What do we think the East West Rail rolling stock will be?

[Mitchell Hurd]

Hello everyone. After looking at the HS2 assumptions thread, I downloaded this (link below) and was rather interested in the fact in the appendix (if the right wording) on 48/105 (page 46), the Oxford to Bedford and Bedford to Milton Keynes services are reported to be run by 3-car 185's.

Now, without confusing people, 185's would be handy to kick-start the services thanks to their fast acceleration. But the only 100mph trains that I believe will be surplus in the next few years will be TfW Class 175's.

185's will be more useful for faster boarding and alighting than 175's because of their door layout.

If 185's will run the EWR services then that may suggest 2 things...

1. EMR will carry on, using 170's, with the Liverpool to Nottingham and Nottingham to Norwich services when the Liverpool to Norwich services are split to terminate and start at Nottingham.

2. Northern will take over the Liverpool to Nottingham services with other stock.

3. As I believe EWR are proposing to lease (or definitely) leasing 14 x 3-car trains, all 185's are 3-car trains.

What does anyone else think?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/902097/PFMv9_Assumptions_Report_Revision1_1_.pdf

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd assumed they'd get some 170s from somewhere, but yes, I hadn't realised it was a use for the 185s! I guess it makes sense as Siemens could maintain them at Kings Heath (or at a dedicated facility as a satellite of that).

I do however think it's utterly criminal that EWR isn't being built as an electric railway.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Hello everyone. After looking at the HS2 assumptions thread, I downloaded this (link below) and was rather interested in the fact in the appendix (if the right wording) on 48/105 (page 46), the Oxford to Bedford and Bedford to Milton Keynes services are reported to be run by 3-car 185's.

Now, without confusing people, 185's would be handy to kick-start the services thanks to their fast acceleration. But the only 100mph trains that I believe will be surplus in the next few years will be TfW Class 175's.

185's will be more useful for faster boarding and alighting than 175's because of their door layout.

If 185's will run the EWR services then that may suggest 2 things...

1. EMR will carry on, using 170's, with the Liverpool to Nottingham and Nottingham to Norwich services when the Liverpool to Norwich services are split to terminate and start at Nottingham.

2. Northern will take over the Liverpool to Nottingham services with other stock.

3. As I believe EWR are proposing to lease (or definitely) leasing 14 x 3-car trains, all 185's are 3-car trains.

What does anyone else think?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/902097/PFMv9_Assumptions_Report_Revision1_1_.pdf

In situations like this, door layout isn’t critical. There are two main reasons:
1) Dedicated infrastructure of a non-suburban type, therefore they can have one minute dwell times and quite frankly nobody will notice as there’s no journey time precedent.
2) In many cases, you’re seeking to attract new markets so improved almost Intercity-esque layout of a 175 could actually be a benefit.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

In situations like this, door layout isn’t critical. There are two main reasons:
1) Dedicated infrastructure of a non-suburban type, therefore they can have one minute dwell times and quite frankly nobody will notice as there’s no journey time precedent.
2) In many cases, you’re seeking to attract new markets so improved almost Intercity-esque layout of a 175 could actually be a benefit.

True when you think of why Scotrail wanted HST's for many of their Class 158 and 170 routes albeit the chaos that happened during their introduction.

Going back to 175 subject - they seem quick off the mark for acceleration too.

 

[A0]

2) In many cases, you’re seeking to attract new markets so improved almost Intercity-esque layout of a 175 could actually be a benefit.

Do you think anyone will actually notice ?

Don't forget that EWR isn't exactly building a line in an area which doesn't have rail services - Oxford's Chiltern's are all 1/3 2/3 DMUs, Bletchley and MK is well served by 1/3 2/3 EMUs, ditto Bedford, Sandy and Cambridge. End to end distance is about 85 miles, so similar to Peterborough to London. Not sure passengers will notice or care.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

One thing worth noting about the 175's if I'm honest - I believe the 3-car capacity is greater than a 3-car 185.

 

[tetudo boy]

As we said in a previous thread about this, the class 175 was most likely to have come. However, this could not be true. I'm sure that they will cascade some class 170s or cascade more class 172s as they will be replaced by class 196's.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm sure that they will cascade some class 170s or cascade more class 172s as they will be replaced by class 196's.

The 170s are already spoken for - there aren't any spare for EWR.

While the 196 does represent some element of a growth build, it isnt enough to provide the spare units that EWR need.

 

[popeter45]

Personally i think bi mode 755's may be a good shout as allow rolling electrification without needing new stock later on, could even consider making then BMU's as multiple areas along the route are electrified

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 170s are already spoken for - there aren't any spare for EWR.

You could imagine a cascade involving Chiltern LHCS and 165s in the bin and 175s to Chiltern for use on their longer distance stuff, and that being able to release some 168s to use on EWR?

The 175 is as close to being a Wessie with diesel engines slung underneath as you could imagine, which is perfect for the Chiltern "IC" services.

Even more likely if Chiltern end up operating it (or it's just BR by then!)

The overpowered 185s seem overkill for what is basically a poshed up country branch line.

 

[swt_passenger]

Personally i think bi mode 755's may be a good shout as allow rolling electrification without needing new stock later on, could even consider making then BMU's as multiple areas along the route are electrified

Bletchley to Milton Keynes, but not Bletchley flyover itself, isn’t that all?

 

[Alfie1014]

These are simply assumptions for the model(s) used work out changes to demand and revenue and whilst in the main are based on current or future know operations where they aren’t known they will be little more than the best available guess at the time.

 

[tetudo boy]

Personally i think bi mode 755's may be a good shout as allow rolling electrification without needing new stock later on, could even consider making then BMU's as multiple areas along the route are electrified

That raises the question, will the East West rail ever be electrified?

 

[popeter45]

That raises the question, will the East West rail ever be electrified?

well eventually i hope most line will be electrified and that seems to be the main idea of how to make rail diesel free by 2040
can't see why EWR would be omitted from such a scheme of electrification so better to plan now for that eventuality rather than invest in DMU's with no conversion capability that could be obsolete/possibly banned from use in just under 20 years

 

[tetudo boy]

well eventually i hope most line will be electrified and that seems to be the main idea of how to make rail diesel free by 2040
can't see why EWR would be omitted from such a scheme of electrification so better to plan now for that eventuality rather than invest in DMU's with no conversion capability that could be obsolete/possibly banned from use in just under 20 years

I think that the class 755 (or FLIRTs) would be the perfect train for this line if there is no spare stock.

 

[HSTEd]

If EWR was likely to be electrified, they would be doing it during construction, when it costs a tiny fraction of what it costs on a live railway.

The fact that it is not is telling.

 

[JonathanH]

can't see why EWR would be omitted from such a scheme of electrification so better to plan now for that eventuality rather than invest in DMU's with no conversion capability that could be obsolete/possibly banned from use in just under 20 years

The whole point is that EWR don't propose to 'invest' in new DMUs. They want a fleet of 3-car units for a time limited period which could potentially mean units that are surplus to another operator.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/east-west-rail-rolling-stock.201326/

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/east-west-rail-goes-shopping-for-trains-what-are-your-thoughts-predictions.202014/

The lease is only for four years (with an optional two year extension).
http://bidstats.uk/tenders/2020/W11/722731300

Presumably, given the bids were due in by 8 April, EWR are considering tenders and may even have made a decision. Note also that under the original tender, the contract needs to be in place by November this year.

https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/e...es-bids-for-self-powered-trains/55978.article

East West Railway Co invites bids for ‘self-powered’ trains

UK: East West Railway Co has called tenders for the provision of rolling stock for use on future passenger services between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Aylesbury and Bedford.

The Oxford to Cambridge railway promoter is seeking bids to supply a fleet of 12 or 14 three-car ‘self-powered’ multiple-units for this section.

The units should be equipped for use with ETCS Level 2 and capable of driver-controlled operation. They would be supplied under an agreement including a full maintenance package which would run for four years, with an option to extend for a further two years.

EWR said its decision to seek self-powered units followed ‘months of extensive market analysis and engagement with the industry’. Self-powered trains would enable services on this section of the corridor to be launched as quickly as possible, and would provide ‘valuable time’ to explore a wider range of ‘green energy’ technologies for future fleets.

The aim is for the corridor to be a ‘net zero carbon railway’ when services start running through from Oxford to Cambridge, which is envisaged by the end of the decade.

The contract would allow for a smooth transition to electrification, should this be chosen as the long-term traction option.

‘Local communities have told us they would like us to get on and give them the connectivity they so desperately need, and they also want us to deliver a railway that cares for the environment’, said EWR Chief Executive Simon Blanchflower on March 9. ‘Aa short-term approach at this stage in the project is the best way to help achieve this aim.’

In February the government approved a Transport & Works Act Order granting legal powers for the required track and signalling upgrades between Bicester, Bedford, Aylesbury and Milton Keynes, including reinstating a disused section of railway between Bletchley and Claydon Junction.

The planned service on this section of the corridor would have two trains/h each way between Oxford and Milton Keynes, one train/h each way between Oxford and Bedford, and one train/h each way between Milton Keynes and Aylesbury.

Unless negotiations have broken down, I would imagine there isn't much to usefully speculate about in that options need to basically be units that are known to be spare or that could be re-used once EWR is finished with them.

Mind you, on a speculative front, maybe these would be appropriate.

Eversholt Rail and Alstom invest a further £1 million in Breeze hydrogen train programme

Widnes, 22 July 2020 - Eversholt Rail and Alstom today announce a bold plan to fast-track the hydrogen train industry in the UK with a further £1 million (over €1 million) investment in British h

www.alstom.com

 

[37057]

The overpowered 185s seem overkill for what is basically a poshed up country branch line.

Overpowered assuming they'll still have their Voith drivetrain by the time the line opens.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Overpowered assuming they'll still have their Voith drivetrain by the time the line opens.

True. Even without a power conversion, I suppose they could remove one engine and convert the others to mechanical transmission, which would present an impressive acceleration easily matching their electric counterparts nearby.

 

[tetudo boy]

True. Even without a power conversion, I suppose they could remove one engine and convert the others to mechanical transmission, which would present an impressive acceleration easily matching their electric counterparts nearby.

This also makes them heavy. This could also restrict them to lines without weak tracks.

 

[JonathanH]

True. Even without a power conversion, I suppose they could remove one engine and convert the others to mechanical transmission, which would present an impressive acceleration easily matching their electric counterparts nearby.

So, if you were Eversholt, seeing the tender that East West Rail offered, with the prospect of a four year contract and possible two year extension, would you really consider messing around with your class 185 to change the transmission or hold out for their continued use on TransPennine Express?

 

[37057]

So, if you were Eversholt, seeing the tender that East West Rail offered, with the prospect of a four year contract and possible two year extension, would you really consider messing around with your class 185 to change the transmission or hold out for their continued use on TransPennine Express?

Yes. There's an opportunity to trial hybrid conversion (not just a transmission change) on an in-service fleet that could later be rolled out on the rest of the class. I think ROSCOS, TOCs and manufacturers/maintainers should be taking every chance as early as possible. In this case, there's a window of a couple of years to roll out modifications (inc ETCS - by the way there's not a lot of room left on a 185 to fit it in their current form).

 

[tetudo boy]

This reminds me of a project Porterbrook was doing with some Turbostars to convert them into Diesel Hybrids. I can't see them on the main page of FLEXes so they must have cancelled it.

I sort of have an idea for the Class 357s. They could convert them into bi-modes to operate on the possibly electrified EWR, as some are being replaced by Class 720s. If not then they could just convert them into DMU's.

 

[JonathanH]

This reminds me of a project Porterbrook was doing with some Turbostars to convert them into Diesel Hybrids. I can't see them on the main page of FLEXes so they must have cancelled it.

I sort of have an idea for the Class 357s. They could convert them into bi-modes to operate on the possibly electrified EWR, as some are being replaced by Class 720s. If not then they could just convert them into DMU's.

Again, I think we need to be realistic about the proposals for EWR. Neither of those are likely to be used by EWR because they are committed to existing operations. (Any Class 720s on c2c are a growth build, not to replace 357s).

I think it would be quite risky for EWR to sign up for rolling stock on unproven technology that may not be ready for operation within the timescales they have for training and then operation on day 1.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, if you were Eversholt, seeing the tender that East West Rail offered, with the prospect of a four year contract and possible two year extension, would you really consider messing around with your class 185 to change the transmission or hold out for their continued use on TransPennine Express?

If I had a power-hungry and overpowered fleet I might consider making changes to them to make them less power-hungry and less overpowered so they're more attractive to any customer? De-engining the centre car (which would leave you with 500hp/car, which is fairly sensible for a modern DMU) and enhancing the efficiency of the other two must surely be a good plan, and would create a nice reserve of spare engines and related components.

 

[37057]

If I had a power-hungry and overpowered fleet I might consider making changes to them to make them less power-hungry and less overpowered so they're more attractive to any customer? De-engining the centre car (which would leave you with 500hp/car, which is fairly sensible for a modern DMU) and enhancing the efficiency of the other two must surely be a good plan, and would create a nice reserve of spare engines and related components.

I'm not sure why you suggest removing an engine, the HVACs go into reduced operation with the engines they're currently fitted with. It would be better to replace the drivelines on each car, with improved fuel efficiency, lighter etc.

 

[cactustwirly]

Hello everyone. After looking at the HS2 assumptions thread, I downloaded this (link below) and was rather interested in the fact in the appendix (if the right wording) on 48/105 (page 46), the Oxford to Bedford and Bedford to Milton Keynes services are reported to be run by 3-car 185's.

Now, without confusing people, 185's would be handy to kick-start the services thanks to their fast acceleration. But the only 100mph trains that I believe will be surplus in the next few years will be TfW Class 175's.

185's will be more useful for faster boarding and alighting than 175's because of their door layout.

If 185's will run the EWR services then that may suggest 2 things...

1. EMR will carry on, using 170's, with the Liverpool to Nottingham and Nottingham to Norwich services when the Liverpool to Norwich services are split to terminate and start at Nottingham.

2. Northern will take over the Liverpool to Nottingham services with other stock.

3. As I believe EWR are proposing to lease (or definitely) leasing 14 x 3-car trains, all 185's are 3-car trains.

What does anyone else think?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/902097/PFMv9_Assumptions_Report_Revision1_1_.pdf

Who says it has to be existing stock?
I imagine it would be operated by dedicated new build stock (hopefully from Stadler)

 

[tetudo boy]

Again, I think we need to be realistic about the proposals for EWR. Neither of those are likely to be used by EWR because they are committed to existing operations. (Any Class 720s on c2c are a growth build, not to replace 357s).

I think it would be quite risky for EWR to sign up for rolling stock on unproven technology that may not be ready for operation within the timescales they have for training and then operation on day 1.

Sorry, my imaginative mind got to me again!

I agree with the fact that you could replace the engines on the class 185's to make them less havier because that's the main reason why they are heavy and the East West rail doesn't run on mountainous lines anyway.

 

[JonathanH]

Who says it has to be existing stock?
I imagine it would be operated by dedicated new build stock (hopefully from Stadler)

No one - but it would appear that it only needs to be self-powered for six years and the envisaged value of the contract is £40 million (which includes the maintenance costs - eg depot and maintenance staff over four years as well). If someone put forward a proposal involving new build stock, it isn't clear that there is any commitment to use it beyond that initial period. Fourteen three-car units equates to 42 coaches. I don't know how that translates to the cost of new build stock against using an old fleet.

https://www.delta-esourcing.com/tenders/UK-UK-London:-Rolling-stock./7F758E3NU7

Now clearly Stadler and a rolling stock financier could come forward with a plan to have units suitable for conversion to electric after a period of 'self-powered' operation (and clearly a 755 fits that bill). How long can EWR commit to financing this stock. Is the DfT going to guarantee its use beyond the six year period?

One of the previous threads did identify some problems with platform length potentially precluding a centre power car if a 755-type unit were to be used.

 

[Bevan Price]

Passengers do not suddenly appear in large numbers to use totally new services - it can take several years to develop traffic. For the first couple of years, I suspect that a single 153 would be more than adequate for most services.