LNER New Trains (2023-)

[Bletchleyite]

No, it wouldn't be possible. There are a number of structural differences, only one of which is that the cars carrying gensets need to have higher floors than normal.

All 80x have all intermediates with the high floors. It was cheaper to standardise. Only the driving coaches have the "low" floor.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Sep 2022 ==

Of course manufacturers are likely to play safe and design it to comfortably operate at bit more, so might be a 130-140mph train with a speed limiter anyway.

I don't doubt that if Hitachi win they'll just have bidded 10-car 802s. Indeed, I think what people will bid is fairly obvious - if it's CAF it'll look rather 10-car 397-like but with diesels, if it's Stadler it'll be a 13 or 14-car FLIRT or Giruno derivative (or a hybrid of the two).

 

[Bald Rick]

In my understanding there are some stretches where the ECML could already safely operate at 140-150 mph, if the signalling system supported it.

your understanding is incorrect.

 

[XAM2175]

All 80x have all intermediates with the high floors. It was cheaper to standardise. Only the driving coaches have the "low" floor.

Ah, my apologies, I somehow had the idea that there was more variation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah, my apologies, I somehow had the idea that there was more variation.

Originally it was going to be only the powered coaches that had the high floor, but it was changed because having all intermediates high floor was cheaper. I actually prefer the high floor ones, the window is a bit high in the end coaches, and the alleged FLIRT-like ramp is just a very small one in the vestibule by the corridor connection that almost nobody probably notices.

 

[XAM2175]

Originally it was going to be only the powered coaches that had the high floor, but it was changed because having all intermediates high floor was cheaper. I actually prefer the high floor ones, the window is a bit high in the end coaches ...

Yeah I obviously missed that change - and I agree, the high-floor windowsill height is indeed preferable.

 

[Trainbike46]

your understanding is incorrect.

sorry I must have misunderstood previous discussion on the forum then. I thought (part of) york-Northallerton was capable of doing 140-150 mph (except for the signalling system, that is!), do you know what else is missing that would be required for the higher speed?

But my other point still stands; why introduce a small fleet (10-15 units) with a lower top speed than the rest, specifically while the rollout of ETCS makes it easier to increase top speed?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But my other point still stands; why introduce a small fleet (10-15 units) with a lower top speed than the rest, specifically while the rollout of ETCS makes it easier to increase top speed?

TBH I don't entirely understand why they don't just buy a few more 9-car 80x rather than a microfleet of units just one coach longer. Is it because of Government procurement rules? LNER is an almost entirely yield managed railway so if specific Leeds services could do with a 10-car you can use the fare system to redirect people to services that don't. Or extend all the 9s to 10 of course.

 

[Bald Rick]

do you know what else is missing that would be required for the higher speed?

Just the track, OLE, power supply, under bridges, and a few other things.

 

[Energy]

TBH I don't entirely understand why they don't just buy a few more 9-car 80x rather than a microfleet of units just one coach longer. Is it because of Government procurement rules? LNER is an almost entirely yield managed railway so if specific Leeds services could do with a 10-car you can use the fare system to redirect people to services that don't. Or extend all the 9s to 10 of course.

The government are meant to ensure good value for money, I suspect Hitachi gave a bad price thinking that LNER would be willing to pay far more to ensure a consistent fleet. Maybe we should include options more in rolling stock orders ( like in the class 777 order and common in Europe) to stop this?

 

[MattRat]

TBH I don't entirely understand why they don't just buy a few more 9-car 80x rather than a microfleet of units just one coach longer. Is it because of Government procurement rules? LNER is an almost entirely yield managed railway so if specific Leeds services could do with a 10-car you can use the fare system to redirect people to services that don't. Or extend all the 9s to 10 of course.

Government don't care about long term. If they did, a lot of infill electrification projects would already be done. As such, since the Civities are cheaper in the short term, that's what they went with.

 

[Trainbike46]

The government are meant to ensure good value for money, I suspect Hitachi gave a bad price thinking that LNER would be willing to pay far more to ensure a consistent fleet. Maybe we should include options more in rolling stock orders ( like in the class 777 order and common in Europe) to stop this?

Including options in the original order is a really good idea

Just the track, OLE, power supply, under bridges, and a few other things.

Even on the sections that were intended to go 140 mph during the 90s?

 

[skyhigh]

Including options in the original order is a really good idea

This is pretty much a feature of every order already.

 

[hexagon789]

Even on the sections that were intended to go 140 mph during the 90s?

What sections that were intended to go 140mph in the 1990s?

There was the test section with the fifth aspect "flashing greens", but that was not intended for passenger services to run faster than 125mph, only specifically authorised test trains in controlled circumstances.

 

[Bald Rick]

Even on the sections that were intended to go 140 mph during the 90s?

Well I’m not sure there were any, but if there were, yes.

 

[zwk500]

100 miles at 140mph takes 42'51. At 125mph it takes 48'00. It's a gain of 3.09 seconds per mile. Given that very few lengths of the ECML have the traffic pattern, alignment, and station intervals to permit sustained 140mph running, preserving the ability of the Unit to do it only makes sense if it wouldn't cost anything additional.

 

[Energy]

This is pretty much a feature of every order already.

Indeed, wonder if the IEP options have already been exhausted, expired or werent put in.

 

[Mikey C]

Seems daft to have a a microfleet within a massive fleet of IEPs.

CAF would have to develop a UK Bimode especially for this, while for the passenger it would be confusing to have a Stadler train operating certain services, a very different train, with its low floor entrance.

 

[AlexNL]

To me it feels like the tender is written to get bi-mode FLIRT units.

If you take a Class 745 and add two power packs to it (between coaches D/E and H/J for example), the length of the unit is exactly 250 metres (assuming the information on Wikipedia is correct!).

A 200 km/h version of the FLIRT exists and there's probably enough room left in the 745 design to uprate it to 127 mph in electric mode. The extra length might mean that the Class 755 power packs can't provide the oomph needed to get up to 100mph or more, but 90mph might be doable.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Just the track, OLE, power supply, under bridges, and a few other things.

100 miles at 140mph takes 42'51. At 125mph it takes 48'00. It's a gain of 3.09 seconds per mile. Given that very few lengths of the ECML have the traffic pattern, alignment, and station intervals to permit sustained 140mph running, preserving the ability of the Unit to do it only makes sense if it wouldn't cost anything additional.

However, that is - or was, in Grant Shapps' world at least - very much part of the "Integrated Rail ""Plan"", that Truss recommitted herself to, and truncates HS2 at East Mids Parkway
Specifying trains limited to ~125 mph, that will presumably be obsoleted in 15 years doesn't really fill me with confidence that there's a coherent strategy at work here.

OT: The way things things are going, HS2 to East Mids Parkway will provide a great new route to get coal* to the state-owned** Ratcliffe Power Station
(*And child labour, that chimney doesn't clean itself, you know).
(** German state owned, as of Wednesday)

 

[Bald Rick]

Specifying trains limited to ~125 mph, that will presumably be obsoleted in 15 years doesn't really fill me with confidence that there's a coherent strategy at work here.

even if 140mph did come onto the ECML (very unlikely in my opinion, but let’s pretend it will), why would that make the trains obsolete?

 

[InTheEastMids]

even if 140mph did come onto the ECML (very unlikely in my opinion, but let’s pretend it will), why would that make the trains obsolete?

I agree it's unlikely. However, if you've spent billions upgrading the line, you'd like to have trains that can take advantage, even if it's just from a PR perspective...
i.e. obsolete in terms of their original use on ECML

Given the way that rolling stock (lack of) strategy is playing out at the moment, it feels a bit of a stretch to assume that in 2035-2040 there will automatically be an obvious cascade option.

 

[tbtc]

Seems daft to have a a microfleet within a massive fleet of IEPs

I really don’t like micro fleets

But there are two points worth making here:

1. Manufacturer X can deliver something that fits the specifications cheaper than Hitatchi, in which case how much additional money would people want to spend on more Hitatchi products just to ensure that everything is essentially the same? (Presumably it wouldn’t quite be the same either way since anything Hitatchi delivered would be a sub-class with some minor updates since the 800 production line started)

2. These trains are going to be roughly two hundred and fifty metres long (?), so there isn’t going to be any inter working with 800/801s; the fact that these “Inter City” trains are mechanically different is a significantly smaller problem than on the “Provincial” network where we have the problem that two coach DMU cannot couple up to another two coach DMU (i.e. something that would be very useful on a daily basis).

I know it means more staff training/ maintenance costs etc but presumably this is factored in when comparing the bids, and if Hitatchi still wanted a higher price for a continuation of an established product than Manufacturer X were going to charge for a new build then what do the taxpayers do?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you take a Class 745 and add two power packs to it (between coaches D/E and H/J for example), the length of the unit is exactly 250 metres (assuming the information on Wikipedia is correct!).

250m is easily done - 10 x 25m. Hitachi and presumably CAF can vary vehicle lengths. HS2 trains are likely to be 25m vehicles to get exactly 200m (8x25).

 

[Trainbike46]

If 140 mph is so unlikely, why are the 80x trains build for 140 mph?

I really don’t like micro fleets

But there are two points worth making here:

1. Manufacturer X can deliver something that fits the specifications cheaper than Hitatchi, in which case how much additional money would people want to spend on more Hitatchi products just to ensure that everything is essentially the same? (Presumably it wouldn’t quite be the same either way since anything Hitatchi delivered would be a sub-class with some minor updates since the 800 production line started)

2. These trains are going to be roughly two hundred and fifty metres long (?), so there isn’t going to be any inter working with 800/801s; the fact that these “Inter City” trains are mechanically different is a significantly smaller problem than on the “Provincial” network where we have the problem that two coach DMU cannot couple up to another two coach DMU (i.e. something that would be very useful on a daily basis).

I know it means more staff training/ maintenance costs etc but presumably this is factored in when comparing the bids, and if Hitatchi still wanted a higher price for a continuation of an established product than Manufacturer X were going to charge for a new build then what do the taxpayers do?

These are both very good points; Though even if coupling them is not a priority anyway, having it be the same/close enough class is easier for driver training and maintenance. Though it wouldn't be worth paying (much) extra for that. It might also depend on how much capacity Hitachi has to build more trains; They're currently working on the 810, 805 & 807, as well as repairs on other 80x, and have the HS2 order coming up, so it may well be hitachi doesn't have the capacity to build them within the timeframe LNER want them. Could someone more knowledgeable on this say whether that is likely to play a role?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If 140 mph is so unlikely, why are the 80x trains build for 140 mph?

They were designed primarily for the GWML, having started out as "HST2". HS2 has no effect on that, so I'd see it as more likely that will see some ETCS and 140mph running at some point in their lifetime. Having been designed and become Hitachi's standard UK IC offering they were then bought for other routes.

 

[HSTEd]

If 140 mph is so unlikely, why are the 80x trains build for 140 mph?

Because the Great Western Route Modernisation was going to deliver 140mph running on the Great Western before it turned into an utter debacle.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Because the Great Western Route Modernisation was going to deliver 140mph running on the Great Western before it turned into an utter debacle.

As was WCRM for the 140mph Pendolinos.
We now have Hitachi 80x ordered for the WCML which will be limited to 110mph in many places, let alone 125mph.

Aren't there 3 bids for the LNER sets (Hitachi, CAF and a UK version of a Chinese design)?
The next utterance from DfT will determine the future (ie will the railway share in the new spending bonanza?).

 

[RailWonderer]

If 140 mph is so unlikely, why are the 80x trains build for 140 mph?

These are both very good points; Though even if coupling them is not a priority anyway, having it be the same/close enough class is easier for driver training and maintenance. Though it wouldn't be worth paying (much) extra for that. It might also depend on how much capacity Hitachi has to build more trains; They're currently working on the 810, 805 & 807, as well as repairs on other 80x, and have the HS2 order coming up, so it may well be hitachi doesn't have the capacity to build them within the timeframe LNER want them. Could someone more knowledgeable on this say whether that is likely to play a role?

Very likely to play a role. When Bombardier had backorders of 720, 701s and 730s that definitely influenced other rolling stock orders (can't remember which though). The enthusiast in me wants to see more variety, an all IET Intercity railway would make for very boring travels anyway. A CAF 397, Stadler Giruno (or 745 variant) would fit perfectly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Very likely to play a role. When Bombardier had backorders of 720, 701s and 730s that definitely influenced other rolling stock orders (can't remember which though). The enthusiast in me wants to see more variety, an all IET Intercity railway would make for very boring travels anyway. A CAF 397, Stadler Giruno (or 745 variant) would fit perfectly.

If you thought Mk4s ride like a cart (and they do), just wait until you get 397s. I like them generally, but the ride is terrible.

 

[RailWonderer]

If you thought Mk4s ride like a cart (and they do), just wait until you get 397s. I like them generally, but the ride is terrible.

I never found the mk4s too bad, the seats compensate and much of the ECML is smooth anyway besides south of Hitchin to KX.