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

[HSTEd]

Why on earth are we opening a railway, operating for six years, and then electrifying?
Who came up with that programme phasing?

That's going to cost a fortune.

 

[class26]

Why on earth are we opening a railway, operating for six years, and then electrifying?
Who came up with that programme phasing?

That's going to cost a fortune.

Some genius at the DfT by any chance ?

 

[Metal_gee_man]

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.

We're supposed to be attracting people to the railway not frightening them away with 40 year old Dog boxes turning up at station on a nice new railway line.

 

[tetudo boy]

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.

You should remember that most of these services are long/mid-distance services so a train that is made for that is suitable. A 153 is a big no.

 

[43096]

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.

I think you must have forgotten that EWR takes over Bedford-Bletchley which needs something more than a 153 on some trains without the additional demand generated from the new route. Your suggestion simply doesn’t stand up to any form of scrutiny.

 

[Energy]

or cascade more class 172s as they will be replaced by class 196's.

Class 172s are not being replaced, the /0s /2s and /3s will remain at WMR although the future of the 4 /1 units at Chiltern is open to speculation in the upcoming Chiltern franchise but there aren't enough of these for EWR.

Class 600s (the 321 hydrogen conversion) looks likely if they can be converted in time and this could be a good trial for hydrogen units in the UK. With only 4 years they aren't going to get new stock unless they are happy taking on bimodes which can be converted to EMU. Class 175s would also make a lot of sense though, 170s are obviously the preferable option but aren't available.

 

[tetudo boy]

Class 600s (the 321 hydrogen conversion) looks likely if they can be converted in time and this could be a good trial for hydrogen units in the UK. With only 4 years they aren't going to get new stock unless they are happy taking on bimodes which can be converted to EMU. Class 175s would also make a lot of sense though, 170s are obviously the preferable option but aren't available.

Judging by the Interior and the fact that they are converted from the class 321's which are old trains, not really. They're better off on quieter short to mid-distance routes. I'd rather go with a modified class 185 with smaller engines.

 

[Energy]

Judging by the Interior and the fact that they are converted from the class 321's which are old trains, not really. They're better off on a quieter short to mid-distance routes. I'd rather go with a modified class 185 with smaller engines.

You may rather but will Eversholt who own the units? Why bother re engining the units for a 4 year lease especially when it looks likely that they will stay at TPE.

 

[37057]

You may rather but will Eversholt who own the units? Why bother re engining the units for a 4 year lease especially when it looks likely that they will stay at TPE.

It's not just a 4 year lease they'll be looking at though. The units are in need of future proofing. TPE contract is only to 2023 anyway.

 

[si404]

You could imagine a cascade involving Chiltern LHCS and 165s in the bin

You're getting rid of a lot of trains there! The idea of giving the 175s to Chiltern instead and running cascading 168s on E-W Rail isn't bad, but reducing Chiltern's fleet by getting rid of the 165s* isn't.

There's 27 Class 175s (11 2-car, 16 3-car). While the 3-car class 175s replace the LHCS (pretty much exactly given there's 8 locos), the 11 2-car sets won't replace 39 Class 165s, of which 11 are 3-car (the rest 2-car).

A big problem with Chiltern is that they don't have enough trains to run decent length services. If services north of Aylesbury warrant 3-car trains, as this E-W Rail order suggests, then services south of Aylesbury warrant at least that. Now, sure, at least under your plan they won't be 2-car 165s, but I'm not sure what they will be as we're 28 trains down from the current, inadequate, fleet!

(and, for reference, there's 11 4-car 168s, 9 3-car 168s, 9 2-car 168s and 4 2-car 172s at Chiltern, the 172s being unable to go via Amersham).

*which, as 30 year old trains, should be being banished to backwaters, or binned, but only with a replacement!

 

[Bevan Price]

I think you must have forgotten that EWR takes over Bedford-Bletchley which needs something more than a 153 on some trains without the additional demand generated from the new route. Your suggestion simply doesn’t stand up to any form of scrutiny.

My comment was badly worded. I had not intended to suggest that 153s should actually be used -- just that the number of regular passengers in the first year or two would probably require no more seats than are contained within a 153. In practice, it could become a last resting place for the 11 2 coach Class 175s if/when these are released by TfW - but which will probably be around 30 years old before EWR becomes a reality.

 

[Energy]

It's not just a 4 year lease they'll be looking at though. The units are in need of future proofing. TPE contract is only to 2023 anyway.

They don't need future proofing, EWR has already put out the tender for used DMUs for the short period of time. When they decide on long term rolling stock they will be able to review the future needs of EWR, the short term rolling stock doesn't need to worry about future proofing as they won't be on EWR for too long.

 

[HSTEd]

We could just delay the opening, contract for some OLE at a tiny fraction of the future cost of installing it on an active railway, and put some of our huge pile of spare EMUs on it.

 

[Energy]

We could just delay the opening, contract for some OLE at a tiny fraction of the future cost of installing it on an active railway, and put some of our huge pile of spare EMUs on it.

That is the best solution, you wouldn't have to delay it that long either as OHLE doesn't take long to install on an inactive railway if we go for an existing design.

 

[37057]

They don't need future proofing, EWR has already put out the tender for used DMUs for the short period of time. When they decide on long term rolling stock they will be able to review the future needs of EWR, the short term rolling stock doesn't need to worry about future proofing as they won't be on EWR for too long.

When I say future proofing I mean improving the efficiency - that's certainly of commercial interest to those involved with the fleet. I don't know what's achievable in the window of time before the commencement of EWR services but I suppose time will tell.

 

[The Planner]

We could just delay the opening, contract for some OLE at a tiny fraction of the future cost of installing it on an active railway, and put some of our huge pile of spare EMUs on it.

The issue you have there is that the government are pushing for it to open earlier than planned.

 

[Andyjs247]

One potential difficulty with using 185s on EWR is that they cannot take advantage of certain speed differentials. From Oxford Parkway to Bicester is 75/HST 100. So 185s would be restricted to 75mph while other stock - eg Cl168/172 and 68+Mk3 - can run at 100mph. Probably not an issue in the short term when the line is not that busy but could be problematic in the longer term.

And the previously-touted hydrogen-powered hybrids would have similar issues reaching 100mph. Also how many round trips from Oxford to MK or Bedford can a hydrogen bimode actually do without needing refuelling? Alternatively how big do the fuel tanks need to be?

Really what is needed is electrification. Given that phase 1 to Bicester was planned to be electrified and built as such it ought to be a no-brainer to finish the job and put up the wires along with the phase 2 work. There are plenty of EMUs that could be suitable.

Failing that a batch of 755s could do the job quite nicely until such time as electrification can be completed.

 

[tetudo boy]

The issue you have there is that the government are pushing for it to open earlier than planned.

This is probably because they decided the final route just last year. While yes, I would delay the upcoming opening date to make way for the OHLE electrification, I wouldn't really bother to electrify any of the Eastern Section which is not yet electrified, unless another company decides to do it.

I suspect that they could use BatteryFLEX unit's that can operate on Overhead routes and unelectrified routes without creating any pollution. Quite a high chance they will be used on EWR.

 

[The Planner]

This is probably because they decided the final route just last year. While yes, I would delay the upcoming opening date to make way for the OHLE electrification, I wouldn't really bother to electrify any of the Eastern Section which is not yet electrified, unless another company decides to do it.

I suspect that they could use BatteryFLEX unit's that can operate on Overhead routes and unelectrified routes without creating any pollution. Quite a high chance they will be used on EWR.

I meant the Bicester Bletchley section initially. There is a push for an early opening there.

 

[tetudo boy]

I meant the Bicester Bletchley section initially. There is a push for an early opening there.

Would the section beyond Bicester and Bletchley to Oxford and Cambridge be good?
Sorry if this is out of topic. I should probably make a split thread about this.

 

[tetudo boy]

Would the section beyond Bicester and Bletchley to Oxford and Cambridge be good?
Sorry if this is out of topic. I should probably make a split thread about this.

I made the thread. It can be found here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-the-east-west-rail-be-electrified.206915/

 

[fgwrich]

Off the back of my hand here but, why not a cascade involving East Midlands or TFW's 158s to Great Western Railway, releasing 166s (with refurbishment) for East West?

 

[tetudo boy]

Off the back of my hand here but, why not a cascade involving East Midlands or TFW's 158s to Great Western Railway, releasing 166s (with refurbishment) for East West?

We are currently having a debate on whether the line should be electrified. So far, most people agree on the fact that EWR should be electrified. However, I have also decided that the eastern section should not be electrified further than Ely, so bi-mode or battery trains need to be required.

 

[daodao]

There is no point yet in considering trains for the section east of Bedford, as it won't be built for 20-30 years, if ever.

With respect to the other services, I understand that they are intended to be 1 tph on each of the following routes:

• Bedford - Bletchley stopping service as at present - class 230 units should suffice
• Bedford - Oxford (fast)
• MK - Oxford
• MK - Aylesbury - High Wycombe - Marylebone

It would be simplest to allocate the services to the Chiltern franchise and desirable to extend at least 1 of the Oxford terminators to Didcot to improve connectivity and replace GW diesel stopping services between these 2 points. Chiltern could also take over the Banbury-Oxford stopping service from GW.

Class 165 turbo dmus seem the most appropriate trains for the other 3 services above, as Chiltern already operates them. Electrifying the E-W line or Oxford-Didcot would be a waste of money at present. However, it would be worth extending 4th rail electrification from Amersham to Aylesbury, and transferring this route to TfL, to release diesel trains for use on the EW line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

MKC-AYS isn't going to run through to London any more, which means an electrified route is much more useful again.

 

[daodao]

MKC-AYS isn't going to run through to London any more, which means an electrified route is much more useful again.

The MK - Aylesbury service could be linked to the existing Aylesbury - High Wycombe - Marylebone service, to improve connectivity and reduce the need for trains to waste time on layovers at Aylesbury.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The MK - Aylesbury service could be linked to the existing Aylesbury - High Wycombe - Marylebone service, to improve connectivity and reduce the need for trains to waste time on layovers at Aylesbury.

It could be but it has been stated that it categorically will not be. Of course things can change, but if EWR are tendering for their own DMUs I think the decision is probably final.

I think one concern is that if the WCML goes to hell in a handcart as it not unusually does, the Marylebone service would be packed full of MKC and Bletchley commuters and wouldn't fit anyone on from Aylesbury or south thereof. Some will do this anyway even if they have to change, but it won't be as pronounced as if there's a train stood there with LONDON on the board - for example, very few from Bletchley think to go via Bedford in serious disruption even though ticket acceptance is often in place.

 

[tetudo boy]

MKC-AYS isn't going to run through to London any more, which means an electrified route is much more useful again.

Plus, we already have a good connection between MKC and London Euston on Avanti West Coast. I also suspect that even after HS2, the Birmingham New Street to London Euston service will still be running.

 

[si404]

With respect to the other services, I understand that they are intended to be 1 tph on each of the following routes:

• Bedford - Bletchley stopping service as at present - class 230 units should suffice
• Bedford - Oxford (fast)
• MK - Oxford
• MK - Aylesbury - High Wycombe - Marylebone

2tph MK - Oxford, not 1tph.
And Bedford-Oxford is more semi-fast than fast. The new services will be:

Oxford - Oxford Parkway - Winslow - Bletchley - Woburn Sands - Ridgmont - Bedford
Oxford - Oxford Parkway - Winslow - Bletchley - Milton Keynes Central
Oxford - Oxford Parkway - Winslow - Bletchley - Milton Keynes Central
Aylesbury - Aylesbury Vale Parkway - Winslow - Bletchley - Milton Keynes Central

The MK - Aylesbury service could be linked to the existing Aylesbury - High Wycombe - Marylebone service, to improve connectivity and reduce the need for trains to waste time on layovers at Aylesbury.

It could, but that has been ruled out initially by the DfT trying to keep E-W Rail contracts as simple as possible.

There's commitments "to ensure that train services operating over the Scheme support" "the strategic objective of developing, on the opening of HS2, through services on the Northampton - Milton Keynes - Bletchley - Aylesbury - High Wycombe - Old Oak Common axis." and "the strategic objective of EWR services continuing through Oxford Station and onto Didcot Parkway". Ensuring train services support a strategic objective is designed to sound promising, but would allow a low bar - especially when the objective is 'developing' something, rather than doing something.

It's different to the commitment "to require that the Scheme makes adequate provision for additional freight services." - which uses less weaselly language and is clearly something wanted, rather than something that is just not winding stakeholders up.

Plus, we already have a good connection between MKC and London Euston on Avanti West Coast. I also suspect that even after HS2, the Birmingham New Street to London Euston service will still be running.

The purpose of running to Marylebone (or OOC) has nothing to do with linking MKC and London. OK, it does give Winslow a London service, but even the Aylesbury - HW - Marylebone service isn't about linking Aylesbury to London, but Aylesbury to High Wycombe (and places south of Aylesbury to London).

 

[swt_passenger]

Plus, we already have a good connection between MKC and London Euston on Avanti West Coast. I also suspect that even after HS2, the Birmingham New Street to London Euston service will still be running.

Linking Marylebone to Milton Keynes Via Aylesbury is about the intermediate options between MKC and places on the Chiltern line such as Princes Risborough and High Wycombe, almost nothing to do with the headline end to end stations.