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

[brooklynbound]

Given these trains seem particularly expensive can someone explain how much it would cost to electrify the bits that require the batteries. I expect electrification would come out of a different budget so yet again the long term good idea is being sacrificed because of short term budgets.

 

[Starmill]

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.

2tph for Newcastle - Sheffield - Birmingham is very high frequency for the kind of long distance traffic (i.e. high-yeild) that generates. Given XC were running it for 14 hours a day in 2020, it's about three times what BR typically provided. Same goes for Exeter - Bristol - Birmingham, although that never got to 2tph all day, with several through the day still terminating in Bristol.

 

[NCT]

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.

You are being one dimensional again.

I've just checked ORR rail industry finance numbers. Cross Country's staff cost per passenger km is in fact marginally cheaper than 'long train' operators like Greater Anglia, Essex Thameside and GTR. Staff being 35% of franchise income is in line with industry norm.

Leeds - Hull is an important regional flow and it would be wrong to scrimp on frequency.

 

[Starmill]

You are being one dimensional again.

OK? Same to you hun xx

 

[RUK]

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.

I don’t think that the visuals are generic, because Alstom have already earlier shown renders of another, more generic (as in, in Alstom-branded livery, rather than in a GBR livery) Adessia configuration, which has a more standard configuration of double sets of double-leaf doors on each and every one of the 5 vehicles in the set, when Andy Burnham visited them in Derby at the end of July:


I presume that more doors (and more door leaves) cost more than fewer doors/door leaves, because of the opening and closing mechanisms, and proving shut mechanisms, that you need for each door leaf? Or perhaps it’s a weight-saving measure to have fewer of those door leaves and mechanisms, to allow more of the weight budget to be used for batteries instead? Or more door apertures, though not directly weighing more, being big holes in the body-shell, requires more compensatory strengthening of the body-shell else-where, which makes the vehicle heavier? Or, since the doors have to be level-boarding, having fewer, smaller, and less-wide doors which have to be lower than the floor height of the rest of the vehicle, allows for more under-frame space for batteries (or for other equipment, if not directly for the batteries themselves, thus freeing up other space for the batteries)?

 

[fat_boy_pete]

There is a very informative video from Green Signals on YouTube that answers a lot of the questions posed before in this thread. Includes interviews from the MD's of both Transpennine and Alstom UK, especially from the latter with a useful explanation of the extended deployment timelines, alluding to the problems and lessons learned with the introduction of the class 701.

Massive news for Derby, Alstom and TransPennine Express with the announcement that TransPennine Express (TPE) have placed an order with Alstom for 29 x 5 car battery electric multiple units using the Alstom Adessia platform. The deal is to be financed by Rock Rail and the new trains will enter service from 2032 with full deployment by December 2034.
The order is a major boost for the Alstom Derby Litchurch Lane site as well as the customers of TransPennine Express.
Green Signals looks at the announcement to find out what it means.

 

[NCT]

2tph for Newcastle - Sheffield - Birmingham is very high frequency for the kind of long distance traffic (i.e. high-yeild) that generates. Given XC were running it for 14 hours a day in 2020, it's about three times what BR typically provided. Same goes for Exeter - Bristol - Birmingham, although that never got to 2tph all day, with several through the day still terminating in Bristol.

Attitudes like this are precisely why BR nostalgists should be nowhere near positions of decision making.

For regional rolling stock (with small noses and intended to carry standees) anything not shorter than a tube train can be considered a long train.

Britain has a Dutch characteristic urban core with Swiss characteristic rural areas. In both those reference countries the preference is to run 2tph 100m trains over 1tph longer trains.

1tph is not fit for purpose for regional commuting or business-to-business connectivity.

 

[Snow1964]

Given these trains seem particularly expensive can someone explain how much it would cost to electrify the bits that require the batteries. I expect electrification would come out of a different budget so yet again the long term good idea is being sacrificed because of short term budgets.

It is looking like Scarborough, Saltburn and Hull will receive charging, which would be station area and servicing sidings. Basically anywhere the train might be parked or laying over needs to be available for charging.

What isn't yet clear is how far from these terminals the line would be electrified. In an ideal world it would be far enough that the departing train can accelerate before dropping pantograph and switching to batteries. For BEMU operation the departure track might be electrified further than the arrival track. (it is daft to make changeover point where train is on full power accelerating, really want it where train is coasting). On an arrival track have to assume will sometimes be held awaiting signal for a platform so best to do about 300m before the signal, so train can change if held at approach signal, (not put pantograph up in the junction area)

Generally it is more expensive to wire complicated areas than plain line, although anywhere bridges need altering, or track lowered adds to cost

 

[Starmill]

Attitudes like this are precisely why BR nostalgists should be nowhere near positions of decision making.

For regional rolling stock (with small noses and intended to carry standees) anything not shorter than a tube train can be considered a long train.

Britain has a Dutch characteristic urban core with Swiss characteristic rural areas. In both those reference countries the preference is to run 2tph 100m trains over 1tph longer trains.

1tph is not fit for purpose for regional commuting or business-to-business connectivity.

Just so, and thank you so much for making my point for me. The Dutch model would never be running single deck five cars on one of the highest demand routes in the country. They'd provide around three times as much capacity per train with seven to ten car double deck stock. The express trains would also be slower, which makes them much cheaper to operate, using basic low-voltage electrification systems, and they'd nearly all make the same stops on each corridor. They certainly wouldn't have trains skipping Stalybridge or Chesterfield sized places, unless a dedicated bypass lines were built of course.

Of course, the Netherlands does not have an XC equivalent domestically. ICE and Eurostar services fill this space.

I don't think you'd like the Dutch model very much but suffice it to say I'd be much much happier with that than with what TRU end state is likely to look like in real life. Nearly all lines would also have wires and I'd be only too happy to see the public money being spent on arranging that.

 

[Snow1964]

Deleted, duplicated the save few seconds apart

 

[NCT]

Just so, and thank you so much for making my point for me. The Dutch model would never be running single deck five cars on one of the highest demand routes in the country. They'd provide around three times as much capacity per train with seven to ten car double deck stock. The express trains would also be slower, which makes them much cheaper to operate, using basic low-voltage electrification systems, and they'd nearly all make the same stops on each corridor. They certainly wouldn't have trains skipping Stalybridge or Chesterfield sized places, unless a dedicated bypass lines were built of course.

Of course, the Netherlands does not have an XC equivalent domestically. ICE and Eurostar services fill this space.

I don't think you'd like the Dutch model very much but suffice it to say I'd be much much happier with that than with what TRU end state is likely to look like in real life.

As usual, changing the goalposts, missing the point, and being plain wrong.

You are ignoring the exam question that needs to be answered and answering the one you want to answer.

DfT has run the numbers and worked out the size of the attainable market. The exam question is ‘how best to serve a 30-cars-per-hour railway’, not ‘how to serve Starmill’s imaginary 50-cars-per-hour railway’.

Having observed plenty of DfT and Treasury decision making and Starmill’s posting, DfT/Treasury being right and Starmill being wrong carries a far higher likelihood than the other way round.

 

[Starmill]

As usual, changing the goalposts, missing the point, and being plain wrong.

You are ignoring the exam question that needs to be answered and answering the one you want to answer.

DfT has run the numbers and worked out the size of the attainable market. The exam question is ‘how best to serve a 30-cars-per-hour railway’, not ‘how to serve Starmill’s imaginary 50-cars-per-hour railway’.

Having observed plenty of DfT and Treasury decision making and Starmill’s posting, DfT/Treasury being right and Starmill being wrong carries a far higher likelihood than the other way round.

I am not answering any exam questions from you though, not now and not previous. Even if I wanted to, which I don't, I wouldn't have to answer to you anyway. I know you're wrong already by the fact that you can't seem to have a conversation with me without resorting to personal insult

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

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

The end coaches will presumably have first class and accessible toilet in one, and in the other end the catering offer and the other accessible toilet, so reduced numbers of passengers boarding and alighting for both.

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?

for these trains, I’d expect all the electricity generated through braking to go into the battery unless they are full, in which case it will go into the wires.

Given these trains seem particularly expensive can someone explain how much it would cost to electrify the bits that require the batteries.

To Redcar, Hull and Scarboro’, on the tracks TPE use (and nothing else), somewhere in the region of £1.5-2billion.

 

[fishwomp]

for these trains, I’d expect all the electricity generated through braking to go into the battery unless they are full, in which case it will go into the wires.

Naturally - I was referring to the voyagers - not so many places to send energy!

 

[dm1]

It seems the fundamental disagreement is basically over whether DfT's modelling is correct. If you start with a goal of achieving x% modal shift, then work out what service pattern and capacity you need to achieve that, then work out the rolling stock required accordingly, then you will get a very different answer to assuming that modal split and demand stays broadly the same as now.

The DfT appear to have done the latter. The DfT, and the government as a whole are very reluctant to put a number on the desired modal split, because that would come with a host of implications about modal split being a result of transport planning as a whole, rather than something that just happens on its own or because of inherent demand for different modes.

 

[Bald Rick]

Naturally - I was referring to the voyagers - not so many places to send energy!

Oh that all goes to the resistors.

 

[NCT]

I am not answering any exam questions from you though, not now and not previous. Even if I wanted to, which I don't, I wouldn't have to answer to you anyway. I know you're wrong already by the fact that you can't seem to have a conversation with me without resorting to personal insult

Demand forecasting, in terms of methods sanctioned by the Transport Analysis Guidance is a relatively mature science. Yes, forecasts always have errors, and are an art form as much as a science. As an art form, it has proven to be there and thereabouts. Those with access to data have repeated stated that forecasts for schemes like Borders and others have been pretty much on the money, contrary to what some conventional wisdom might have you believe.

TRU is much more incremental and the scope for forecasting errors is even smaller. I trust DfT forecasts over some random vibes of 'should cater for 3x'.

The end coaches will presumably have first class and accessible toilet in one, and in the other end the catering offer and the other accessible toilet, so reduced numbers of passengers boarding and alighting for both.

I forgot with low-floor stock you are much more restricted with what you can have where. Up to now UK rolling stock has tended to have consistent door positions everywhere because we can put accessible toilets over bogies. This is no longer possible with low-floor stock. This is why on the continent accessible toilets more often than not involve sacrificing doors.

 

[edwin_m]

I think trolley service was mentioned somewhere upthread. How does that work with a variable floor height?

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

According to Alstom's animated visualisation, the interior has ramps between the high floor and lower floor areas. If the ramps are shallow enough, wheelchair users would be able to reach toilets in high floor areas.

ETA: Presumably the ramps will be shallow enough for a catering trolley.

ETA: The difference in height between the high and low floors is much less than on continental European trains.

 

[Starmill]

Demand forecasting, in terms of methods sanctioned by the Transport Analysis Guidance is a relatively mature science. Yes, forecasts always have errors, and are an art form as much as a science. As an art form, it has proven to be there and thereabouts. Those with access to data have repeated stated that forecasts for schemes like Borders and others have been pretty much on the money, contrary to what some conventional wisdom might have you believe.

TRU is much more incremental and the scope for forecasting errors is even smaller. I trust DfT forecasts over some random vibes of 'should cater for 3x'.

That's got nowt to do with what I said though has it? You brought up the Dutch model, I didn't advocate for it, you did. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have mentioned it

 

[NCT]

That's got nowt to do with what I said though has it? You brought up the Dutch model, I didn't advocate for it, you did. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have mentioned it

That's got everything to do with your arrogant dismissal of DfT's judgment of attainable market size and train lengths.

You said / implied an 120m train was too short a train. All I was saying was the Dutch and Swiss don't consider it so. The other things you mentioned had nothing to do with the topic.

 

[RUK]

For regional rolling stock (with small noses and intended to carry standees) anything not shorter than a tube train can be considered a long train.

Though these, at 121 m, are shorter than some Tube trains:

2009 Stock, 8-car (Victoria line): 133.275 m

1992 Stock, 8-car (Central line): 133 m

1967 Stock, 8-car (Victoria line): 128.2 m

1996 Stock, 7-car (Jubilee line): 126.492 m

1959 Stock, 8-car (Central line): 126.12 m

1960 Stock, 8-car (Central line): 125.88 m

1962 Stock, 8-car (Central line): 123.68 m

S8 Stock (not sure if you’re counting Sub-Surface trains or not, Metropolitan line): 133.682 m

A60/A62 Stock, 8-car (Metropolitan line): 129.24 m

CO/CP/R Stock, 8-car (peak times, Sub-Surface lines): 124.32 m

Any future order of 2024 Stock for the Central line, which would probably be 11-car, would be longer than 121 m as well, since a 10-car unit would already be a minimum of 123.608 m, and the 11th car would be a longer non-bridge car, and, depending on the type of non-bridge car which they use, an 11-car unit would be 133.876 m (using a second Motor 1 or Key Motor 1 car) or 137.546 m (using a second Key Motor 2 car) - presumably it would be at least as long as the 1992 Stock currently used on the line, if not a bit longer.

 

[NCT]

Though these, at 121 m, are shorter than some Tube trains:

2009 Stock, 8-car (Victoria line): 133.275 m

1992 Stock, 8-car (Central line): 133 m

1967 Stock, 8-car (Victoria line): 128.2 m

1996 Stock, 7-car (Jubilee line): 126.492 m

1959 Stock, 8-car (Central line): 126.12 m

1960 Stock, 8-car (Central line): 125.88 m

1962 Stock, 8-car (Central line): 123.68 m

S8 Stock (not sure if you’re counting Sub-Surface trains or not, Metropolitan line): 133.682 m

A60/A62 Stock, 8-car (Metropolitan line): 129.24 m

CO/CP/R Stock, 8-car (peak times, Sub-Surface lines): 124.32 m

Any future order of 2024 Stock for the Central line, which would probably be 11-car, would be longer than 121 m as well, since a 10-car unit would already be a minimum of 123.608 m, and the 11th car would be a longer non-bridge car, and, depending on the type of non-bridge car which they use, an 11-car unit would be 133.876 m or 137.546 m - presumably it would be at least as long as the 1992 Stock currently used on the line, if not a bit longer.

This is just splitting hairs.

 

[Starmill]

That's got everything to do with your arrogant dismissal of DfT's judgment of attainable market size and train lengths.

You said / implied an 120m train was too short a train. All I was saying was the Dutch and Swiss don't consider it so. The other things you mentioned had nothing to do with the topic.

No, I said you were wrong. And you are.

 

[RUK]

I think trolley service was mentioned somewhere upthread. How does that work with a variable floor height?

The Class 745 and Class 755 STADLER FLIRTs, which have trolley service on Greater Anglia/Great British Railways | Anglia, have ramps along the corridor along the train between the seats.

 

[fat_boy_pete]

I think trolley service was mentioned somewhere upthread. How does that work with a variable floor height?

It works just fine on the Greater Anglia Stadlers. The ramps aren't steep and the trolleys work from one end of the train to the other. Except the few services with 3 x 755 units, as here the trolley moves between units at a station stop. Won't be a problem on Transpennine.

 

[YorkRailFan]

2tph for Newcastle - Sheffield - Birmingham is very high frequency for the kind of long distance traffic (i.e. high-yeild) that generates. Given XC were running it for 14 hours a day in 2020, it's about three times what BR typically provided. Same goes for Exeter - Bristol - Birmingham, although that never got to 2tph all day, with several through the day still terminating in Bristol.

Its not 2tph currently! The Newcastle-Reading service is currently 1tp2h so on the Newcastle-Sheffield-Birmingham corridor there is currently 3tp2h not 4. Currently, several Reading services still terminate short in York (roughly every other hour).
Leeds isn't served by the Reading service so remains at 1tph to Birmingham. This isn't the frequency that can cope with 4 or 5 carriage trains once an hour. The whole point of running shorter trains was to run them at a higher frequency which still hasn't been restored throughout as of yet!

 

[NCT]

It seems the fundamental disagreement is basically over whether DfT's modelling is correct. If you start with a goal of achieving x% modal shift, then work out what service pattern and capacity you need to achieve that, then work out the rolling stock required accordingly, then you will get a very different answer to assuming that modal split and demand stays broadly the same as now.

The DfT appear to have done the latter. The DfT, and the government as a whole are very reluctant to put a number on the desired modal split, because that would come with a host of implications about modal split being a result of transport planning as a whole, rather than something that just happens on its own or because of inherent demand for different modes.

It's all very well setting ambitious mode-shift targets for long-term strategies and policy statements - and they are absolutely the right things to do - but business planning is a different matter where you promise a financial stream to the Treasury.

There are things outside of a transport project's own control that affect mode shift and propensity for rail travel - shape and strength of the labour market and industry, and land use to name the most important. If substantial parts of the travel demand are between Barratt estates and out-of-town business parks then creating loads of extra rail capacity will just result in fresh air being carried.

Those problems are far beyond the scope of TRU to solve, and there is a lot of political resistance to the solutions required to solve those problems. It would be fiscally profligate to base business decisions on forecasts that ignore realities.

 

[Starmill]

Its not 2tph currently! The Newcastle-Reading service is currently 1tp2h so on the Newcastle-Sheffield-Birmingham corridor there is currently 3tp2h not 4. Currently, several Reading services still terminate short in York (roughly every other hour).
Leeds isn't served by the Reading service so remains at 1tph to Birmingham. This isn't the frequency that can cope with 4 or 5 carriage trains once an hour. The whole point of running shorter trains was to run them at a higher frequency which still hasn't been restored throughout as of yet!

That's exactly what I am trying to say though. The structural problems and lack of any recent efficiencies is a key reason why the service hasn't been allowed to add back some of what was lost. This is very off topic though now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 10:09 ==

It seems the fundamental disagreement is basically over whether DfT's modelling is correct. If you start with a goal of achieving x% modal shift, then work out what service pattern and capacity you need to achieve that, then work out the rolling stock required accordingly, then you will get a very different answer to assuming that modal split and demand stays broadly the same as now.

The DfT appear to have done the latter. The DfT, and the government as a whole are very reluctant to put a number on the desired modal split, because that would come with a host of implications about modal split being a result of transport planning as a whole, rather than something that just happens on its own or because of inherent demand for different modes.

One of the biggest problems is that they aren't really doing that at all, they're approving the TRU team's business cases because the Minister has consistently made it a priority to do so. The TRU team came up with the spec and went to the market with it and that's primarily about what they can get financing on as the Minister is never going to buy the trains in cash, even if that were cheaper in the long run.

 

[NCT]

The current TPE fast pattern operates something like 20 carriages per hour between Manchester and Leeds.

All available information indicates the post TRU timetable will operate 30 carriages per hour.

This is a 50% capacity increase. This is a big number - it should be celebrated.

There are two sources of passenger growth: factors within the railway’s control and factors outside of it.

Factors within the railway’s control: a 10-minute journey time saving and a modest frequency increase

Factors outside the railway’s control: forecast population and productivity growths are slow, due in a large part to a momentous democratic outcome of 2016. The government’s planning reform and house building targets are making the right noises in the right directions, but one can’t ignore the very real political and resource headwinds and should adjust one’s expectations accordingly.

All things considered, a 50% capacity increase is an incredibly good result, especially under current fiscal circumstances.