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

[Kite159]

I am sure There was some questions about XC terminating their Newcastle services at York and TPE picking up that path.

The issue with that is potentially platform space at Newcastle considering XC use one of the shorter bay platforms which can only take a 4 coach unit. They already had to axe platform 12 to extend platform 11 so that could take 5 coaches.

 

[3RDGEN]

When is a second service per hour to/from the airport via the chord due to be reinstated?

It keeps being quoted but is there capacity through Oxford Road for another service, there should be but currently the expected Manchester Airport - Newcastle service could be just Manchester Victoria - York given current infrastructure constraints.

It seems to have gone quiet regarding the Northern contract award, despite the new trains being needed/expected sooner.

Something is due end of 2026 or early 2027 however we already know Northern are getting new to them 350's from late 2027 to start replacing the 323 fleet. That process may release existing EMU's for the Huddersfield - Leeds and Leeds to York local services from 2030 once TRU is completed on those sections.

 

[Msq71423]

I think overall the announcement is great news. I've been catching up on what's been posted internally and there's a few nuggets I don't think have really been mentioned yet. Obviously I can't share links to the sources.
The mock up train on the announcement video isn't representative of the interior design, final details of this will be decided over the coming year with all staff being invited to share ideas and have an input.
Regarding the level boarding this will only be for TRU upgraded stations but the sliding thing will still come out at all other stations to fill the gap, but there may be a step up to board at these stations so ramps may still need to be used.
A couple of other things that were mentioned is that they will definitely not be ironing board seats, and the seats/tables will align with the windows.. (Usually a bug bear of mine!).
On the MDs internal video he said there will actually be 2 doors on the end carriages, the way he words it is that it is 1 double door, but this isn't totally clear, and that it's passed all relevant studies into time and movement of passengers boarding/alighting.
Regarding charging at the Eastern termini, it was said that 2 platforms in Hull will be electrified for this purpose and the Hull chargers will somehow work much faster (twice the speed I think it said) than those at other termini.
Regarding capacity the MD said it overall represents a 30% increase over the pennines overall. He also said that the units have the possiblity to have additional carriages inserted into them further down the line. My opinion they should be made long enough in the first place when they've spent all this money on the upgrade.
Also how much longer will the south route have 185s on it, are these to be used indefinitely.

 

[stevieinselby]

Also how much longer will the south route have 185s on it, are these to be used indefinitely.

With there being far less electrification on the South Pennine route, it isn't suitable for being upgraded to new BEMUs – you've got over 100 miles from Cleethorpes to Hazel Grove with only the short section through Doncaster station that has any wires. That means there's no rationale for replacing the 185s – which are only mid-life and should easily do another 15–20 years in service. They are perfectly appropriate units for the route, and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of demand for them elsewhere, so I can't envisage them moving from South Pennine in the foreseeable future, I would expect them to remain on that route until they reach the end of their useful life.

 

[positron]

Problem is the government aren't even aspirationally saying that pending affordability etc they plan to wire enough for new battery units to take over in 20 years.

 

[sjm77]

Why did Anglia only order 20 class 745? Seems stupid to me. They need 19 daily diagrams (9 for Stansted, 10 for Norwich), surely ~23 should have been ordered to give a consistent experience to passengers?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why did Anglia only order 20 class 745? Seems stupid to me. They need 19 daily diagrams (9 for Stansted, 10 for Norwich), surely ~23 should have been ordered to give a consistent experience to passengers?

This is standard across the network and has been for ages. TOCs under-order as DfT funding is always a bit short, and end up with microfleets of old tat knocking around well past their sell by date. LNER and the Mk4s are a great example, or LM/WMT using 321s and 319s once the full fleet of 350s was in place (though finally they've got away from that, they're still using West Midlands units to Euston though, and that was only meant to be temporary).

 

[D365]

TOCs under-order as DfT funding is always a bit short, and end up with microfleets of old tat knocking around well past their sell by date. LNER and the Mk4s are a great example, or LM/WMT using 321s and 319s once the full fleet of 350s was in place (though finally they've got away from that, they're still using West Midlands units to Euston though, and that was only meant to be temporary).

The retention of ex BR passenger vehicles (LNER IC225s and LM Class 321s - later supplanted by Class 319s) was a means of growing the respective operator fleets. I’m not aware that the vehicle quantities for the Class 801 and Class 350/2 orders were reduced as a result of it, and in both instances, the remaining ex BR vehicles are to be replaced / have been replaced by further new build.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The retention of ex BR passenger vehicles (LNER IC225s and LM Class 321s - later supplanted by Class 319s) was a means of growing the respective operator fleets.

If the orders of new kit had been specified properly they would have included provision for growth. (Yes, you, Virgin Trains).

GBR really need to get on top of this.

 

[3RDGEN]

Why did Anglia only order 20 class 745? Seems stupid to me. They need 19 daily diagrams (9 for Stansted, 10 for Norwich), surely ~23 should have been ordered to give a consistent experience to passengers?

Wasn't the original plan to speed the Norwich services up so it became 18 diagrams from 20 which would be fine for an EMU fleet, 19 from 23 is 82% availability which is a total waste of money/units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wasn't the original plan to speed the Norwich services up so it became 18 diagrams from 20 which would be fine for an EMU fleet, 19 from 23 is 82% availability which is a total waste of money/units.

Taken this out to a new thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...er-anglia-fleet-replacement-have-been.307410/

 

[Snow1964]

Wasn't the original plan to speed the Norwich services up so it became 18 diagrams from 20 which would be fine for an EMU fleet, 19 from 23 is 82% availability which is a total waste of money/units.

But the same could happen to Transpennine, size the fleet sparingly based on expected improvements, then not carry out all the planned improvements, so effectively end up 1 or 2 units short.

There are very few fleets where don't lose 1 or 2 to accidents, fire, key component failure which takes 1-3 years to fix etc. So having absolute minimum is very risky especially where some units are 2-3 hours from their depot, where quick substitutions of failures is not an option.

 

[NCT]

But the same could happen to Transpennine, size the fleet sparingly based on expected improvements, then not carry out all the planned improvements, so effectively end up 1 or 2 units short.

There are very few fleets where don't lose 1 or 2 to accidents, fire, key component failure which takes 1-3 years to fix etc. So having absolute minimum is very risky especially where some units are 2-3 hours from their depot, where quick substitutions of failures is not an option.

All well and good in principle. At the end of the day it's whether you let perfect be the enemy of the good. And frankly in the foreseeable future where that line is drawn is dictated by the Treasury.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All well and good in principle. At the end of the day it's whether you let perfect be the enemy of the good. And frankly in the foreseeable future where that line is drawn is dictated by the Treasury.

The thing is it isn't really the good - the costs of retaining microfleets are high. Just order the right size fleet to start with.

The Class 185 debacle hasn't been forgotten.

 

[Goldfish62]

The thing is it isn't really the good - the costs of retaining microfleets are high. Just order the right size fleet to start with.

The Class 185 debacle hasn't been forgotten.

What would you define as a microfleet (a term beloved of these forums) in terms of maximum number of units?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

What would you define as a microfleet (a term beloved of these forums) in terms of maximum number of units?

Thank you, it's normally me who jumps at anyone calling things a micro fleet when they're not Gives me a break!

And to answer, got to be single figures, surely!

 

[The exile]

Wasn't the original plan to speed the Norwich services up so it became 18 diagrams from 20 which would be fine for an EMU fleet, 19 from 23 is 82% availability which is a total waste of money/units.

Or sensible provision for the unexpected and a way of slowing the accumulation of mileage of all units….

 

[Bletchleyite]

What would you define as a microfleet (a term beloved of these forums) in terms of maximum number of units?

Perhaps less than 10% of your total fleet?

I'd not go with single figures. I would say Class 397 is an example of one, it's really unhelpful that those exist, TPE would have been far better off with another 12 802s.

Maybe it's where you have a smallish subfleet that's operationally a pain because there's a limit to what it can be used for.

 

[NCT]

The thing is it isn't really the good - the costs of retaining microfleets are high. Just order the right size fleet to start with.

The Class 185 debacle hasn't been forgotten.

We are arguing the toss over 2 or 3 additional units.

Beyond that, we run into issues like procurement rules and rules around spending decisions. A spending decision can only be executed if there is a project business case justifying it - and fleet sizes have to reflect project sizes. Yes, procurement rules can be changed and the way projects are managed can be changed, but those are long-term change programmes existing projects cannot wait for.

 

[3RDGEN]

But the same could happen to Transpennine, size the fleet sparingly based on expected improvements, then not carry out all the planned improvements, so effectively end up 1 or 2 units short.

There are very few fleets where don't lose 1 or 2 to accidents, fire, key component failure which takes 1-3 years to fix etc. So having absolute minimum is very risky especially where some units are 2-3 hours from their depot, where quick substitutions of failures is not an option.

The new TPE fleet of 29 doesn't match the requirements as the reported new timetable of Hull * 2tph, Scarborough & Saltburn + 1tph will only need 21/22 diagrams so not sure why 29 are required as they will be no double diagrams. Perhaps 2 or 3 units will work the Newcastle - Edinburgh "local" services to release 802's to the core TPE North Route?

You don't specify fleet size on "what if" we scrap a unit in 5 years time, that's crazy.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

What would you define as a microfleet (a term beloved of these forums) in terms of maximum number of units?

Perhaps less than 10% of your total fleet?

I'd not go with single figures. I would say Class 397 is an example of one, it's really unhelpful that those exist, TPE would have been far better off with another 12 802s.

Maybe it's where you have a smallish subfleet that's operationally a pain because there's a limit to what it can be used for.

What counts as a micro fleet?

What would you define as a microfleet (a term beloved of these forums) in terms of maximum number of units? Goldfish62 has brought up something I'm forever moaning at people about -- calling fleet microfleets when they're not. I think "microfleet" has to be one of the most wrongly overused...

www.railforums.co.uk

I have created this thread to discuss microfleets further so we don't go off topic here. I do think it's a worthy discussion as people LOVE to use that term for just about anything.

 

[Goldfish62]

What counts as a micro fleet?

What would you define as a microfleet (a term beloved of these forums) in terms of maximum number of units? Goldfish62 has brought up something I'm forever moaning at people about -- calling fleet microfleets when they're not. I think "microfleet" has to be one of the most wrongly overused...

www.railforums.co.uk

I have created this thread to discuss microfleets further so we don't go off topic here. I do think it's a worthy discussion as people LOVE to use that term for just about anything.

Thanks!

 

[dodecahedron67]

Saltburn should be 8 units at 1tph
Scarborough should be 7 units at 1tph
Hull should be 9/10 units at 2tph depending on turnarounds at Piccadilly

That gives 24/25 diagrams from 29 units

 

[3RDGEN]

Saltburn should be 8 units at 1tph
Scarborough should be 7 units at 1tph
Hull should be 9/10 units at 2tph depending on turnarounds at Piccadilly

That gives 24/25 diagrams from 29 units

Saltburn - 8, Scarborough - 6 or 7 and Hull - 8 would be required on the current timings, given TRU should be cutting journey times then there shouldn't be a need for anymore. If the units are going to need extended turn rounds to recharge then perhaps add an extra unit per route so that gets you to 25 from 29. Whatever happens 29 is too many units for the diagrams being delivered unless they put a couple on Newcastle - Edinburgh.

 

[LittleAH]

Saltburn - 8, Scarborough - 6 or 7 and Hull - 8 would be required on the current timings, given TRU should be cutting journey times then there shouldn't be a need for anymore. If the units are going to need extended turn rounds to recharge then perhaps add an extra unit per route so that gets you to 25 from 29. Whatever happens 29 is too many units for the diagrams being delivered unless they put a couple on Newcastle - Edinburgh.

TRU timings aren’t coming down drastically and as we know from May 18 trying to push turnaround time is extremely flawed.

25 out of 29 is perfectly acceptable.

 

[quantinghome]

Saltburn - 8, Scarborough - 6 or 7 and Hull - 8 would be required on the current timings, given TRU should be cutting journey times then there shouldn't be a need for anymore. If the units are going to need extended turn rounds to recharge then perhaps add an extra unit per route so that gets you to 25 from 29. Whatever happens 29 is too many units for the diagrams being delivered unless they put a couple on Newcastle - Edinburgh.

As Garth Marenghi might have said: "I know timetable planners who use turnaround time and they're all cowards."