Getting the most out of the new Alstom units for TPE?

[Andymo]

Yes the new trains are the right length to be used in many places just not the Transpennine Leeds -Manc core-time will tell.
Entirely agree with Andyh82 on the frequency issue.

 

[sprinterguy]

Ordering shorter trains with the hope the frequency increase will save them - isn’t that what they did with CrossCountry?

They're two carriages longer than the existing trains and have nearly the same seated capacity as a pair. Even on existing frequencies they'll offer more seats each hour through the Transpennine core (the Scarborough service being the key benefiary), even if the Manchester - York stopper is excluded from the equation.

 

[mmh]

Building them is the only thing Alstom is doing. All the rest was done by Bombardier and the suppliers chosen by Bombardier at the time.

Some people here seem to think a Vauxhall Astra is a different car to the Opel Astra

I think it's more that people understand mergers and takeovers happen and names change. I doubt they give two hoots about the business or factory history.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

They're two carriages longer than the existing trains and have nearly the same seated capacity as a pair.

I don't know about you but I haven't seen a single 185 on Liverpool Hull or Manchester Redcar in donkeys years.

 

[D1537]

More likely that they will be approaching withdrawal, as they will be over 30 years old in 2034. I cannot see Northern's successor wanting to run expensive trains anywhere.

The first 185s were introduced in 2006 and will therefore be 28 years old in 2034. I don't think a 50-strong fleet with 100mph capability will be slated for withdrawal at that point given their flexibility.

 

[Many2Audi]

There are trains far older that are far less useful

 

[sprinterguy]

I don't know about you but I haven't seen a single 185 on Liverpool Hull or Manchester Redcar in donkeys years.

There's been a 3 car diagram on Redcar services most days this week, and all Scarborough trains are single sets.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 09:53 ==

The first 185s were introduced in 2006 and will therefore be 28 years old in 2034. I don't think a 50-strong fleet with 100mph capability will be slated for withdrawal at that point given their flexibility.

And this new fleet only replaces around thirty of those fifty one trains as well.

 

[Grimsby town]

I don't know about you but I haven't seen a single 185 on Liverpool Hull or Manchester Redcar in donkeys years.

Hull is planned to go to 2 trains per hour so there is an increase in capacity. Middlesbrough services will see a slight reduction in capacity.

TPE demand is massively surpresed by the upgrade currently. Since that has been going on for a few years now, I think it'd be very difficult to calculate an accurate baseline demand for TPE, especially when Covid impacts are considered. There's a lot of growth in housing happening in the city centres across the TP core, I'm sceptical that this order is enough to cater for growth in a decades time.

 

[D1537]

I don't know about you but I haven't seen a single 185 on Liverpool Hull or Manchester Redcar in donkeys years.

3-cars are daily occurrences on the Redcars.

I believe the 18:44 and 19:44 MIA-Redcar are actually booked 3-car, and the diagram that starts 07:44 MIA-Redcar is 3-car more often than not.

 

[Killingworth]

More likely that they will be approaching withdrawal, as they will be over 30 years old in 2034. I cannot see Northern's successor wanting to run expensive trains anywhere.

We on South Pennine are resigned to seeing 185s from now into eternity. A very brief coat trailing introduction of noisy Novas 3s never fully materialised into a regular reliable service. I suspect 185s will become further established on services around Sheffield, handily available when anything goes wrong with the new trains.

I note most new classes have difficulty linking up to each other, unlike 15x fleets.

 

[tbtc]

On the one hand, these seem a reasonable modern successor to the 170 (five coaches and 110mph replacing three coaches and 100mph... Electric/battery with low floor replacing pure diesels), I could see them becoming commonplace across the UK

On the other hand, we seem to have a lot of people being performativity upset at the realisation that we've not ordered pure electrics to run to Saltburn/ arguments about the seats on trains that won't be in operation for eight years, complains that we're not sacrificing half a carriage in "crumple zones" just to save a whopping sixty seconds on the three hour plus journey from Manchester to Redcar...

They look fine. Not world changing, but perfectly fine for the second tier services on the Manchester -York corridor

Rather than worrying about the colour of seats, I'm more bothered about the lack of attention to the "South" Transpennine route which is stuck with 185s for the foreseeable future, whilst the "North" has it's third fleet of new trains ordered. If these Alstom units aren't good enough for Redcar etc, I'd happily take them down here

 

[Spartacus]

I don't know about you but I haven't seen a single 185 on Liverpool Hull or Manchester Redcar in donkeys years.

Typically around 1/4-1/3 are midweek, more are at weekends, most are today. The Scarboroughs are rarely 6 car while the Hulls are a bit of a mix, along with 802s

 

[Mike Machin]

I think the announcement of these new units is really good news and let’s hope that further orders for other routes happen too.

Several posters seem rather disappointed by the maximum designed speed of 110mph.

I actually think this is quite enough for regional train. Back in the 1960s and 70s speed and reducing journey times was seen as the ‘holy grail’ in an attempt to combat the potential loss of business to the new motorways being built.

Most motorways are now frustratingly congested, so even with existing timings the train often has the advantage. What really, really needs to be addressed urgently is the provision of more rolling stock to cater properly for the existing demand, together with additional resources to cope for future growth in passenger numbers.

In most cases speeds and timings are not an issue, so every effort needs to be directed towards providing sufficient seats to provide comfortable journeys, and a tightening up of time keeping and reliability to make rail a reliable, stress-free alternative to driving.

Battery electric trains such as these in sufficient quantities could transform the travel experience and the public’s perception of rail travel.

 

[edwin_m]

The South Transpennine is probably in the too difficult pile for the time being, as the range for a battery unit would need to be a lot more than 90 miles unless there was extensive electrification in Yorkshire. 185s have some life in them yet, and there's no need for a new fleet to use new electrification as there is on North, so I'd expect to see a further procurement in a few years when maybe battery technology has improved or there is some relevant electrification in the pipeline.

 

[Starmill]

They're two carriages longer than the existing trains and have nearly the same seated capacity as a pair. Even on existing frequencies they'll offer more seats each hour through the Transpennine core (the Scarborough service being the key beneficient), even if the Manchester - York stopper is excluded from the equation.

Not really given the large number of booked doubles. The primary problem isn't seating though as that's roughly staying the same, it's standing accommodation, which the current six cars provide very effectively and the new five cars will really struggle with.

As has been noted several times above the extra capacity all comes from running more frequently.

 

[Trainman40083]

It's certainly a very poor value for money choice to go running, say, two separate five cars per hour between York and Manchester when one eight would have sufficed. There will still be further services on top, I'm just drawing the comparison of part of the increased quantum. Personally I wouldn't be adding that extra fast train at all. However this is what wins the votes, because the eight going all the way to Scarborough would be unworkable, and for political reasons the Scarborough train running into the bay at York isn't workable either.

I am sure there has been data shown that proves a train every 10 minutes attracts significantly more business than a longer hourly service train service. At the end of the day, a goal has to be reducing the amount of traffic over the Pennines on the M62.

 

[Starmill]

Will the TPE core have enough alignment to justify 110mph?

There are definitely adequate sections where the trains will be able to exceed 100 yes. It should be easy to reach 110 between York and Church Fenton and between Dewsbury and Huddersfield. Maybe elsewhere and all the pre TRU places where speed was higher (which included some of Colton Jn - Northallerton).

 

[Mainliner]

Battery electric trains such as these in sufficient quantities could transform the travel experience and the public’s perception of rail travel.

Certainly a big improvement on decades of noise and vibration on DMUs…

 

[Starmill]

I am sure there has been data shown that proves a train every 10 minutes attracts significantly more business than a longer hourly service train service. At the end of the day, a goal has to be reducing the amount of traffic over the Pennines on the M62.

Experience suggests that the trains won't need to attract more business as they'll already be full. They will however be subsidy-hungry because of the very high rolling stock and staff costs, without enough space to make that back through ticket sales. And also that's not really the goal of TRU. It won't have any noticeable effect on motorway traffic.

 

[Failed Unit]

The South Transpennine is probably in the too difficult pile for the time being, as the range for a battery unit would need to be a lot more than 90 miles unless there was extensive electrification in Yorkshire. 185s have some life in them yet, and there's no need for a new fleet to use new electrification as there is on North, so I'd expect to see a further procurement in a few years when maybe battery technology has improved or there is some relevant electrification in the pipeline.

I would agree, when you look at the current route. Nothing from Hazel Grove east is too far on the battery. I could one day see Doncaster - Sheffield electrified. (Follow on from MML but that is extremely speculative) However to me that is too short to charge the battery. The never really talk about electrifying freight routes so the only way I could see this fleet operate on the South Route is if they also did Doncaster - Immingham.

Cross country might be a place for a follow on order - but really I would have put it ahead of TPE, worse overcrowding and older trains.

 

[43096]

Building them is the only thing Alstom is doing. All the rest was done by Bombardier and the suppliers chosen by Bombardier at the time.

Some people here seem to think a Vauxhall Astra is a different car to the Opel Astra

Whilst you keep twisting and turning like a twisty turny thing, there is some significance in this order with Alstom.

As far as I can tell this is the first competitive tender for new trains for Britain that Alstom has won since before it dropped the ‘h’ and the GEC. Before anyone says about the additional Jubilee line cars, extra Pendolinos or current 345s, they were not really competitive against other manufacturers. So this is the first win for Alstom since the original Coradia, Juniper and Pendolino orders.

 

[YorksLad12]

29

29 Units is not a micro fleet! It's likely more orders will follow.

It's *possible* that further orders will follow, but that's mostly forum speculation. Twenty-nine units is a small number, especially if we run out of spares (see also class 323), and not as large as the 51 class 185s.

Perhaps these will become the new class 158 or 170 inter-urban model; interestingly, 29 class 159s were built, but they are related to the 158s.

 

[Bald Rick]

The primary problem isn't seating though as that's roughly staying the same, it's standing accommodation, which the current six cars provide very effectively and the new five cars will really struggle with.

I don’t get this. 2 x 185 is 142m long with 2 cabs in the middle plus 2 accessible toilets.

The new trains will be 121m long with no intermediate cabs and (possibly) only one accessible toilet (i don’t know that, but it’s possible).

In terms of standing space, the difference is probably about the equivalent of half a coach, ie 10% less. So a little less, but I don’t see how it is going to make a major difference. Whilst I don’t doubt it happens, I’ve never seen anything like crush loading on a TPE.

 

[Failed Unit]

Agree, I know other things changed as well, but when the 717s replaced the 313s the extra standing space found by the removal of 2 cabs was very welcome.

 

[NCT]

Of course people said the same about Crossrail, TRU and HS2 and they're all happening/completed to a large extent.

Those things had/have far healthier BCRs than NPR.

As Bald Rick helpfully reminded, NPR is roughly at the same stage as HS2 was in 2012. It's taken NPR 12 years to get here. It took HS2 3 years. NPR is on life support.

I am almost certain that NPR, if it happens at all, will be so far into the future, or might even take a substantially different form, that it's just not worth the current rolling stock order worrying about it.

Anyway, I'll avoid drifting off topic from the new TPE rolling stock. The trains are progress in many ways but I was expecting a larger step forward given these trains could potentially be in service until the 2060s. Sure the trains could be lengthened in the future, but past experience suggest they probably won't be once they're in service.

Yes the new trains are the right length to be used in many places just not the Transpennine Leeds -Manc core-time will tell.
Entirely agree with Andyh82 on the frequency issue.

Train length will have been determined (or strongly influenced) by Treasury's best reading of the bottom line based on a range of forecasts, not random forumers' own musings. The dire fiscal reality is no secret - to ignore or dismiss it is just being politically tone deaf.

This forum has a habit of overstating latent rail demand, as repeated discussions on Borders and other reopenings show.

These 5-car trains have 100 fewer seats than the 730/2s that have the same length and same reference 2+2 layout. The second accessible toilet will take some space, but I think the 3 wheelchair spaces will in reality be used to hoover up standees. We also don't know what the vestibules will look like, but I suspect with only 270 standard class seats they will probably be generous - more generous than those on the 185s.

Notice how these units are described as being for 'long distance regional' - they are deliberately not badging them as 'inter-city'. I think they are intended as standing trains.

If subsequent actuals and forecasts show stronger growth than currently anticipated, then there are plenty of options like downgrade/reduce/abolish first class, add doors to end carriages, make vestibules wider, before 'add another carriage' becomes an answer.

 

[800001]

I don’t get this. 2 x 185 is 142m long with 2 cabs in the middle plus 2 accessible toilets.

The new trains will be 121m long with no intermediate cabs and (possibly) only one accessible toilet (i don’t know that, but it’s possible).

In terms of standing space, the difference is probably about the equivalent of half a coach, ie 10% less. So a little less, but I don’t see how it is going to make a major difference. Whilst I don’t doubt it happens, I’ve never seen anything like crush loading on a TPE.

4 toilets of which 2 will be accessible.

 

[Bald Rick]

4 toilets of which 2 will be accessible.

ok thanks.

 

[NCT]

Experience suggests that the trains won't need to attract more business as they'll already be full. They will however be subsidy-hungry because of the very high rolling stock and staff costs, without enough space to make that back through ticket sales. And also that's not really the goal of TRU. It won't have any noticeable effect on motorway traffic.

Rolling stock costs are a function of the number of carriages, not length of trains. At 5-car train lengths, staff to passenger ratio is no longer a biggie.

At the same loading density, a 10-car train will cost about double a 5-car train. If a reasonable length train is already full, what affects the profitability of said train isn't the train length, but the fare paid by each passenger.

 

[Starmill]

Rolling stock costs are a function of the number of carriages, not length of trains. At 5-car train lengths, staff to passenger ratio is no longer a biggie.

At the same loading density, a 10-car train will cost about double a 5-car train. If a reasonable length train is already full, what affects the profitability of said train isn't the train length, but the fare paid by each passenger.

Not really. The staff costs are pretty much double for two five cars over one eight as it's very difficult to get any efficiency. The high base per vehicle cost is baked in by the need to offer long minimum battery ranges so would be the same even with loads of two cars.

 

[NCT]

Not really. The staff costs are pretty much double for two five cars over one eight as it's very difficult to get any efficiency. The high base per vehicle cost is baked in by the need to offer long minimum battery ranges so would be the same even with loads of two cars.

You are not comparing like-for-like. At the very least keep the number of carriages the same in your comparisons.

The point is divided over 5 cars worth of passengers staff costs are small beer. They don't shift the dial (they do when you are running 2-car toy trains),

Battery requirement is a function of the number of vehicles. So running longer trains (assuming same passenger loadings) won't reduce the battery cost per passenger.