Should Grand Central order the new Hitachi Trains?

[James Kevill]

Grand Central could order the new 14 Bi-Mode Hitachi Agility Trains 300 so they could replace the Class 180 Adelantes due to the unreliability and have many problems to run on the London King's Cross to Sunderland to Bradford Interchange services. However, the franchise would be expired or end in December 2026, and LNER and their Agility Trains 300 would take over the London King's Cross to Sunderland to Bradford Interchange or should it be renewed and continue to run the services and order the new trains? People would think that the Agility Trains would be most reliable than Class 180s.

 

[Kite159]

In an ideal world they should order something similar to the Hitachi 80X trains so they can run on the wires from London to Northallerton (on the Sunderland trains) and from London to Doncaster* on the Bradford services.

(Unless the equipment to allow them to switch on the move near Fitzwilliam where they leave the overheads to crawl towards Wakefield Kirkgate)

Would mean the lower part of the ECML will be all electric.

 

[Energy]

14 Bi-Mode Hitachi Agility Trains 300

They are AT300s, Agility Trains is a consortia for the funding of the 800s and 801s and isn't the model name. AT refers to their A train family.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

(Unless the equipment to allow them to switch on the move near Fitzwilliam where they leave the overheads to crawl towards Wakefield Kirkgate)

I would expect them to definitely be able to switch on the move since the rest of the 8xx can (or at least the TPE 802s can)

 

[Energy]

I would expect them to definitely be able to switch on the move since the rest of the 8xx can (or at least the TPE 802s can)

Any of them can switch but they have balises so the pantograph can auto-drop on the move.

The off-wires running is around 40 miles for Sunderland and 30 miles for Bradford. A battery equipped 397 could easily do them roundtrip.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Any of them can switch but they have balises so the pantograph can auto-drop on the move.

The off-wires running is around 40 miles for Sunderland and 30 miles for Bradford. A battery equipped 397 could easily do them roundtrip.

30 miles sounds rather short for the very er... "scenic" route that GC takes between Doncaster and Bradford. Are you sure that isn't the "as the crow flies" distance?
The required battery range would of course need to be double the distance from Doncaster to Bradford, as the unit does need to come back again (apart from the last one of the night, which goes to Crofton depot). Then you probably want a bit in reserve in case of disruption.

 

[RobShipway]

As I stated in another thread, even if Grand central where to be using brand new AT300 trains, you are still looking at 2 - 3 years before they are in service. The other issue you have, is that with the Hitachi factory here in the UK going to be making parts for HS2 trains, the only other place that they could possibly be built is in their factory in Italy and those have not been of the best quality from what I have read.

When ordering the new Hiatchi trains, you also need to be aware of the points that @61653 HTAFC has made above.

In the meantime, what trains do Grand Central use? But I will leave that for the discussion in thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-grand-central-suspend-their-service.253094/

 

[Trainbike46]

I agree Grand Central should use bimodes, or even better, Battery EMUs

Obviously they will not be ordering any new trains unless their access agreement gets extended. Is there any information public on if and when that will happen?

 

[Energy]

30 miles sounds rather short for the very er... "scenic" route that GC takes between Doncaster and Bradford. Are you sure that isn't the "as the crow flies" distance?

The wires end further on at Crofton. I used approximate distances via Halifax and got about 30 miles.

The required battery range would of course need to be double the distance from Doncaster to Bradford, as the unit does need to come back again (apart from the last one of the night, which goes to Crofton depot). Then you probably want a bit in reserve in case of disruption.

CAF are already producing 220km (136 mile) range units for Germany which are shorter than the 397s.

 

[Irascible]

No - order a decent train instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They should order 125mph bimodes. Who they order them from is less of a concern, though Hitachi are the ones with a suitable ready product which would mean quicker implementation, so are probably the best bet.

What'd be *even better* would be if Arriva was to talk to DfT about an order of such units for XC, and then it'd be more economic to tag a few more on for GC... (Porcine aviation alert!)

 

[Trainguy34]

No - order a decent train instead.

Such as?

 

[Royston Vasey]

I'm sure Stadler could quote a 6 car FLIRT that could do 125 mph on AC (as the Swiss units do) and 100 mph on a diesel powerpack. Stick a divider between saloon and vestibule, a few more tables perhaps, and the interior and door arrangement of the 745/755 would be fine for a secondary intercity service.

I have a sneaky feeling the track access extension might be made contingent on new stock if they don't take the plunge before then.

 

[Energy]

I have a sneaky feeling the track access extension might be made contingent on new stock

Track access agreements don't specify the stock, only that it needs to meet the paths allocated. Lumo had a requirement for seat numbers but that was due to its business case.

if they don't take the plunge before then.

No ROSCO is going to fund units until Arriva can get an extension.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

CAF are already producing 220km (136 mile) range units for Germany which are shorter than the 397s.

What exactly do you mean by "shorter than the 397s"? The current battery range of the 397s is a grand total of 0 miles, given that they're straight EMUs. Whilst it may well be possible for CAF to build a 397-alike with traction batteries fitted, such a unit does not exist at present so the range of such a unit is unknown. A version with batteries would presumably be a fair bit heavier than the existing 397s, so may attract higher track access charges and would likely be slower off the mark.

As far as the projected range of the German units is concerned, given the quality of CAF's recent products for the GB network I'd be wary of trusting their projections... as the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

[Clarence Yard]

No - a TAA renewal can’t be made conditional on new stock unless the TOC puts up a business case that demands a certain rate of return on that investment, all over a number of years that (after the ORR confirm it) effectively sets your length of TAA.

A straight renewal or extension for five years is what the ORR will give if GC want to carry on with the 180 units.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

No - a TAA renewal can’t be made conditional on new stock unless the TOC puts up a business case that demands a certain rate of return on that investment, all over a number of years that (after the ORR confirm it) effectively sets your length of TAA.

A straight renewal or extension for five years is what the ORR will give if GC want to carry on with the 180 units.

Is there anything in the rules that specifically prohibits such conditions being applied to a renewed TAA? I certainly wouldn't put it past the London Borough of Camden to try and score some political points by demanding the removal of the last diesel services from Kings Cross.

 

[adamedwards]

Surely a more cost effective option will be the Avanti Voyagers when released in a year or do. if you want to do something complicated to them, change the engines for something more modern and smalller and add batteries to top up the acceleration and pollution free use of Kings Cross and other termini. Refit the insides to something better, but reuse the existing seats to save money. Go standard class only like Lumo to maximise the students you can pack in. Brand new trains will cost a lot more at a time when everyone is feeling squeezed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Surely a more cost effective option will be the Avanti Voyagers when released in a year or do. if you want to do something complicated to them, change the engines for something more modern and smalller and add batteries to top up the acceleration and pollution free use of Kings Cross and other termini. Refit the insides to something better, but reuse the existing seats to save money. Go standard class only like Lumo to maximise the students you can pack in. Brand new trains will cost a lot more at a time when everyone is feeling squeezed.

Smaller engines and the additional weight of batteries would not be a good combination, and given the units are halfway through their projected lifespan there's only half the time for that investment to be paid off- which likely means higher leasing costs.
I also can't imagine DB would want to lose the additional revenue they get from selling first class tickets. GC's business model is quite different to Lumo's.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Track access agreements don't specify the stock, only that it needs to meet the paths allocated. Lumo had a requirement for seat numbers but that was due to its business case.

No ROSCO is going to fund units until Arriva can get an extension.

No, but somehow exiting the 180 contract and hiring all the available 221s would count as "the plunge", to me, and would be a lot cheaper than someone buying new units.

ROSCOs have placed speculative orders before (170s, 387s) with no customers at all, but I can't imagine anyone will semi-speculatively buy 10 intercity diesels or bi-modes for an operator with only three years of certainty.

 

[Energy]

What exactly do you mean by "shorter than the 397s"?

Shorter as in the units are only 45m long. Multimode units are usually limited by space to put the equipment.

Whilst it may well be possible for CAF to build a 397-alike with traction batteries fitted, such a unit does not exist at present so the range of such a unit is unknown

Whilst it is unknown the exact range it isn't unreasonable to assume a unit can make it when the distance is well within the range of multiple manufacturers claimed range of their respective products.

A version with batteries would presumably be a fair bit heavier than the existing 397s, so may attract higher track access charges and would likely be slower off the mark.

The added weight of batteries is not a lot in the context of the rest of the weight of the train. The 397s are quite a bit lighter than the 80Xs and as for speed they only need to beat the current 180 timings, not difficult.

if you want to do something complicated to them, change the engines for something more modern and smalller and add batteries to top up the acceleration and pollution free use of Kings Cross and other termini.

But then you run the risk of the units not working well, the 442s, battery 165, 769s, 230s... even the fairly basic Chiltern 168 convertion has been underperforming though it hasn't suffered the reliability problems of other units.

TAAs can be long enough for the business case to return on its investment (see the long Hull Trains and Lumo TAAs) so the risk is whether the business case works, GC have shown that it already does.

No, but somehow exiting the 180 contract and hiring all the available 221s would count as "the plunge", to me, and would be a lot cheaper than someone buying new units.

You can't escape a contact like that, either the lease runs to the end date or you do a deal either the ROSCO to either pay them off or swap for other stock they own (like the 323s instead of 319s).

And there are only 2 221s currently available.

 

[Royston Vasey]

You can't escape a contact like that, either the lease runs to the end date or you do a deal either the ROSCO to either pay them off or swap for other stock they own (like the 323s instead of 319s).

There are all sorts of ways to end a contract, buying themselves out of it is one, yes, and quite often in business its the option that makes sense - pay liquidated damages - none of us here are party to that calculation. We don't know what availability clauses are in there also that might allow a break.

You can't escape a contact like that, either the lease runs to the end date or you do a deal either the ROSCO to either pay them off or swap for other stock they own (like the 323s instead of 319s).

And there are only 2 221s currently available.

Yes, currently.

There are currently also 0 battery 397s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The added weight of batteries is not a lot in the context of the rest of the weight of the train. The 397s are quite a bit lighter than the 80Xs and as for speed they only need to beat the current 180 timings, not difficult.

It's no surprise that a straight EMU is lighter than a bi-mode unit. If you want something based on the 397s but with the capability to run to Sunderland and Bradford Interchange, it's bound to be heavier as it needs the ability to power itself, whether that be diesel engines or batteries. If the 397 is a particularly lightweight unit as an EMU, then adding either form of self-propulsion will make a bigger difference to performance not a smaller one, as the difference in the power to weight ratio will be greater.

 

[Energy]

There are all sorts of ways to end a contract, buying themselves out of it is one, yes, and quite often in business its the option that makes sense - pay liquidated damages - none of us here are party to that calculation. We don't know what availability clauses are in there also that might allow a break.

And they'd only buy themselves out of a contract if the 180s were effectively dead as a dodo, like the 442. Otherwise, you're paying a not much smaller amount than the remaining lease but getting nothing in return.

There wouldn't be availability clauses, this is a lease not a train supply agreement.

Yes, currently.

And GC could be waiting a year or more to get sufficient units. Its not unknown for manufacturers to supply fairly off-the-shelf units in 1-2 years.

It's no surprise that a straight EMU is lighter than a bi-mode unit. If you want something based on the 397s but with the capability to run to Sunderland and Bradford Interchange, it's bound to be heavier as it needs the ability to power itself, whether that be diesel engines or batteries. If the 397 is a particularly lightweight unit as an EMU, then adding either form of self-propulsion will make a bigger difference to performance not a smaller one, as the difference in the power to weight ratio will be greater.

The battery wouldn't be a lot, maybe 8-12 tonnes. The unladen mass of a 397 is 185 metric tonnes, the battery wouldn't add a lot.

For context, the unladen mass of a 5 car 801 is 238.7 tonnes and the 180 is 252.5 tonnes.

 

[Royston Vasey]

And they'd only buy themselves out of a contract if the 180s were effectively dead as a dodo, like the 442. Otherwise, you're paying a not much smaller amount than the remaining lease but getting nothing in return.

There wouldn't be availability clauses, this is a lease not a train supply agreement.

And GC could be waiting a year or more to get sufficient units. Its not unknown for manufacturers to supply fairly off-the-shelf units in 1-2 years.

The battery wouldn't be a lot, maybe 8-12 tonnes. The unladen mass of a 397 is 185 metric tonnes, the battery wouldn't add a lot.

For context, the unladen mass of a 5 car 801 is 238.7 tonnes and the 180 is 252.5 tonnes.

The worse it gets, the easier it gets to just sue on the basis of the equipment not being fit for purpose. They now have had to lease 4 additional units IIRC (2x221 2x180) to cover unavailability. It's very naive to think they would sit there pouring money at someone else's asset and wouldn't just litigate and/or negotiate a settlement.

And GC could be waiting a year or more to get sufficient units. Its not unknown for manufacturers to supply fairly off-the-shelf units in 1-2 years.

The battery wouldn't be a lot, maybe 8-12 tonnes. The unladen mass of a 397 is 185 metric tonnes, the battery wouldn't add a lot.

For context, the unladen mass of a 5 car 801 is 238.7 tonnes and the 180 is 252.5 tonnes.

So, you're quibbling about eight more 221s not being available for 6-12 more months, and yet you're trying to design CAF a new train with your crayolas, and think it'll be ready in 1-2 years? Ok.

 

[Energy]

The worse it gets, the easier it gets to just sue on the basis of the equipment not being fit for purpose.

Equipment not being fit for purpose would be difficult when GC has been responsible for maintenance for many years.

Angel Trains supplied the trains at the start of the lease in sufficient condition, GC is responsible for their maintenance and will return the trains to Angel in sufficient condition at the end of the lease. They already have had talks with Angel as they've got at least 1 additional 180.

So, you're quibbling about eight more 221s not being available for 6-12 more months

The 805s are already meant to be in service with the original lease expiring 10th December 2022. I agree that sufficient 221s would likely be available within 12 months though that would depend on the early redelivery date.

Going with 221s long-term would lock them into using diesel, expensive stock while they'd be unable to get a long TAA with minimal investment.

and yet you're trying to design CAF a new train with your crayolas

Crayolas is a bit far. The idea that they can fit an EMU from their current, modular, platform with batteries, which they offer, isn't far-fetched. There are public proposals to fit the similar 331s with batteries.

I don't care what stock it is whether it be FLIRTs, 80Xs or CAF, many manufacturers offer a battery unit with sufficient range. I only chose the 397 as it is an existing lightweight design and CAF units tend to be cheaper than Hitachi.

 

[Rhydgaled]

In an ideal world they should order something similar to the Hitachi 80X trains

No they shouldn't. In an ideal world (and, I would argue, even in this less-than-ideal one) they shouldn't be ordering any new trains right now because Network Rail should be funded to carry out extensive electrification works as per their decarbonisation strategy.

Yes, ideally Grand Central should have bi-mode stock for nowto make use of the wires we have. But, if we add up all the class 800s, 802s and 805s we have 105 five-car and 48 nine-car 80x bi-mode sets. If you count the 33 class 810s as well that rises to 138 five-car bi-modes.

In addition, there are 42-72 diesel engines (I'm not sure if the 9-car sets have one or two) under the nominally 'electric' class 801 units. If some of the 801s were converted to class 803 spec (batteries instead of diesel engines) and others to class 800 spec by redistributing the vehicles with diesel engines under them between the units (eg. you take three 5-car class 801s (1 diesel engine car each) and reform them into one class 800 (3 diesel engine cars) and two class 803s (no diesel engines). If you keep the set lengths the same, rather than taking the opportunity to create some 7-car formations for example, the twelve 5-car 801s would become four bi-modes and 8 straight electrics, while the thirty 9-car 801s would give you either six or twelve 9-car class 800 bi-modes (five diesel engines under each).

We therefore potentially have a grand total of up to 202 AT-300 series bi-modes in the UK already. According to Wikipedia; 197 class 43 powercars were produced, so we actually have more 125mph bi-modes than we had IC125s. Similarly, tot up the Voyagers, Meridians and 180s and the total (119 units) comes to less than the AT-300 fleet.

Quite simply, there are already plenty of bi-modes in the UK, we just need to electrify more of the routes they currently work so that we can replace them with EMUs and cascade them to places like CrossCountry and Grand Central.

 

[RobShipway]

No they shouldn't. In an ideal world (and, I would argue, even in this less-than-ideal one) they shouldn't be ordering any new trains right now because Network Rail should be funded to carry out extensive electrification works as per their decarbonisation strategy.

Yes, ideally Grand Central should have bi-mode stock for nowto make use of the wires we have. But, if we add up all the class 800s, 802s and 805s we have 105 five-car and 48 nine-car 80x bi-mode sets. If you count the 33 class 810s as well that rises to 138 five-car bi-modes.

In addition, there are 42-72 diesel engines (I'm not sure if the 9-car sets have one or two) under the nominally 'electric' class 801 units. If some of the 801s were converted to class 803 spec (batteries instead of diesel engines) and others to class 800 spec by redistributing the vehicles with diesel engines under them between the units (eg. you take three 5-car class 801s (1 diesel engine car each) and reform them into one class 800 (3 diesel engine cars) and two class 803s (no diesel engines). If you keep the set lengths the same, rather than taking the opportunity to create some 7-car formations for example, the twelve 5-car 801s would become four bi-modes and 8 straight electrics, while the thirty 9-car 801s would give you either six or twelve 9-car class 800 bi-modes (five diesel engines under each).

We therefore potentially have a grand total of up to 202 AT-300 series bi-modes in the UK already. According to Wikipedia; 197 class 43 powercars were produced, so we actually have more 125mph bi-modes than we had IC125s. Similarly, tot up the Voyagers, Meridians and 180s and the total (119 units) comes to less than the AT-300 fleet.

Quite simply, there are already plenty of bi-modes in the UK, we just need to electrify more of the routes they currently work so that we can replace them with EMUs and cascade them to places like CrossCountry and Grand Central.

Not sure where you are getting your figures from, but if you add up the number of bi-modes in class 800, 802, 805 and 810 there are 186 bi-mode trains. Of that 138 are five car bi-modes. That gives us 48 9 car class 80x bi-mode trains as you state. There is nowhere near the number of 202 bi-mode trains that you state above.

I suspect that you maybe including the class 801, whilst yes having a single diesel power unit for recovery are actually counted as being full electric units, the same as class 803 units and will be the case with the class 807 units.

Before, Grand Central orders new stock, I believe it would have to be able to renew it's passenger license for at least 50 years to make it cost effective to hire that new stock. In the meantime, with the class 180 fleet having issues, Grand Central are doing the correct thing by hiring in a class 221 unit and perhaps may hire in other units to their fleet in the future as a short term measure to cover them for the next few years.

 

[skyhigh]

Before, Grand Central orders new stock, I believe it would have to be able to renew it's passenger license for at least 50 years to make it cost effective to hire that new stock.

Citation needed.

Lumo and Hull Trains ordered brand new stock. Do they have 50 year licenses?

 

[popeter45]

The 80x waitlist is long so if they wanted a short term replacement to revive a classic on this forum mark 5a from TPE but replace the 68 with a 93