Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Ironic of you to think avanti will get themselves together, honestly i give it one or two more years before avanti lose the franchise and the intercity west coast franchise is government owned again, at least the government know how to run a railway properly. And yes they are replacing a few more services i think
Just in case this wasn't obvious, where I said avanti I meant avanti or whichever organisation succeeds avanti if they are stripped of their franchise
Um, you are aware the DfT calls all the shots on all TOCs (except Eurostar, Scotrail, TfW, Merseyrail and tfl franchises) already? So I'm not sure of what you are basing the "the government know how to run a railway properly" on
Just in case this wasn't obvious, where is said avanti I meant avanti or whichever organisation succeeds avanti if they are stripped of their franchise
Um, you are aware the DfT calls all the shots on all TOCs (except Eurostar, Scotrail, TfW, Merseyrail and tfl franchises) already? So I'm not sure of what you are basing the "the government know how to run a railway properly" on
It’s not so much that the 810s have a design compromise that limits them to 125mph, it’s more that 140mph running isn’t needed on the Midland Mainline as it is much more curvaceous than the GWML, ECML and HS1 where 140mph running was envisioned for, thus even 125mph running is much less sustained. Should it be required the 810s probably could be modified for 140mph running in the same way that various EMUs have had their top speed updated.
Had EMR been able to order an off-the-shelf 80x with 26m long carriages it may have had a 140mph stop speed, however, as EMR needed a new, bespoke design they opted to just settle with a 125mph top speed.
You might be right, but 10x24 is a lot closer to that than 7x26!
Yes and no. The idea was that reducing the fast Birminghams to 2tph and speeding them up would mean there were enough Pendolinos to work everything other than North Wales - this has near enough already happened, there might be the odd Voyager diagram on a Birmingham but not many. The third service would then be added back as the semifast. If that service isn't added back, they aren't needed. The second Liverpool was entirely separate - as it happens the current one runs in that path and the Pendolino one doesn't run, but that's a bit moot.
I doubt it. A second Liverpool was always political, it's never really been justified, partly because of Liverpool's very small hinterland, and partly because a fair bit of traffic in that hinterland goes to Wigan NW, Warrington BQ and Chester instead, with capacity at the latter being increased significantly because 10.805 has a LOT more capacity than 10.221, it's something like half as much again, so people will be being priced into going that way.
And the political end could be satisfied by way of the much cheaper LNR service.
So my view remains, these two services will never run, and so the 807s are basically spare, and the cascade I mentioned (807 -> Manchester Airport to Scotland under Avanti, 397 -> LNER) would solve several problems at a very low cost.
I do see your point, but will a slower (non-HS) service meet the political goals?
My personal preference would be for LNER to retain the 225s for longer, they aren't that old, and then when HS2 opens there may be scope to move quite a lot of stock around, to give LNER more 80x that are spare (probably 807 from avanti, possibly via a swap with TPE)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I do see your point, but will a slower (non-HS) service meet the political goals?
My personal preference would be for LNER to retain the 225s for longer, they aren't that old, and then when HS2 opens there may be scope to move quite a lot of stock around, to give LNER more 80x that are spare (probably 807 from avanti, possibly via a swap with TPE)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Why do you think East Coast is better evidence than the more recent DfT run TOCs?
Yet all the TOCs today you are thinking of today are entirely under DfT control - and I think the present DfT is a better example of what would happen if franchises were stripped than the DfT over 7 years ago
Yet all the TOCs today you are thinking of today are entirely under DfT control - and I think the present DfT is a better example of what would happen if franchises were stripped than the DfT over 7 years ago
Maybe i’m not looking at it the right way, but before the thread goes off topic, My whole point is that would 810s make sense on the ecml for routes without wires
So my view remains, these two services will never run, and so the 807s are basically spare, and the cascade I mentioned (807 -> Manchester Airport to Scotland under Avanti, 397 -> LNER) would solve several problems at a very low cost.
The other option would be a variation order to fit the 807s with engines and send to XC to bin off some Voyagers. Can play the green card by running pan up under the wires to justify it.
They do, but it’s outweighed by disadvantages, such as the inability to be modified for 140mph in the future.
Realistically that’s the only likely option for replacing the 91+Mark 4 sets. The other two likely options are a further life extension of the 91+Mark 4 sets or withdrawing them without replacement - there aren’t enough 9 car sets to see the Mark 4s off so if they did leave without replacement some services that are currently 9/10 car would have to be reduced to 5 car.
Maybe i’m not looking at it the right way, but before the thread goes off topic, My whole point is that would 810s make sense on the ecml for routes without wires
What is wrong with ordering more 800s and 801s over 810s? They are all compatible with each other, not sure if 810s are able to interwork with LNER's current stock.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Ironic of you to think avanti will get themselves together, honestly i give it one or two more years before avanti lose the franchise and the intercity west coast franchise is government owned again, at least the government know how to run a railway properly. And yes they are replacing a few more services i think
Avanti's contract has been truncated to May, however, Huw Merriman did say recently at the 'Transport Committee', that Avanti may need more time to prove themselves. The synopsis is, that is is currently unknown.
Do the Government know how to run a railway properly? Please look at Southeastern's shambles.
What is wrong with ordering more 800s and 801s over 810s? They are all compatible with each other, not sure if 810s are able to interwork with LNER's current stock.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Avanti's contract has been truncated to May, however, Huw Merriman did say recently at the 'Transport Committee', that Avanti may need more time to prove themselves. The synopsis is, that is is currently unknown.
Do the Government know how to run a railway properly? Please look at Southeastern's shambles.
Reducing the design speed to 125mph allowed the crumple zones to be reduced in size, so allowed the 24m cars of the 810 to have a similar capacity to the 26m cars of the 80xs. The 24m design was needed on EMR because of platform length limits at St Pancras, and 140mph isn’t something that’s ever likely to be needed on the routes the 810s are for. Most likely from a technical point of view 810s will be 140mph capable, but they wouldn’t be able to gain certification to run at 140mph.
I'm not sure, but it is likely that the new nose design for the 810s is at least part of the answer
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I thought it was 10x26m they were asking for (but I may be wrong here!)
Aren't the 807s for indirectly replacing voyagers on services other than North Wales too?
I suspect that, if/when avanti get their mess together, demand will increase similar to on LNER, and a second liverpool (and possibly third birmingham) will in fact be justified.
So my view remains, these two services will never run, and so the 807s are basically spare, and the cascade I mentioned (807 -> Manchester Airport to Scotland under Avanti, 397 -> LNER) would solve several problems at a very low cost.
It would create more problems than it would solve. It would mean two extra sets of crew training compared to the alternative option of sending the 807s to LNER (LNER crews would need to learn 397s, Avanti crews at Glasgow would need to learn 80xs), and it would leave LNER with a micro fleet that would be even more hassle for them than the 91+Mark 4 sets are.
It’s not so much that the 810s have a design compromise that limits them to 125mph, it’s more that 125mph running isn’t needed on the Midland Mainline as it is much more curvaceous than the GWML, ECML and HS1 where 140mph running was envisioned for, thus even 125mph running is much less sustained. Should it be required the 810s probably could be modified for 140mph running in the same way that various EMUs have had their top speed updated.
Had EMR been able to order an off-the-shelf 80x with 26m long carriages it may have had a 140mph stop speed, however, as EMR needed a new, bespoke design they opted to just settle with a 125mph top speed.
Crumple zones were made smaller on the 810s so that the 24m vehicles would have a similar capacity to the 26m vehicles of the 80xs. Result is they’ll never get certification for 140mph as they wouldn’t meet the crashworthiness standards required.
My personal preference would be for LNER to retain the 225s for longer, they aren't that old, and then when HS2 opens there may be scope to move quite a lot of stock around, to give LNER more 80x that are spare (probably 807 from avanti, possibly via a swap with TPE)
That would be my preference too. They’re popular both with passengers and staff, already route cleared for all of LNER’s electrified network including non-ECML extensions, cheap to lease, cheap to run and capable of 140mph. Reliability is higher than it’s been for a long time too.
The other option would be a variation order to fit the 807s with engines and send to XC to bin off some Voyagers. Can play the green card by running pan up under the wires to justify it.
Zero chance of that happening. They’d be restricted to diesel on the ECML anyway because of power supply limitations, and apart from Manchester - Coventry no other significant sections of the XC network are wired. XC needs 125mph diesel stock, bi-modes are of little use to them. If anything XC would benefit from 810s, certainly more than LNER (as per OP’s suggestion) would benefit from them anyway.
Not sure why Southeastern is getting so much criticism here. As someone who’s used to TPE, I find Southeastern to be comparatively good!
Reducing the design speed to 125mph allowed the crumple zones to be reduced in size, so allowed the 24m cars of the 810 to have a similar capacity to the 26m cars of the 80xs. The 24m design was needed on EMR because of platform length limits at St Pancras, and 140mph isn’t something that’s ever likely to be needed on the routes the 810s are for. Most likely from a technical point of view 810s will be 140mph capable, but they wouldn’t be able to gain certification to run at 140mph.
Crashworthiness (crumple zones) was the biggest factor if I recall correctly.
Yes, 807s were going to run the slower Birmingham service and all Blackpool services, freeing up 390s to run all Scottish services.
It would create more problems than it would solve. It would mean two extra sets of crew training compared to the alternative option of sending the 807s to LNER (LNER crews would need to learn 397s, Avanti crews at Glasgow would need to learn 80xs), and it would leave LNER with a micro fleet that would be even more hassle for them than the 91+Mark 4 sets are.
Crumple zones were made smaller on the 810s so that the 24m vehicles would have a similar capacity to the 26m vehicles of the 80xs. Result is they’ll never get certification for 140mph as they wouldn’t meet the crashworthiness standards required.
That would be my preference too. They’re popular both with passengers and staff, already route cleared for all of LNER’s electrified network including non-ECML extensions, cheap to lease, cheap to run and capable of 140mph. Reliability is higher than it’s been for a long time too.
Zero chance of that happening. They’d be restricted to diesel on the ECML anyway because of power supply limitations, and apart from Manchester - Coventry no other significant sections of the XC network are wired. XC needs 125mph diesel stock, bi-modes are of little use to them. If anything XC would benefit from 810s, certainly more than LNER (as per OP’s suggestion) would benefit from them anyway.
LNER will do what the DFT tells them and if that’s run 5 car sets to Edinburgh then that’ll be what happens!
There’s already a booked 5 car working to Newcastle on Sundays, and it’s incredibly unpopular with passengers.
I cannot see 810s going to XC. Certainly short term, i.e next 15 years, it would be Avanti class 221 or EMR class 222 units going to XC I would suspect. By which time either Hitachi or Alstom or any other manufacture, hopefully would have a train that can travel off wires using either battery power for very long periods or be Hydro powered in some form.
Zero chance of that happening. They’d be restricted to diesel on the ECML anyway because of power supply limitations, and apart from Manchester - Coventry no other significant sections of the XC network are wired. XC needs 125mph diesel stock, bi-modes are of little use to them. If anything XC would benefit from 810s, certainly more than LNER (as per OP’s suggestion) would benefit from them anyway.
I thought Network Rail was upgrading the power supply up there, so that all trains capable of it could run on electric?
XC would definitely benefit from bimodes over pure diesels, both immediately and in the long term, so if XC gets new trains I don't doubt they will be bimode:
- Electric through new street - better air quality + more pleasant station
- Electric Manchester-Coventry
- Electric Newcastle-Edinburgh-Glasgow/Aberdeen (after powersupply upgrades are complete, and for aberdeen as Scottish electrification progresses)
- Electric section on the MML (when electrification extends that far)
And of course, they'll be able to use electrification in other places they run as soon as it gets installed (and I would expect more to be installed during the 40 year lifespan of any new trains!)
It’s not so much that the 810s have a design compromise that limits them to 125mph, it’s more that 125mph running isn’t needed on the Midland Mainline as it is much more curvaceous than the GWML, ECML and HS1 where 140mph running was envisioned for, thus even 125mph running is much less sustained. Should it be required the 810s probably could be modified for 140mph running in the same way that various EMUs have had their top speed updated.
Had EMR been able to order an off-the-shelf 80x with 26m long carriages it may have had a 140mph stop speed, however, as EMR needed a new, bespoke design they opted to just settle with a 125mph top speed.
I thought Network Rail was upgrading the power supply up there, so that all trains capable of it could run on electric?
XC would definitely benefit from bimodes over pure diesels, both immediately and in the long term, so if XC gets new trains I don't doubt they will be bimode:
- Electric through new street - better air quality + more pleasant station
- Electric Manchester-Coventry
- Electric Newcastle-Edinburgh-Glasgow/Aberdeen (after powersupply upgrades are complete, and for aberdeen as Scottish electrification progresses)
- Electric section on the MML (when electrification extends that far)
And of course, they'll be able to use electrification in other places they run as soon as it gets installed (and I would expect more to be installed during the 40 year lifespan of any new trains!)
At the moment it's marginal whether XC would benefit from b-modes but in 15 years time when the Voyagers are life expired more electrification will have likely come their way, (more of the MML and possibly Didcot - Oxford) bi-modes will almost certainly replace them. For now I think XC just needs to take Avanti's used Voyagers and even some of EMR's Meridians to double up more services and to replace the Nottingham - Cardiff 170 with a Voyager, pending DfT authorisation of course. Given their policy is to treat XC as an afterthought and to postpone any deep rethink of the purpose and direction of XC, I don't see any more rolling stock being leased to them. The LNER Anglo Scots will get longer trains before any XC route does.
May I ask, are 810s your personal favorite units? Just judging by your urge to roll them out everywhere?
No harm in putting the displaced 222s on XC, when they are indeed replaced. IMHO, if XC ever get newer trains, the units should be longer than 4 and 5 coaches. But that is for another thread.
What is wrong with ordering more 800s and 801s over 810s? They are all compatible with each other, not sure if 810s are able to interwork with LNER's current stock.
Writing an ITT (invitation to tender) to specifically favour one supplier, especially given that LNER is a public-owned body, is a sure-fire invitation for trouble. There are reasons why British Rail didn’t often single-source.
May I ask, are 810s your personal favorite units? Just judging by your urge to roll them out everywhere?
No harm in putting the displaced 222s on XC, when they are indeed replaced. IMHO, if XC ever get newer trains, the units should be longer than 4 and 5 coaches. But that is for another thread.
Writing an ITT (invitation to tender) to specifically favour one supplier, especially given that LNER is a public-owned body, is a sure-fire invitation for trouble. There are reasons why British Rail didn’t often single-source.
As D365 states, LNER can only state what they require from new trains, hence any invitation for new stock would not specifically specify, one practically brand other than maybe just specifying attributes that you would get from just one brand.
If LNER was to specify what they require and if it included that the trains be built within the UK, you would have both CAF and Alstom, as well as Hitachi. Otherwise, if it was trains built within Europe then both Stadler and Siemens would also be included amongst other manufacturers within Europe.
As D365 states, LNER can only state what they require from new trains, hence any invitation for new stock would not specifically specify, one practically brand other than maybe just specifying attributes that you would get from just one brand.
If LNER was to specify what they require and if it included that the trains be built within the UK, you would have both CAF and Alstom, as well as Hitachi. Otherwise, if it was trains built within Europe then both Stadler and Siemens would also be included amongst other manufacturers within Europe.
As D365 states, LNER can only state what they require from new trains, hence any invitation for new stock would not specifically specify, one practically brand other than maybe just specifying attributes that you would get from just one brand.
If LNER was to specify what they require and if it included that the trains be built within the UK, you would have both CAF and Alstom, as well as Hitachi. Otherwise, if it was trains built within Europe then both Stadler and Siemens would also be included amongst other manufacturers within Europe.
Isn't the usual way to do this to state you need full interoperability with the existing fleet, which practically only the existing manufacturer is going to be able to supply?
Isn't the usual way to do this to state you need full interoperability with the existing fleet, which practically only the existing manufacturer is going to be able to supply?
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
