Siemens' announces the Desiro Verve

[jopsuk]

The door layout is also fine for the GEML- all 34 Up services are under 2 hrs (some of the later Down services are a bit longer), and off peak it alternates between services with four intermediate and seven intermediate stops. There's quite a few longer services on other lines using 4-car commuter units- a fleet of these in suitable fixed formation & interior layout might be a good compromise between the traditional intercity status and the reality of it as a jumped-up commuter line.
Sheffield-London isn't much longer, Nottingham-London is shorter

 

[TheNewNo2]

Well the model looks nice, and 125mph would make them more useful as HST/222/90+Mk3 replacements. That said I'm not sold on 1/3-2/3 doors on intercity stock.

 

[Juniper Driver]

Not sure if this has been done but Siemens really have a verve.

 

[47802]

Clearly a response to a potential 125mph version of Aventra.

The idea that a fleet of AT-300 bi modes with end doors couldn't work TPX is nonsense. Agreed they wouldn't be very suitable for the semi fast service, but could work fasts on the north TPX route and the Scottish services, but 1/3 2/3doors would probably be more suitable overall.

 

[jopsuk]

I'd like to see the technical material on this- I'm betting "end doors" is an option, but (as with the livery/logo?) they've been chatting to potential customers about what might be wanted (and that's ended up on the model)

 

[Class377/5]

I'd like to see the technical material on this- I'm betting "end doors" is an option, but (as with the livery/logo?) they've been chatting to potential customers about what might be wanted (and that's ended up on the model)

The Desiro City model they made had the same livery as they are being built in prior to the deal going through.

 

[NSEFAN]

Well the model looks nice, and 125mph would make them more useful as HST/222/90+Mk3 replacements. That said I'm not sold on 1/3-2/3 doors on intercity stock.

To be honest the distinction between Intercity and commuter traffic is a lot more blurred than it used to be, especially on high speed services into London. On the southern end of the GEML I would expect 1/3 and 2/3 doors to be much more useful than narrower end doors. Also, once HS2 is operational I expect that the MML will be "downgraded" to a high-speed commuter railway with fewer non-stop trains, again making 1/3 and 2/3 doors more useful.

 

[edwin_m]

Clearly a response to a potential 125mph version of Aventra.

The idea that a fleet of AT-300 bi modes with end doors couldn't work TPX is nonsense. Agreed they wouldn't be very suitable for the semi fast service, but could work fasts on the north TPX route and the Scottish services, but 1/3 2/3doors would probably be more suitable overall.

If you're going to call my comments "nonsense" then I suggest you provide a reason. You seem to be arguing that the 1/3 2/3 door spacing is "more suitable overall", there is very little distinction between fasts and slows on North TPE, and on the Scottish routes TPE provides the slows.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you're going to call my comments "nonsense" then I suggest you provide a reason. You seem to be arguing that the 1/3 2/3 door spacing is "more suitable overall", there is very little distinction between fasts and slows on North TPE, and on the Scottish routes TPE provides the slows.

The Scottish TPE services aren't "slows" and are probably the most suitable TPE services for end-doored stock. I would suggest some kind of Class 444-like stock, perhaps 7 or 8-car x 23m, as ideal.

 

[AM9]

If the model pictured is truly representative of a likely deliverable design it looks like it follows the trend set by the 800/801 design, i.e. 23m or 26m coaches with inset bogie centres giving them the same inward swing over platforms, and tapered ends to ensure that their outswing fits current load gauges.
That requires one new design feature, a gangway design that can cope with existing minimum radius reverse curves on crossovers, and gives a big benefit, that gauge clearance should require minimal changes, if any. Along with that benefit, if the doors are located reasonably near the bogie centres (somewhere near 1/3 & 2/3?), it is easier to achive a good TPI.
I would suggest that the realisation of such benefits would see the demise of end doors on any but the most 'rural ambling' stock or genuine long-duration minimal-stop expresses

 

[northwichcat]

Interesting... Intercity, 125mph and 1/3 2/3 doors - I'm warming to these layouts over end doors lately, the end door units I use regular (158/220) are just painful at platforms, especially with people sat right next to the doors

Personally I've never understood the argument for narrow end doors on services with limited stops. OK it may not affect dwell times but surely passengers don't want it to take a long time to get off at the terminus station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

there is very little distinction between fasts and slows on North TPE

There will be from December 2017.

All TPE Liverpool services will run non-stop to Victoria, then will only call at Huddersfield and Leeds on the way to York. Airport services will call at multiple stations in Manchester but will be express services after Victoria.

Piccadilly-Selby/Hull services will call at quite a few stations between Piccadilly and Leeds, so they will carry a significant number of short distance commuters - similar to the Blackpool to Airport services now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Scottish TPE services aren't "slows" and are probably the most suitable TPE services for end-doored stock. I would suggest some kind of Class 444-like stock, perhaps 7 or 8-car x 23m, as ideal.

Yes the calling pattern is similar to Birmingham-Scotland services north of Wigan.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally I've never understood the argument for narrow end doors on services with limited stops. OK it may not affect dwell times but surely passengers don't want it to take a long time to get off at the terminus station.

Fewer draughts and more flexibility as to vehicle layout if you just have one long tube without obstructions. Also the ends need to be tapered in to fit in loading gauge, so you don't have narrow seats at the vehicle ends, you can instead put the doors there. It can mean a big step, but you could fit retractable steps as on the Pendolino and some Swiss stock.

It's not so much passengers *want* to take ages to get off, it's that it is acceptable on a longer journey for the other trade-offs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes the calling pattern is similar to Birmingham-Scotland services north of Wigan.

Essentially, the Barrow/Windermere services aside, the north WCML doesn't have "fasts" and "slows", it's all skip-stop.

 

[Haydn1971]

Has there been any definitive study on the end vs mid door dwell times ? It certainly feels more rapid on mid door multiple unit stock (185 etc) vs end door (158/22x) - the lack of compress space doesn't help on the latter, with mid door stock having a crush space in the entry areas and seemingly space to pass standing passengers in the aisles, where as the loading on 158/22x seems to stay in single file and hampered by the secondary door into the passenger compartment - the door that is open at the same time as the outer door so kinda kills the argument for reducing drafts to a degree.

 

[edwin_m]

Has there been any definitive study on the end vs mid door dwell times ? It certainly feels more rapid on mid door multiple unit stock (185 etc) vs end door (158/22x) - the lack of compress space doesn't help on the latter, with mid door stock having a crush space in the entry areas and seemingly space to pass standing passengers in the aisles, where as the loading on 158/22x seems to stay in single file and hampered by the secondary door into the passenger compartment - the door that is open at the same time as the outer door so kinda kills the argument for reducing drafts to a degree.

It was claimed in Modern Railways, around the time the 185s were ordered that the saving from reduced dwell times with double doors was more than that from increasing the size of the engines. I've an idea this was in relation to whatever Bombardier offered, not the actual 185s that were bought.

 

[bramling]

Just remember its the seats on a Desiro City not the windows that aren't lined up not the other way around. And the customer can choose to have seats lined up if they wanted.

Of course comparing the 158 with end doors to a 1/3, 2/3 set up isn't quite the same thing.



Er the modern Electrostar doesn't line up the seats with windows either! And fails the windows all the same size in the of the for coaches on the 4 car versions.

I agree to a point that it's down to the customer (i.e. TOC), however in general Bombardier's units tend to be better for those who enjoy viewing out of the Window.

On an Electrostar or Turbostar, it's fair to say that *most* seats provide a decent window view - especially the earlier variations of Electrostar.

By contrast, though not too bad Desiros are generally not as good, such that if you want a decent view you need to pay some attention to where you sit. On classes 350/450 the windows next to the doors are set back quite far and are comparatively small, so if you sit in one of these seats you won't get a fantastic view. Likewise on the class 444 quite a few seats have a constricted view for one reason or another.

The Networker classes are particularly good in this respect - on a class 365 virtually *every* seat offers a decent view.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have thought in the past a 5-car "Class 344" would be a good fit. Perhaps this is exactly that, though a 110mph version, if cheaper, would be fine, and could have a through gangway.

My only reservation with going for 5 cars is the temptation for the TOC to run 5-car trains off-peak. It's okay if the trains are doubled up for all but the very quietest services, however experience elsewhere shows this doesn't always happen. The last thing we need is a repeat of CrossCountry.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My only reservation with going for 5 cars is the temptation for the TOC to run 5-car trains off-peak. It's okay if the trains are doubled up for all but the very quietest services, however experience elsewhere shows this doesn't always happen. The last thing we need is a repeat of CrossCountry.

True. The issue is I guess where 5 is too short but 10 too long. 4s may be a better option if gangwayed, then you can do 4/8/12, but then you get far too many 4s on their own.

 

[47802]

If you're going to call my comments "nonsense" then I suggest you provide a reason. You seem to be arguing that the 1/3 2/3 door spacing is "more suitable overall", there is very little distinction between fasts and slows on North TPE, and on the Scottish routes TPE provides the slows.

A jcollins has said future TPX semi-fasts will call at more stations than at present, with the fasts well being fasts.

So it would seem feasible that AT-300 style bi-modes could be accommodated on fasts without too much of a problem, On Electrification you could get some pure electrics with suburban style doors for the Semi-fast services, however whether you really want 2 different style trains is another matter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So it would seem feasible that AT-300 style bi-modes could be accommodated on fasts without too much of a problem, On Electrification you could get some pure electrics with suburban style doors for the Semi-fast services, however whether you really want 2 different style trains is another matter.

SWT seem to manage.

 

[wimbledonpete]

The Networker classes are particularly good in this respect - on a class 365 virtually *every* seat offers a decent view.

As I remember from working at NSE at the time, a window for every seat was one of the design points of the Networkers, certainly the electric ones, not sure about the 165s etc.

 

[hassaanhc]

As I remember from working at NSE at the time, a window for every seat was one of the design points of the Networkers, certainly the electric ones, not sure about the 165s etc.

All the Networker variants have quite thin window pillars, certainly compared to the chunky ones that came before them on the MK3 or PEP stock, as well as afterwards on the Bombardier Electrostar and Turbostar range.
Siemens also have chunky window pillars on the Desiro range, which, as mentioned before, are thicker next to doors.
The Alstom Juniper range however have thinner window pillars, certainly the 458 and 460 did.

 

[edwin_m]

A jcollins has said future TPX semi-fasts will call at more stations than at present, with the fasts well being fasts.

So it would seem feasible that AT-300 style bi-modes could be accommodated on fasts without too much of a problem, On Electrification you could get some pure electrics with suburban style doors for the Semi-fast services, however whether you really want 2 different style trains is another matter.

But if you consider that the fasts need to be bi-modes, then wouldn't exactly the same reasoning apply to the slows?

 

[Haydn1971]

Anyone would think that Hitachi are the only firm capable of building a bi-mode

 

[AM9]

All the Networker variants have quite thin window pillars, certainly compared to the chunky ones that came before them on the MK3 or PEP stock, as well as afterwards on the Bombardier Electrostar and Turbostar range.
Siemens also have chunky window pillars on the Desiro range, which, as mentioned before, are thicker next to doors.
The Alstom Juniper range however have thinner window pillars, certainly the 458 and 460 did.

The Networker's body was designed over 25 years ago. Are the thin window pillars compliant with current crashworthiness specifications?

 

[47802]

But if you consider that the fasts need to be bi-modes, then wouldn't exactly the same reasoning apply to the slows?

Not really you could order bi-modes with end doors for the fasts, which would allow an increase in capacity before electrification is completed and allow such as Scarborough to remain on the TPE Map after electrification.

Semi-fasts could remain 185 worked until electrification is complete
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Anyone would think that Hitachi are the only firm capable of building a bi-mode

Well I personally doubt you will get another Manufacturer sticking the 940bhp MTU lump underneath, when Hitachi have already produced primary long distance Bi-mode for the UK, but I suspect the others may offer a smaller engine bi-mode, under their Suburban door style designs, if there is demand for such a train from Northern and/or TPX etc.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Are the thin window pillars compliant with current crashworthiness specifications?

If you threw enough money at it, almost certainly it could be done - you would probably end up with a somewhat heavier carriage though, with a more complex structural design. So the question would then come down to:

a) Would the production run be large enough to spread the cost of the design work on the more complex structure out a bit more?

and

b) Would you gain enough extra passengers purely on the basis of the better view that you could counter the extra costs of running heavier carriages?

 

[Bevan Price]

Personally I've never understood the argument for narrow end doors on services with limited stops. OK it may not affect dwell times but surely passengers don't want it to take a long time to get off at the terminus station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


There will be from December 2017.

All TPE Liverpool services will run non-stop to Victoria, then will only call at Huddersfield and Leeds on the way to York. Airport services will call at multiple stations in Manchester but will be express services after Victoria.

Piccadilly-Selby/Hull services will call at quite a few stations between Piccadilly and Leeds, so they will carry a significant number of short distance commuters - similar to the Blackpool to Airport services now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Yes the calling pattern is similar to Birmingham-Scotland services north of Wigan.

If / when Liverpool - Manchester Victoria goes to 2 trains per hour, it is likely that one of these will call at St. Helens Junction and / or Newton Le Willows - quite possibly replacing stops on the semi-fast Liverpool - Manchester Airport services.

Whatever happens, TPE will probably want just a single design of emu, and that will most likely be a 1/3 & 2/3 door layout. Only if Manchester Airport / Liverpool - Scotland get moved to a different TOC are we likely to see a different type of emu on these services.

I can only hope that TPE gets something more sensible than 3 or 4 coach emus for their electrified routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

b) Would you gain enough extra passengers purely on the basis of the better view that you could counter the extra costs of running heavier carriages?

Steel Desiros (350/450/444) are of course notoriously heavy, though the newer ones are aluminium and lighter. The narrower window pillars may not be viable, but if you make a design with a Standard Class window bay size that fits a usual seat layout (cf the Electrostar other than the recent sardine tin variety) it's far less of a problem.

 

[Bigfoot]

Steel Desiros (350/450/444) are of course notoriously heavy, though the newer ones are aluminium and lighter. The narrower window pillars may not be viable, but if you make a design with a Standard Class window bay size that fits a usual seat layout (cf the Electrostar other than the recent sardine tin variety) it's far less of a problem.

Only problem here is that certainly the 450 and 444 bodyshells are most definitely aluminium and I would put money on all other Desiro bodies to be exactly the same.

 

[edwin_m]

Only problem here is that certainly the 450 and 444 bodyshells are most definitely aluminium and I would put money on all other Desiro bodies to be exactly the same.

Desiro City is certainly aluminium. Recent magazine article (don't remember which mag) refers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not really you could order bi-modes with end doors for the fasts, which would allow an increase in capacity before electrification is completed and allow such as Scarborough to remain on the TPE Map after electrification.

Semi-fasts could remain 185 worked until electrification is complete

So you're suggesting the extra costs of bi-modes and of splitting the fleet simply to bring forward a capacity enhancement by a couple of years? And if Scarborough is still on the TPE network it would be served by a slow, which by your reckoning wouldn't be a bi-mode anyway.

 

[fgwrich]

Only problem here is that certainly the 450 and 444 bodyshells are most definitely aluminium and I would put money on all other Desiro bodies to be exactly the same.

They are indeed Aluminium - Thicker than Bombardiers efforts though, while the bogies are cast steel.

But whilst a Desiro may be heavy, a Electrostar with transformer is even heavier. And the new 387s will have a larger battery pack as a result of the Harwich line trials. So an extra 5 or so tonnes heaver still.