Future rolling stock and upgrades for the WoE line.

[pompeyfan]

To be fair I personally think the franchise has settled down, First definitely made some mistakes to begin with like changing their engine supplier for the diesel fleet, however, since March last year any change in policy is solely down to the DfT

 

[Metal_gee_man]

First/MTR made the correct financial decision with the 701s, the engines issue was a bit daft, the union/staff role/industrial action bit could have been and should have been better handled, the 442s have been an unmitigated cock up and the ditching of the 707s seems crazy but they have started to bring things round, running much smoother and efficiently

 

[DB]

While I respectfully disagree with you on the LHCS front, as in my option it’s far superior to any unit, regardless of power source, I do agree that should it be units that are ordered they should have a desperate power pack. That is without a doubt. They offer almost as much comfort as LHCS, but without the shunting bit.

Not really sure how it can, as a universal concept, be claimed to be superior to an EMU - unpowered EMU trailers with no other equiopment (transformer, compressor) are literally no different to LHCS from a passenger perspective, and even the powered ones and those with equiopment generally have very little or no obvious noise or vibration.

DMUs can be worse due to the underfloor engines, but whether that makes LHCS better largely depends on the LHCS. Mk3s are very good, Mk4s are pretty decent, but I've not been impressed with the Mk5a sets at all. I think it's also important to note that the Mk5a sets are very different to previous LHCS - they are fixed-formation sets with bar couplers and a full TMS system and as such as pretty much an unpowered multiple unit which couples to a a loco: they don't have the flexibility to swap and extend which was one of the advantages of previous LHCS - any changes would be little different to swapping or extending an EMU.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Feb 2021 ==

Whereas the ride quality in a Mk5 is like riding on a cushion of air...

...Wait the ride quality is even worse than a 80X.

Not sure that they are worse, but they are no better - I wouldn't have said there was much to pick between them to be honest!

Of the TPE fleet, the 185s ride the best, despite the underfloor engines.

 

[MarkyT]

I think it's also important to note that the Mk5a sets are very different to previous LHCS - they are fixed-formation sets with bar couplers and a full TMS system and as such as pretty much an unpowered multiple unit which couples to a a loco: they don't have the flexibility to swap and extend which was one of the advantages of previous LHCS - any changes would be little different to swapping or extending an EMU.

The advantage insofar as any exists is, like HST power cars, the loco can be swapped. The loco can be on a different maintenance schedule and is more likely to fail than the non-powered push-pull set. Push-pull rakes can be designed so additional coaches might be inserted between a fixed set and the loco to match capacity to demand, although it will undoubtedly affect performance. I've seen this done in Switzerland, where electric haulage means locos usually have plenty of power in reserve to maintain timings. Even there though, operators are switching over to fixed formation emus generally. The modern Railjet push-pull sets in Austria are fixed formations.

 

[DB]

The advantage insofar as any exists is, like HST power cars, the loco can be swapped. The loco can be on a different maintenance schedule and is more likely to fail than the non-powered push-pull set. Push-pull rakes can be designed so additional coaches might be inserted between a fixed set and the loco to match capacity to demand, although it will undoubtedly affect performance. I've seen this done in Switzerland, where electric haulage means locos usually have plenty of power in reserve to maintain timings. Even there though, operators are switching over to fixed formation emus generally. The modern Railjet push-pull sets in Austria are fixed formations.

Moderns units (especially EMUs) are now generally sufficiently reliably as to make this a marginal benefit though - espcially given that a single loco means that one engine failure means the train can't move, whereas DMUs have multiple engines, and the longer EMUs tend to have multiple transformers and two pantographs.

Varying the length by adding and removing carriages to suit demand just doesn't fit with the fixed-formation railway which this country has been pursuing for several decades now - and can be accomplished to an extent by joining and splitting units (which can be done in a station, unlike changes to LHCS rakes).

 

[MarkyT]

Moderns units (especially EMUs) are now generally sufficiently reliably as to make this a marginal benefit though - espcially given that a single loco means that one engine failure means the train can't move, whereas DMUs have multiple engines, and the longer EMUs tend to have multiple transformers and two pantographs.

Varying the length by adding and removing carriages to suit demand just doesn't fit with the fixed-formation railway which this country has been pursuing for several decades now - and can be accomplished to an extent by joining and splitting units (which can be done in a station, unlike changes to LHCS rakes).

Fully appreciate all of that, and I have no personal preference really beyond a seat and a comfortable ride. I recall reading the Railjets were only specified as push-pull sets rather than integrated EMUs because OeBB already had so many Taurus locos in stock or ordered that needed some work!

 

[Charlie Smythe]

the engines issue

This is probably the stupidest thing that they did. Why would you change engines suppliers when the old one was doing just fine? Who was it they changed to?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Feb 2021 ==

Re. the LHCS convocation, couldn’t software be added to allow 68 + Mk5 sets to be joined together to make a 10 car train?

I don’t know if the TPE sets can do it, but there’s not reason why some software/wiring changes couldn’t be made to allow for this in a SWR or XC order.

 

[Energy]

I don’t know if the TPE sets can do it, but there’s not reason why some software/wiring changes couldn’t be made to allow for this in a SWR or XC order.

First of, this is not possible. The 68s cannot be made anymore due to emission regulations and not enough space for the new emissions equipment. 93s are being made but won't have as much power.

Why would anyone order mk5as now? So far the TPE sets have been unreliable and expensive, track access charges for the 68 are 65.07p (per mile), each mk5a vehicle is 7.62p, bringing the whole 5xmk5a and 68 set to 103.17p. For comparison the heavy 185s are 15p, so a 5 car version of them (if it would exist) is 75p. Loco haulage is gone, its just worse in all but two ways, noise inside (ignoring outside, the 68s are loud enough to get noise complaints) and possibly lower floor as you don't have to squeeze an engine underneath.

 

[DB]

First of, this is not possible. The 68s cannot be made anymore due to emission regulations and not enough space for the new emissions equipment. 93s are being made but won't have as much power.

Why would anyone order mk5as now? So far the TPE sets have been unreliable and expensive, track access charges for the 68 are 65.07p (per mile), each mk5a vehicle is 7.62p, bringing the whole 5xmk5a and 68 set to 103.17p. For comparison the heavy 185s are 15p, so a 5 car version of them (if it would exist) is 75p. Loco haulage is gone, its just worse in all but two ways, noise inside (ignoring outside, the 68s are loud enough to get noise complaints) and possibly lower floor as you don't have to squeeze an engine underneath.

I expect Stadler would come up with a modified design which was compliant if someone wanted to place an order!

Most of your other points are fair enough but the sound of the loco is barely noticeable inside the Mk5s - certainly less so than underfloor engines normally are.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Feb 2021 ==

This is probably the stupidest thing that they did. Why would you change engines suppliers when the old one was doing just fine? Who was it they changed to?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Feb 2021 ==

Re. the LHCS convocation, couldn’t software be added to allow 68 + Mk5 sets to be joined together to make a 10 car train?

I don’t know if the TPE sets can do it, but there’s not reason why some software/wiring changes couldn’t be made to allow for this in a SWR or XC order.

How would that be an advantage over joining units? Even if new software could be designed to allow sets to work in multiple, coupling them and connecting the wires is still a manual process, unlike DMUs which use autocouplers.

 

[Energy]

I expect Stadler would come up with a modified design which was compliant if someone wanted to place an order!

They can't, ROG asked for it and they were told no but were offered the battery solution. Maybe this is because of the OHLE need but there wasn't a lot of space in a 68 already and I doubt anyone is too interested in a diesel only loco for passenger haulage.

but the sound of the loco is barely noticeable inside the Mk5s - certainly less so than underfloor engines normally are.

It may be barely noticeable inside but outside it is not, noise for the surrounding areas will be a concern. Enthusiasts may like loud trains but the local residents do not.

How would that be an advantage over joining units? Even if new software could be designed to allow sets to work in multiple, coupling them and connecting the wires is still a manual process, unlike DMUs which use autocouplers.

I believe mk5 sets have a bar at the end of the set, more effort than an autocoupler.

 

[DB]

They can't, ROG asked for it and they were told no but were offered the battery solution. Maybe this is because of the OHLE need but there wasn't a lot of space in a 68 already and I doubt anyone is too interested in a diesel only loco for passenger haulage.

What did ROG actually ask for? If they wanted OHL capability that means a transformer is required, so isn't a fair comparison with a 68.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

First of, this is not possible. The 68s cannot be made anymore due to emission regulations and not enough space for the new emissions equipment. 93s are being made but won't have as much power.

Why would anyone order mk5as now? So far the TPE sets have been unreliable and expensive, track access charges for the 68 are 65.07p (per mile), each mk5a vehicle is 7.62p, bringing the whole 5xmk5a and 68 set to 103.17p. For comparison the heavy 185s are 15p, so a 5 car version of them (if it would exist) is 75p. Loco haulage is gone, its just worse in all but two ways, noise inside (ignoring outside, the 68s are loud enough to get noise complaints) and possibly lower floor as you don't have to squeeze an engine underneath.

Loco haulage isn’t gone. It has so many benefits over MU’s.

It’s just a shame that the DfT are too narrow minded to see the benefits of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Feb 2021 ==

I expect Stadler would come up with a modified design which was compliant if someone wanted to place an order!

Most of your other points are fair enough but the sound of the loco is barely noticeable inside the Mk5s - certainly less so than underfloor engines normally are.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Feb 2021 ==



How would that be an advantage over joining units? Even if new software could be designed to allow sets to work in multiple, coupling them and connecting the wires is still a manual process, unlike DMUs which use autocouplers.

The advantage is that you get the benefit of units ie. the splitting as well the benefits of LHCS ie. comfort.

 

[Energy]

It has so many benefits over MU’s.

No it doesn't. Slight benefit with noise inside over DMUs but other than that they are less flexible (well modern loco hauled), expensive, loud to the neighbours, waste platform space, less fuel efficient and worse for acceleration.

It’s just a shame that the DfT are too narrow minded to see the benefits of it.

They aren't, its pretty clear that loco hauled is worse in most ways.

Loco haulage isn’t gone.

Ignoring sleepers, it isn't gone but it is dead. Chiltern would drop their sets in a heart beat if they got a new franchise and some turbostars came on the market, they only haven't now due to the uncertainty of being close to the end of their franchise. TPEs sets have not been a success, being unreliable and entering service 2 years late, the reason TPE chose them was fast delivery... There was reported some proposal for sets for XC's next franchise but this has not come to anything and seems to have died of quickly with little more than speculation around it.

The advantage is that you get the benefit of units ie. the splitting as well the benefits of LHCS ie. comfort.

LHCS doesn't split that well, it uses a bar to couple not an autocoupler, meaning it takes a long time to couple. LHCS isn't more comfortable, ignoring engine noise it is going to be about the same as an MU, it really depends on the suspension.

 

[Wolfie]

Why split it? 5 or 6 cars is plenty. LHCS is of course the best option for any railway, especially a long regional one like this.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2021 ==

If not LHCS then Stadler 755’s are the way forward.

The only important thing is that the train is comfortable for passengers. The only way to do that is to have LHCS or a separate power module like the Stadler 755’s.

You are posting your opinion as fact. Why "of course" is LHCS the best option for any railway? If you are correct why, pretty much worldwide, is that solution being moved away from?

 

[DB]

LHCS doesn't split that well, it uses a bar to couple not an autocoupler, meaning it takes a long time to couple. LHCS isn't more comfortable, ignoring engine noise it is going to be about the same as an MU, it really depends on the suspension.

Plus whereas units can be split and joined easily by just the drivers in a station, doing the same with LHCS sets (even if their software allowed it) would require a shunter to couple them up and connect the various cables - so not really a practical proposition these days.

If LHCS has any place now, it would be long trains on long-distance services with no splitting or joining, possibly with a loco / power car at each end for redundancy, as with the HST. However, that's clearly not going to happen and for short regional or local trains new build LHCS no longer really makes sense - TPE only did it because they were promised the sets quickly as they could be tacked onto the sleeper order.

 

[Journeyman]

Loco haulage isn’t gone. It has so many benefits over MU’s.

No, it doesn't. It's less efficient, track access charges are higher, it's noisier for those living by the railway, it's less flexible, it often involves higher fuel costs, and performance varies with different train lengths. The Southern Railway recognised as early as the 1930s that multiple units were superior to loco hauled stock for timetabling and performance reasons, as trains of varying lengths had consistent power-to-weight ratios.

99.9999% of passengers don't care where the engines are, and modern DMUs have excellent sound insulation.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

There was reported some proposal for sets for XC's next franchise but this has not come to anything and seems to have died of quickly with little more than speculation around it.

We can only hope that the next XC franchise has some kind of new stock. LHCS is preferable, but a HST type setup would be just as good.

Unfortunately there aren’t any decent 125mph capable MU’s out there at the moment. The last decent 125mph train made for this country was the HST.

 

[Journeyman]

We can only hope that the next XC franchise has some kind of new stock. LHCS is preferable, but a HST type setup would be just as good.

Unfortunately there aren’t any decent 125mph capable MU’s out there at the moment. The last decent 125mph train made for this country was the HST.

Oh, not this again.

Loco hauled is not coming back. XC is likely to have 22x stock for some years, especially when Avanti and EMR units become available.

The HST was good once, but is now woefully out of date and unsuitable for modern needs. Personally I'm happy with all the modern 125mph trains in this country, and find long journeys on them to be absolutely fine.

 

[DB]

Oh, not this again.

Loco hauled is not coming back. XC is likely to have 22x stock for some years, especially when Avanti and EMR units become available.

The HST was good once, but is now woefully out of date and unsuitable for modern needs. Personally I'm happy with all the modern 125mph trains in this country, and find long journeys on them to be absolutely fine.

When XC eventually gets something new (which isn't likely to be for some time) it'll probably be an 80x or similar - straight electric will be out as the whole of the route won't be wired, but new-build diesel-only where it operates a lot of miles under the wires wouldn't be acceptable.

Don't agree on HST - it's still the best passenger experience out there. Being diesel-only is not ideal for many routes, but the same applies to 22x.

 

[pompeyfan]

I completely understand this is the speculation sub-forum, but there is a huge amount of opposing opinions but very little justification and even less evidence and yes I’m guilty for it after knocking Derby’s work because of personal preference.

I just wish people would justify their opinion rather than noise.

last year I travelled from Reading to the depths of Cornwall and couldn’t hear any engine noises.

just correcting a previous point of mine about 10x23m stock, this wouldn’t work routinely as Salisbury only has 1 (one) platform available to accommodate a 230m train, which means you’re back to looking at 9x23m (207m) and an easy way to divide that into MUs.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Oh, not this again.

Loco hauled is not coming back. XC is likely to have 22x stock for some years, especially when Avanti and EMR units become available.

The HST was good once, but is now woefully out of date and unsuitable for modern needs. Personally I'm happy with all the modern 125mph trains in this country, and find long journeys on them to be absolutely fine.

What’s wrong with the HST in modern times?

They served GWR’s needs for years and were only replaced due to the GWML Electricaton and PRM scheme’s otherwise I could have seen them doing another 10 years, like the Castle sets will. The format for the HST is a good one and has the benefits of LHCS and some of the benefits of MU’s.

It has redundancy ie. two engines just incase of failure. It also has passenger comfort due to their being no engines or motors under the coaches. The only issues is splitting, but that doesn’t matter to much on a Edinburgh to Penzance service.

As for platform space and wasted length, that’s a non issue. 8 x 23m coaches and 2 x 17m power cars was 218m, short enough to fit in most platforms.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2021 ==

Loco hauled is not coming back. XC is likely to have 22x stock for some years, especially when Avanti and EMR units become available.

Traditional loco hauled and HST type setups (I am putting them both in the loco hauled category) do still have a place, and that is on long distance service that’s aren’t often split.

A HST type setup doesn’t waste much more space than a 4 + 4 of a 4 + 5 Voyager once the wasted can and crumple zone space has been deducted. I know HST power cars are 37m long, but once you add up all the crumple zones of a 22x, you won’t be too far short of that.

 

[Journeyman]

What’s wrong with the HST in modern times?

They served GWR’s needs for years and were only replaced due to the GWML Electricaton and PRM scheme’s otherwise I could have seen them doing another 10 years, like the Castle sets will. The format for the HST is a good one and has the benefits of LHCS and some of the benefits of MU’s.

It has redundancy ie. two engines just incase of failure. It also has passenger comfort due to their being no engines or motors under the coaches. The only issues is splitting, but that doesn’t matter to much on a Edinburgh to Penzance service.

As for platform space and wasted length, that’s a non issue. 8 x 23m coaches and 2 x 17m power cars was 218m, short enough to fit in most platforms.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2021 ==


Traditional loco hauled and HST type setups (I am putting them both in the loco hauled category) do still have a place, and that is on long distance service that’s aren’t often split.

A HST type setup doesn’t waste much more space than a 4 + 4 of a 4 + 5 Voyager once the wasted can and crumple zone space has been deducted. I know HST power cars are 37m long, but once you add up all the crumple zones of a 22x, you won’t be too far short of that.

HSTs are old and knackered, basically. Reliability is dropping, corrosion is a serious problem and performance is inferior to modern trains with slow acceleration, which causes big problems on lines with a lot of traffic. They're also serious gas-guzzlers, which creates a lot of pollution, and makes them expensive to run. Track access charges are high too.

That'll do.

 

[DB]

HSTs are old and knackered, basically. Reliability is dropping, corrosion is a serious problem and performance is inferior to modern trains with slow acceleration, which causes big problems on lines with a lot of traffic. They're also serious gas-guzzlers, which creates a lot of pollution, and makes them expensive to run. Track access charges are high too.

That'll do.

Reliability is down to maintenance, and corrosion is dealt with by welding it - same as with any other steel-bodied veihcles.

Acceleration of full-length sets is slower (which may or may not be an issue depending on the stopping pattern) but with the shortened sets it simply isn't an issue - they can accelerate well.

 

[Energy]

Reliability is down to maintenance

It does get worse with age, their engines aren't that old.

and corrosion is dealt with by welding it - same as with any other steel-bodied veihcles.

You can only patch it up so much, welds aren't that strong...

 

[DB]

It does get worse with age, their engines aren't that old.

You can only patch it up so much, welds aren't that strong...

Engines and cooler groups have all been replaced relatively recently - the oldest engines in TOC use until recently were some of the VP185s, but those are now gone apart from charter / test train / preservation.

 

[43096]

Plus whereas units can be split and joined easily by just the drivers in a station, doing the same with LHCS sets (even if their software allowed it) would require a shunter to couple them up and connect the various cables - so not really a practical proposition these days.

You are assuming locos are all fitted with conventional couplers. In reality it's just a coupler - you could fit them with auto-couplers that include multi-working capability, exactly the same as a MU.

 

[DB]

You are assuming locos are all fitted with conventional couplers. In reality it's just a coupler - you could fit them with auto-couplers that include multi-working capability, exactly the same as a MU.

True, but there's still the matter of the ETS connections - don't think any autocoupler has ever included those?

 

[43096]

True, but there's still the matter of the ETS connections - don't think any autocoupler has ever included those?

Why do you need ETS connections if you join two sets together?

If you have (say) two loco+5 sets that join together, you run the ETS off the loco in that set.

 

[DB]

Why do you need ETS connections if you join two sets together?

If you have (say) two loco+5 sets that join together, you run the ETS off the loco in that set.

Gouing to get messy if locos end up in the middle of a train - is a powering loco even allowed in the middle of passenger trains?

 

[43096]

Gouing to get messy if locos end up in the middle of a train - is a powering loco even allowed in the middle of passenger trains?

Why wouldn't it be allowed? How's it any different from a Stadler 755 - they've effectively got a cabless loco in the middle.