Do Greater Anglia have a rolling stock shortage?

[andystock22]

Greater Anglia seem to be operating a large number of services with only 5 carriages during the peak.

There is a large number of complaints about short forms and overcrowding on social media.

 

[NSE]

I don’t think they do. Guess it’s depends on the stock. By five coaches, I assume you’re referring to the mainline section. I know they have a healthy number of the bimodes, but they wouldn’t be used on the Hertford branch for example.

 

[JonathanH]

Greater Anglia seem to be operating a large number of services with only 5 carriages during the peak.

There is a large number of complaints about short forms and overcrowding on social media.

There are a lot more units to come. This should just be short term pain.

 

[Bald Rick]

Greater Anglia seem to be operating a large number of services with only 5 carriages during the peak.

There is a large number of complaints about short forms and overcrowding on social media.

remember that a 5 coach ‘new’ train has almost as many seats as an 8 coach ‘old’ train.

 

[bramling]

remember that a 5 coach ‘new’ train has almost as many seats as an 8 coach ‘old’ train.

Albeit carrying the same number of people will *feel* more considerably more cramped. That probably isn’t great for a railway which will increasingly need to return to having to attract people based on quality.

Is any manufacturer actually offering a 4x 20m vehicle platform at the moment?

 

[JonathanH]

Is any manufacturer actually offering a 4x 20m vehicle platform at the moment?

Yes, the same organisation that is building the 720s also built 48 4-car 20m units for London Overground.

 

[bramling]

Yes, the same organisation that is building the 720s also built 48 4-car 20m units for London Overground.

Ah, okay, forgot about LO.

From the end-user perspective, I do wonder what the 23m Aventra offers over something more traditional like a 387. Apart from some of the niggles like the seats, the position of first class, the slightly rough ride, and the usual Bombardier squeaks and rattles, in many ways the 387 is the perfect outer suburban train.

 

[cactustwirly]

Ah, okay, forgot about LO.

From the end-user perspective, I do wonder what the 23m Aventra offers over something more traditional like a 387. Apart from some of the niggles like the seats, the position of first class, the slightly rough ride, and the usual Bombardier squeaks and rattles, in many ways the 387 is the perfect outer suburban train.

I find the 387 offers a smoother ride than the Aventras. The lightweight bogies on the latter give them a jarring ride.

The Aventras have squeaks and rattles already, including on the brand new GA units. So as far as I'm concerned they are a downgrade on the electrostars they are partially replacing.

 

[Bald Rick]

Albeit carrying the same number of people will *feel* more considerably more cramped. That probably isn’t great for a railway which will increasingly need to return to having to attract people based on quality.

Increasingly, I agree, and GA will be increasing their fleet deployment as and when more units are commissioned.

 

[bramling]

Increasingly, I agree, and GA will be increasing their fleet deployment as and when more units are commissioned.

Naturally things will depend on whether GA (or should that be DFT?) are prepared to deploy 10 cars throughout the day, where at times they will encounter modestly loaded services.

4 cars do allow the solution of 8 cars during the day and 12 in the peaks, or all-day 8 cars if 12s are no longer needed for the peaks.

I do think the current fad for 5 cars is an element of reinventing the wheel. For an operator like GA who run some branch line services where 4 cars on their own are also appropriate, I do find it a little strange they didn’t opt for this as their EMU solution.

 

[Class15]

We just have to accept that commuter services will either make a loss from stabling EMUs in the off-peak or will have short forms. Therefore, if our good friend Jamie Burles decides to use 10-car trains in the peak but 5-car trains in the off-peak he will have the first problem I mentioned but if he decides to use 5 cars all day he will have the second problem. And, of course, if he uses 10 cars all day he will have his trains running half empty in the off-peak. What way to GA approach this? (Of course, I am forgetting that the government would give money to GA to cover the losses)

 

[Bald Rick]

We just have to accept that commuter services will either make a loss from stabling EMUs in the off-peak or will have short forms.

Why would they make a loss from having EMUs stabled between the peaks? Busy commuter railways have done this since time immemorial, and generally not made a loss in doing so. It’s a sensible deployment of assets.

 

[Class15]

Why would they make a loss from having EMUs stabled between the peaks? Busy commuter railways have done this since time immemorial, and generally not made a loss in doing so. It’s a sensible deployment of assets.

Maintenance costs? Certain I have heard that before but maybe I am wrong!

 

[Bald Rick]

Maintenance costs? Certain I have heard that before but maybe I am wrong!

Having them in the sidings means they need *less* maintenance compared to running around empty.

Of course having no longer train at all means you save maintenance and the cost of the train in the first place (plus some other costs, notably electricity for traction and track access costs, and the costs of a driver to get it to and from the sidings in the day).

For the London commuter market (for outer suburban services that go to/from the Home Counties), it is generally the case that the cost of providing a longer train on a peak service that is already operating is more than covered by the extra revenue it generates, even if it only operates one service in the morning, and one in the evening, spending the rest of the day in sidings. This assumes no extra infrastructure is required for the longer train.

 

[Class15]

Having them in the sidings means they need *less* maintenance compared to running around empty.

Of course having no longer train at all means you save maktenenacne and the cost of the train in the first place (plus some other costs, notably electricity for traction and track access costs, and the costs of a driver to get it to and from the sidings in the day).

For the London commuter market (for outer suburban services that go to/from the Home Counties), it is generally the case that the cost of providing a longer train on a peak service that is already operating is more than covered by the extra revenue it generates, even if it only operates one service in the morning, and one in the evening, spending the rest of the rain sidings. This assumes no extra infrastructure is required for the longer train.

I see thanks very much! I guess it shows how little I know *again*

 

[Bald Rick]

I see thanks very much! I guess it shows how little I know *again*

No problem. Every day’s a school day on these pages!

 

[bramling]

Having them in the sidings means they need *less* maintenance compared to running around empty.

Of course having no longer train at all means you save maktenenacne and the cost of the train in the first place (plus some other costs, notably electricity for traction and track access costs, and the costs of a driver to get it to and from the sidings in the day).

For the London commuter market (for outer suburban services that go to/from the Home Counties), it is generally the case that the cost of providing a longer train on a peak service that is already operating is more than covered by the extra revenue it generates, even if it only operates one service in the morning, and one in the evening, spending the rest of the rain sidings. This assumes no extra infrastructure is required for the longer train.

The GN setup at Hornsey was quite efficient in this. The outer-suburban fleet mainly stabled at the country end overnight, with many units going into Hornsey and receiving maintenance during the daytime. By contrast, the inner-suburban fleet had many units stabling at Hornsey overnight, and stabling at places like Welwyn or Letchworth during the day. So Hornsey was always utilised with units, just different ones at different times, and ECS mileage was fairly low.

I guess the question is to what extent DFT are prepared to have units running during the daytime simply to avoid people having to cram into 5-car trains, and to what extent it's operationally convenient to split the trains.

 

[Class15]

No problem. Every day’s a school day on these pages!

Ah well, we live and learn!

 

[ashkeba]

remember that a 5 coach ‘new’ train has almost as many seats as an 8 coach ‘old’ train.

Almost 10% fewer, isn't it? And about the same as strapontins not proper seats? And much less standing space.

 

[Bald Rick]

Almost 10% fewer, isn't it? And about the same as strapontins not proper seats? And much less standing space.

Depends on the train it’s replacing. It has rather more seats than an 8 car Class 379, indeed 1 x 5 car has almost the same number of Standard Class seats as a 12 car Class 379 (540 vs 567).

 

[bramling]

Depends on the train it’s replacing. It has rather more seats than an 8 car Class 379, indeed 1 x 5 car has almost the same number of Standard Class seats as a 12 car Class 379 (540 vs 567).

To be fair, a comparison to 317s, 321s or 360s is fairer, as this will have been what most people previously used. The comparison to 379s is certainly interesting, though.

 

[Bald Rick]

To be fair, a comparison to 317s, 321s or 360s is fairer, as this will have been what most people previously used. The comparison to 379s is certainly interesting, though.

OK: 1x5 720 has more Standard Class seats than an 8 car 360 (540 vs 528). And only 20 fewer seats if you include first class (which I have never seen full on a 360, although no doubt they were some times).

Difficult to compare with 321s and 317s as they had different variants. But I’d be surprised if either managed more than 600 seats for an 8 car.

 

[Magdalia]

Having them in the sidings means they need *less* maintenance compared to running around empty.

Of course having no longer train at all means you save maintenance and the cost of the train in the first place (plus some other costs, notably electricity for traction and track access costs, and the costs of a driver to get it to and from the sidings in the day).

For the London commuter market (for outer suburban services that go to/from the Home Counties), it is generally the case that the cost of providing a longer train on a peak service that is already operating is more than covered by the extra revenue it generates, even if it only operates one service in the morning, and one in the evening, spending the rest of the day in sidings. This assumes no extra infrastructure is required for the longer train.

But this does not take into account the capital cost of each train.

In the days when the operators owned the trains that would be spread over the expected life. For example a £1m train lasting 20 years costs £50k per year in straight line depreciation. The financing costs of borrowing the money to buy the trains then go on top. All these costs are baked in before the train has left the sidings, and are fixed, whether the train works all day or does nothing.

These days most trains are leased. The depreciation and financing costs still have to be covered, and are part of the leasing charge.

 

[Bald Rick]

But this does not take into account the capital cost of each train.

it does.

 

[BayPaul]

But this does not take into account the capital cost of each train.

In the days when the operators owned the trains that would be spread over the expected life. For example a £1m train lasting 20 years costs £50k per year in straight line depreciation. The financing costs of borrowing the money to buy the trains then go on top. All these costs are baked in before the train has left the sidings, and are fixed, whether the train works all day or does nothing.

These days most trains are leased. The depreciation and financing costs still have to be covered, and are part of the leasing charge.

I believe that many leasing deals include a mileage element, so a train sat in sidings will be costing less in leasing costs than one in service. Depreciation too should be partly mileage based, rather than just based on the age of the train

 

[Bikeman78]

Naturally things will depend on whether GA (or should that be DFT?) are prepared to deploy 10 cars throughout the day, where at times they will encounter modestly loaded services.

4 cars do allow the solution of 8 cars during the day and 12 in the peaks, or all-day 8 cars if 12s are no longer needed for the peaks.

I do think the current fad for 5 cars is an element of reinventing the wheel. For an operator like GA who run some branch line services where 4 cars on their own are also appropriate, I do find it a little strange they didn’t opt for this as their EMU solution.

What is even more bizarre is that most of the West Anglia network cannot take pairs of class 720s. They cannot run to Hertford East or Stratford. I suspect it will be a completely five car railway soon. Unless they hang on to some 317s until Hertford is sorted.