworths 6X (ah, the memories). 

I detest the attempt to make a major road artery from north to south, especially now there is continuous dual carriageway from Southampton to Bristol via A34 and M4 and we now see freight coming back to rail on that trajectory, hurrah!    We just didn't need all that A350 and A36 spaghetti through lovely Wilts and east Somerset (especially around Frome,  - OK for JB in his Mclaren to practice on I suppose    ).

Rant over, I agree with a lot of the points made here and it seems to me that if we get continuous growth, we can start looking towards two-tier services of genuine inter-city services with, in between them, the locals.  I don't pretend to know what is affordable for those, because we will not have London Overground quantities of pax, but I think if pax are on a train for more than half an hour nowadays, they will want their wifi - that at least (and that is a huge advantage over car).

That day coming is a long way from the 'parliamentary' service that you have through Melksham now, but I admire your personal efforts to change all that, immensely.

[eightf48544]

When you look back we have always had several types of DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) for different services.

Starting with the Derby lightweights for true branch lines which evolved into the 101s et all and the 14X and Sprinters

Then there were the "Express" Trans Pennine Gloucester/Swindon Cross Countries which have morphed into the 158s and 175 185 type units

Then there were the all door suburban units 117 et all which worked out of St Pancras Marylebone and Paddington and were replaced by the Networkers the Turbo was a diesel version of the generic NSE^▸ (Network South East)  Networker with it's AC and DC^▸ (Direct Current) versions.

The 170s are the 737s of the rail worlds and sit between  types one and two.

The problem we have is  a shortage of units overall which leads to the use of unsuitable types on inappropriate services as they are the only type available to run the particular service.

So we possibly need two types of cheaper DMU a true branch line unit with just a loo. But in sufficient numbers for it to be confined to true branches under 30 minute journey times. 2*3 seating. 2/3 car units

Secondly an RE^▸ (Religious Education) type unit for longer Cross Country type journies up to say 3 hours. This to have loos wi-fi  2*2 seating and some tables plus provsion for water heating for a trolley service. 2/4 car units.

In both cases the coaches to be articulated cheaper to build less track wear etc. More seats in the same length so less need platform lenthening or SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening).

Both types with end corridor connections.

However I would suggest that as the Cross Country might well spend part of its journey under the wires that it becomes a loco hauled push pull set with a modern ED loco with 4000 hp electric and 1500/2000 diesel which could cope with a 160 ton 6 coach 2 unit train.

Whist true IC^▸ (Inter City) pasengers have to put up with Pendolinos, Voyagers and the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.).

Although some may be lucky and still have "Low Density!!" HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).

[ellendune]

So we have three sorts of units really:

1) Which ones are we short of?

2) Do we need more of the basic ones at the moment or should we really be thinking about the more of the middle group?