Why So Many New EMU Classes?

[tbtc]

Obviously we need lots of EMUs, but is there any reason for quite so many new classes of them?

In the last few years, we've had (figures from Wikepedia, so not 100%):

332 (fourteen sets)
333 (eighteen sets)
334 (forty sets)
350 (sixty seven sets)
360 (twenty six sets)
375 (one hundred and twelve units)
376 (thirty six units)
377 (one hundred and eighty two units)

..plus DC equivalents, plus the 378/ 379/ 380/ new classes for Thameslink/ Crossrail...

Is there any real need for all these different types? Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to build one main class of 100mph stock with a variety that has doors at the end and one with doors in the middle?

Add in an additional class for 125mph trains (with doors at the end) capable of routes like Birmingham - Glasgow or London - Norwich.

Instead of three classes, we have a dozen different flavours of the same thing. This means we end up with awkward numbers of units to swap between operators (which has caused unnecessary complications).

Can anyone justify why we need so many classes?

(I understand *why* we have so many, as each TOC has bought a class specific to it, given the lack of central organisation)

 

[Bastiaan]

Because different operators in different parts of the country, order stock at different manufacturers (Siemens, Bombardier, Alstom, CAF). This is why there are so many different EMU classes. You already gave this answer by yourself, and I think there simply is no other answer.

 

[O L Leigh]

It's always been done this way, which is why there were so many different classes of 75mph Sprinters and Pacers, and to a similar degree 1st gen units.

When you're looking to replace an entire fleet of trains quickly it is more efficient to utilise lots of different manufacturing sources. When Provincial Services wanted to modernise it's fleet in the 1980's it required the combined manufacturing output of BREL Derby, BREL York, Met-Camm, Leyland, Alexander and Andrew Barclay, and it still took the best part of a decade to complete the job.

The TOC's providing the majority of London's commuter services suddenly found themselves in a similar situation due to the requirement to withdraw all non-CDL slamdoor stock by a certain date. Therefore they couldn't afford to hang around and so replacement stock was sourced from a number of different manufacturers.

O L Leigh

 

[tbtc]

I can't argue with the replies, I just wonder what the railway would have been like if we had one "super class" of five hundred units

 

[O L Leigh]

Well, it was what NSE wanted and what the Networker project was inching towards. All of the slammers south of the river would have been replaced and all new-build EMU's would have been Networker derivatives of various types.

O L Leigh

 

[swt_passenger]

There's no fundamental reason why the 'DC' Desiros aren't numbered in the 350 series either, there are plenty of Electrostars around that should be 477s using the same justification, ie they haven't got AC capability fitted.

There are many examples you can find, particularly with the Electrostars, where the class number defines only a pretty subtle difference. The new trains for NXEA which are going to be 379s would still be the same if they'd been called 377/6s, and logically the LO 378s could have been 377/8s or whatever.

What I'm getting round to is that we haven't really got that many new EMU types if you combine all Desiro variants and all Electrostar variants...

So it seems most of the class numbering is purely for operator convenience. Not only EMUs, but I've mentioned before that SWT renumbered some 158s into 159s specifically so that for their own planning purposes there is a simple 159=3 and 158=2 situation.

 

[SouthEastern-465]

There's no fundamental reason why the 'DC' Desiros aren't numbered in the 350 series either, there are plenty of Electrostars around that should be 477s using the same justification, ie they haven't got AC capability fitted.

There are many examples you can find, particularly with the Electrostars, where the class number defines only a pretty subtle difference. The new trains for NXEA which are going to be 379s would still be the same if they'd been called 377/6s, and logically the LO 378s could have been 377/8s or whatever.

What I'm getting round to is that we haven't really got that many new EMU types if you combine all Desiro variants and all Electrostar variants...

So it seems most of the class numbering is purely for operator convenience. Not only EMUs, but I've mentioned before that SWT renumbered some 158s into 159s specifically so that for their own planning purposes there is a simple 159=3 and 158=2 situation.

Although I am sure Class 375s, 376s, & some 377s are numbered in the 3XX series because they can be fitted with AC equipment for use on OHLE, and this can be noticed on the roofs where theres parts ready for pantographs to be fitted if needed.

 

[MCR247]

Yes, but so do 444s and 450s
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's no fundamental reason why the 'DC' Desiros aren't numbered in the 350 series either, there are plenty of Electrostars around that should be 477s using the same justification, ie they haven't got AC capability fitted.

There are many examples you can find, particularly with the Electrostars, where the class number defines only a pretty subtle difference. The new trains for NXEA which are going to be 379s would still be the same if they'd been called 377/6s, and logically the LO 378s could have been 377/8s or whatever.

Class 378s are a lot different to 377s so I wouldn't make them a subclass. They are however a lot more like Class 376s
Well I don't see why they don't just group all 377s and 375s into one class because it could be done like this

377/1: Current 377/1s and 375/7s
377/2: Current /2s and 377/6s
377/3: Current /3s and 375/3s
377/4: Current /4s and 375/9s
377/5: Current /5s and 375/8s

Could that not work?

 

[87015]

Yes, but so do 444s and 450s
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Class 378s are a lot different to 377s so I wouldn't make them a subclass. They are however a lot more like Class 376s
Well I don't see why they don't just group all 377s and 375s into one class because it could be done like this

377/1: Current 377/1s and 375/7s
377/2: Current /2s and 377/6s
377/3: Current /3s and 375/3s
377/4: Current /4s and 375/9s
377/5: Current /5s and 375/8s

Could that not work?

Thats how it was planned to be, all as 375s. The first Southern units entered service as 375s but were renumbered when, I think, the couplers were changed which made them incompatible with the Eastern division 375s.

That of course is the real issue, numbers are just digits but the huge amount of different classes which will not multi to each other is a disgrace that the TOCs should never have been allowed to get away with.

 

[GospelOak117]

I can't argue with the replies, I just wonder what the railway would have been like if we had one "super class" of five hundred units

It would be a VERY dull railway

 

[ainsworth74]

It would be a VERY dull railway

Yes but it would be a much more operationally simpler railway, probably a much simpler railway to maintain and also cheaper with economies of scale and commonality of maintenance + spares.

 

[rail-britain]

I agree that having a small number of base units makes operations much easier
However, TOCs are not prepared to share fleets, which in effect is what would happen

It has happened in the past, and it continues to cause issues to this day; Class 158 / 159, Class 220 or 221 / 222
Personally this type of exclusivity should not be permitted

This then often prevents simple cascading of "redundant" rolling stock, without that rolling stock either being modified or retained as a separate sub-fleet

On the plus side it allows greater flexibility within a fleet
Quite often the requirements vary quite substantially, to take into account local routes, passenger demands, route type, and service types

One final consideration, also learnt from the past
Do not just buy one type of train from one manufacturer
In the event of a mechanical failure that fleet may need to be taken out of service
In such an event, if all trains came from one manufacturer the entire commuter network would collapse
As it is at least a basic service can be maintained (as was shown when the Class 334 units could not cope with snow earlier this year)

Finally, I do agree EMUs should be obtained for Birmingham - Scotland, ordering now would make them available for the next franchise
This would then release Voyagers for use elsewhere (even other TOCs that may benefit from them)
Why DfT don't see the sense in this is beyond most people

 

[tbtc]

It would be a VERY dull railway

Dull, maybe (though probably all in different colours still), but its perverse for the railway to spend money on making train IN-compatible with each other and trying to avoid having any common standards.

Say one TOC has a unit out of service (due to an accident) or needs one additional one to cope with marginal growth...

... the simple solution would be to procure an additional unit from elsewhere...

...however, the TOCs all have different classes nowadays, meaning you'd need to train staff on a new type of train (which they don't sign for), different maintenance etc etc. The entire railway industry in the UK is too complicated, and here's a simple example of why

 

[route:oxford]

Finally, I do agree EMUs should be obtained for Birmingham - Scotland, ordering now would make them available for the next franchise
This would then release Voyagers for use elsewhere (even other TOCs that may benefit from them)
Why DfT don't see the sense in this is beyond most people

Agreed.

Which one should they order though? 7/8/9 cars?

An electric "Voyager" would probably make most sense.

One with better internal doors...

50% "Normal" narrow lavatory cubicles so blokes have the opportunity to wedge their feet apart between the sides when the train is swaying (this subsequently benefits the ladies too!)

Use space released by "Normal" loo to provide lots more luggage space.

 

[rail-britain]

Which one should they order though? 7/8/9 cars?

Ordering "additional" 9 cars trains would make the most sense, keeping the entire Euston allocation as 9 cars
The "older" 7 car trains can then be cascaded to the Birmingham - Scotland route
Furthermore, that in effect would reduce the need for some of these "additional" cars to take the remaining 7 car trains to 9 car trains
Alternatively, make them all 9 car trains, although that would mean excessive capacity between Birmingham - Scotland, but with a revised fare structure that would attract many more people to this route

 

[swt_passenger]

Although I am sure Class 375s, 376s, & some 377s are numbered in the 3XX series because they can be fitted with AC equipment for use on OHLE, and this can be noticed on the roofs where theres parts ready for pantographs to be fitted if needed.

Exactly the same as the 450s and 444s then, which also have a pantograph space. Hence my original point...

 

[Fincra5]

Maybe because none of the SWT desiros have AC fitted, but a load of Southern 377s do, suppose it just limits the number of classes for a TOC.

 

[MCR247]

A load of 377s? 15 out of 205? Yes, a load

 

[DjU]

A load of 377s? 15 out of 205? Yes, a load

38 out of 205.

You forgot the 377/5

 

[MCR247]

Oh right, but still, I wouldn't call that a load

 

[Fincra5]

Oh right, but still, I wouldn't call that a load

Well sorry...... As if it made that much difference It is a fair % of the number of 377s Southern have.

 

[jopsuk]

332 and 333 are essentially the same as I understand it

The first batch of 350s were ordered as 450s for SWT before being diverted to be AC units. As far as I'm aware, 360s are esentially 350s with a different cab end- which, as is being shown with the 172s (and 150s before them), doesn't have to mean it is a different class. Given the situation with the electrostars, pretty sure there's no reason why 350, 360 and 450 couldn't be numbered as a single class. But renumbering them as such would be a big job.

The 171 mini-fleet are 170s with a different coupler.

Some 375s have been renumbered as 377s. 376s and 378s are distinct enough classes.

Even BR was not immune- witness the five-unit 322 class, pretty much identical to the 321. Or even, given other classes encompass different formation lengths and gearing set ups, perhaps 320, 321 and 322 could be regarded as the same class- and 317 and 318 as another?

 

[MCR247]

313, 314s and 315s could be the same class couldn't they?

 

[TDK]

Agreed.

Which one should they order though? 7/8/9 cars?

An electric "Voyager" would probably make most sense.

One with better internal doors...

50% "Normal" narrow lavatory cubicles so blokes have the opportunity to wedge their feet apart between the sides when the train is swaying (this subsequently benefits the ladies too!)

Use space released by "Normal" loo to provide lots more luggage space.

Why would you want electric voyagers when there are Pendolinos?

 

[MCR247]

Because instead of building new trains, you could build one new coach for each existing unit

 

[rail-britain]

313, 314s and 315s could be the same class couldn't they?

Yes, very little between them
The same could apply to 317, 318, and 319, then also 320, 321, and 322

When you look back a few years to DMUs, although they were different classes virtually any items could be operated together
Equally, after the fire at Ayr depot this often resulted in some very mixed sets in Scotland, furthermore after the Class 107s had to be temporarily stored
I remember one regular DMU comprising vehicles from 105+101+104

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Thats how it was planned to be, all as 375s. The first Southern units entered service as 375s but were renumbered when, I think, the couplers were changed which made them incompatible with the Eastern division 375s.

That is correct, 377 301 to 377 328 were originally 375 311 to 375 338. I only managed to photograph four of them before the numbers were changed!

 

[tbtc]

One reason for this thread is that I was thinking of Northern who only have a couple of dozen EMUs, but have three classes, which must be a nuisance. Things might have been simpler if more 321s had been built instead of building 323s, for example (and why 333s, and not an EMU design from elsewhere)?

Surely all these smaller classes makes things more expensive and complicated (both in terms of desigining/ building them, and maintaining them/ training staff on them)?

332 and 333 are essentially the same as I understand it

I really can't see any reason to treat them as two separate classes, but then I can't see why the Heathrow and Shipley lines needed something"unique" in the first place

The 171 mini-fleet are 170s with a different coupler.

Were the Network South East 159s a separate class for that reason too?

Is there any reason why all trains don't have the same couplers?

Even BR was not immune- witness the five-unit 322 class, pretty much identical to the 321. Or even, given other classes encompass different formation lengths and gearing set ups, perhaps 320, 321 and 322 could be regarded as the same class- and 317 and 318 as another?

Good point about the 322s, never understood that one.

Since a class like 150 or 158 can have lots of varieties (no corridor connectors/ corridor connectors, or two car/ three car), I'm not sure why EMUs need to be so different.

After all the three car 380s and four car 380s are still the same class.

Historically, was the reason for some of this local areas not wanting their new stock "pinched", so they had an incentive to make it "non-standard"? Its a bit like defacing your possessions to stop people trying to steal them!

 

[asylumxl]

I'm going to assume that the 332 is a seperate class because it has ATP for operating on the GWML.

 

[tbtc]

I'm going to assume that the 332 is a seperate class because it has ATP for operating on the GWML.

I can see the logic there, but (to take an example) the ATW 158s with ERTMS are still 158s

EMUs seem more likely to have a different class number, rather than be XXX/0s, XXX/1s etc