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

[Bevan Price]

daodao said:


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.

So - knowing the ability of different parts of the railway to "cooperate", the connections at Aylesbury could feasibly be something like -5 / +55 minutes??

 

[Bletchleyite]

So - knowing the ability of different parts of the railway to "cooperate", the connections at Aylesbury could feasibly be something like -5 / +55 minutes??

There are 2tph from Aylesbury to Marylebone (plus peak extras), so worst case it'll be +35.

 

[si404]

There are 2tph from Aylesbury to Marylebone (plus peak extras), so worst case it'll be +35.

But, as has been pointed out, the through services aren't about Marylebone, but High Wycombe (etc), which is only 1tph.

 

[The Planner]

daodao said:


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.


So - knowing the ability of different parts of the railway to "cooperate", the connections at Aylesbury could feasibly be something like -5 / +55 minutes??

Chances are it will be like Avanti at Wolves or WMT at Northampton of old, same train, big dwell.

 

[tetudo boy]

I think the main problem we are developing here is that no one is certain what the services will be and who will operate them. If you want, I could make another thread about this, but I'm not risking making another thread after a flood of them from me (sorry about that).

 

[tetudo boy]

I think the main problem we are developing here is that no one is certain what the services will be and who will operate them. If you want, I could make another thread about this, but I'm not risking making another thread after a flood of them from me (sorry about that).

Continued here

 

[Cantab26]

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 difficulty is that significant stretches of the route between Oxford and Cambridge are active railway already. This means that it is not quite as simple as electrification from the get-go.

There is also the question of how to obtain the requisite consents for electrification across the whole route.

 

[Cantab26]

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.

The final route alignment has still not been decided yet. This remains an open question, although scope for electrification may well factor into the final decision.

 

[py_megapixel]

If I had to make a guess at what it will end up being? At a rough guess, in the first instance just whatever's available (possibly 153s and 158s?). Then, if new stock is to be ordered, probably Civities.

However, what it should be, is electric, most likely Civities again. In my opinion, the idea of opening a new unelectrified railway in the 21st century is, quite simply, preposterous (and yes I know it's happened already, that doesn't make it any more sensible).

 

[Metal_gee_man]

It's been said, I will agree finding a way to use the soon to be ex TfW 175s on Chiltern would seem a great idea but by either running them in multiples (not great for revenue checks) or by chopping them up and using the intermediate cars on the 3 cars to make 4 or 5 cars they don't make sense because of the amount of wastage of driving cars.
Why not give Chiltern the class 180s when Hull and EMR have finished with them as they are already 5 car and then cascade the 168s to EWR

 

[Nick Ashwell]

It's been said, I will agree finding a way to use the soon to be ex TfW 175s on Chiltern would seem a great idea but by either running them in multiples (not great for revenue checks) or by chopping them up and using the intermediate cars on the 3 cars to make 4 or 5 cars they don't make sense because of the amount of wastage of driving cars.
Why not give Chiltern the class 180s when Hull and EMR have finished with them as they are already 5 car and then cascade the 168s to EWR

Wastage isn't the biggest issue for the 175s, the fact you're only be able to have a maximum of eight 4-car units is.

 

[py_megapixel]

Wastage isn't the biggest issue for the 175s, the fact you're only be able to have a maximum of eight 4-car units is.

I'm not sure where you've got eight from.
There are 16 3 car 175s, which could be converted into eight 2-cars and eight 4-cars
This would leave 19 2 cars which is enough for 9 4-car sets.

That means that the existing fleet is enough for 17 4-car trains, with modifications

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Well yoi

I'm not sure where you've got eight from.
There are 16 3 car 175s, which could be converted into eight 2-cars and eight 4-cars
This would leave 19 2 cars which is enough for 9 4-car sets.

That means that the existing fleet is enough for 17 4-car trains, with modifications

How do you plan to magic two cars into longer units? They don't have centre cars...
There are only 16 centre cars across 16 sets, therefore eight centre cars get used to increase the other eight three car units to four car. Therefore you can only make eight four car sets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How do you plan to magic two cars into longer units? They don't have centre cars...

Erm, couple them together?

 

[py_megapixel]

How do you plan to magic two cars into longer units? They don't have centre cars...
There are only 16 centre cars across 16 sets, therefore eight centre cars get used to increase the other eight three car units to four car. Therefore you can only make eight four car sets.

Umm..... couple the 2 car sets in multiple?

 

[Cantab26]

How do you plan to magic two cars into longer units? They don't have centre cars...
There are only 16 centre cars across 16 sets, therefore eight centre cars get used to increase the other eight three car units to four car. Therefore you can only make eight four car sets.

I think the idea is that the 2-car sets would always be run in pairs, giving four cars per train.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Yes but coupling doesn't create sets, they remain two/three car sets or are two DMUs coupled not two DMUs?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes but coupling doesn't create sets, they remain two/three car sets or are two DMUs coupled not two DMUs?

I don't think that's important, the important thing is that 4-car trains can be operated.

 

[py_megapixel]

Yes but coupling doesn't create sets, they remain two/three car sets or are two DMUs coupled not two DMUs?

I don't think that's important, the important thing is that 4-car trains can be operated.

Indeed. I have some very interesting discussions on this forum on a daily basis.... but equally, there does seem to be a tendency to become hung-up on semantics?

Does the average passenger care if their 4 carriage train is formed of one unit or two? Obviously not.

 

[London Trains]

Does the average passenger care if their 4 carriage train is formed of one unit or two? Obviously not.

Yes if there isnt a gangway between the two. It can be seriously confusing and annoying not being able to go from one portion to another on a train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes if there isnt a gangway between the two. It can be seriously confusing and annoying not being able to go from one portion to another on a train.

In my experience it's only really an issue on this sort of service where the toilet in one half is out of order.

 

[D365]

It's never a problem in countries like Germany is it? Where they run two car DMUs and EMUs in multiple all the time.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

It's never a problem in countries like Germany is it? Where they run two car DMUs and EMUs in multiple all the time.

But equally they are probably both staffed by revenue/guard/OBM unlike Chiltern who won't want an extra member of staff than there existing operations

 

[Bletchleyite]

But equally they are probably both staffed by revenue/guard/OBM unlike Chiltern who won't want an extra member of staff than there existing operations

A lot of German services these days, particularly the sort of rural ones that would be operated with a pair of 2-car DMUs, are DOO with penalty fares applying.

 

[JonathanH]

But equally they are probably both staffed by revenue/guard/OBM unlike Chiltern who won't want an extra member of staff than there existing operations

Chiltern run a number of 2+2 formation trains as well. Is EWR going to be a pay-train line? I can't believe it is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Chiltern run a number of 2+2 formation trains as well. Is EWR going to be a pay-train line? I can't believe it is.

I would be amazed if it wasn't TVMs and PFs from day one. Possibly also DOO. The traincrew will be newly recruited so there'll be nobody to object to it - you apply for the job or you don't.

 

[JonathanH]

I would be amazed if it wasn't TVMs and PFs from day one. Possibly also DOO. The traincrew will be newly recruited so there'll be nobody to object to it - you apply for the job or you don't.

The tender requires the units to be suitable for DCO operation.

There is plenty of discussion in this thread that seems to run contrary to what EWR have actually asked for.

 

[Energy]

There is plenty of discussion in this thread that seems to run contrary to what EWR have actually asked for.

Yeah, lots of talking of new build stock despite EWR asking for used stock...

 

[squizzler]

I am surprised nobody had yet suggested a brand new fleet (!) of class 769. They could use 25kv sections of route. They are the big brother of the class 230s already in service between Bedford and Bletchley. It would also be fitting for these former Thameslink trains to be plying their trade out of Bedford once again.

 

[Energy]

I am surprised nobody had yet suggested a brand new fleet (!) of class 769. They could use 25kv sections of route. They are the big brother of the class 230s already in service between Bedford and Bletchley. It would also be fitting for these former Thameslink trains to be plying their trade out of Bedford once again.

They aren't the big brother as they don't have anything in common with the 230s except the fact that they got converted from existing trains. The 769s are still 319s in every way except the diesel engine, still the 2+3 seating (although this could be changed), no air con etc. The delivery times have also been pretty bad as they current ones aren't in service yet.