Could more IETs be built for operators such as LNER?

[cactustwirly]

My personal suggestion would be a cascade thus:

Almost all* the 5-car bi-modes from both GWR and LNER to XC, replacing Voyagers and adding much needed capacity as well as stopping New St stinking of fumes.

New order of 9-cars for LNER and GWR to backfill and add the missing capacity LNER needs as well as removing the Mk4 sets.

If that leaves XC a bit short, order a few more 5s or even some 7s for them so the Voyagers can all be scrapped.

* Retain what is needed for the Cotswold Line and Cornish locals; ideally the whole GW "proper" IC operation (Bristol and the Westcountry) should be 9s.

This is essentially what happens, vast majority of Bristol and South West trains are 9 car
With a lot of Swansea services being 9s

 

[Neptune]

Northern also need those 158s to see off their last 150s and even some 156s.

Absolutely not. Regional express 158’s are a poor substitute for a commuter 150. The only reason you see 158’s on local services is due to a lack of 150’s or 195’s to cover all short haul stopping services.

 

[RailWonderer]

Absolutely not. Regional express 158’s are a poor substitute for a commuter 150. The only reason you see 158’s on local services is due to a lack of 150’s or 195’s to cover all short haul stopping services.

I know, I was thinking of a 'take what you can get' scenario for Northern, it wouldn't be the first time rolling stock would operate on routes they are inappropriate for. It happens all over the network today.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Apr 2023 ==

Last 150s? They haven't withdrawn any yet, and the number of available 158s does not release all the 150/1s, let alone their fleet of 150/2s.

158s (or indeed 156s) aren't a great substitute for 150s on many of their workings.

150s or 158s could still have a role in redistributing the GWR IET fleet to make the cascades suggested.

Voyagers for LNER or GWR do not make much sense.

Northern have more 150s than I thought, but I doubt they get a large new order so will have to make do with cascades but this is going way OT from LNER. What makes sense hase nothing to do with it, costcutting and cascading is the only sense at the moment which will be cheaper than any new orders.

 

[Neptune]

I know, I was thinking of a 'take what you can get' scenario for Northern, it wouldn't be the first time rolling stock would operate on routes they are inapropriate for. It happens all over the network today.

But do Northern need these 158’s? It’s ok saying take what you can get but if it’s not needed then what is the point of the extra leasing costs?

Northern is by and large a commuter railway and trains suitable for that purpose should not be replaced by trains set up for a different service style (ie regional express) ‘just because’.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Northern is by and large a commuter railway and trains suitable for that purpose should not be replaced by trains set up for a different service style (ie regional express) ‘just because

Northern has plenty of "long, thin" rural routes where 158s could be used instead of 150s without any real issues. Ormskirk, Kirkby, Southport, Bentham, S&C....

(Thread to continue this: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/is-it-good-to-replace-northern-150s-with-spare-158s.247096/)

 

[Jozhua]

I do understand the current political constraints preventing this, but I'm talking about more what should be done in a sane world.

Rolling stock is a *relatively* cheap investment that can allow the railways to provide significantly more value by moving more passengers per taxpayer subsidy £, or even eliminating the need for it by allowing more paying passengers on each train!

I understand that 9 car 801s provide similar capacity to 10 car 800s due to less void space from cabs, etc, but if those 801s are also busy and stations can accommodate them, why not make them 10 cars?

Plus, Hitachi may be more willing to cut a deal if the other option is shutting down the factory. That said - shutting the factory down is also poor value for the UK, as the cost of setting up new supply chains again will increase the cost of new rolling stock in the future...(not that this matters to the short termist treasurers)

My personal suggestion would be a cascade thus:

Almost all* the 5-car bi-modes from both GWR and LNER to XC, replacing Voyagers and adding much needed capacity as well as stopping New St stinking of fumes.

New order of 9-cars for LNER and GWR to backfill and add the missing capacity LNER needs as well as removing the Mk4 sets.

If that leaves XC a bit short, order a few more 5s or even some 7s for them so the Voyagers can all be scrapped.

* Retain what is needed for the Cotswold Line and Cornish locals; ideally the whole GW "proper" IC operation (Bristol and the Westcountry) should be 9s.

That's beautiful - yes do this.

XC runs a comical amount of service under wires and would probably benefit most from bi modes of most operators I can think of!

5 cars would be perfect for routes such as Birmingham - Stansted and Cardiff - Nottingham that currently use 3 car 170s. Plenty of good uses to put those 170s to as well.

 

[43074]

5 cars would be perfect for routes such as Birmingham - Stansted and Cardiff - Nottingham that currently use 3 car 170s. Plenty of good uses to put those 170s to as well.

Actually I can't think of a worse unit for Birmingham to Stansted than a 5-car 80x - most of the platforms would be too short, they don't fit in the bay at Stansted (and would be a tight fit in Cambridge platforms 5 and 6 etc) and you get high turnover of passengers at Cambridge, Peterborough, Leicester etc so they'd have ridiculous dwell times.

A 4-car 170 or equivalent would be perfect for Birmingham to Stansted. The 22x cascaded by the 800s in this idea would be fine for Nottingham to Cardiff though.

 

[DanNCL]

I understand that 9 car 801s provide similar capacity to 10 car 800s due to less void space from cabs, etc, but if those 801s are also busy and stations can accommodate them, why not make them 10 cars?

Plus, Hitachi may be more willing to cut a deal if the other option is shutting down the factory. That said - shutting the factory down is also poor value for the UK, as the cost of setting up new supply chains again will increase the cost of new rolling stock in the future...(not that this matters to the short termist treasurers)

Hitachi aren’t interested in offering a sensible price and that’s a significant factor in LNER choosing CAF over Hitachi for their previous tender. That and LNER aren’t overly happy with the 80xs they’ve already got, as they have poor availability, aren’t as popular with customers as the Mark 4s, and are having to go through a major modification program simply to make sure they’re still safe to use beyond 10 years - it’s almost as if when designing the 80xs Hitachi forgot that they weren’t designing a product for JR Central…

If Hitachi want out of Newton Aycliffe they could no doubt sell the site to Stadler, who have a significantly higher prospect of UK orders in the long run than Hitachi have.
If Hitachi are genuinely interested in the UK then they need to massively up their game, both with the products themselves and their willingness to negotiate.

XC runs a comical amount of service under wires and would probably benefit most from bi modes of most operators I can think of!

But apart from Birmingham - Manchester XC couldn’t make use of those wires even if they had bi-mode stock. The ECML can’t even handle everything LNER and TPE run at present on electric and the underway upgrades will only be enough to allow TPE to stop running 802s on diesel. If XC were to introduce bi modes too yet more electrical work would have to be done on over 200 miles of ECML.

Actually I can't think of a worse unit for Birmingham to Stansted than a 5-car 80x - most of the platforms would be too short, they don't fit in the bay at Stansted (and would be a tight fit in Cambridge platforms 5 and 6 etc) and you get high turnover of passengers at Cambridge, Peterborough, Leicester etc so they'd have ridiculous dwell times.

An 80x wouldn’t need to fit in the bay at Stansted as it can run into the other platforms on electric.
I’d definitely agree they’re not suitable for that route however.

 

[Meerkat]

Rolling stock is a *relatively* cheap investment that can allow the railways to provide significantly more value by moving more passengers per taxpayer subsidy £, or even eliminating the need for it by allowing more paying passengers on each train!

The crew for those extra trains are rather expensive though! You could easily end up just spreading the same passengers across more trains

If Hitachi want out of Newton Aycliffe they could no doubt sell the site to Stadler, who have a significantly higher prospect of UK orders in the long run than Hitachi have.
If Hitachi are genuinely interested in the UK then they need to massively up their game, both with the products themselves and their willingness to negotiate.

They have got the HS2 stock to build haven't they?

 

[Trainbike46]

But apart from Birmingham - Manchester XC couldn’t make use of those wires even if they had bi-mode stock. The ECML can’t even handle everything LNER and TPE run at present on electric and the underway upgrades will only be enough to allow TPE to stop running 802s on diesel. If XC were to introduce bi modes too yet more electrical work would have to be done on over 200 miles of ECML.

Are you sure this is true?

If it is, upgrading the electric supply for the bare minimum seems rather shortsighted.

Though, even if it is true, that is no reason not to get bimodes for XC; it just means that when XC gets bimode or electric stock, the power supply will need to get upgraded again

 

[RobShipway]

Hitachi aren’t interested in offering a sensible price and that’s a significant factor in LNER choosing CAF over Hitachi for their previous tender. That and LNER aren’t overly happy with the 80xs they’ve already got, as they have poor availability, aren’t as popular with customers as the Mark 4s, and are having to go through a major modification program simply to make sure they’re still safe to use beyond 10 years - it’s almost as if when designing the 80xs Hitachi forgot that they weren’t designing a product for JR Central…

If Hitachi want out of Newton Aycliffe they could no doubt sell the site to Stadler, who have a significantly higher prospect of UK orders in the long run than Hitachi have.
If Hitachi are genuinely interested in the UK then they need to massively up their game, both with the products themselves and their willingness to negotiate.


But apart from Birmingham - Manchester XC couldn’t make use of those wires even if they had bi-mode stock. The ECML can’t even handle everything LNER and TPE run at present on electric and the underway upgrades will only be enough to allow TPE to stop running 802s on diesel. If XC were to introduce bi modes too yet more electrical work would have to be done on over 200 miles of ECML.


An 80x wouldn’t need to fit in the bay at Stansted as it can run into the other platforms on electric.
I’d definitely agree they’re not suitable for that route however.

The crew for those extra trains are rather expensive though! You could easily end up just spreading the same passengers across more trains

They have got the HS2 stock to build haven't they?

Like Meerkat, my understanding was that they where going to be building HS2 trains at Newton Aycliffe with parts supplied from Derby that are coming from Alstom?

 

[RailWonderer]

If Hitachi want out of Newton Aycliffe they could no doubt sell the site to Stadler, who have a significantly higher prospect of UK orders in the long run than Hitachi have.
If Hitachi are genuinely interested in the UK then they need to massively up their game, both with the products themselves and their willingness to negotiate.

I'm sure they could do a bi-mode 385 as a competitor to the Stadler bi-modes and still be as big a player - the IET is uncompetitive at the moment because Hitachi is exploiting the TOC's wish to have as much standardised stock as possible to reduce cost of parts, ease of replacement for stock to move around the network etc. That doesn't stop another product being competitive if they want to cut in on Stadler et. al.

We haven't had any new orders since the Avanti and LNER orders in 2019 and I doubt we see anything for a couple more years at least. Upping the game has little to do with the political will of the day and political train orders to keep factories open often go to Derby so if anything, so we are more likely to see a new Aventra to prevent closure once the 701s are ironed out and the last 730s roll off the line.

 

[anthony263]

Either way, I still cannot see new trains being built other than those on order ore being built currently until the HS2 trains are built. Which may mean that there is a gap of at least 2 - 7 years after the current orders are completed, before anymore new trains are built.


I am not sure that it will, as the issue is more down to finance more so than politics. The only way that any future government will be able to afford new trains, is to put the country into more debt for future generations to be paying off way past our time. Before anyone asks, I am not a conservative voter and in fact don't really trust any of the national political parties. But I am sure if someone really tried, that money could be found for new trains without having to put up taxes for the low to medium income people in the country. Then the other problem you have is that other areas also need more money such as National Health and only answer then seems to be to push up fares even more so to pay for the new trains, which then in turn pushes people away from trains on to buses and using cars.

So if LNER did have new trains, how much would that push the fare up on say travelling from London to Edingburgh?

I know they are open access operators, but the only companies I see possibly order new trains is Grand Central and Lumo within the next few years.

Dont forget grand union I suspect we may see another order of units from Hitachi plus gwr after new stock

 

[Bald Rick]

An 80x wouldn’t need to fit in the bay at Stansted as it can run into the other platforms on electric.

Where would the Stansted Expresses go?

 

[Brubulus]

110mph EMU's might be ok for some of the Leeds trains. If only there were some spare....

80M EMUs are limited to 100 on the ECML due to OLE issues

 

[D365]

Like Meerkat, my understanding was that they where going to be building HS2 trains at Newton Aycliffe with parts supplied from Derby that are coming from Alstom?

Almost right - final assembly will be happening at Litchurch Lane.

 

[JonathanH]

If Hitachi want out of Newton Aycliffe they could no doubt sell the site to Stadler, who have a significantly higher prospect of UK orders in the long run than Hitachi have.

If Stadler want a UK train building plant it doesn't have to be in Newton Aycliffe. How busy are their existing factories overseas?

Dont forget grand union I suspect we may see another order of units from Hitachi plus gwr after new stock

GWR aren't after new stock, at least not this decade. Are Grand Union going to be able to afford lease IETs at a higher price when they actually do their sums?

 

[irish_rail]

At this point we can either make the mistakes of the past and order yet another different intercity train probably by someone awful like stadler, or we could persevere with Hitachi, look at new seating perhaps and its actually not a terrible train. 5 cars would be fine for XC too. We need a more standardised intercity fleet in this country, not less, and so binning of Hitachi now going forward wouldn't in my view be a good move. It is the passenger seating that is the only unpopular thing with the travelling public, something that could be remedied easily enough in coming years.

 

[D365]

and so binning of Hitachi now going forward wouldn't in my view be a good move.

Don't think that this has ever been proposed?

 

[dk1]

Where would the Stansted Expresses go?

Beat me to it. I thought the only reason the Norwich services fit at Stansted is because they are 3/4-car and the 12-car 745s then fit on top. Also 755s can run into platforms 1 and 3 at the airport on diesel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Apr 2023 ==

Actually I can't think of a worse unit for Birmingham to Stansted than a 5-car 80x - most of the platforms would be too short, they don't fit in the bay at Stansted (and would be a tight fit in Cambridge platforms 5 and 6 etc) and you get high turnover of passengers at Cambridge, Peterborough, Leicester etc so they'd have ridiculous dwell times.

Platform 6 at Cambridge would be fine as has often been used for Hull Trains/Grand Central but 5 might be too tight since it was shortened a few years ago to build the new footbridge.

 

[supervc-10]

If LNER are making the DfT money, then investing further in them would hopefully make the DfT *more* money. When under OLR control, the ECML has been quite profitable.

The question is whether the investment in extra rolling stock will be offset with the increase in passenger revenue possible. If people are standing for hours, and being left behind, then it's very likely that increasing capacity, and therefore their ability to have a seat, will encourage them to take the train again next time.

However, this requires politicians to think logically. Which is often not their strong point. IMO if an operator is turning a profit, then the DfT should turn as much of a blind eye to them as possible.

 

[Snow1964]

GWR aren't after new stock, at least not this decade. Are Grand Union going to be able to afford lease IETs at a higher price when they actually do their sums?

Maybe not IETs, but seriously looking at replacing the middle distance trains from 2028 onwards. 5 years time, not decade away.

The IETs being used to replace the castle HSTs are seen as a convenient bodge, not the most suitable train. I think if given a chance GWR would happily swap them for some 100-110mph regional bi-modes. They even have a project called Churchward looking at replacing 90mph diesel units which are now 31-35 years old, and same middle distance design should work for both.

There are also rumours that GWR would like additional intermediate IET vehicles (if not complete new IETs), with the 9car made up to 10car, about half 5car lengthened to 7car and remaining 5car transferred to another operator. The original plan of coupling and joining 5car sets on route is dead, so running pairs of 5cars throughout is poorer choice than one long train as causes ticket inspection and catering staffing problems etc

 

[JonathanH]

They even have a project called Churchward looking at replacing 90mph diesel units which are now 31-35 years old, and same middle distance design should work for both.

Indeed. However, the latest posting elsewhere suggests that has been pushed back.

 

[DanNCL]

If Stadler want a UK train building plant it doesn't have to be in Newton Aycliffe. How busy are their existing factories overseas?

It doesn’t have to be Newton Aycliffe but if Hitachi don’t have enough orders to run it themselves and Stadler were after a UK site it’d make more sense for them to take on the site that had already been built than to build a new one somewhere.

Stadler’s sites in Europe are busy but I don’t know if they’re at full capacity or if there’s still some capacity spare.

At this point we can either make the mistakes of the past and order yet another different intercity train probably by someone awful like stadler, or we could persevere with Hitachi, look at new seating perhaps and its actually not a terrible train. 5 cars would be fine for XC too. We need a more standardised intercity fleet in this country, not less, and so binning of Hitachi now going forward wouldn't in my view be a good move. It is the passenger seating that is the only unpopular thing with the travelling public, something that could be remedied easily enough in coming years.

I’d love to know where you get the idea that Stadler are awful, their products built for the UK in recent years suggest the exact opposite. And even CAF are capable of building quality when it’s ordered, see the C4K units in Northern Ireland. Northern and TPE asked for cheap so cheap was what they got.

Perhaps the seats are all GWML passengers moan about with the 80xs but it’s definitely not all they moan about on the ECML. To mention just a couple of other things, there’s the electrical issues with the plug sockets, there’s the rough ride quality which passengers do pick up on. Both issues that are entirely down to Hitachi.

Whilst on the subject of Hitachi issues, one also has to remember that every 80x has to undergo structural modifications because of Hitachi’s failure to ensure the design was actually fit for purpose. Two years on and how well is the modification program going?… If the modifications don’t turn out successful these trains would have to be scrapped within the next 10 years, why would an operator want to risk ordering a product from Hitachi that as it stands will only last 10 years, when they could order a better quality product from someone else for the same price that’ll last 30?

Standardisation is only good to some extent. Take it to the extent it’s already gone with the 80xs and you end up in a situation where if the design turns out to have major issues you’re stuck with a large fleet of them.

 

[MattRat]

At this point we can either make the mistakes of the past and order yet another different intercity train probably by someone awful like stadler, or we could persevere with Hitachi, look at new seating perhaps and its actually not a terrible train. 5 cars would be fine for XC too. We need a more standardised intercity fleet in this country, not less, and so binning of Hitachi now going forward wouldn't in my view be a good move. It is the passenger seating that is the only unpopular thing with the travelling public, something that could be remedied easily enough in coming years.

It wouldn't be Stadler. It would most likely be CAF, as in more 397 style Civities, because they are cheap.

 

[irish_rail]

There are also rumours that GWR would like additional intermediate IET vehicles (if not complete new IETs), with the 9car made up to 10car, about half 5car lengthened to 7car and remaining 5car transferred to another operator. The original plan of coupling and joining 5car sets on route is dead, so running pairs of 5cars throughout is poorer choice than one long train as causes ticket inspection and catering staffing problems etet

Have you a source for that? Although all eminently sensible i certainly haven't heard this mentioned?

 

[Energy]

about half 5car lengthened to 7car

The whole 7 car thing again, see below from another thread...

No - 7 cars would be inadequate for some of the lines you suggest. Even now, the loadings on some of these services dictate load 9.

The problem with having a slight variance in set length was exemplified in HST days. When you had to step up, you had enormous problems fitting the right set onto the right service, especially if you had to get it back for a key later working. It is far better to have a homogenous length on the same type of service, working into a common terminus.

and remaining 5car transferred to another operator

Given that they've moved the 5 cars to replace castles I doubt they will move all of them.

with the 9car made up to 10car, about half 5car lengthened to 7car and remaining 5car transferred to another operator.

Overall the numbers aren't brilliant:

800s:
18 x 5+5 -> 21x10 (extended from 9)
21 x 9 -> 9 x7 (extended from 5)
So most any of the 9 car services are dropped to 7, a few are spare 10 car and most don't have any.

802:
11 x 5+5 -> 14x10 (extended from 9)
14 x 9 -> 11x7 (extended from 5)
Less bad though still not ideal.

 

[RobShipway]

I’d love to know where you get the idea that Stadler are awful, their products built for the UK in recent years suggest the exact opposite. And even CAF are capable of building quality when it’s ordered, see the C4K units in Northern Ireland. Northern and TPE asked for cheap so cheap was what they got.

I would love to know where that idea comes from too, as Stadler are the only manufacturer in the last few years to make sure that the doors on their trains opens at the same level of the platform and for the doors that can be used for disability purposes, that an extension comes from the train to bridge the gap between the train and the platform. This is something all manufacturers of trains in the last 10 years should have been doing. Instead, the TOC's and DFT have gone for cheap trains that can be manufactured with reason, quickly with no thought of the passengers and their comfort.

Admittedly, BR did not get it totally right with the HST125 trains and Metro Cammell did not get things totally right with the MK4 coaches. However, there was more time spent on getting the designs of these right than the 4 years taken by Hitachi. There was 5 years between the agreement of British Railways Board to develop a high speed diesel train using conventional technology, to a train running in service. The operational prototype, having been built by 1972 and was tested for three years, before building of the HST trains commenced in 1975. Similarly the building I believe of the class 91 and Mk4 coaches took a similar amount of time.

Yes, the class 800 trains where first in service in 2017. However, if the information I have found is correct the order for the IET trains was placed in 2012 finally, with the first train built in 2014. Now, there may not be as much testing required as the class 8xx units are pretty much based on the class 396 units serving on HS1, just with longer carriages and entry doors at the end of the carriages other than the driving trailers, rather than the positions that the doors can be found on the class 395 units. Although, the announcement of the preference to be an Hitachi train was made in 2009. Part of the issue was down to how much of the GWML would be electrified, when the Intercity Express programme trains came into service, hence why GWR had to change from ordering class 801 units to those being class 800/3 bi-mode trains.

If Hitachi had done more testing as was done with the HST units, class 91 and MK4 coaches, then you would have had a better train. But as has been said in a few threads, it was the DFT running the show in getting the class 8xxx IET units into service, which says it all really.

Now, okay the class 745/755 units where ordered in 2016 and where constructed between 2018 - 2020 based on a design, that has been in use around Europe since 2004. Other than the class 395, there was no other Hitachi trains within Europe and I believe that to still be the case? The UK is the only customer of the A-Train family of trains.

Given the time period Hitachi had to get the trains built and into service, they are pretty good trains to be fair, despite the build quality issues, which I believe would not have occurred had better and longer periods of testing taken place.

I do believe that current market conditions, will prevent the building of anymore IET trains, despite LNER and GWR having options on more trains to be built. I would say that new trains would not be ordered for another two years yet and by which time Hitachi would have changed their bi-mode IET from being Electric-Diesel to be Electric-Battery.

 

[D365]

I would love to know where that idea comes from too, as Stadler are the only manufacturer in the last few years to make sure that the doors on their trains opens at the same level of the platform and for the doors that can be used for disability purposes, that an extension comes from the train to bridge the gap between the train and the platform. This is something all manufacturers of trains in the last 10 years should have been doing.

Manufacturers build to a specification. If a tender doesn’t stipulate level boarding, then it won’t be provided. If a tender does stipulate it then, well, Stadler has a major head start.

Yes, the class 800 trains where first in service in 2017. However, if the information I have found is correct the order for the IET trains was placed in 2012 finally, with the first train built in 2014.

The order was placed, but Hitachi spent several years developing the AT300 beforehand, in anticipation of their [successful] IEP bid. So the gestation period was a lot more than four years.

 

[Jozhua]

Agree regarding LNER having net positive cashflow and therefore new trains being a good investment as it allows them to further grow their market and therefore returns.

In terms of low fleet availability on 80X, it does seem like something that could improve over time. It seems like a lot of train fleets have poor reliability to begin with, mostly because they are generally quite bespoke and engineers have to learn how best to maintain them. Probably a lot of playing it safe for the first few years, before you learn what the tolerances properly are.

The crew for those extra trains are rather expensive though! You could easily end up just spreading the same passengers across more trains

Well, the idea is to make the existing trains longer, rather than add more frequency, so limited extra crewing costs, if any.

At this point we can either make the mistakes of the past and order yet another different intercity train probably by someone awful like stadler, or we could persevere with Hitachi, look at new seating perhaps and its actually not a terrible train. 5 cars would be fine for XC too. We need a more standardised intercity fleet in this country, not less, and so binning of Hitachi now going forward wouldn't in my view be a good move. It is the passenger seating that is the only unpopular thing with the travelling public, something that could be remedied easily enough in coming years.

Stadler are pretty good and XC probably need around 7/8 cars (or 2x5 if that's what you mean) but other than that in complete agreement.

There is probably some value in forcing Hitachi to the table when it comes to negotiations on price, but not worth cutting off your nose to spite your face either.