Electrification & Rolling Stock Cascade Impact Review

[MCR247]

My idea for 185's to pair up and drag the 350's surely isn't that bad.

Actually it is since the 350 would have no power

 

[Eagle]

Actually it is since the 350 would have no power

But who actually needs cabin lights. And announcements. And doors that can open. And everything else that requires electricity.

 

[Kneedown]

Apart from the fact that a 4-car Voyager only actually has three and a bit carriages' worth of space for seating, because of the tapered ends and crumple zones. Even if you made the whole train standard class it'd still have fewer standard seats than 2x158.

Also about luggage accommodation: you can't increase the number of seats whilst keeping the luggage racks.

As i've said though, and many times in other threads that have touched on this same topic, seats for passengers are no longer a problem. On all but rush hour services there is normally a fair bit of spare seating on the Liverpool side of the route these days, however luggage space has been reduced, and one thing a heckuva lot of passengers bring with them on these services is a fair amount of luggage, pushchairs, cycles etc. The 158 refurb squeezed as many seats in as possible at a time when a good few Liverpool services were still operated by a single unit. I stand to be corrected but i think this was due to a franchise commitment, made before the true extent of the overcrowding problems became apparent. So now we are left with a situation where we have a pair of 158's on the service, brimming with seats but very little luggage room which is quickly occupied, resulting in belongings left in gangways, vestibules and disabled areas.
A slight reduction in seats to increase available luggage space would IMO be highly beneficial.

 

[Manchester77]

Not without making significant changes to the body shell.

The crumple zones aren't just bits of the train marked off; they're an integral part of the train's body.

(Also they could in theory do the full 125 between Grantham and Peterborough.)

Thanks for explaining

I don't really think there's any need for the 158s to move off Norwich-Liverpool they seem well suited. Maybe some of FGWs hybrid 3 car units could join for a few peak time 5 car services

 

[Kneedown]

Thanks for explaining

I don't really think there's any need for the 158s to move off Norwich-Liverpool they seem well suited.

They really don't accelerate or climb hills well, are not the most reliable units, unable to take advantage of Sprinter differential speeds for long as they don't have the power to reach them and will be life expired in 10 or so years (30 years old in 2021) That sounds a long way off but when your talking about the tendering process to source new stock (whether directly or indirectly, recieving cascades) it's not long at all.

Maybe some of FGWs hybrid 3 car units could join for a few peak time 5 car services

In the absence of SDO it's not really practical unless the platforms at one or two locations are lengthened.

 

[Class377/5]

But who actually needs cabin lights. And announcements. And doors that can open. And everything else that requires electricity.

If the 350 are like the 377, toilets too!

 

[WatcherZero]

Dont the rules state they nowadays have to have a emergency low power operation on battery for several hours in case of power failure? Things like toilets and emergency lights.

 

[Eagle]

Probably, but I don't think using it in non-emergency situations such as regularly-timetabled drags is at all sensible.

 

[Class377/5]

Dont the rules state they nowadays have to have a emergency low power operation on battery for several hours in case of power failure? Things like toilets and emergency lights.

Nope. Bombardier's Electrostars shut everything bar emergency lighting, PA system and cab systems. And most of the wouldn't last several hours.

 

[ainsworth74]

Dont the rules state they nowadays have to have a emergency low power operation on battery for several hours in case of power failure? Things like toilets and emergency lights.

The specification for IEP requires that but I'm not sure if they're in the standards for all new rolling stock.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Something to remember for those saying about 125s or 22x running under the wires on GW far west services. It's only 50 miles under the wires from Paddington to Newbury, on a 300 mile run that's not a big percentage

Indeed, and the fuel ecconomy of an IC125 is better than a 22x (at least on a per seat basis). That's one reason I support retention of IC125s on the Paddington - Taunton (and beyond) services. If the IC125s are replaced then it is to be suspected that some form of IC DMU would replace them, which is likely to have similar fuel ecconomy to a 220/222. Therefore, if replaced I would hope they are replaced by bi-modes (or, prefrably, by electric trains following full electrification, perhaps 390s IF HS2 really does make them available for cascade).

My little tuppence regarding DMU cascades...

Talk on here of 220's being wanted by Transport for Scotland for Glasgow/Edinburgh - Aberdeen/Inverness.
That I would like to see, if only to get rid of 170's and their centrally located doors - No matter were I sit on a train like that, on a long journey it really begins to bug me. Even worse on a cold day.

I agree with your sentiments regarding centrally located doors on longer distance services. Cardiff - Nottingham and most of TPE similarly. It's a real shame we don't have more 159/444 style trains for longer-distance/fast services.

And, for those wanting information about 221s for Scotland:

Insiders report strong interest in the Class 221 SuperVoyagers if they were to be released by Virgin, with the Scottish Government expressing a desire to use them on services between Glasgow/Edinburgh and Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness.

The previous section of the above article though appears to suggest that Virgin have so far been unable to make progress in getting their 'baby pendolino' fleet ordered.

I don't really think there's any need for the 158s to move off Norwich-Liverpool they seem well suited. Maybe some of FGWs hybrid 3 car units could join for a few peak time 5 car services

FirstGW's 158s are also well suited on their current Cardiff - Portsmouth journeys though (in fact they need more 158s, not less, to allow Cardiff - Portsmouth to increase to 4-car).

They really don't accelerate or climb hills well, are not the most reliable units, unable to take advantage of Sprinter differential speeds for long as they don't have the power to reach them and will be life expired in 10 or so years (30 years old in 2021) That sounds a long way off but when your talking about the tendering process to source new stock (whether directly or indirectly, recieving cascades) it's not long at all.

Are you talking about 158s? Increasing power would almost certainly also increase fuel consumption, and aren't SWT's examples some of the most reliable BR-era DMUs out there? The almost identical class 159s are the 'golden spanner' holders aren't they? As for age, the reluctance to order any more DMUs (except, apparently, for high-profile Intercity routes which are likely to be quite high up the 'electrify me now!' list when the DfT is in charge of procurement) means it is likely that all current DMUs except class 142s (and heritage units such as the Cardiff Bay unit ATW recently gave up on, and possibly some 143s/144s) will need life-extension works to see them operate well beyond 2020 and their expected life-expiry dates.

 

[Kneedown]

Are you talking about 158s? Increasing power would almost certainly also increase fuel consumption

I am indeed talking about 158's (although 153's and, to an extent 156's could also do with beefing up), and yes, it would increase fuel consumption unless you engage in a costly and unproven life extension programme with modern engines and transmissions, but do you think services should evolve and improve or stay in the doldrums?

and aren't SWT's examples some of the most reliable BR-era DMUs out there? The almost identical class 159s are the 'golden spanner' holders aren't they?

Our 158's are EMT's, so i really cannot comment on SWT fleets reliability, only our own, and as a Driver who operates them on a daily basis, i find them most unsatisfactory in many areas. I believe 159's are indeed "Golden Spanner" holders, but that's more of a reflection on the Maintenance Staff who keep them going, rather than the units themselves.
I'm not knowledgable on the routes SWT's units operate on, but i'm fairly sure they don't have to regularly climb the hills that ours do, undergoing increased wear and tear in the process.

As for age, the reluctance to order any more DMUs (except, apparently, for high-profile Intercity routes which are likely to be quite high up the 'electrify me now!' list when the DfT is in charge of procurement) means it is likely that all current DMUs except class 142s (and heritage units such as the Cardiff Bay unit ATW recently gave up on, and possibly some 143s/144s) will need life-extension works to see them operate well beyond 2020 and their expected life-expiry dates.

There is indeed a reluctance to order more DMU's. Life extension has indeed been suggested, but you're talking serious money and a serious gamble. New engines and transmissions need to be available. These engines need to meet tight emissions standards and be tailored to fit the units while delivering equal or better performance. Electrical, and other systems will need to be modified accordingly. Bear in mind the money that will need to be spent on making all units DDA compliant, and other projects, ERTMS fitment for example (a couple of EMT routes high on the list) and the project may not be economical.

The solution is to continue with, and accelerate the electrification programme, additionally focussing on linking up across the Country, the electrifed mainlines. Commuter and local routes radiating from the mainlines should also be done.
Of course, all this will take a good few Control Periods, so in the meantime, on completion of MML electrification, cascade the 4/5car 222's to the Liverpool-Norwich route (If anyone is concerned about less seats or timings i respectfully refer them to my previous posts on the subject) therefore enabling 158's to be cascaded to less demanding routes.
If you want to make the existing DMU fleet last as long as possible, then you need to get them on routes where they don't get as much hammer as they do at the moment.

 

[Rhydgaled]

If anyone is concerned about less seats

To clarify, are you saying that nobody would have to stand (or for more than 5 minutes) if the seating capacity was reduced from the current 4-car 158 to a 4-car 222? If so, are you confident that passenger numbers will not grow fast enough to fill all seats on said 222?

 

[Kneedown]

To clarify, are you saying that nobody would have to stand (or for more than 5 minutes) if the seating capacity was reduced from the current 4-car 158 to a 4-car 222? If so, are you confident that passenger numbers will not grow fast enough to fill all seats on said 222?

As things stand currently, i'm confident that no one would have to stand on all but the busiest trains, where people still stand even now (generally between Manchester and Warrington)
If passenger numbers rise in the future then the current 2x158's will be in trouble as more luggage room will be required and there is nowhere near enough now, which is a major factor in the continuing capacity issues.
Of course, if seating is really such a concern then just replace the current 222 seats with the more compact design currently in the 158's. Job done.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A belated thanks to the OP for posting all this information/summary.

 

[The Ham]

As things stand currently, i'm confident that no one would have to stand on all but the busiest trains, where people still stand even now (generally between Manchester and Warrington)
If passenger numbers rise in the future then the current 2x158's will be in trouble as more luggage room will be required and there is nowhere near enough now, which is a major factor in the continuing capacity issues.
Of course, if seating is really such a concern then just replace the current 222 seats with the more compact design currently in the 158's. Job done.

The problem is that a 5 coach 222 has 240 seats (plus 10 tip up seats) even the Virgin 221's have 252 seats. Whilst a 3 coach 159 has 196 seats, as such it is likely that a pair of 2 coach 158's would easily have the same number of seats as a 5 coach 22x' as the best four coach 22x has 208 seats (only 12 seats more than a 159) whilst the 4 coach 222's have 188 seats (including 7 tip up seats).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The 29x class "377/8" 110mph trains on order for Southern now appear to be called class 387 in the TSGN ITT.
The cascades from the TSGN franchise are also defined (in terms of number of vehicles by certain dates, 4-car units).

by 31 Dec 2015: 29 units AC100
by 31 Dec 2016: 54 units (10 AC110, 36 AC100, 8 DC)
by 31 Dec 2017: 42 units (17 AC100, 25 DC)
by 31 Dec 2018: 30 units (19 AC110, 11 DC)

These are units in each year.
Class 313/442/456 excluded.

Full details here: (p76): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ent_data/file/245041/invitation-to-tender.pdf

 

[swt_passenger]

The TSGN ITT also states in a note that 6 in number 319/3 will leave the current franchise in May 2014, so that is some months before the new franchise gets going.

(Page 86 - note 1 to table 5.4.3A) So they must be the ones heading up north for the initial Northern electrification then?

That many posters thought wouldn't be delivered in time for December?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The TSGN ITT also states in a note that 6 in number 319/3 will leave the current franchise in May 2014, so that is some months before the new franchise gets going.
(Page 86 - note 1 to table 5.4.3A) So they must be the ones heading up north for the initial Northern electrification then?
That many posters thought wouldn't be delivered in time for December?

Yes, it's hard following all the side deals isn't it!
Of course the ex-GA 317s might also be going north, but that would not figure in the TSGN ITT.
Interesting that the bids might include incoming DMU cascades to TSGN.
As I read it, there are no franchise boundary changes north of London (ie King's Cross/Moorgate-terminating FCC services remain with TSGN).
DfT are not being as prescriptive about rolling stock as in the last round.
The ET/LTS ITT doesn't even mandate keeping the current fleet...

 

[Kneedown]

The problem is that a 5 coach 222 has 240 seats (plus 10 tip up seats) even the Virgin 221's have 252 seats. Whilst a 3 coach 159 has 196 seats, as such it is likely that a pair of 2 coach 158's would easily have the same number of seats as a 5 coach 22x' as the best four coach 22x has 208 seats (only 12 seats more than a 159) whilst the 4 coach 222's have 188 seats (including 7 tip up seats).

I'm afraid i'm not sure what you're getting at as i've already explained that a few less seats in favour of more luggage space would, IMHO, be beneficial, and also suggested the possibilty of using the 158 style seats to increase seating in a 222 without sacrificing luggage space.

 

[WatcherZero]

The TSGN ITT also states in a note that 6 in number 319/3 will leave the current franchise in May 2014, so that is some months before the new franchise gets going.

(Page 86 - note 1 to table 5.4.3A) So they must be the ones heading up north for the initial Northern electrification then?

That many posters thought wouldn't be delivered in time for December?

Without going back through that long document it specifically said they would be released in May which taken at its word doesnt leave much time for refurb (even if they left on May 1st the May timetable change is usually the 3rd week of the month isnt it?), bearing in mind too that it says the franchise bidder should allow a month between each new train arriving and one-to-one old train being released, presumably incase of commisioning trouble/flaws in the new stock.

Im pessimistically predicting that they will spend a couple of months being refurbed and rebranded and not be available for reuse until June/July, the other class will act as a buffer of May timetable operation until they arrive then around December they will provide the operation while the cascaded stock is being refurbed/rebranded. As I understand the delivery/cascade table at Thameslink they are set deadlines that so many of each function have to be released by a certain deadline but that the releasing would be an ongoing process as and when the new stock is delivered rather than in one big dollop.

 

[Bald Rick]

Wouldnt bank on a refurb.

 

[swt_passenger]

Without going back through that long document it specifically said they would be released in May which taken at its word doesnt leave much time for refurb (even if they left on May 1st the May timetable change is usually the 3rd week of the month isnt it?), bearing in mind too that it says the franchise bidder should allow a month between each new train arriving and one-to-one old train being released, presumably incase of commisioning trouble/flaws in the new stock.

These aren't being replaced by new trains though, SN have to provide 6 more 377/2s on the same timescales, (which is the note 2 immediately after the note 1 that I mentioned earlier). The one month overlap stuff for each NEW unit is about the new class 387 and 700 delivery only, I think; specifically the deliveries that occur during the franchise - after Sept 2014.

The timetable change won't be strictly relevant, there is no reason that a swap of stock like this should fit in with the timetable, neither affects the other, they'll just have a different ratio of 377 to 319 in use.

I also doubt the 319s would be refurbished at this stage now anyway, that is the main overall effect of the delays...

 

[The Ham]

I'm afraid i'm not sure what you're getting at as i've already explained that a few less seats in favour of more luggage space would, IMHO, be beneficial, and also suggested the possibilty of using the 158 style seats to increase seating in a 222 without sacrificing luggage space.

The point i'm making is that a 4 coach 222 is efectivly a whole coach in terms of capacity behind a four coach train made up of 158's. Therefore it is unlikley that even by squeezing more seats it would get to within 40 seats of the existing number of seats, as such even with the benefits of extra luggage space (if t wasn't lost trying to get more seats in) it is unlikly that overall it would be seen as a good thing by many.

It may well be that a 5 coach 22x would be better (as the trains should be allocated in such a way so as to be able to cope with some passenger growth in the 5-10 years after they arrive), but then there are the extra costs of running of the 22x's over the 158's. Personally, if there were extra 158's available, it could be better to run them as 5 coach trains.

 

[philjo]

As I read it, there are no franchise boundary changes north of London (ie King's Cross/Moorgate-terminating FCC services remain with TSGN).

There was a comment in the document also published yesterday reporting on the results of the franchise consultation exercise that one of the current FCC morning peak fast services to Kings Cross calling at Peterborough, Huntingdon & St Neots would in future be run as an InterCity service - which implied it would switch to East Coast - see page 47:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/245205/consultation-responses-tsgn.pdf

 

[gwr4090]

The 29x class "377/8" 110mph trains on order for Southern now appear to be called class 387 in the TSGN ITT.
The cascades from the TSGN franchise are also defined (in terms of number of vehicles by certain dates, 4-car units).

by 31 Dec 2015: 29 units AC100
by 31 Dec 2016: 54 units (10 AC110, 36 AC100, 8 DC)
by 31 Dec 2017: 42 units (17 AC100, 25 DC)
by 31 Dec 2018: 30 units (19 AC110, 11 DC)

These are units in each year.
Class 313/442/456 excluded.

Full details here: (p76): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ent_data/file/245041/invitation-to-tender.pdf

Since the first 10 of the 110mph AC110 Class 387 units are to be cascaded by Dec 2016 which coincides with start of electrified services to Oxford and Newbury, it seems a reasonable bet that these units (and probably the other 19 units) will be heading for the GWML vice Class 319s originally proposed.

 

[jopsuk]

As I read it, there are no franchise boundary changes north of London (ie King's Cross/Moorgate-terminating FCC services remain with TSGN).

However, even if it isn't mentioned in the ITT, it is not impossible that this could still happen during the lifetime of the franchise. It is very much possible to change a franchise contract

DfT are not being as prescriptive about rolling stock as in the last round.

Well, to some extent.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

However, even if it isn't mentioned in the ITT, it is not impossible that this could still happen during the lifetime of the franchise. It is very much possible to change a franchise contract

DfT don't like changing franchise contracts, though a management contract may be easier.
The point really was whether EC would be reconfigured to take on services terminating at King's Cross (as opposed to those disappearing down the Thameslink tunnel).
As the EC refranchising planning must also be well advanced it doesn't look like this is on the agenda.

 

[hwl]

Since the first 10 of the 110mph AC110 Class 387 units are to be cascaded by Dec 2016 which coincides with start of electrified services to Oxford and Newbury, it seems a reasonable bet that these units (and probably the other 19 units) will be heading for the GWML vice Class 319s originally proposed.

Oxford / Newbury needs 110mph capability (according to NR) to run on the Fasts efficiently so that were they almost certainly will be heading. Also there weren't enough 319s for both GW and Northern electrifications.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Oxford / Newbury needs 110mph capability (according to NR) to run on the Fasts efficiently so that were they almost certainly will be heading. Also there weren't enough 319s for both GW and Northern electrifications.

You could build a similar scenario for TPE though.
Manchester-Blackpool in 2016, TP in 2018 (110mph needed on WCML/ECML).
Not saying you're wrong.
TP was mentioned in the "possible" destinations for these trains (and MML) when ordered.