New type of train needed for secondary routes ?

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

My proposed cheap and simple trains need not be uncomfortable, some passengers might actualy prefer them.
I would think of an internal layout a bit like an old BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) MK11 standard open.

When such coaches were recently used on scheduled services from Taunton many customers compared them favourably to modern stock. Despite no at seat power, no wifi, no buffet and no first class.
Indeed I saw a family complain that the train was "all first class" being presumably used to modern trains, they could not believe that the seats all at tables and aligned with windows could be for them !

Modern trains have become so hugely expensive that the seats have to be crammed in and other facilities withdrawn in order to try and contain the cost per seat.
There might be a case for building a longer version but I cant support regular multiple working and through gangways, too much to go wrong and to add cost and weight.

[tramway]

Is it a bit late to point out that Metro Cammel no longer build trains.

The Chinese to a good line in lightweight rolling stock.

[The SprinterMeister]

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.

So what do you use for heat if the engine has been started from cold or has been idling / coasting for some time and isn't putting much heat into the coolant then?

Single glazed windows increase condensation problems on cold wet days and have to have additional anti spall films added on the inside to prevent the window ending up on the passengers laps if rocks / stones are thrown at the train. Better off with double glazed windows with laminated glass on the inner layer.

[The SprinterMeister]

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.

What you actually need to do is go back to first principles and come up with a latter day version of class 150. Simple, light (by today's standards) robust no thrills reliable branch line transport. You could of course electrify the various interrurban routes and reallocate the 150's currently being used on them on rural routes. Rather than trying to build some sort of crap tram train thing for rural lines.

Ideally what you do is upgrade them with new engines and transmissions for greater fuel economy, although the current driveline certainly is reliable enough as it is.

[The SprinterMeister]

Is it a bit late to point out that Metro Cammel no longer build trains.

The Chinese to a good line in lightweight rolling stock.

Which will probably have rusted out before it arrives off the boat in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom). I keep hearing people going on about these Chinese trains, no-ones ordered any yet for UK use I notice...

[The SprinterMeister]

My proposed cheap and simple trains need not be uncomfortable, some passengers might actualy prefer them.
I would think of an internal layout a bit like an old BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) MK11 standard open.

When such coaches were recently used on scheduled services from Taunton many customers compared them favourably to modern stock.

Which is because the trains were effectively three and a half coaches long, one coach having a brake end. Replicate that seating layout on a two coach train with a cab on the end of each coach and you'll be lucky if you have 100 seats. Still the passengers will have somewhere comfortable to stand.

For Mk2^▸ (Mark 2 coach) coach think more in terms of Inverness based 158's with bays of seats round tables. You'll then catch my drift.

You could have more vehicles of course but somebody then has to stump up the leasing costs for the extra vehicles....

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

A newer longer version of the class 153 but a demu with pantograph, run it as a one car on little used turns, in multiple at busy times, Cardiff-pompy could run as electric to Bristol and diesel down to pompy (Southampton is getting overhead at some point and using third rail would not be impossible)

[The SprinterMeister]

A newer longer version of the class 153 but a demu with pantograph, run it as a one car on little used turns, in multiple at busy times, Cardiff-pompy could run as electric to Bristol and diesel down to pompy (Southampton is getting overhead at some point and using third rail would not be impossible)

Only problem with that is (apart from all the kit you need to somehow find space for under the coach floor and the sheer weight of the thing) is the fact single cars obviously need a driving cab on each end. Therefore when you multi them up you now have loads of dead space within the train in the form of unused driving cabs. I can't see a whole string of single car EDMU's running along with their pantographs up going down too well with the OHLE people either.

It took quite a bit of doing to get 153's cleared for various South West rural routes and they are still banned beyond Southampton. and that's with 76 foot coaches. How much longer were you thinking of making them and how much less internal width do you think the passengers will accept in order to get the extra length?

[eightf48544]

Rather than single car longer 153 what about an articulated 2/3 car 20m coach train. less waste of space more seats.

[The SprinterMeister]

Rather than single car longer 153 what about an articulated 2/3 car 20m coach train. less waste of space more seats.

The problem with articulation being one of axle loading on the intermediate bogies. Remember that whatever you build has to meet the relevant end loading and crash resistance requirements, which adds to the weight. You also loose the ability to rapidly remove cars from the set for repair while leaving the rest of the set in service. As is done with the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 158/9 fleet.

Latterday version of class 150 retaining the virtues of simplicity and light weight is what's required....

[The SprinterMeister]

Modern trains have become so hugely expensive that the seats have to be crammed in and other facilities withdrawn in order to try and contain the cost per seat.
There might be a case for building a longer version but I cant support regular multiple working and through gangways, too much to go wrong and to add cost and weight.

Irrespective of whether you want to run the trains multied up or not you require the means to do so in case you ever want to cater for greater than expected loadings. You also need the means to tow the unit dead with full brake continuity at full normal speeds with another suitable train if your train fails. Unless your going to move the train by road from its route to the depot / workshop. You won't get many pathways for low speed unbraked moves on today's railway.

The BSI^▸ (British Standards Institute) couplings and electrical boxes on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)'s are perfectly reliable if maintained properly and this appears to be the case with the FGW units. So I'm not sure quite why your not supporting the ability to multi the trains together.

[Rhydgaled]

Latterday version of class 150 retaining the virtues of simplicity and light weight is what's required....

But there are class 150s running around on regional express (and close to that) services. What is needed is more regional express units, basicly class 158s, as fuel-efficent and cheap-to-run as possible. No more class 150 surburban 'middly doors' creating dead space within the train on regional express services, and it'd release those 150s for use on shorter journeys.

[The SprinterMeister]

Latterday version of class 150 retaining the virtues of simplicity and light weight is what's required....

But there are class 150s running around on regional express (and close to that) services. What is needed is more regional express units, basicly class 158s, as fuel-efficent and cheap-to-run as possible. No more class 150 surburban 'middly doors' creating dead space within the train on regional express services, and it'd release those 150s for use on shorter journeys.

Problem is no-one has defined what sort of secondary services these notional new trains are for. If your using them on things like Devon Metro local services end doors is the last thing you want. Slows the boarding / alighting times down big style. Wherever you have doors, your not going to have seats, please define 'Dead Space'. My definition is space within the body used for equipment that should be below solebar level. Such as the equipment rack behind the emergency equipment cupboard next to the toilet on class 153.

[thetrout]

One car units are less than ideal, but nevertheless probably the right solution, except in this case, to the wrong problem... Bear in mind as was mentioned earlier in the thread, The new train would need to be DDA^» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) compliant so obviously 1 car units aren't going to help much.

I still think Loco Hauled is a good solution even for branch lines. Just add/remove coaches when you need them. Have a generic carriage with the following:

• Interchangeable between First and Standard Class in a similar method to Aircraft
• Galley for potential trolley stowage with Microwave and Urn for light meals/hot drinks
• Power Sockets at seats
• Option for WiFi to be fitted. But perhaps use Cell Repeaters instead for transit of all major UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Cell Networks
• 1 Standard toilet per coach with luggage rack at the alternate end
• 1 Service Vehicle in every loco hauled set which contains the Galley, Cycle Storage, Guards Compartment and DDA Compliant Toilet. Also perhaps a Drivers Cab in the vehicle for quick turn around (Similar to a DBSO^▸ (Driving Brake Standard Open (carriage)))

[John R]

The running cost of loco-haulage on branch lines would be prohibitive. Track access charges for a loco are several times higher, and the hire costs would also be (particularly if relatively modern locos were used).  I think Chiltern have done the maths and for main line running reckon that you need to get to about 6 coaches before a loco hauled set becomes economic.