Southern add 40 vehicles to order

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't buy this rail business. For a start they aren't technical mind publication and for a second why would the 350s be ok but not the 319s. Idea Network Rail designed new OHLE that's not suitable for the only rolling stock confirmed to be working under it is laughable. Then again that properly means its true.

My guess is that the new OHLE conforms to the EU TSI standards, which (I think) gives a higher tension than the existing (BR) UK standard.
Isn't it the reason Eurostars had trouble on the ECML?
I think the WCML upgrade got exemption from the TSI rules, but all new lines need to comply.
350s would have originally been designed for higher-tension German OHL, while 319s would not.
Even so, you would not have thought it was an insurmountable problem.

This could all be tosh, as you say.
Best wait for Roger Ford's take on it, I think!

 

[HSTEd]

Then there's the piece in Rail this week which says 319s are incompatible with the new OHLE! 350s are apparently OK.
I don't think anything is really clear yet on the NW rolling stock front.

This sounds rather ridiculous.
Being as Class 319s have been used on continental-style overhead line equipment before now (was there not a powered railtour into the Channel Tunnel when it opened?).

This is almost certainly a paperwork issue.

And the Eurostars were eventually cleared for 125mph south of Grantham on the ECML after testing proved there was no problem with using the pantographs there at full speed.
They were not cleared above 110mph on teh rest of the route they operated because the power supply was considered to be inadequate for the task.

 

[Minstral25]

Just a thought

Gatwick Express used to be run by 8 Class 460's, so 8x 5 car 377/6's to run Gatwick Express? No idea why they would be dual voltage. The 377/6's may have less seats but except the extended coast trains they are generally less than 25% full anyway and empty after 8pm. The Brighton starters could be handled by the 442's still.

If they are 2+2 this doesn't mean they are good 2+2 like the Driving cars of the Southern 377's, they could be like the 319's where they are 3+2 narrow seats with the middle seat removed to create acres of standing space but the seats are still too small.

 

[Wath Yard]

This sounds rather ridiculous.
Being as Class 319s have been used on continental-style overhead line equipment before now (was there not a powered railtour into the Channel Tunnel when it opened?).

This is almost certainly a paperwork issue.

HRH herself travelled on one for the official opening.

 

[Class377/5]

My guess is that the new OHLE conforms to the EU TSI standards, which (I think) gives a higher tension than the existing (BR) UK standard.
Isn't it the reason Eurostars had trouble on the ECML?
I think the WCML upgrade got exemption from the TSI rules, but all new lines need to comply.
350s would have originally been designed for higher-tension German OHL, while 319s would not.
Even so, you would not have thought it was an insurmountable problem.

This could all be tosh, as you say.
Best wait for Roger Ford's take on it, I think!

Yes, Roger's take will be telling but.....

This sounds rather ridiculous.
Being as Class 319s have been used on continental-style overhead line equipment before now (was there not a powered railtour into the Channel Tunnel when it opened?).

This is almost certainly a paperwork issue.

And the Eurostars were eventually cleared for 125mph south of Grantham on the ECML after testing proved there was no problem with using the pantographs there at full speed.
They were not cleared above 110mph on teh rest of the route they operated because the power supply was considered to be inadequate for the task.

HRH herself travelled on one for the official opening.

... Considering two 319s have been to Francevand back I don't buy this 319s can't run under the new OHLE. Especially if the 350s can.

Do we even have a source on this or is it just a Rail invention?

 

[DXMachina]

The two 319s that went to France started at Selhurst where they were fitted with replacement pantographs, after the trip they were taken back there and refitted with their originals

 

[swt_passenger]

All this debate about 10 car formations.

Maybe it is so that they'll fit the 10 car infrastructure that NR are providing on the 'via Sydenham' routes:

15.26 Project definition – Package 8 Kent & Sydenham train lenthening

In addition, this project will deliver some of the infrastructure required to allow 10-car services to run on the following routes (with additional stations provided by project 15.29):
> a 10-car service for Sutton / Epsom Downs <> Victoria Central via Norbury;
> a 10-car service for London Bridge <> Victoria Central (via Streatham Hill) and East Croydon/Norwood Jn <> Victoria Central (via Streatham Hill); and
> a 10-car service for East/ West Croydon <> London Bridge (via Sydenham slow lines) and Epsom <> London Bridge (via West Croydon and Sydenham fast lines from Norwood Jn).

Just a thought...

 

[tbtc]

All this debate about 10 car formations.

Maybe it is so that they'll fit the 10 car infrastructure that NR are providing on the 'via Sydenham' routes:



Just a thought...

I'm just surprised that NR are going for ten coach lengths on one line, at the same time that the railway seems to be settling on multiples of four on other lines, that's all.

Unless there's a particular problem on the Sydenham line that means twelve coaches won't fit (but it's too busy for just eight)?

Does the same apply on the SWT Windsor lines?

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm just surprised that NR are going for ten coach lengths on one line, at the same time that the railway seems to be settling on multiples of four on other lines, that's all.

Unless there's a particular problem on the Sydenham line that means twelve coaches won't fit (but it's too busy for just eight)?

Does the same apply on the SWT Windsor lines?

I think there are many sites on both SN and SWT routes where they can squeeze in 10 car platforms but not 12. But then all things being equal, extending a route from 8-10 is going to be around half the cost of going directly from 8-12 anyway, so perhaps they are just being realistic and will have another burst of expansion in a few years time...

As long as the proposed 5 car unit's individual vehicles can be mixed and matched you can alter them for 12 car running in future anyway; and by making up 4 car and 6 car units they wouldn't have to order odd carriages that would be a different age to the rest (like Pendolino 11 cars), just an extra number of complete units to keep the overall numbers up.

 

[tbtc]

I think there are many sites on both SN and SWT routes where they can squeeze in 10 car platforms but not 12. But then all things being equal, extending a route from 8-10 is going to be around half the cost of going directly from 8-12 anyway, so perhaps they are just being realistic and will have another burst of expansion in a few years time...

As long as the proposed 5 car unit's individual vehicles can be mixed and matched you can alter them for 12 car running in future anyway; and by making up 4 car and 6 car units they wouldn't have to order odd carriages that would be a different age to the rest (like Pendolino 11 cars), just an extra number of complete units to keep the overall numbers up.

True.

This then made me wonder whether the idea would be for LOROL to run a fleet of five coach EMUs (based on the fact that the 378s may be extended to five coaches and that the ten coach areas on SWT/ SN seem to be fairly "suburban"...) with the four/ eight/ twelve coach operation remaining part of the "main" franchise". But that's getting into silly speculation, I know...

 

[sprinterguy]

So why order 5 car dual voltage units then? Doesn't make sense to give them to Thameslink and makes little sense to suddenly order 8 377/6 with dual outage when the current 26 are DC only.

Has it been specifically stated that the original order for 26 x 5-car trains will be DC only? The forty new carriages are an add on to the existing order. I have little reason to believe that they will be any different from the other 26 trains. All modern third rail rolling stock designs are built to be dual voltage anyway and can be easily converted to draw power from 25kV AC OHLE.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think there are many sites on both SN and SWT routes where they can squeeze in 10 car platforms but not 12. But then all things being equal, extending a route from 8-10 is going to be around half the cost of going directly from 8-12 anyway, so perhaps they are just being realistic and will have another burst of expansion in a few years time...

Is the right answer. Indeed going to 10 car is considerably less than half the cash of going to 12, as the extra length would mean moving a lot more signals / points / bridges etc that don't need moving for 10. However, where such things have to be moved for 10 car, they are generally moved to a place that's clear for 12 later.

 

[Helvellyn]

Does anyone know what vehicle numbers the Class 377/6 units will have?

 

[Bald Rick]

HRH herself travelled on one for the official opening.

And there was me thinking it was HM The Queen who went, rather than some lesser royal.

 

[Brian Aylott]

I expect that the initial order was was DV also
Brian

 

[D365]

Is the right answer. Indeed going to 10 car is considerably less than half the cash of going to 12, as the extra length would mean moving a lot more signals / points / bridges etc that don't need moving for 10. However, where such things have to be moved for 10 car, they are generally moved to a place that's clear for 12 later.

Just curious if anyone can explain, why are trains usually never longer than 12 cars in the UK at least?

 

[Class377/5]

The two 319s that went to France started at Selhurst where they were fitted with replacement pantographs, after the trip they were taken back there and refitted with their originals

All this debate about 10 car formations.

Maybe it is so that they'll fit the 10 car infrastructure that NR are providing on the 'via Sydenham' routes:

Just a thought...

I think there are many sites on both SN and SWT routes where they can squeeze in 10 car platforms but not 12. But then all things being equal, extending a route from 8-10 is going to be around half the cost of going directly from 8-12 anyway, so perhaps they are just being realistic and will have another burst of expansion in a few years time...

As long as the proposed 5 car unit's individual vehicles can be mixed and matched you can alter them for 12 car running in future anyway; and by making up 4 car and 6 car units they wouldn't have to order odd carriages that would be a different age to the rest (like Pendolino 11 cars), just an extra number of complete units to keep the overall numbers up.

The 377/6 are to replace the 377/5 on allowing routes via Balham to go 10 car. The. Sydenham route is already 10 car and did in December 2011. IE was 313 to replace 377/3 to allow extra 10 cars by mixing 377/5 and other four car Electrostar with two 3 car units for Balham services.

Has it been specifically stated that the original order for 26 x 5-car trains will be DC only? The forty new carriages are an add on to the existing order. I have little reason to believe that they will be any different from the other 26 trains. All modern third rail rolling stock designs are built to be dual voltage anyway and can be easily converted to draw power from 25kV AC OHLE.

I expect that the initial order was was DV also
Brian

Its never been stated that the 377/6 order was DC only. However the fact that the additional eight are dual voltage was met with surprise by Roger Ford leading me to think the initial units are DC only. I suppose when the first is shown off in Jan we should find out.

 

[D365]

IIRC all 377/6s will come dual-voltage out-of-the-box; pantos, extra trafs et al.

Another (random) thought; would Bombardier be/seem prepared to sell 377/7s for the 116 (+100) vehicle proposed contract?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Pity it could not have been something like the end-door version here for use on the fast services with just a few stops.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just curious if anyone can explain, why are trains usually never longer than 12 cars in the UK at least?

Platform length at termini will limit the train length. At intermediate stations, selective door operation can deal with the problem of short platforms, but at termini, the train cannot project far beyond the end of a platform, so platforms would have to be extended, expensively, backwards onto the area occupied by the concourse, which would then have to go on a deck above.

 

[D365]

Pity it could not have been something like the end-door version here for use on the fast services with just a few stops.

Eh? If you mean the 116+100, the tender hasn't even started! Also, would those doors be suitable for Gatwick pax?

Platform length at termini will limit the train length. At intermediate stations, selective door operation can deal with the problem of short platforms, but at termini, the train cannot project far beyond the end of a platform, so platforms would have to be extended, expensively, backwards onto the area occupied by the concourse, which would then have to go on a deck above.

Then demolish all termini :P Fair point, I forgot that people have to get aboard trains!

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Eh? If you mean the 116+100, the tender hasn't even started! Also, would those doors be suitable for Gatwick pax?



Then demolish all termini :P Fair point, I forgot that people have to get aboard trains!

It is only a sketch, not a construction drawing. The doors have to be minimum width for DDA anyway.

That was the explanation of why trains are mostly 12 cars long.

 

[hwl]

Is the right answer. Indeed going to 10 car is considerably less than half the cash of going to 12, as the extra length would mean moving a lot more signals / points / bridges etc that don't need moving for 10. However, where such things have to be moved for 10 car, they are generally moved to a place that's clear for 12 later.

As the 4 car 455s don't have SDO (and probably never will) they aren't any use for 12 car running on the route. 12 car would make more sense when everything is SDO capable i.e. in a least another decade.

 

[The Ham]

Platform length at termini will limit the train length. At intermediate stations, selective door operation can deal with the problem of short platforms, but at termini, the train cannot project far beyond the end of a platform, so platforms would have to be extended, expensively, backwards onto the area occupied by the concourse, which would then have to go on a deck above.

Also to extend trains beyond 12 coaches you either have to extend the platforms to cope with 16 coaches or build a sub fleet of 2 coach trains which would have less capacity than 1/2 a four coach train.

It is also to do with if you run 12 x 20m coaches your station is 240m long which will also fit a 10 x 23m coaches which is 230m long. If you up the length of the 20m coach train by 2 (280m) or 4 (320m) you can only fit in two or four more (respectively) 23m coaches.

Also (before the Loco hauled guys say well why not just use locos), once you start getting to those sorts of lengths you are really going to limit how fast a Loco can pull away at stations increasing journey times.

 

[tbtc]

IIRC all 377/6s will come dual-voltage out-of-the-box; pantos, extra trafs et al

Given that Bombardier are allegedly playing silly beggers over building additional Voyager coaches, I think its best to get these new EMUs completely ready for anything when built (because they'll charge through the nose for any follow on order of anything!)

 

[Class377/5]

Has it been specifically stated that the original order for 26 x 5-car trains will be DC only? The forty new carriages are an add on to the existing order. I have little reason to believe that they will be any different from the other 26 trains. All modern third rail rolling stock designs are built to be dual voltage anyway and can be easily converted to draw power from 25kV AC OHLE.

I expect that the initial order was was DV also
Brian

IIRC all 377/6s will come dual-voltage out-of-the-box; pantos, extra trafs et al.

Another (random) thought; would Bombardier be/seem prepared to sell 377/7s for the 116 (+100) vehicle proposed contract?

Nope, confirmed the initial 24 are DC has come from MD of Go Ahead Rail Development, this morning.

https://twitter.com/AlexHynes

Does come much more official.

 

[sprinterguy]

Nope, confirmed the initial 24 are DC has come from MD of Go Ahead Rail Development, this morning.

https://twitter.com/AlexHynes

Does come much more official.

The same fella who confidently claimed that the reason that the class 350/1s have blue seats is because they were originally ordered for SWT, despite the fact that SWT Desiros have red seats and the fabric used on the 350/1s is an in-house design from Grammer.

It is true that the man can be assumed to be a fairly definitive source on this latest matter, but I have learnt not to assume anything on the modern railway. I'm going to remain cynically unconvinced for the time being if it's ok by everyone else, and think no more of the matter.

 

[Class377/5]

The same fella who confidently claimed that the reason that the class 350/1s have blue seats is because they were originally ordered for SWT, despite the fact that SWT Desiros have red seats and the fabric used on the 350/1s is an in-house design from Grammer.

It is true that the man can be assumed to be a fairly definitive source on this latest matter, but I have learnt not to assume anything on the modern railway. I'm going to remain cynically unconvinced for the time being if it's ok by everyone else, and think no more of the matter.

At least this comment is one he's checked up on so not just his word. Assume nothing as the saying goes.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Also (before the Loco hauled guys say well why not just use locos), once you start getting to those sorts of lengths you are really going to limit how fast a Loco can pull away at stations increasing journey times.

I don't think anyone is going to suggest using locos for commuter routes for which EMUs are so obviously the best solution, especially where there are capacity constraints that would be very expensive to deal with.

 

[anthony263]

Modern Railways have posted on their Twitter account that the GWML could be getting new emu's for the Oxford services.

Maybe now the penny is dropping that the class 319's wont be ready for use on the GWML when the wires reach Reading, Newbury & Oxford.

That could mean extra class 319's to go elsewhere when they are displaced from Thameslink although I suspect some will be allocated to the GW region for use between Cardiff & Bristol TM.

 

[tbtc]

Modern Railways have posted on their Twitter account that the GWML could be getting new emu's for the Oxford services.

Maybe now the penny is dropping that the class 319's wont be ready for use on the GWML when the wires reach Reading, Newbury & Oxford.

That could mean extra class 319's to go elsewhere when they are displaced from Thameslink although I suspect some will be allocated to the GW region for use between Cardiff & Bristol TM.

There's been a lot of suggestion about this - with the GWML slows potentially needing 110mph running.

I'd expect one fleet of "local" EMUs for services between Swansea/ Valley Lines/ Cardiff/ Bristol though - may need some franchise remapping!