Idea: AT300/IEP for MML and XC

[TheWalrus]

If HSTS are to be withdrawn by 2020 to comply with DDA without needing conversion then EMT and XC will need new stock. XC could get 10 new 5-car AT300s for Scotland-West Country services splitting and joining at Bristol. EMT could get 24x5-car sets or 12 9-car sets to replace their HSTS.

Alternatively XC could get more and release Voyagers to EMT and potentially some of the turbostar services. 170s could then be cascaded to Cardiff-Portsmouth, then in turn the 166s go to Bristol-Weymouths and 165s go to Exeter metro services. 150s and/or 158s from Exeter could go to Northern/TPE or the 150s could be retired.

Another possibility is that 170s go to Northern and TPE for strengthening, although I think 165s would be good for Exeter metro services with short dwell times and fast acceleration.

 

[Haydn1971]

There's a little fly in the ointment called competitive tender

 

[HSTEd]

Competitive tendering - the bane of any kind of attempt at standardisation

 

[DarloRich]

Competitive tendering - the bane of any kind of attempt at standardisation

or best value for the tax payer. There would be no problem if we actually had a strategy for rolling stock procurement in this country as opposed to the scatter gun approach we seem to take.

I have often thought about releasing Voyagers.................. out of a cannon

 

[northwichcat]

Competitive tendering - the bane of any kind of attempt at standardisation

Not necessarily.

London Midland issued an ITT for EMUs saying compatibility with existing EMUs in the LM fleet is required. Siemens decided they has 350/1s so we'll offer 350s with higher density seating (to meet one of the other requirement) and Bombardier, Alstom and any others had no chance of winning.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

170s could then be cascaded to Cardiff-Portsmouth, then in turn the 166s go to Bristol-Weymouths and 165s go to Exeter metro services. 150s and/or 158s from Exeter could go to Northern/TPE or the 150s could be retired.

Another possibility is that 170s go to Northern and TPE for strengthening, although I think 165s would be good for Exeter metro services with short dwell times and fast acceleration.

Given Northern are expected to take on the 87 Turbostar carriages released by Scotrail, for the sake of consistent fleets it would make sense for any further Turbostars released to go to either Northern or LM, who then may possibly be able to release Sprinters to other franchises, maybe 150s to take over the 142/143 duties on Valley Lines prior to electrification?

FGW pretty much have everything sorted for their DMU requirements for the next five years by the time they'll release their 143s, 150/1s and 153s and cascade most of their 16xs west.

 

[WatcherZero]

They are legally required to provide the TMS codes to their competitors if requested so another manufacturer could have produced compatible stock.

 

[TheWalrus]

I wasn't aware of the 170s going to Northern! Just didn't want to leave them out!

 

[RobShipway]

The class 166's would be better left on the Portsmouth - Cardiff as there is more that you can do with these, then you could with the class 170's.

Due to the fact they are 3 car trains, you can couple two together to make a 6 car train, which would be 3 carriages more than currently seen on the Portsmouth - Cardiff route or change some sets to be 2 car class 166's to replace class 150's doing local services, then the spare carriage can be inserted into a an existing 3 car set to make a four car train to do the Portsmouth - Cardiff trains. But this is just a couple of wild ideas.

When it comes to MML or XC they both could do with the Hitachi AT300 Hybrid or something similar from one of the other manufacturers like Bombardier or Siemens.

 

[TheWalrus]

The class 166's would be better left on the Portsmouth - Cardiff as there is more that you can do with these, then you could with the class 170's.

Due to the fact they are 3 car trains, you can couple two together to make a 6 car train, which would be 3 carriages more than currently seen on the Portsmouth - Cardiff route or change some sets to be 2 car class 166's to replace class 150's doing local services, then the spare carriage can be inserted into a an existing 3 car set to make a four car train to do the Portsmouth - Cardiff trains. But this is just a couple of wild ideas.

When it comes to MML or XC they both could do with the Hitachi AT300 Hybrid or something similar from one of the other manufacturers like Bombardier or Siemens.

Is there any reason these things can't be done with 170s?

I think the plan is for the 166s to work with 2 car 165s on Cardiff-Portsmouth to form 5 car sets. So my idea would be to run 2x2 car 170; 1x3 car or 1x3 car and 1x2 car.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also if the LO 172s go to Chiltern will this release some of their 165s?

 

[HSTEd]

This is one of those reasons I believe TMS/coupling interface specifications should be set by the railway and noone else.
Along the lines of the AAR coupling and MU equipment in the US.

 

[TheWalrus]

This is one of those reasons I believe TMS/coupling interface specifications should be set by the railway and noone else.
Along the lines of the AAR coupling and MU equipment in the US.

Agreed. Standardisation would make sense here.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

There's a little fly in the ointment called competitive tender

Competitive tendering - the bane of any kind of attempt at standardisation

True, but on the other hand with other manufacturers apart from Hitachi have a UK gauge Intercity* EMU ready for the UK market. As far as I'm aware Bombardier don't anything suitable; Siemens have the Verve but that is little more than a concept at the moment and not suitable for MML and XC; Alstrom may build some more Pendolino's following on from the GNWR order but given the quoted price in Modern Railways for a AT-300 Bi-mode unit of around 2 Million per carriage then I think Hitachi may have the Intercity market in the UK sewn up.

*By Intercity I mean end doors not 1/3 and 2/3 door layout etc.

 

[Kite159]

The class 166's would be better left on the Portsmouth - Cardiff as there is more that you can do with these, then you could with the class 170's.

Due to the fact they are 3 car trains, you can couple two together to make a 6 car train, which would be 3 carriages more than currently seen on the Portsmouth - Cardiff route or change some sets to be 2 car class 166's to replace class 150's doing local services, then the spare carriage can be inserted into a an existing 3 car set to make a four car train to do the Portsmouth - Cardiff trains. But this is just a couple of wild ideas.

When it comes to MML or XC they both could do with the Hitachi AT300 Hybrid or something similar from one of the other manufacturers like Bombardier or Siemens.

170s would be so much better than the 165+166s for Cardiff/Portsmouth services. Proper 2+2 seating with decent tables. Rather than 3+2 with a few 2+2 narrow seats with tiny tables.

Bymode makes sense for XC for the parts of their network which is under the wires (Coventry/new street to Piccadilly, York to Glasgow) which would save fuel.

 

[HSTEd]

True, but on the other hand with other manufacturers apart from Hitachi have a UK gauge Intercity* EMU ready for the UK market. As far as I'm aware Bombardier don't anything suitable; Siemens have the Verve but that is little more than a concept at the moment and not suitable for MML and XC; Alstrom may build some more Pendolino's following on from the GNWR order but given the quoted price in Modern Railways for a AT-300 Bi-mode unit of around 2 Million per carriage then I think Hitachi may have the Intercity market in the UK sewn up.

*By Intercity I mean end doors not 1/3 and 2/3 door layout etc.

As it is likely that bi mode will be the new normal (no new pure diesel stock I imagine) from now on I imagine Alstom, Siemens or Bombardier would put something together.

Don't Bombardier build bi-modes for use in France and in Canada?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

As it is likely that bi mode will be the new normal (no new pure diesel stock I imagine) from now on I imagine Alstom, Siemens or Bombardier would put something together.

Don't Bombardier build bi-modes for use in France and in Canada?

Agreed, it will be interesting to see what comes out the new TPE franchise if the rumour about bidders offering a bi-mode solution turn out to be true, could make things interesting.

 

[Haydn1971]

given the quoted price in Modern Railways for a AT-300 Bi-mode unit of around 2 Million per carriage then I think Hitachi may have the Intercity market in the UK sewn up.

Although the proposed Hull Trains order comes in at £2.72m per carriage - unless there's other work rolled into the £68m quoted figure.

 

[TheWalrus]

170s would be so much better than the 165+166s for Cardiff/Portsmouth services. Proper 2+2 seating with decent tables. Rather than 3+2 with a few 2+2 narrow seats with tiny tables.

Bymode makes sense for XC for the parts of their network which is under the wires (Coventry/new street to Piccadilly, York to Glasgow) which would save fuel.

From what I've heard the 166s will be refurbished to long distance standard similar to 158s.

 

[jimm]

True, but on the other hand with other manufacturers apart from Hitachi have a UK gauge Intercity* EMU ready for the UK market. As far as I'm aware Bombardier don't anything suitable; Siemens have the Verve but that is little more than a concept at the moment and not suitable for MML and XC; Alstrom may build some more Pendolino's following on from the GNWR order but given the quoted price in Modern Railways for a AT-300 Bi-mode unit of around 2 Million per carriage then I think Hitachi may have the Intercity market in the UK sewn up.

*By Intercity I mean end doors not 1/3 and 2/3 door layout etc.

The Bombardier Aventra can run at up to 125mph and be provided with any door configuration you want.

http://uk.bombardier.com/en/transportation/presence-in-country/future-concepts-projects.html
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also if the LO 172s go to Chiltern will this release some of their 165s?

Where would these 165s go? FGW would probably not want them because the 165/0s can only run at 75mph, not 90mph which is the top speed of the 165/1s and 166s.

And the bogie on the 172s does not allow for the fitting of London Underground tripcocks, which is why the existing Chiltern 172s are confined to the High Wycombe route, so I can't see Chiltern wanting to reduce the number of sets in its fleet that could work on the Metropolitan Line but equally would they want more two-car sets on the Wycombe line? They still don't seem to have worked out what to do with the existing 172s after ditching the Gerrards Cross shuttles idea.

 

[northwichcat]

I wasn't aware of the 170s going to Northern! Just didn't want to leave them out!

I did say likely not confirmed. The Northern ITT says a minimum of 120 new vehicles plus any 15x and 17xs which are being released that bidders can secure. A number of experts see that as DfT want them to take on all the 15xs and 17xs being released so the order of new trains for Northern can be kept as small as possible e.g. 120 new vehicles and 87 Scotrail Turbostar vehicles is better than 207 new vehicles.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

170s would be so much better than the 165+166s for Cardiff/Portsmouth services. Proper 2+2 seating with decent tables. Rather than 3+2 with a few 2+2 narrow seats with tiny tables.

I thought all the FGW 166s were supposed to be refurbished to have 2+2 seating and tables throughout, with the intention being FGW run services as 5 car with a 2 car 165 (retaining 3+2 seating) attached to each of the refurbished 166s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They are legally required to provide the TMS codes to their competitors if requested so another manufacturer could have produced compatible stock.

Siemens had an off the shelf product that was compatible already, the other bidders would have had to develop one so would presumably have incurred more costs.

 

[47802]

I wasn't aware of the 170s going to Northern! Just didn't want to leave them out!

Its a possibility but by no means definite, As 'JCollins' likes to point out its specified as an option in the ITT if some are available, but to some people that apparently means they WILL be going to Northern, but then 165/166 are an option for TPX but doesn't mean any will actually go there.

 

[Wolfie]

And the bogie on the 172s does not allow for the fitting of London Underground tripcocks, which is why the existing Chiltern 172s are confined to the High Wycombe route, so I can't see Chiltern wanting to reduce the number of sets in its fleet that could work on the Metropolitan Line but equally would they want more two-car sets on the Wycombe line? They still don't seem to have worked out what to do with the existing 172s after ditching the Gerrards Cross shuttles idea.

Move all of the 172s to LM and release some 170s from there to Chiltern? Has standardisation benefits (the 170s would be '168ised') and solves the tripcock issue...

 

[swt_passenger]

The trip cock issue is transitional as SSR resignalling won't use them.

 

[northwichcat]

Move all of the 172s to LM and release some 170s from there to Chiltern? Has standardisation benefits (the 170s would be '168ised') and solves the tripcock issue...

Apart from the LO and Chiltern 172s don't have corridor connectors, so you'd have two subfleets of the same class of train in the LM fleet.

While Chiltern had a long term left to run on their franchise when they secured the TPE 170/3s, the same won't be true when the LO 172s are released so paying for converting more 170s to 168s may not be an option until the next Chiltern franchise is awarded.

Also I thought Chiltern's plan for the 168/1s and /2s was a consistent 3 car fleet, with the 4 car ones being shortened to create centre cars for the converted 170/3s so would LM want to release 4 of their 3 car 170s to Chiltern?

 

[jimm]

The trip cock issue is transitional as SSR resignalling won't use them.

And we know how well that resignalling project has been going... the new timetable under the Thales agreement says it will take until 2022-23 to complete, so even Gospel Oak-Barking wires might beat that by a distance.

Its a possibility but by no means definite, As 'JCollins' likes to point out its specified as an option in the ITT if some are available, but to some people that apparently means they WILL be going to Northern, but then 165/166 are an option for TPX but doesn't mean any will actually go there.

Since when are they an option for TPX? The only place the Turbos are going is a bit further west on the GW system - or staying put at Reading.

If there are issues with wiring East West, then eight 172s from LO might be a handy stopgap to get services started, should their release from London come by 2019. Chiltern may also need then to allow it to operate to MK... who knows? But if they do go to Chiltern, it would be unlikely to release any 165s as a result.

 

[northwichcat]

Since when are they an option for TPX? The only place the Turbos are going is a bit further west on the GW system - or staying put at Reading.

The TPE ITT was issued before the FGW Direct Award was finalised and included the option for any 16xs, 18xs or 22xs which will be freed up by their existing operators to be taken on by TPE.

All those options were effectively ruled out before TPE bids were submitted. The FGW Direct Award confirmed they were keeping all their 16xs and releasing 15xs (which TPE bidders were not allowed to propose taking on), the FGW 18xs had been secured by Grand Central and there were no confirmed plans for HT to release 18xs yet. MML electrification had been delayed so no 222s being released either.

 

[JamesRowden]

If HSTS are to be withdrawn by 2020 to comply with DDA without needing conversion then EMT and XC will need new stock. XC could get 10 new 5-car AT300s for Scotland-West Country services splitting and joining at Bristol. EMT could get 24x5-car sets or 12 9-car sets to replace their HSTS.

Alternatively XC could get more and release Voyagers to EMT and potentially some of the turbostar services. 170s could then be cascaded to Cardiff-Portsmouth, then in turn the 166s go to Bristol-Weymouths and 165s go to Exeter metro services. 150s and/or 158s from Exeter could go to Northern/TPE or the 150s could be retired.

Another possibility is that 170s go to Northern and TPE for strengthening, although I think 165s would be good for Exeter metro services with short dwell times and fast acceleration.

If bimode AT300s with dual-voltage capability could be ordered at little extra cost (when compared to the OHLE/Diesel version), then the Manchester to Bournemouth service and the interworked Manchester to Bristol service would seem like the better routes for Crosscountry to opreate (or partially operate) with AT300s since only the Coventry to Oxford and Birmingham to Bristol Parkway sections of these routes would be unelectrified.

 

[TheWalrus]

The Bombardier Aventra can run at up to 125mph and be provided with any door configuration you want.

http://uk.bombardier.com/en/transportation/presence-in-country/future-concepts-projects.html
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Where would these 165s go? FGW would probably not want them because the 165/0s can only run at 75mph, not 90mph which is the top speed of the 165/1s and 166s.

And the bogie on the 172s does not allow for the fitting of London Underground tripcocks, which is why the existing Chiltern 172s are confined to the High Wycombe route, so I can't see Chiltern wanting to reduce the number of sets in its fleet that could work on the Metropolitan Line but equally would they want more two-car sets on the Wycombe line? They still don't seem to have worked out what to do with the existing 172s after ditching the Gerrards Cross shuttles idea.

I think the 165/0s would be more than adequate for Exmouth-Paignton. Is it only 165s that can use the metropolitan line?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If bimode AT300s with dual-voltage capability could be ordered at little extra cost (when compared to the OHLE/Diesel version), then the Manchester to Bournemouth service and the interworked Manchester to Bristol service would seem like the better routes for Crosscountry to opreate (or partially operate) with AT300s since only the Coventry to Oxford and Birmingham to Bristol Parkway sections of these routes would be unelectrified.

They would need a third rail shoe as well though, would it make more sense to diagram Manchester-Bournemouth separately with a 395 derivative? With the Bristol services Voyagers or AT300?

Also Coventry-Oxford is due to be electrified as part of the Electric Spine.

 

[JamesRowden]

They would need a third rail shoe as well though, would it make more sense to diagram Manchester-Bournemouth separately with a 395 derivative? With the Bristol services Voyagers or AT300?

Also Coventry-Oxford is due to be electrified as part of the Electric Spine.

395s are AT300s.

 

[Haydn1971]

395s are AT300s.

Not quite - 395's existed before the AT300 eurobrand was thought up.

 

[JamesRowden]

Not quite - 395's existed before the AT300 eurobrand was thought up.

Then why do Hitachi say:

Our AT 300 product is the basis for our very successful Class 395 unit built for HS1 operation

http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/at-300-high-speed_47.html