Greater Anglia Class 755s (Regional Trains)

[LAX54]

As far as I know NR / GA /FL /GB etc can run as many trains as they want over the crossing if the barriers are down, then so be it ! I recall at the Colchester resig, the public were warned that once the project was completed Chitts Hill could be closed for up to 50 mins per hour at certain times (but we do try to keep it down to a max of 15 mins, if we can, at busy times)

 

[306024]

Exactly, but running the Peterborough service hourly through to Colchester would mean an extra two trains per hour for most of the day, which brings some out in a rash, even if they are timetabled to pass while the gates would be down for another service.

Up in Colchester box you possibly don’t see all the hurdles in the planning world that have to be cleared before these trains appear on the panel.

As for Brantham depot, there were lots of stories about down time which wouldn’t have stood up to close scrutiny if planned correctly. But as the project was struggling for different reasons it never got that far.

 

[LAX54]

Exactly, but running the Peterborough service hourly through to Colchester would mean an extra two trains per hour for most of the day, which brings some out in a rash, even if they are timetabled to pass while the gates would be down for another service.

Up in Colchester box you possibly don’t see all the hurdles in the planning world that have to be cleared before these trains appear on the panel.

As for Brantham depot, there were lots of stories about down time which wouldn’t have stood up to close scrutiny if planned correctly. But as the project was struggling for different reasons it never got that far.

Brantham we heard the 'stories' bounding about how the crossing will be closed, for x mins as a unit came out of the depot, into the station, changed ends and then went back to Ipswich to start a service, this was due to the UKPN cables to low Ipswich end of the depot, when in fact there was never any need for the units to go to the station and back ! Only the ones 'starting' at Manningtree or Colchester

 

[TheEdge]

Surprised no one has mentioned it yet but the first few night time runs to Diss and back have happened now...

 

[AJM580]

Very interesting, are these in diesel mode or electric?

 

[trebor79]

Photos or it didn't happen!

 

[TheEdge]

Very interesting, are these in diesel mode or electric?

Beyond the fact they ran I've got no idea what was done.

 

[fat_boy_pete]

Photos or it didn't happen!

Try this https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/new-greater-anglia-train-takes-to-tracks-1-5820360

 

[TheEdge]

Photos or it didn't happen!

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/new-greater-anglia-train-takes-to-tracks-1-5820360

Including a picture of it at Diss

 

[dk1]

Several pictures on various Facebook groups of the unit at Diss in the wee small hours.

 

[_toommm_]

Hi guys, just recently caught up with this thread - I'm interested in the 755's power pack coach in the middle.

My question(s) are: What is stored in there (no sarcasm)? And if its engines or batteries, why aren't they stored under the train or on top like a conventional bi mode? And does it not surely restrict passengers if one half suddenly becomes more busy than the rest

 

[AJM580]

The power pack contains the diesel engines, presumably they're not underfloor in order to provide a quieter ride, rather than have a diesel engine droning away underfloor. Checking twitter feeds of those that have seen the one at Innotrans, there is a corridor through the power pack coach, so you will be able to walk through from either end.

 

[samuelmorris]

Yup, engine and generator - since the trains are bimodes, there's also a pantograph and transformer to house, so you couldn't have an engine under every vehicle. This way, there is sufficient power to give the train good performance on diesel mode (like you would have with an engine under every vehicle) but with room for a low-floor design (as common in Europe), the electrical traction equipment located elsewhere and it also has the advantage of there being less engine noise in the cabin, apart from perhaps the seats adjacent to the power module. Think of it like a diesel loco but without all that wasted space.

As posted above, there is a corridor between the two pairs of engines (or two singular engines in the 3-car version). It's fairly narrow, but probably not much narrower than the inter-coach gangway connections you got on multiple units before through-gangwayed stock came along. The engine(s) are on both sides of the corridor.
See this video (not mine) from 1m00 onwards:

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Yup, engine and generator - since the trains are bimodes, there's also a pantograph and transformer to house, so you couldn't have an engine under every vehicle. This way, there is sufficient power to give the train good performance on diesel mode (like you would have with an engine under every vehicle) but with room for a low-floor design (as common in Europe), the electrical traction equipment located elsewhere and it also has the advantage of there being less engine noise in the cabin, apart from perhaps the seats adjacent to the power module. Think of it like a diesel loco but without all that wasted space.

As posted above, there is a corridor between the two pairs of engines (or two singular engines in the 3-car version). It's fairly narrow, but probably not much narrower than the inter-coach gangway connections you got on multiple units before through-gangwayed stock came along. The engine(s) are on both sides of the corridor.
See this video (not mine) from 1m00 onwards:

How many powered axles do both the 3 and 4 car units have.

 

[_toommm_]

Interesting design! Thanks samuel and AJM

 

[samuelmorris]

How many powered axles do both the 3 and 4 car units have.

As I underatand it, 4 in both cases - the bogies at each end of the unit only.

 

[Jonny]

Yup, engine and generator - since the trains are bimodes, there's also a pantograph and transformer to house, so you couldn't have an engine under every vehicle. This way, there is sufficient power to give the train good performance on diesel mode (like you would have with an engine under every vehicle) but with room for a low-floor design (as common in Europe), the electrical traction equipment located elsewhere and it also has the advantage of there being less engine noise in the cabin, apart from perhaps the seats adjacent to the power module. Think of it like a diesel loco but without all that wasted space.

As posted above, there is a corridor between the two pairs of engines (or two singular engines in the 3-car version). It's fairly narrow, but probably not much narrower than the inter-coach gangway connections you got on multiple units before through-gangwayed stock came along. The engine(s) are on both sides of the corridor.
See this video (not mine) from 1m00 onwards:

That corridor looks pretty tight (like Gresley's corridor tenders)!

 

[samuelmorris]

That corridor looks pretty tight (like Gresley's corridor tenders)!

It certainly wouldn't be disabled accessible but that isn't the point. The disabled area will all be at one end of the unit.

 

[TRAX]

why aren't they stored under the train or on top like a conventional bi mode?

Apart from what has been said above, one of the ideas behind a separate power pack is that it can be removed if diesel mode isn’t needed anymore.

 

[AlexNL]

Not to forget: these units have a low floor design, giving level access from platform to train. There's no room underneath for diesel engines.

 

[trebor79]

Also it's a condition of the franchise agreement that there be no diesel engines in or under the passenger carrying vehicles of the new fleet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also it's a condition of the franchise agreement that there be no diesel engines in or under the passenger carrying vehicles of the new fleet.

That being the case, I wonder did everyone bid Stadler or were there some other innovative options out there?

 

[trebor79]

I guess the other option would have been LHCS, Mk5 or some other design.
I think I've been on a CAF bimode in Spain in which the diesel engine(s) were not under the floor. Madrid to Algericas, also went through a guage changing station which was interesting.
So at least 2 other potential options.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I guess the other option would have been LHCS, Mk5 or some other design.

Slight overkill for rural branch lines!

 

[Mordac]

The franchise agreement specifies no underfloor engines because FLIRTs were bid. It's a way of ensuring the bid stock is the one that gets purchased. If some other type of DMU had been propposed by the winning bidder, the franchise agreement wouldn't specify that.

 

[LAX54]

Yes they ran, and all ran well apart from a slight delay in the ECS being hauled from Norwich to Diss. It ran on diesel only, not allowed on the OHL yet, dont think there are any more planned for 2018, so assume will resume in Jan 2019 ?
Only downside to these units as far as I can see, is the reduced fuel tank capacity, meaning must be fueled every night.

 

[TRAX]

Trains with roof-mounted engines and traction exist.

 

[themiller]

Trains with roof-mounted engines and traction exist.

But how many fit inside the UK loading gauges?

 

[dazzler]

I guess the other option would have been LHCS, Mk5 or some other design.
I think I've been on a CAF bimode in Spain in which the diesel engine(s) were not under the floor. Madrid to Algericas, also went through a guage changing station which was interesting.
So at least 2 other potential options.

Sounds like RENFE Class 730 for use on standard gauge high speed lines and the rest of the broad gauge network - Two modes, two voltages and two gauges!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RENFE_Class_730

 

[trebor79]

Sounds like RENFE Class 730 for use on standard gauge high speed lines and the rest of the broad gauge network - Two modes, two voltages and two gauges!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RENFE_Class_730

Can't have been that train, it was back in about 2010 or 2011, I believe before they were constructed.