My idea for an interregional train

[FlyingPotato]

I don't know where else to put this and I'm new, so I'm putting it here,
I think we need an interregional stock, because to me it feels that we either have regional based or intercity stock, (baring metro units). You could say trains like the 197 is interregional, but to me it feels regional and is too short.
My proposal would be a 6 or 4 car train, could be EMU, DMU or somewhere inbetween
I don't know if it would have gangways or not
It would have a first class carriage for 6 cars but only half a carriage four four cars.
Top speed would be up to 110 mph.
It could be used on routes like Cardiff to Notts, Liverpool to Norwich, Manchester Airport to Cumbria, Cardiff to Portsmouth, York to Blackpool, Leeds to Nottingham and possibly Chiltern to name a few.
The Manchester Airport to Cumbria might get called a regional but trust me, I'd say it needs a train like this, cause 3 cars is not enough (I know sometimes they run 6 cars buts rarely).
I think this train could help out a lot and to give some routes the extra capacity they need.

 

[Nottingham59]

Welcome to the forum!

I do agree with you that there should be a national fleet of such trains, rather than having lots of micro-fleets ordered one at a time by TOCs. For the sort of routes you mention, I would vote for a standard set of 4-car units, with gangwayed ends to allow working in multiple, and top speed of 110mph as that is the fastest practical speed for door-end units.

Nobody should be buying pure diesels nowadays, but flexible power options would be good. EMU (25kV; third rail or both); electro-diesel bimodes; and BEMU versions would be needed. Thses should be convertible between power sources as the need arose.

And able to run as 3-cars if desired.

 

[RailWonderer]

There is far more fleet standardisation in Europe and part of that is the continuous state owned operations standardising new train orders. In the UK we have two things - privitisation and competing bidders.

The government and TOCs played manufacturers against each other to keep prices reasonable and to avoid one train builder monopolisisng the market too much - and two - we have very specific requirements in different parts of the country in terms of line infratructure (gauging, power supply etc) and the interior specs - luggage space, 2+2, 3+2 etc so any unit would be a compromise in some regions, or at least different variations of the same unit would be required. That would be easier for parts though than completely different types of train, but we aren't Europe and we will keep ordering from different manufacturers, though I imagine less so as GBR comes into being. Another reason for our variation is we do not order mass replacements like Germany, France and Italy tend to do, so less standardisation is possible as by the time a new order is placed, the previous train type is no longer available by the manufacturer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Other than the top speed, is not a 5-car Class 802 more or less exactly what you're describing? I suppose you could drop to 110 and add gangways, but mostly trains of that length not on a mainline won't work coupled up.

I do think it would make sense to return to the two-hour-pattern regional/IC service on Manchester to Cumbria that we had some years back; TPE could run 1tph from Manchester Airport with 802s to Lancaster then alternating to Barrow and Windermere, with a connecting regional service in between on each (though for Windermere it'd have to use the 802).

 

[Snow1964]

There is a big gap between the local/commuter train and Intercity train. Others have proposed this as the one standard design that GBR ought to consider.

I would probably restrict the length to 23m or 24m vehicles to avoid problems getting them onto routes like Cardiff-Portsmouth.

Top speed 110mph on 25kv (but could possibly make it lower 90, 95 or 100mph on diesel), Some of them should be equipped for third rail too. My thought is if have lower speed on diesel then might be able to keep weight within SP differentials (of which there are many on secondary lines).

Seats comfortable enough for journeys of 4 hours.

I'm not an expert at all the regional routes further north, so can't suggest routes there, but would certainly use these new bi-modes on Cardiff-Portsmouth, Cardiff-Plymouth, Waterloo-Exeter etc. It is complete waste to use an expensive 125-140mph IET on route like Cardiff-Plymouth, when a regional bi-mode would be more suitable.

 

[A0]

There is far more fleet standardisation in Europe and part of that is the continuous state owned operations standardising new train orders. In the UK we have two things - privitisation and competing bidders.

I'm not sure that's true though.

If you look at Belgium's SNCB for example, there's quite alot of diversity in terms of design and source.

France less so as they've tended to source from Alstom.

Trentalia seem to have several different classes from different sources.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not an expert at all the regional routes further north, so can't suggest routes there, but would certainly use these new bi-modes on Cardiff-Portsmouth, Cardiff-Plymouth, Waterloo-Exeter etc. It is complete waste to use an expensive 125-140mph IET on route like Cardiff-Plymouth, when a regional bi-mode would be more suitable.

Are IETs that expensive compared to something with a top speed just 15mph lower, though? We do seem to have reached the point where other than very custom stuff EMUs are 100/110mph and DMUs 100mph even if they won't top 60, just because it's standard.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2023 ==

I'm not sure that's true though.

If you look at Belgium's SNCB for example, there's quite alot of diversity in terms of design and source.

France less so as they've tended to source from Alstom.

Trentalia seem to have several different classes from different sources.

And Germany is a bit random too, with regions sourcing kit themselves all of the major manufacturers are represented.

 

[zwk500]

Are IETs that expensive compared to something with a top speed just 15mph lower, though? We do seem to have reached the point where other than very custom stuff EMUs are 100/110mph and DMUs 100mph even if they won't top 60, just because it's standard.

I think this idea is aiming more for an AT200 level rather than AT300.

My proposal would be a 6 or 4 car train, could be EMU, DMU or somewhere inbetween
It would have a first class carriage for 6 cars but only half a carriage four four cars.

Personally I'd go for 5x23m cars, which gives you 20% first class capacity, but still a 115m car, which would double up to less than 250m, and so fit in the major stations happily where needed. 5x25m would be nice but would pose issues on the twistier lines this unit is intended to work.

I don't know if it would have gangways or not
Top speed would be up to 110 mph.

110mph isn't really worth it - there's very limited stretches of 110mph an Interregional train can use. 100mph is fine. Gangways would be optional (I'd personally include them as it allows a bit more flexibility in staffing and operations but I can see that it poses other problems like visibility and failure points).

The train would be modular power packs, starting with 25KV AC OLE and Diesel Gensets. The gensets to be replaced by batteries when they're available. Third rail pickups could be an option but I'd shy away from it if feasible, to reduce cost and lower-sector gauging issues/failures.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally I'd go for 5x23m cars, which gives you 20% first class capacity, but still a 115m car, which would double up to less than 250m, and so fit in the major stations happily where needed. 5x25m would be nice but would pose issues on the twistier lines this unit is intended to work.

24 seems to be the standard now, both Aventras and Civities are 24 with relatively little vehicle-end tapering. Indeed the CAF intermediates are totally square-ended with no taper at all, it gives them quite a European look.

110mph isn't really worth it - there's very limited stretches of 110mph an Interregional train can use. 100mph is fine. Gangways would be optional (I'd personally include them as it allows a bit more flexibility in staffing and operations but I can see that it poses other problems like visibility and failure points).

Plenty of cases where 110 might be useful, e.g. Barrow and Windermere mentioned above, or anything that'll go onto the ECML. It doesn't cost much more so is becoming a standard for EMUs, so it might as well even if it can't reach that on diesel.

 

[Snow1964]

Are IETs that expensive compared to something with a top speed just 15mph lower, though? We do seem to have reached the point where other than very custom stuff EMUs are 100/110mph and DMUs 100mph even if they won't top 60, just because it's standard.

I might be wrong, but I thought units over 110mph have higher levels of crash protection / crumple zones, and streamlined ends. Which effectively means more non-passenger dead space within the overall unit length.

My thought on having lower speeds on diesel, is there are a number of lines with bits of 100, 105 or 110mph, but increasingly these are getting electrified (and/or currently see DMUs under the wires, because only part of inter regional route is electrified). 60mph is too low, there are many sections of secondary routes with SP speeds of 70-90mph. But I agree don't need to have 100mph diesel capability.

I am tending to think a 5car bi-mode is the answer, but only putting diesel generators in 3 vehicles (or 4 vehicles if can't keep weight with SP differential limits with 3), with transformer in other vehicle. If required keep the transformer vehicle unmotored to keep it within SP weight limits.

It might sound weight obsessive, but over the last 30 years, the number of secondary routes with SP differential speed limits means building any train that can't utilise them is madness. If a regional bi-mode cannot maintain class 158, 159, 170 schedules then won't be a useful replacement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I might be wrong, but I thought units over 110mph have higher levels of crash protection / crumple zones, and streamlined ends. Which effectively means more non-passenger dead space within the overall unit length.

They do, but there's very little dead space in 80x, it's maybe 2-3 metres or so, or one and a bit bays of seats. Indeed there's more in 100mph Stadlers because of underfloor equipment being above the floor behind the cab to allow for the low floor.

The IC 80x have more non-seating space but that's because of the provision of kitchens, not because of safety.

 

[zwk500]

24 seems to be the standard now, both Aventras and Civities are 24 with relatively little vehicle-end tapering. Indeed the CAF intermediates are totally square-ended with no taper at all, it gives them quite a European look.

5x24 is still fine - 120m is a good length for a unit for this market.

Plenty of cases where 110 might be useful, e.g. Barrow and Windermere mentioned above, or anything that'll go onto the ECML. It doesn't cost much more so is becoming a standard for EMUs, so it might as well even if it can't reach that on diesel.

Pure EMUs are different because they don't have a fuel tank to compute into the weight modelling and distribution. Maybe what is needed is (similar to the IETs) 2 Subclasses: One EMU/Battery train that goes up to 110mph and one EMU/Diesel that is 100mph rated (or possibly 110/100 split).
But 110mph vs 100mph is 3 seconds a mile different. On Euxton Jn-Lancaster runs that really isn't a noticeable difference (not least the stop at Preston but also other PSRs). On the ECML from Newcastle to Edinburgh it might be more noticeable, but 120*3 = 360, or 6 minutes. However probably less than half the journey is above 100mph (Taking into account restricted speed out of Newcastle to Morpeth, the curvy section along the coast and then slowing down on the approach to Edinburgh) so you're looking at 3 minutes or so benefit.
If it really doesn't cost very much then sure, it's worth grabbing some cheap time, but I'm guessing you'd gain similar amount of time by balancing the gearing towards acceleration over top speed.
Remember, the best way to speed up a train is to raise the floor, not the ceiling speed. You want to spend the least time braking and accelerating as possible.

 

[Energy]

Start with the route not the train.

For Northern you could go with two different manufacturers and split the fleet east/west. This isn't a bad idea as dual sourcing can keep both manufacturer's prices low and if one fleet is suffering a major issue (e.g Hitachi cracking) the other can at least help to cover. One of these fleets should be more CAF trains. Andy Burnham's appetite for his own Merseyrail will also have a large influence.

If GWR, Chiltern, EMR etc. needs a similar train they can just order more of what another operator has already got. As the design work is already done this is often the cheapest option. Forcing everyone into one train design which doesn't quite work perfectly for everyone doesn't make sense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Remember, the best way to speed up a train is to raise the floor, not the ceiling speed. You want to spend the least time braking and accelerating as possible.

Another way to speed it up is speeding up the door operation. 350s and 230s waste loads of time due to slow doors. Though if these wouldn't operate stopping services it is less significant, but any new stopping train design really should be going for very fast and wide doors. Even simple stuff like not having a pause for the hustle alarm when the guard closes the local door, because they're stood there ensuring things are safe so it's not needed.

This, notably, is something the sliding door Desiro City does very well, and the 195 isn't *terrible* at, but the Merseyrail 777 has got terribly wrong - the doors are both narrow and slow.

 

[zwk500]

Another way to speed it up is speeding up the door operation. 350s and 230s waste loads of time due to slow doors. Though if these wouldn't operate stopping services it is less significant, but any new stopping train design really should be going for very fast and wide doors. Even simple stuff like not having a pause for the hustle alarm when the guard closes the local door, because they're stood there ensuring things are safe so it's not needed.

This, notably, is something the sliding door Desiro City does very well, and the 195 isn't *terrible* at, but the Merseyrail 777 has got terribly wrong - the doors are both narrow and slow.

I have to say I never found a 350s doors unacceptably slow for the routes they served, but that was maybe because I was conditioned to 377s. I certainly noticed the difference in boarding times with a 378 on Overground - although that would be somewhat overkill for an interregional train. Switching from single-leaf end-doors to double doors at thirds probably gives you a significant benefit without changing the door speed (2 people through the doorway at a time is an absolute must on any new unit, for me).
As the number of stops decreases, the relative balance of benefits swings towards Acceleration as you also have things like PSR changes and signal checks that boarding speed doesn't help with but acceleration does. On high-density metro routes where you are stopping all the time then Boarding makes a massive difference.

 

[hexagon789]

I might be wrong, but I thought units over 110mph have higher levels of crash protection / crumple zones, and streamlined ends. Which effectively means more non-passenger dead space within the overall unit length.

AFAIK the threshold is 185km/h, so almost 115mph.

 

[FlyingPotato]

Other than the top speed, is not a 5-car Class 802 more or less exactly what you're describing? I suppose you could drop to 110 and add gangways, but mostly trains of that length not on a mainline won't work coupled up.

I do think it would make sense to return to the two-hour-pattern regional/IC service on Manchester to Cumbria that we had some years back; TPE could run 1tph from Manchester Airport with 802s to Lancaster then alternating to Barrow and Windermere, with a connecting regional service in between on each (though for Windermere it'd have to use the 802)

I think the barrow and Cumbria route is where they should start, as its usually packed, especially when an avanti has been cancelled

In essence yes, a 5 car 802, (I hadn't thought about it that way), I think they should use the 5 cars for interregionals and keep the 9 cars for InterCitys