IC225 for GEML?

[Dave1987]

We're going round in circles again. Many solutions to those "problems" have already been suggested in the posts above. Either have different internal layouts for the front and rear trains, or orient them such that the first class is in the centre.

You're right that a 10-car design is preferable than pairs of 5-car trains. The realists however realise that there's a far greater chance of actually getting new stock for the GEML if it's piggybacked onto another order for elsewhere. Ordering 5-car EMUs and putting up with the wasted space is a reasonable solution, even if it's not the ideal one.

The current set of loco-hauled Mk3s is adequate; pairs of 5-car EMUs is better; and a dedicated 10-car EMU design is ideal, assuming the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of having a small class of dedicated trains.

So what about the very small order that Southern have just made? Just because it wouldn't be a massive order of 500 carriages doesn't mean it can't be made. Don't see why the order would have to be "piggy backed".

 

[O L Leigh]

So why not just make them 10 car units? Solves the problem of having two separate first class areas and two buffets? The whole point of having emus is to maximise the space available for seating. With 2 x 5 car trains you are always going to have a buffet not in use and some first class passengers having to walk half the train to get their complimentary drinks and snacks.

Why is this so crucial?

The Cl379 fleet was all turned to ensure that the first class was always at the same end. Yes this means that there is more than one first class section where units are run in multiple, but passengers soon adapt to where the first class areas are. It's not rocket science.

As for buffet areas, are we even sure that these will be specified...? How many services used to have buffet areas that have since lost them, such as the North Kent services? There could even be the same solution that XC use on Voyagers with a service area stocking a trolley.

**EDIT**

Heck, as new the Cl442s ran in pairs with two buffets, two guards vans and two separate first class areas. The poor lambs on the comfiest seats even had to walk through the cattle class seating to get their refreshments.

Honestly if we're using these as objections then we really are splitting hairs.

O L Leigh

 

[JamesRowden]

So why not just make them 10 car units? Solves the problem of having two separate first class areas and two buffets? The whole point of having emus is to maximise the space available for seating. With 2 x 5 car trains you are always going to have a buffet not in use and some first class passengers having to walk half the train to get their complimentary drinks and snacks.

5-car sets might allow very late services to run as 5-car to save running costs or it might allow the running of services that might not have been seen as value for money if all sets are 10-car (e.g. later services, higher frequency evening service).

 

[AndyLandy]

So what about the very small order that Southern have just made? Just because it wouldn't be a massive order of 500 carriages doesn't mean it can't be made. Don't see why the order would have to be "piggy backed".

They're ordering more Electrostars though, aren't they? It's not like they're creating a small and incompatible-with-everything-else fleet of trains, is it?

 

[JamesRowden]

So what about the very small order that Southern have just made? Just because it wouldn't be a massive order of 500 carriages doesn't mean it can't be made. Don't see why the order would have to be "piggy backed".

That is a follow-on order. It is effectively combined with the prior order as one big order.

 

[Tobbes]

Are there any modular EMU designs which can be procured in 5 or 10 coach variants? A genuine question - I would've thought that Alstom / Bombardier / Siemens would have designed their designs such that they could be delivered in 3/4/5/7/10 coach varieties. If not, what is the technical reason why not?

Thanks

Tobbes

 

[Eagle]

The 222s when they first arrived were a mixture of 4- and 9-car units (they've since been shuffled around a lot to the current mix of 4-, 5- and 7-car). So in theory it is at least possible to do that.

 

[AndyLandy]

Are there any modular EMU designs which can be procured in 5 or 10 coach variants? A genuine question - I would've thought that Alstom / Bombardier / Siemens would have designed their designs such that they could be delivered in 3/4/5/7/10 coach varieties. If not, what is the technical reason why not?

Can't see any technical reason why it wouldn't be possible. If we tendered for it, they'd probably be able to build it for us.

 

[klewer]

To be honest, it should go over to EMU.

I know I'm opening a can of worms when I say this, but it's less than two hours from Norwich to London and any 100mph unit would give better acceleration, provide more capacity and (if a shuffle round of 321/317 stock was to take place) more flexibility to be lengthened/shortened and would work with the rest of the GA fleet.

 

[swt_passenger]

Are there any modular EMU designs which can be procured in 5 or 10 coach variants? A genuine question - I would've thought that Alstom / Bombardier / Siemens would have designed their designs such that they could be delivered in 3/4/5/7/10 coach varieties. If not, what is the technical reason why not?

Class 460 GatEx was a permanently formed 8 car EMU, and the west coast Pendolino fleet is nothing more than a fixed formation 9 or 11 car EMU.

The only reason I can think of that there are no 7 or 10 car so far is that they haven't been asked for yet.

But as Thameslink are getting Desiro City (Desiro UK based) 8 and 12 car fixed formation trains, and Crossrail is going for 10 car fixed formation, then it's clear there is no technical reason why Siemens, Bombardier etc would not have produced them if needed anyway.

Network Rail have already raised the possibility of pairs of 5 car EMUs (like 444s) running the Norwich services in the relevant RUS.

That some posters seem to believe this would be 'the end of the world as we know it' is neither here nor there to be honest.

Arguments quoting as fact the chaos that would ensue from having trains splitting and joining have no basis in fact, as anyone can see with operating practices at Bournemouth and Southampton...

This option replaces the Norwich inter-city sets with new rolling stock to increase capacity on these
services. The rolling stock is assumed to be of inter-city standard, but by removing the need for a
locomotive and DVT in the formation (and assuming a Class 444 type layout) it is possible to increase
seated capacity by over a thousand seats over the peak period. The option provides a modern
homogenous fleet, which could be operated in 5-car formation – at times of the day when demand is lower.
[...]
It is recommended that this is included as part of the strategy.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...trategies/greater anglia/great anglia rus.pdf

 

[Eagle]

It's been mentioned before, but it's worth remembering that London to Norwich is almost the same as London to Bournemouth in terms of distance, time, frequency and calling pattern. (The fact that one used to be IC and one used to be NSE shouldn't even enter into the discussion as it's totally irrelevant.)

London to Bournemouth is mainly run by 10-car EMU services, formed of two 444s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The only reason I can think of that there are no 7 or 10 car so far is that they haven't been asked for yet.

There are 7-car 222s (although they weren't built like that).

 

[swt_passenger]

There are 7-car 222s (although they weren't built like that).

I did think of them as well, but the question was about EMUs...

 

[dk1]

I reckon you could get 197 passenegrs on a five coach EMU at lunchtime?

That was just from Norwich.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Diss call is very revenue positive. Good local traffic to Norwich & both business & leisure traffic from a large area of S.Norfolk & N.Suffolk towards Ipswich/London. Anyone suggesting otherwise hasn't got a clue,

You're quite right I don't. I engaged fingers before brain. Apols. Suspect there is a socio-economic case though given the time saving for the off peak. In my 5 years in Anglia I rarely saw more than 10 people/train boarding or alighting Diss in the off peak. Things change of course.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A big order of EMUs will be required for the meatier bit of TPE - the Manchester - Huddersfield - Leeds corridor (as well as the Blackpool route) - which is where 380s could be an option.

Chances are they've already been ordered from the Canadians...

 

[Tobbes]

Bald Rick et al,

Many thanks for the clarity on the Diss stop. Does anyone know if a study has been done on reopening any of the intermediate stations - which would presumably abstract from the Diss numbers even if it increased passenger numbers overall.

Cheers,

Tobbes

 

[jopsuk]

An additional fleet of say 45 Class 379s (enough to run 13 sets of 12-cars plus spare/expansion) in exactly the same set up as the Stansted/Cambridge units (could even be a common fleet) wouldn't be the world's worst suggestion.

Could even go nuts and get enough to cover all Cambridge peak trains whilst they're at it...

 

[WestCountry]

An additional fleet of say 45 Class 379s (enough to run 13 sets of 12-cars plus spare/expansion) in exactly the same set up as the Stansted/Cambridge units (could even be a common fleet) wouldn't be the world's worst suggestion.

Perhaps not (a sufficient number of Pacers for the same role would be! ) but I still think it would be better to get a fleet of 65-ish 444s*. These would go to:
- London-Norwich services (significant commonality with the 360s).
ECML CBG/PBO/KLN fasts and semi-fasts (everything not covered by Thameslink or Moorgate services).
- Manchester-Scotland services to cascade the stopgap 350/4s.
- SWT, to reverse the encroachment of 450s onto Portsmouth services.

*With AC equipment, of course. The design allows for it, and the existing fleet will have to get it for the Basingstoke-Soton conversion anyway.

 

[D365]

An additional fleet of say 45 Class 379s (enough to run 13 sets of 12-cars plus spare/expansion) in exactly the same set up as the Stansted/Cambridge units (could even be a common fleet) wouldn't be the world's worst suggestion.

Could even go nuts and get enough to cover all Cambridge peak trains whilst they're at it...

Exactly what I was thinking a while back, but I've also contemplated returning/moving the SX (9), GN (12+13) and Midland (7) 317s/321s in the future, the latter class replacing the 21 360s which would be combined with the 5 shortened HC units for a like-for-like replacement with the Birmingham 323s. I won't derail this discussion any further, unless someone is willing to join in!

Perhaps not (a sufficient number of Pacers for the same role would be! ) but I still think it would be better to get a fleet of 65-ish 444s*. These would go to:
- London-Norwich services (significant commonality with the 360s).
ECML CBG/PBO/KLN fasts and semi-fasts (everything not covered by Thameslink or Moorgate services).
- Manchester-Scotland services to cascade the stopgap 350/4s.
- SWT, to reverse the encroachment of 450s onto Portsmouth services.

*With AC equipment, of course. The design allows for it, and the existing fleet will have to get it for the Basingstoke-Soton conversion anyway.

I'm really not sure that a 444-type EMU will be suitable for GN, as dwell times are quite short, as are the distances between stations at the country ends. Besides, we're happy with our 365s, they're all we need Also, I think the plan is to move Manchester-Scotland to WC and have it served by 'Baby-Pendos', if they ever come around. The 444 design does require updating if it is to be sold again; a 380-style cab is required at minimum. At least that platform sports 23m carriages.

 

[Bald Rick]

Bald Rick et al,

Many thanks for the clarity on the Diss stop. Does anyone know if a study has been done on reopening any of the intermediate stations - which would presumably abstract from the Diss numbers even if it increased passenger numbers overall.

Cheers,

Tobbes

Yes I do know, and no, no study has been done, at least not in the rail industry in the last decade. Slight exception is the study for the Snoasis station near Needham Market. No idea where that stands now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps not (a sufficient number of Pacers for the same role would be! ) but I still think it would be better to get a fleet of 65-ish 444s*. These would go to:
- ECML CBG/PBO/KLN fasts and semi-fasts (everything not covered by Thameslink or Moorgate services).

That would be the KL services then, plus a couple of peak extras.

 

[dk1]

Yes I do know, and no, no study has been done, at least not in the rail industry in the last decade. Slight exception is the study for the Snoasis station near Needham Market. No idea where that stands now.

Gone very quiet. It was to be Great Blakenham close to Claydon CCTV & Barham Stone Sdg. Some housing has been built & construction ongoing on a incinerator waste plant but nothing on SnOasis or the proposed Station.

 

[joeykins82]

The 444 design does require updating if it is to be sold again; a 380-style cab is required at minimum. At least that platform sports 23m carriages.

I'm sure any new "444-esque" order would be from the manufacturer's current stable rather than Siemens digging out an older, obsolete design. The bits people (well, I) want to see from a new generation "444 style" EMU are 23m cars with a comfortable 2+2 layout in Std, doors at the ends of the carriage, gangwayed cabs between sets (if not run in a longer fixed formation) and 110mph running capability. Whether it's Siemens, Bombardier, Alstom, Hitachi or whoever it could form the backbone of an inter-urban/regional express fleet and would be ideal on GEML Norwich services as well TPE and the proposed St Pancras to Corby services (once 1st stage electrification of the MML is complete) and maybe other routes too.

 

[w0033944]

Quick note regarding reopening intermediate stations between Norwich and Ipswich - I'm unfamiliar with most of them, but use Swainsthorpe LC virtually every week (I live about 2 miles from it, if that), and I can't see that there would be enough space to fit it in, as housebuilding and other changes have occurred in the many decades since the station was closed.

As it was:

As it is now (both shots facing roughly to Norwich):

Though the second image makes it appear an open area, in reality there's a commercial building and yard just out of shot to the right, with houses next to it. On the left of shot there's housing, some of which is next to the hedge line, and behind the photographer there's more housing, with one property being hard up against the line (their garden wall appears to be the NR boundary).

 

[D365]

That would be the KL services then, plus a couple of peak extras.

Slightly more than 'a couple of peak extras', me'thinks.

I'm sure any new "444-esque" order would be from the manufacturer's current stable rather than Siemens digging out an older, obsolete design. The bits people (well, I) want to see from a new generation "444 style" EMU are 23m cars with a comfortable 2+2 layout in Std, doors at the ends of the carriage, gangwayed cabs between sets (if not run in a longer fixed formation) and 110mph running capability. Whether it's Siemens, Bombardier, Alstom, Hitachi or whoever it could form the backbone of an inter-urban/regional express fleet and would be ideal on GEML Norwich services as well TPE and the proposed St Pancras to Corby services (once 1st stage electrification of the MML is complete) and maybe other routes too.

If they haven't designed it yet, it's not in their stable? Siemens do have somewhere to start though with the 380... What you have described sounds pretty good to me, though if going for new-build, I would still prefer more 379s on GA for commonality. St Pancras to Corby isn't proposed though? Already operating as I described.

 

[joeykins82]

Meant "current stable" as in if the cab design has evolved then they'd almost certainly use the current one or base a new design on the most recently produced one. I think the proposal is to make StP-Corby 2tph all day and to stop at Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford, Luton and St Albans en route to STP. Presumably the Nottingham & Sheffield services will be some sort of 125mph capable stock but Corby would be a good candidate for the mythical inter-urban express units

 

[Dave1987]

Slightly more than 'a couple of peak extras', me'thinks.



If they haven't designed it yet, it's not in their stable? Siemens do have somewhere to start though with the 380... What you have described sounds pretty good to me, though if going for new-build, I would still prefer more 379s on GA for commonality. St Pancras to Corby isn't proposed though? Already operating as I described.

I don't sign 379's but at our recent "inspire" course that we all had to attend we were talking to some Cambridge drivers who said the 379's weren't very well designed. Not very reliable at all. I don't see why we need "commonality", why is it so crucial.

 

[O L Leigh]

The cabs are quite poor, but then I can't imagine that the Cl380 cab is significantly better. Also making and unmaking the gangway is quite a performance. As for them being unreliable, I can't say that I agree. There were problems at the start, but they have improved them as time has gone on.

I think it would be more accurate to say that they are unpopular rather than unreliable. Unfortunately you might also be getting some very biased opinions from your colleagues. Like a lot of depots, Cambridge has it's fair share of people who just love to moan about stuff.

O L Leigh

 

[tbtc]

I don't sign 379's

I don't see why we need "commonality", why is it so crucial.

It's not beyond possibility to have the same type of train on Liverpool Street - Cambridge as Liverpool Street - Norwich.

It surely limits flexibility to have trains unable to be shared between routes as the staff on one line can't sign the trains used on the other line.

 

[Dave1987]

It's not beyond possibility to have the same type of train on Liverpool Street - Cambridge as Liverpool Street - Norwich.

It surely limits flexibility to have trains unable to be shared between routes as the staff on one line can't sign the trains used on the other line.

What flexibility are you referring to?

 

[JamesRowden]

What flexibility are you referring to?

By having two lines use the same type of train, fewer spare sets are required to cover for sets being unavailable due to maintainance or breakdowns.

If one were to order less sets than would be ordered for the two lines seperately, if there were more breakdowns/maintainance of sets on one line than has been accounted for but the other line still has working sets as backups, a set can be transfered over.

 

[Dave1987]

By having two lines use the same type of train, fewer spare sets are required to cover for sets being unavailable due to maintainance or breakdowns.

If one were to order less sets than would be ordered for the two lines seperately, if there were more breakdowns/maintainance of sets on one line than has been accounted for but the other line still has working sets as backups, a set can be transfered over.

You still need the same amount of spare sets available regardless of if they were all the same train. For example with the 360's Siemens are obliged to provide 20 of the 21 units for traffic each day. You are essentially saying that by having all the trains exactly the same you could reduce the amount of spare trains you had. That just wouldn't work and you would end up with more short formed and cancelled trains due to a lack of spare sets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Back on the subject of this thread do I take no one wants the 225 sets cascaded from the east coast to GEML??