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

[cats_five]

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).

How much time will that actually save? Without allowing for acceleration etc., York to Church Fenton is approximately 11 miles, 6 minutes at 110, 6:36 at 100mph. Dewsbury to Huddersfield isn't as far. Acceleration I think will make more difference than top speed.

 

[YorkRailFan]

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

A problem for CrossCountry is that the pre-COVID frequency on the North East to Birmingham route still hasn't been fully reinstated. The persistent staffing issues also don't help matters.

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.

These trains look like a great replacement for some of Northern's older stock, especially on their Calder Valley routes that may use parts of the TRU throughout their journey.

More than likely the 90 miles is contracted range including battery degradation after a set point in time eg 10 years. After this a replacement of the batteries is likely to offer either reduced qty and weight of new batteries, extended range or a combination of both.

But they won't necessarily need a 90 mile range to complete a round trip to Scarborough or Saltburn. Charging facilities for these batteries are set to be installed as mentioned previously to top up batteries so they don't run flat before getting back to OLE. TPE services currently have quite a bit of turn-around time in Scarborough so should be able to charge a decent bit.

 

[Class 165]

What has been the point of spending £11 billion on the TRU program to scrimp on about £100mn ordering 5 car instead of 6 car trains?

The vast majority of services are 6 car 185s or 5 car 802s at the moment, both of which have greater capacity than the new trains will.

It just seems barmy when such a huge amount has been spent on the route already to then save a tiny amount (in proportion) ordering short trains that will be overcrowded on entering service.

The rest of the spec looks good, there's no need for 125mph etc., so I've no complaints about from them having less capacity than most current services!

 

[NCT]

A 5-car 802 is terrible for carrying standing loads. An Adessia will have greater people shifting power.

The Hull route seems to be >50% 802, so moving towards uniform Adessias should represent an overall capacity gain just by itself. Increasing to 2tph is a lot of additional capacity.

 

[Kentish RYS]

Any mention of ETCS/ERTMS fitment on the various press releases?

 

[xotGD]

Replacing 2 x 6-car and 2 x 3-car services with 3 x 5-car involves no change in the number of carriages, but with the benefits of:

- Consistent train length (and no short forming)
- No space wasted with cabs in the middle
- Passengers not getting stuck unable to access their reserved seats
- The guard being able to perform a ticket check on the full train
- The trolley being able to serve the full train

 

[D365]

Any mention of ETCS/ERTMS fitment on the various press releases?

Presumably this will be Alstom's Onvia (formerly Atlas) onboard unit.

 

[fat_boy_pete]

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.

Well don't East-West rail want 5-car BEMU units in approximately the delivery timeframe as these? I am sure DfT will want to explore economies of scale with a follow on tender

 

[NCT]

As for follow-on orders, I’m sure between the Southeastern, ScotRail, Northern and GWR/SWR/Chiltern tenders, Litchurch Lane will get something and plenty more Adessias will get churned out.

 

[3RDGEN]

TPE services currently have quite a bit of turn-around time in Scarborough so should be able to charge a decent bit.

So when the inbound arrives late what are you going to do, sit there charging as booked or turn in 10 minutes and leave on time like the 185/802's do now?

 

[NCT]

So when the inbound arrives late what are you going to do, sit there charging as booked or turn in 10 minutes and leave on time like the 185/802's do now?

We don’t yet know the relationship between minimum turnaround and time taken to charge batteries. I just saving any ‘panicking’ until more is known.

 

[YorkRailFan]

We don’t yet know the relationship between minimum turnaround and time taken to charge batteries. I just saving any ‘panicking’ until more is known.

As early users of the technology, the 230s that have been trialled on the Greenford Branch could charge quite quickly at West Ealing during the short turn-around time. By the time these trains enter service, the technology will have developed significantly.

I recognise the differences between these trains on the Scarborough line and the 230s on the Greenford branch. The 230s could charge far more frequently and would have a shorter distances to cover than these trains on the Scarborough line. But the point is, fast charging technology does currently exist and will progress as development of these trains continues.

 

[Class 317]

The cost of additional trains to cover for longer lay overs if indeed they are required will be many times less than lots of extra OHLE.

Having said that with the range these will have it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Bald Rick]

So when the inbound arrives late what are you going to do, sit there charging as booked or turn in 10 minutes and leave on time like the 185/802's do now?

As I posted up thread, they have a 90mile range for a reason. And that reason is to get back to York without charging at Scarboro (although even a quick 5 mins at 3MW whilst doing a quick turnround will give a useful boost).

 

[800001]

As I posted up thread, they have a 90mile range for a reason. And that reason is to get back to York without charging at Scarboro (although even a quick 5 mins at 3MW whilst doing a quick turnround will give a useful boost).

It's also possible that they may have regenerative brakes and be able to charge the batteries that way (although I have not seen anything to suggest that as yet).

 

[Bald Rick]

It's also possible that they may have regenerative brakes and be able to charge the batteries that way (although I have not seen anything to suggest that as yet).

They definitely will. Pretty much all trains in this country with electric motors have regen of some sort (even Voyagers!)

 

[800001]

They definitely will. Pretty much all trains in this country with electric motors have regen of some sort (even Voyagers!)

Good! So more charge going in then when off the wires.

 

[Starmill]

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.

You are misunderstanding the point. It's not small beer because when you do a large capex programme, part of the return that pays for that is a large fall in unit opex. Generally this isn't achievable as a cash saving, but it is achieved by, say, tripling the numbers of people travelling (more correctly, for the maximum number of people who could travel to triple). In this case the capex has been largely overspent, while the unit opex isn't going to be changed much going from one six car DMU to one five car BMU. In fact it might be worse rather than better. Running an extra train per hour is a very inefficient way to add capacity. It doesn't really matter what the total number of vehicles is because the cost is per seat km provided, it matters how they're used. If you just run more trains with the same average capacity as today, you just increase unit cost in line with supply.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 18:37 ==

How much time will that actually save? Without allowing for acceleration etc., York to Church Fenton is approximately 11 miles, 6 minutes at 110, 6:36 at 100mph. Dewsbury to Huddersfield isn't as far. Acceleration I think will make more difference than top speed.

Maybe one minute each vs 100, but the speeds being compared to are usually lower than 100 previously.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 18:38 ==

A problem for CrossCountry is that the pre-COVID frequency on the North East to Birmingham route still hasn't been fully reinstated. The persistent staffing issues also don't help matters.

Both of those things are actually the same problem, which is that XC is very inefficient and has massive opex. High frequency, low capacity, high speed diesel trains are probably the worst possible combination.

 

[BogiePicker]

Any mention of ETCS/ERTMS fitment on the various press releases?

Yeah, I thought the 185s were getting retrofitted with ETCS as well.

 

[Bald Rick]

Good! So more charge going in then when off the wires.

and on the wires.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Both of those things are actually the same problem, which is that XC is very inefficient and has massive opex. High frequency, low capacity, high speed diesel trains are probably the worst possible combination.

Except that XC isn't high frequency, 1tph connecting Birmingham & Leeds as an example. The Reading-Newcastle service hasn't been reinstated to 2019 levels yet so Sheffield-Birmingham isn't 2tph regularly yet. The TRU corridor is going to be much higher frequency than XC is or would be if it were running at 2019 levels.

 

[NCT]

You are misunderstanding the point. It's not small beer because when you do a large capex programme, part of the return that pays for that is a large fall in unit opex. Generally this isn't achievable as a cash saving, but it is achieved by, say, tripling the numbers of people travelling (more correctly, for the maximum number of people who could travel to triple). In this case the capex has been largely overspent, while the unit opex isn't going to be changed much going from one six car DMU to one five car BMU. In fact it might be worse rather than better. Running an extra train per hour is a very inefficient way to add capacity. It doesn't really matter what the total number of vehicles is because the cost is per seat km provided, it matters how they're used. If you just run more trains with the same average capacity as today, you just increase unit cost in line with supply.

Staff costs between 5-car trains and longer trains have a negligible impact on the cost of operating each seat km.

The capex is what it is. What's important is achieving the best net operating position, or the best affordable combination of net operating position and social benefits. The DfT will run have run lots of forecasts and concluded the the cross sectional capacity need in the busiest section (Manchester - Leeds) will be in the region of 30 carriages per hour. I'm not privy to inside information, so I'm purely speculating based on logic.

It then comes down to a choice of, something like (precise numbers are less important)
- 6tph of 5-car trains, vs
- 4tph of 7-car trains.

It's very plausible that the DfT have found that
- a 6tph Manchester - Leeds frequency generates more punters and more benefits than a 4tph one on the biggest flows
- the staffing cost difference between 4tph and 6tph is small beer

Also, while you focus on core cross-sectional resource efficiency, you forget about periphery resource distribution. I think the post TRU TPE hourly resource distribution is thus
- 2x5car Newcastle
- 2x5car Hull
- 1x5car Scarborough
- 1x5car Middlesbrough

A 4x7car railway would provide 1x7car to each of the 4 arms. This would underserve Newcastle and Hull while carting fresh air to Scarborough and Middlesbrough.

If DfT concluded a 6x5car railway is preferable to a 4x7car railway for the above reasons, then it passes the NCT sniff test.

 

[tomoufc]

To me this train order just confirms that we're never going to get a fully OHLE operated rail network in the UK... there will just forever be the excuse of battery-electric trains to avoid doing things properly in the first place.

We could've instead electrified properly and forever be able to order cheaper, more reliable, lighter and more standardised trains... but alas it seems we'll be stuck with BEMU all over the network that inevitably keep causing issues with failures to switch over between OHLE/Battery plus more general failures from it being a more complex system on board the train.

I wish we could just do what needs to be done instead of penny pinching as always, guess it's just a representation of the modern state of this country.

Anyway, moaning aside - will these trains actually be equipped with pantographs and be able to run from OHLE when it's available? Charging while running if necessary? Or are they going to be more like the GWR class 230 where it uses a bottom contact charging system?

This is partly due to the mismatch of financing. ROSCOs are essentially PFI vehicles - which makes governmen investment more palatable in the short term - but private financing of fixed infrastructure came to an end with Network Rail’s accidental nationalisation. The crazy thing is that private finance isn’t necessary for either.

 

[KevinTurvey]

I hope the visuals are generic and not how the trains will finally be. One single leaf, single door on the end coaches will be hugely problematic, especially on a 24m long coach at Ox. Rd and Piccadilly.

We have 2 leaf single doors on end coaches of Merseyrail 777's and these suffer greatly with extended loading/unloading times when busy and yet these coaches are only about 17m long, and with a double door as well.

 

[NCT]

Hopefully there's plenty of time for minor modifications. One door does seem odd.

The other thing is I hope they reconsider the seat choice. Whatever upholstery you put on an ironing board seat base you are putting lipstick on a pig. Those seats are of a fundamentally wrong shape and the plain white appearance is just awful.

 

[fishwomp]

They definitely will. Pretty much all trains in this country with electric motors have regen of some sort (even Voyagers!)

Interesting. So, your laptop gets a bit more oomph out of the socket when it's braking

Do you mean as in a resistor bank for the brakes (99%) and a little extra hotel power (like 1%) but in any event some energy going back through the motors in addition to disc brakes?

 

[D365]

Interesting. So, your laptop gets a bit more oomph out of the socket when it's braking

Do you mean as in a resistor bank for the brakes (99%) and a little extra hotel power (like 1%) but in any event some energy going back through the motors in addition to disc brakes?

The ’hotel power’ will take as much as it needs, up to the rated capacity of the static converter or the rating of the current limiting device (whichever is lower).

 

[Starmill]

Staff costs between 5-car trains and longer trains have a negligible impact on the cost of operating each seat km.

The capex is what it is. What's important is achieving the best net operating position, or the best affordable combination of net operating position and social benefits. The DfT will run have run lots of forecasts and concluded the the cross sectional capacity need in the busiest section (Manchester - Leeds) will be in the region of 30 carriages per hour. I'm not privy to inside information, so I'm purely speculating based on logic.

It then comes down to a choice of, something like (precise numbers are less important)
- 6tph of 5-car trains, vs
- 4tph of 7-car trains.

It's very plausible that the DfT have found that
- a 6tph Manchester - Leeds frequency generates more punters and more benefits than a 4tph one on the biggest flows
- the staffing cost difference between 4tph and 6tph is small beer

Also, while you focus on core cross-sectional resource efficiency, you forget about periphery resource distribution. I think the post TRU TPE hourly resource distribution is thus
- 2x5car Newcastle
- 2x5car Hull
- 1x5car Scarborough
- 1x5car Middlesbrough

A 4x7car railway would provide 1x7car to each of the 4 arms. This would underserve Newcastle and Hull while carting fresh air to Scarborough and Middlesbrough.

If DfT concluded a 6x5car railway is preferable to a 4x7car railway for the above reasons, then it passes the NCT sniff test.

Not at all. To take just the example mentioned above, high staff costs are one of the reasons why so many CrossCountry trains haven't come back since the pandemic. Failure to operate those services more efficiently has been one of the reasons why they haven't been allocated any more money to spend. Same goes for entire service groups which no longer exist, such as Sheffield - Gainsborough Central.

If there isn't solid proof of improvement in unit costs as a result of enormous capital spending programmes then there won't be further public funding made available for more.

 

[NCT]

Not at all. To take just the example mentioned above, high staff costs are one of the reasons why so many CrossCountry trains haven't come back since the pandemic. Failure to operate those services more efficiently has been one of the reasons why they haven't been allocated any more money to spend. Same goes for entire service groups which no longer exist, such as Sheffield - Gainsborough Central.

If there isn't solid proof of improvement in unit costs as a result of enormous capital spending programmes then there won't be further public funding made available for more.

You are wrong. Cross Country's cost pressure comes from Voyager's thirstiness and space inefficiency of what are short trains for inter-city sets. These are problems the Adessia fleet don't have.

 

[Starmill]

You are wrong. Cross Country's cost pressure comes from Voyager's thirstiness and space inefficiency of what are short trains for inter-city sets. These are problems the Adessia fleet don't have.

Not really. It's fundamentally much cheaper to use a bog standard EMU with lots of seats than it is to use two shorter and technically very high dependency (especially in the form of battery amortisation and charging infrastructure) ones on separate services that give about the same capacity. Especially so when the fast trains are all being flighted 5-10 minutes apart, which is still going to be the case between Church Fenton and Dewsbury owing to a lack of overtaking opportunities.