TPE franchise awarded to First

[jimm]

It's short-distance commuters trying once again to put their needs above those of the longer- and long-distance passengers. These trains are being ordered to operate long-distance services (the equivalent of London to Plymouth and more) and should offer long-distance standards.

I didn't realise that TPE's passengers were designing these trains...

The Class 395 door arrangement is likely to be the one used on these trains if the order does go to Hitachi and I'm afraid that the notion that the 395s are like some sort of suburban unit just does not stack up.

Yes, some of the end to end journeys will be long, but, as you admit, these trains will also have to cope with the large volume of peak passengers making shorter journeys in the core between Leeds, Huddersfield and Manchester, where end doors would produce very long station dwell times, which is not what you want if trying to run a reliable and punctual 6tph service.

 

[Greybeard33]

Will be interesting to see if mid door bi-modes have been possible - smaller power racks with the interim development time since IEP/AT300 fleet design - I can see the forum going into meltdown otherwise

The Class 395 door arrangement is likely to be the one used on these trains if the order does go to Hitachi and I'm afraid that the notion that the 395s are like some sort of suburban unit just does not stack up.

Yes, some of the end to end journeys will be long, but, as you admit, these trains will also have to cope with the large volume of peak passengers making shorter journeys in the core between Leeds, Huddersfield and Manchester, where end doors would produce very long station dwell times, which is not what you want if trying to run a reliable and punctual 6tph service.

Haydn1971 seems to have "started a hare" with his suggestion that smaller diesel generator power rafts could have been developed since the Class 800 was designed. However, the 12V 1600 R80LP 700kW PowerPack is still state of the art according to the MTU website.

A radical breakthrough in diesel engine technology (or repeal of the laws of physics?!) would surely be needed to reduce the height of this unit sufficiently to get rid of the sloping floor in the AT300 power cars. Unless this technology exists, mid doors are impractical in these bi-mode units and so discussion of their merits is pointless.

The Class 395 is an EMU, not subject to the design compromises necessary in a bi-mode.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A radical breakthrough in diesel engine technology (or repeal of the laws of physics?!) would surely be needed to reduce the height of this unit sufficiently to get rid of the sloping floor in the AT300 power cars. Unless this technology exists, mid doors are impractical in these bi-mode units and so discussion of their merits is pointless.

Or you build a battery hybrid with a smaller engine. Then a combination of regen and a smaller engine continuously running at peak power output can provide the same acceleration.

Or would it even be possible to go back to 1st generation DMU days and have multiple smaller engines per vehicle?

 

[northwichcat]

After years of extensive training I can see that my train has 8 doors. Unfortunately those who have not endured the rigours of this training (passengers) may only see 1 door and, unfortunately, all congregate around it - even though there are others - just a few yards away

Outside the Merseyrail area in the North we don't seem to have CIS which tells passengers how long the train is. At stations like Stockport and Sheffield they tell you the length of the London services but not the Northern or TPE ones.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Outside the Merseyrail area in the North we don't seem to have CIS which tells passengers how long the train is. At stations like Stockport and Sheffield they tell you the length of the London services but not the Northern or TPE ones.

Personally, I think full train formation information should be provided graphically. It is not beyond the capabilities of technology to do that - it just requires software.

 

[jimm]

A radical breakthrough in diesel engine technology (or repeal of the laws of physics?!) would surely be needed to reduce the height of this unit sufficiently to get rid of the sloping floor in the AT300 power cars. Unless this technology exists, mid doors are impractical in these bi-mode units and so discussion of their merits is pointless.

The Class 395 is an EMU, not subject to the design compromises necessary in a bi-mode.

Perhaps you might take a look at a 395 and the door positions in relation to the bogies. The engine raft, etc all has to fit in the space between the bogies, so how about a raised floor section over that central area of the coach for the TPE bi-modes, where it would actually needed to squeeze the MTU underneath, with the coach ends having standard-height floors? The raised floor only runs the length of the saloon in the 800s because they have end vestibules and doors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What's that got to do with where the doors go?

You have no need for a raised floor.

To be fair, you have no need for a raised floor in a DMU either, if you put the engine(s) above floor level. The likelihood of doing that is why I think it's a shame we didn't see a Stadler DMU for Northern.

 

[Haydn1971]

Haydn1971 seems to have "started a hare" with his suggestion that smaller diesel generator power rafts could have been developed since the Class 800 was designed. However, the 12V 1600 R80LP 700kW PowerPack is still state of the art according to the MTU website.

A radical breakthrough in diesel engine technology (or repeal of the laws of physics?!) would surely be needed to reduce the height of this unit sufficiently to get rid of the sloping floor in the AT300 power cars. Unless this technology exists, mid doors are impractical in these bi-mode units and so discussion of their merits is pointless.



The Class 395 is an EMU, not subject to the design compromises necessary in a bi-mode.

A lovely picture there, my point being that would TPE versions of a AT300 need as big a power pack as the 800/802's - most of the non-wired TPE network has slow speed limits - let's say 90mph at most - under the wires, the speed limits are higher (125mph Max). So would the TPE bi-modes need the BR1600 power pack ? A less tall and less powerful unit could provide enough output to diesel power TPE with the 125mph headline being provided just on the ECML, because as we know, 110mph is as fast as it's going to go on the WCML.

Thus flat floor and 395 style doors

 

[Bletchleyite]

I must admit I can see quite a few places where there is a good case for a unit that will run at 125 or 110mph under the wires but where 75mph would be fine on diesel.

 

[The Ham]

I must admit I can see quite a few places where there is a good case for a unit that will run at 125 or 110mph under the wires but where 75mph would be fine on diesel.

Given the AT300's/80x's will have a limp home mode of (IIRC) 40mph on just one engine for a 9 coach train then a shorter train with a higher required top speed should (at least the logic in my head thinks so) be able to cope with a smaller unit if there were enough of them (in the same way that engine bays in cars tend to be smaller in smaller cars than they are in larger cars with more powerful engines).

 

[Domh245]

A radical breakthrough in diesel engine technology (or repeal of the laws of physics?!)

Or a boxer (flat) engine instead of a V, albeit at considerably increased cost.

 

[JaJaWa]

Personally, I think full train formation information should be provided graphically. It is not beyond the capabilities of technology to do that - it just requires software.

Indeed, Virgin have proven that is is possible at Euston (at least and possibly elsewhere).

 

[Class 170101]

A lovely picture there, my point being that would TPE versions of a AT300 need as big a power pack as the 800/802's - most of the non-wired TPE network has slow speed limits - let's say 90mph at most - under the wires, the speed limits are higher (125mph Max). So would the TPE bi-modes need the BR1600 power pack ? A less tall and less powerful unit could provide enough output to diesel power TPE with the 125mph headline being provided just on the ECML, because as we know, 110mph is as fast as it's going to go on the WCML.

Thus flat floor and 395 style doors

Surely the engine needs grunt crossing those Pennine Hills?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Also, remember that most of these bi-mode trains will be cascaded away from TP North not long after they're introduced, to be replaced by electric-only trains on the fully wired routes which would then be responsible for carrying the bulk of passengers. A non-standard AT300 design might be feasible but it's not going to be that useful if the trains were cascaded to the other routes which would be best off with the normal door arrangement. The electric replacements for the bi-mode trains can have whatever door arrangement works best for the line, as there's a high likelihood that these trains would spend their entire lives running on the route. By then, the exact nature of NPR will be clearer so it will also be possible to order new electric trains which would be suited to switching to any new-build track as it comes online. That might mean, for instance, buying trains with retracting steps so that they may call at TSI-standard platforms shared with HS2 services.

 

[47802]

Surely the engine needs grunt crossing those Pennine Hills?

Exactly, they will need all the power from those engines and I doubt these trains will be significantly different from the AT300's already ordered.

The hysterics about end doors on this route is ridiculous quite frankly, as has been repeated many times they will be working fast services on this route, if you look at the current timetable some of the major stations on the route have 2 to 4min stops so I don't see it being a massive issue.

 

[superkev]

Haydn1971 seems to have "started a hare" with his suggestion that smaller diesel generator power rafts could have been developed since the Class 800 was designed. However, the 12V 1600 R80LP 700kW PowerPack is still state of the art according to the MTU website.

A radical breakthrough in diesel engine technology (or repeal of the laws of physics?!) would surely be needed to reduce the height of this unit sufficiently to get rid of the sloping floor in the AT300 power cars. Unless this technology exists, mid doors are impractical in these bi-mode units and so discussion of their merits is pointless.

The Class 395 is an EMU, not subject to the design compromises necessary in a bi-mode.

Perhaps they could have achived a flat floor although at a cost by using 2 smaller 172 style engines heritage dmu style.
K

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps they could have achived a flat floor although at a cost by using 2 smaller 172 style engines heritage dmu style.
K

Indeed, and possibly switched in and out as needed for particular levels of performance.

One advantage you gain from a DEMU or bi-mode is that all the engines are is generators. You can put them wherever you like and in whatever configuration you like provided enough electricity is generated by them to power the whole train. You could also remove them and replace them with something else if in the future that made sense.

 

[Haydn1971]

Surely the engine needs grunt crossing those Pennine Hills?

So long as it's fast enough to improve on current times on the currently low speed lines across the hills

 

[Greybeard33]

A lovely picture there, my point being that would TPE versions of a AT300 need as big a power pack as the 800/802's - most of the non-wired TPE network has slow speed limits - let's say 90mph at most - under the wires, the speed limits are higher (125mph Max). So would the TPE bi-modes need the BR1600 power pack ? A less tall and less powerful unit could provide enough output to diesel power TPE with the 125mph headline being provided just on the ECML, because as we know, 110mph is as fast as it's going to go on the WCML.

Thus flat floor and 395 style doors

Surely the engine needs grunt crossing those Pennine Hills?

Yes, I think the power required is determined more by acceleration and hill climbing ability than by top speed on the flat. TPE's AT300s will need to match the performance of the Class 185 over the Pennine gradients under diesel power. In any case the less powerful versions of the 12V 1600 are still the same height.

Or a boxer (flat) engine instead of a V, albeit at considerably increased cost.

Well, even the older MTU 6H 1800 flat six PowerPack seems to have the same 730mm height in Stage IIIB compliant form - see for example the 6H 1800 R85L - even though the highest rated version is only 390kW versus 700kW for the 12V 1600. The Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) converter, needed for Stage IIIB emissions compliance, takes up a fair bit of space.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One advantage you gain from a DEMU or bi-mode is that all the engines are is generators. You can put them wherever you like and in whatever configuration you like provided enough electricity is generated by them to power the whole train. You could also remove them and replace them with something else if in the future that made sense.

The 5-car AT300 has power rafts under all three of the intermediate cars, and I understand there is no space under the floor of the end driving trailers. I doubt that you could generate as much as 700kW by putting two smaller gensets under each car instead of the one large one, even if suitably-sized kit were available at reasonable cost.

 

[jimm]

Also, remember that most of these bi-mode trains will be cascaded away from TP North not long after they're introduced, to be replaced by electric-only trains on the fully wired routes which would then be responsible for carrying the bulk of passengers. A non-standard AT300 design might be feasible but it's not going to be that useful if the trains were cascaded to the other routes which would be best off with the normal door arrangement. The electric replacements for the bi-mode trains can have whatever door arrangement works best for the line, as there's a high likelihood that these trains would spend their entire lives running on the route. By then, the exact nature of NPR will be clearer so it will also be possible to order new electric trains which would be suited to switching to any new-build track as it comes online. That might mean, for instance, buying trains with retracting steps so that they may call at TSI-standard platforms shared with HS2 services.

Who says they will be cascaded? If they are the Hitachi trains then they can just as easily take off the diesel engine rafts - and you will still need a fair few bi-modes to maintain Middlesbrough and Scarborough services - and Hull until wires get there. Plus if either the WCML or ECML is closed in various places, the diesel engines will come in handy if you have to use the Glasgow & South Western, Tyne Valley, Settle & Carlisle or Durham Coast lines for diversions.

What do you mean by a non-standard AT300? The Class 395 is an AT300-series train with 1/3, 2/3 doors. The 80x series will have end doors. What is 'standard' or 'normal'?

 

[Haydn1971]

What do you mean by a non-standard AT300? The Class 395 is an AT300-series train with 1/3, 2/3 doors. The 80x series will have end doors. What is 'standard' or 'normal'?

And let's not forget that the AT300 is just a design within the modular A-Train brand, which includes just about every variety of train you can imagine, from high speed to monorail to metro to narrow-gauge.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see yet another variation on a theme with the TPE stock if indeed, Hitachi are the successful supplier.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Who says they will be cascaded? If they are the Hitachi trains then they can just as easily take off the diesel engine rafts - and you will still need a fair few bi-modes to maintain Middlesbrough and Scarborough services - and Hull until wires get there. Plus if either the WCML or ECML is closed in various places, the diesel engines will come in handy if you have to use the Glasgow & South Western, Tyne Valley, Settle & Carlisle or Durham Coast lines for diversions.

What do you mean by a non-standard AT300? The Class 395 is an AT300-series train with 1/3, 2/3 doors. The 80x series will have end doors. What is 'standard' or 'normal'?

By 'normal' I mean a design which already exists, which is either an electric-only 20m carriage with single-leaf commuter doors or a bi-mode capable 26m carriage with end doors. If you build a 23m bi-mode capable carriage with commuter doors it would be non-standard.

The reason why you would cascade them away is that the standard 26m end-doored bi-mode design most likely isn't well-suited for use on TP North. Obviously if you manage to get commuter doored bi-mode trains instead, then there's no need to cascade them away (just remove the engine rafts) but it seems entirely plausible that for the few years when bi-mode will be needed on these TP North runs, they may as well go with a completely off-the-shelf (read: cheaper) design which would be perfectly at home in future when moved to other routes, such as CrossCountry. After those few years, the fully wired routes can switch over to the new electric stock designed specifically for TP North.

 

[Greybeard33]

And let's not forget that the AT300 is just a design within the modular A-Train brand, which includes just about every variety of train you can imagine, from high speed to monorail to metro to narrow-gauge.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see yet another variation on a theme with the TPE stock if indeed, Hitachi are the successful supplier.

I thought here we were using "AT300" as shorthand for the Class 800/801-derived bi-mode, which Hitachi calls "AT300 for the West of England"?

The IEP contract was for 122 trains comprising 866 carriages, with the prospect of additional orders such as the 29 trains comprising 173 carriages for the West of England, which involve only minor changes to the configuration. Do you really think that the investment required to develop another major variant of the AT300 family, with a different bodyshell and diesel powerpack, could be afforded on the back of the TPE bi-mode order for just 32 trains comprising 160 carriages?

 

[jimm]

I thought here we were using "AT300" as shorthand for the Class 800/801-derived bi-mode, which Hitachi calls "AT300 for the West of England"?

The IEP contract was for 122 trains comprising 866 carriages, with the prospect of additional orders such as the 29 trains comprising 173 carriages for the West of England, which involve only minor changes to the configuration. Do you really think that the investment required to develop another major variant of the AT300 family, with a different bodyshell and diesel powerpack, could be afforded on the back of the TPE bi-mode order for just 32 trains comprising 160 carriages?

AT300 is a product line from Hitachi, so far encompassing the 395s and the 80x variants.

As Haydn1971 said, it is a modular design, so altering it to suit a specific brief is not that big a deal - and the bodyshell can be supplied either welded or bolted at lengths between 20m and 26m, with either end doors or 1/2, 2/3.

See the technical details tab at this page on Hitachi Rail Europe's website http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/at-300-high-speed_47.html

By 'normal' I mean a design which already exists, which is either an electric-only 20m carriage with single-leaf commuter doors or a bi-mode capable 26m carriage with end doors. If you build a 23m bi-mode capable carriage with commuter doors it would be non-standard.

The reason why you would cascade them away is that the standard 26m end-doored bi-mode design most likely isn't well-suited for use on TP North. Obviously if you manage to get commuter doored bi-mode trains instead, then there's no need to cascade them away (just remove the engine rafts) but it seems entirely plausible that for the few years when bi-mode will be needed on these TP North runs, they may as well go with a completely off-the-shelf (read: cheaper) design which would be perfectly at home in future when moved to other routes, such as CrossCountry. After those few years, the fully wired routes can switch over to the new electric stock designed specifically for TP North.

AT300 is a modular design, so can be altered to suit specific needs - see above.

Unless you have inside knowledge, then you have no more idea than me what body length or door type TPE will order. And what about the Scarborough and Middlesbrough services? No sign of either place getting wires any time soon. XC or EMT might have quite different ideas about what future stock they want - e.g. say Stagecoach gets EMT again - they clearly like to buy from Siemens.

 

[Haydn1971]

Unless you have inside knowledge, then you have no more idea than me what body length or door type TPE will order.

Quite, all of this is just educated speculation, a few years ago half the forum were convinced that DMU's weren't possible, yet here we are with a CAF order.

Do you really think that the investment required to develop another major variant of the AT300 family, with a different bodyshell and diesel powerpack, could be afforded on the back of the TPE bi-mode order for just 32 trains comprising 160 carriages?

An order almost as big as the 221 or 222 fleets following on from the 220, or perhaps a bigger order than the 180's, or perhaps an order of 29 six car trains like the 395's ? Or perhaps closer to home, the bespoke 185 fleet of " just" 153 carriages.

Building a fleet of 32 five car trains (160 carriages) is a huge investment to start with, making that fleet suit TPE's needs isn't that much of a big deal, especially with the modular A-Train/AT300 parts bin, where the only different thing is a less high power pack, which from all accounts doesn't impact on the height by a great deal anyways - put an order out for over 100 power packs and someone will figure a way out of producing it at a reasonable price. My wife's firm makes o-rings, they have orders as small as a single o-ring up to 1000's - each order is priced accordingly.

 

[NotATrainspott]

AT300 is a product line from Hitachi, so far encompassing the 395s and the 80x variants.

As Haydn1971 said, it is a modular design, so altering it to suit a specific brief is not that big a deal - and the bodyshell can be supplied either welded or bolted at lengths between 20m and 26m, with either end doors or 1/2, 2/3.

See the technical details tab at this page on Hitachi Rail Europe's website http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/at-300-high-speed_47.html



AT300 is a modular design, so can be altered to suit specific needs - see above.

Unless you have inside knowledge, then you have no more idea than me what body length or door type TPE will order. And what about the Scarborough and Middlesbrough services? No sign of either place getting wires any time soon. XC or EMT might have quite different ideas about what future stock they want - e.g. say Stagecoach gets EMT again - they clearly like to buy from Siemens.

I know that the AT300 is a fully modular design. What I'm saying is that I don't expect it to be worthwhile to create another AT300 configuration for use for only a few years. See, there's not a vast market for 125mph capable commuter trains with diesel engines, as TP North is really the only route where they're needed. The only other 125mph diesels lines are the GWML, which is having all its main line commuter services into London wired completely, the MML, which is already wired on the fasts to Bedford and will be wired beyond around the same time as TP North, and XC which doesn't actually need commuter trains capable of 125mph. As there has been no clear improvement in the ability to fit powerful diesel engines to AT300 carriages without needing to raise the floor, having a commuter door layout isn't going to be any easier either. You don't want to have a particularly high step up, and unlike an end-doored design you can't hide the raised floor with a slope at either end.

However, there is going to be quite a large market for 125mph-capable electric-only commuter trains, the sort of which would be perfect for most TP North runs right after the route is electrified. If the trains don't need to be able to take a diesel engine, then there's no need to have a higher floor, so the doors can go wherever is most convenient for the routes they run on without there being accessibility problems. 26m carriages with 1/4, 3/4 doors would be a very good compromise between a long distance and commuter layout, so would be ideal for routes where there is no clear line between them. TP North is the most relevant example here, but there's also all those services that are to be run by 12 carriage rakes of 110mph EMUs on the main lines into London. Although it's not going to make the biggest difference in the world, upgrading a 110mph commuter service to be able to run in the same path as a 125-140mph LDHS service is only going to help with timetabling and disruption recovery in future. Replacing a 240m long 3x4x20m EMU rake with either a single 10x26m or a 2x5x26m rake would be one of the few ways to increase capacity without needing extra paths. For some of these longer services, like Euston-Crewe, longer trains with longer seated sections between doors would improve the quality of the journey. All of the 110mph EMUs currently used on these services would easily be able to cascade down to make up commuter train fleets for newly-electrified city region networks up and down the country.

 

[Haydn1971]

See, there's not a vast market for 125mph capable commuter trains with diesel engines, as TP North is really the only route where they're needed.

Yep, we know this - would you just like to look at how much of the routes that a TPE unit will do under diesel power, then go check the speed limits of said routes, the cross Pennine routes are less than 90mph and in many areas less than 70mph - thus will not need as much power to get up to full diesel speed even on hills as an IEP on a 125mph mainline.

 

[The Ham]

I know that the AT300 is a fully modular design. What I'm saying is that I don't expect it to be worthwhile to create another AT300 configuration for use for only a few years. See, there's not a vast market for 125mph capable commuter trains with diesel engines, as TP North is really the only route where they're needed. The only other 125mph diesels lines are the GWML, which is having all its main line commuter services into London wired completely, the MML, which is already wired on the fasts to Bedford and will be wired beyond around the same time as TP North, and XC which doesn't actually need commuter trains capable of 125mph. As there has been no clear improvement in the ability to fit powerful diesel engines to AT300 carriages without needing to raise the floor, having a commuter door layout isn't going to be any easier either. You don't want to have a particularly high step up, and unlike an end-doored design you can't hide the raised floor with a slope at either end.

However a bi-modal (110mph OHLE/100mph 3rd rail (optional)/75mph diesel) could be very useful with quite a range of routes that could be served by it. It wouldn't loose much compared to a unit which can run at 125mph on OHLE, but would make it much more versatile.

It could be attractive to GW for North Downs Line services so that infill schemes can be done in stages (i.e. wire up between Wokingham and Ash first and use the journey time savings on the electric sections to offset any losses elsewhere). Alternatively useful for Cardiff Portsmouth services to bridge the gaps in electrification between Bath and Southampton (again wiring can be done to limit it to the sections which will bring the best benefits). Likewise, longer term useful for Devon Metro services so that the outer edges (i.e. Barnstable) do not need to be fully wired up.

Useful for SWT for the WofE line services, as even before an wires go up west of Basingstoke there will be benefit for the Bristol services, where they can use the wires from Bath to Bristol.

Again longer term possibly useful for XC to run services while there are still gaps in the electrification on some of their services. Especially if the diesel engines are needed for short distances and/or towards the extremities of the XC network where speeds may not be so critical.

 

[Greybeard33]

Yep, we know this - would you just like to look at how much of the routes that a TPE unit will do under diesel power, then go check the speed limits of said routes, the cross Pennine routes are less than 90mph and in many areas less than 70mph - thus will not need as much power to get up to full diesel speed even on hills as an IEP on a 125mph mainline.

The AT300 for the West of England is to have higher rated diesel engines than the 125mph (on diesel) Class 800 IEP. That is because more power is needed for the hilly, twisty Cornish Main Line, despite the 75mph maximum linespeed, than to maintain 125mph on the flat. The same applies to the hilly, twisty Transpennine lines - that is why the 185 has a higher power to weight ratio than any other British DMU.

 

[Haydn1971]

The AT300 for the West of England is to have higher rated diesel engines than the 125mph (on diesel) Class 800 IEP. That is because more power is needed for the hilly, twisty Cornish Main Line, despite the 75mph maximum linespeed, than to maintain 125mph on the flat.

That's not quite the whole picture, it's been established that although 125mph running is possible, IEP 800 is intended to run at 100mph on diesel to reduce strain on the engines, whereas the 802 is configured to run up to 125mph on diesel out the box, from Newbury onwards to Penzance. The extra power is nice for the gradients and just PR spin as far as I can see.

The same applies to the hilly, twisty Transpennine lines - that is why the 185 has a higher power to weight ratio than any other British DMU.

As with the XC fleet of Voyagers, power is just as important to playing catch up as it is getting up hills. Without any facts and figures, your argument against is just as weak as mine for. If you are so hell bent on dismissing several members thoughts on this, then your gonna have to come up with something more credible than loose claims of being more power and needs the power for hills etc...