Surely not - DfT orders 8 more carriages than proposed.

[DarloRich]

Will those replace the 150's that LM where planning to keep? (the 150/0's IIRC?)

not unless they electrify the Marston Vale line!

@Jcollins - the 172's wont fit on this line either without platform extensions

 

[Eagle]

not unless they electrify the Marston Vale line!

Who says LM are keeping the Marston Vale anyway? :P In five years time it could well be operated by Chiltern 173s (whatever those are).

 

[whhistle]

Probably a train that looks like this:

this:

this:

or maybe even this:

:roll: How boring to reuse the same design :P (more or less)

 

[Eagle]

:roll: How boring to reuse the same design :P (more or less)

Those look just like Electrostars! :P

 

[DjU]

The reason for the high cost per carriage is due to the £143 million apparently including maintinence and depot modifications, ie wiring Ardwick. The Southern order however didn't include much more than just the trains themselves, but as has been said the current exchange rate will be increasing the price in comparison to previous Desiro orders.

There is also the suggestion that the £189M for the Southern order isn't the 'full' price. There may be some smoke and mirrors there.

 

[northwichcat]

Probably a train that looks like this:

:roll: How boring to reuse the same design :P (more or less)

They have another slightly different design as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LondonMidlandClass172.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Southern_377_at_Hemel_Hempstead.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:379001_at_Norwich_8_January_2011.jpg

But with DfT not wanting to spend much on new trains - except for for Thameslink, Crossrail and IEP - they are more likely to finish up with something like this as a class 150 replacement:
http://www.paysdelaloire.fr/uploads/pics/tram-train_c_Presse_Ocean_RCertain1000.jpg
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is also the suggestion that the £189M for the Southern order isn't the 'full' price. There may be some smoke and mirrors there.

I didn't know Ryanair were making trains now.

The trains will cost £189M but the wheels will cost you £200 each and an extra £2500 for a pantograph. :roll:

 

[Pumbaa]

There is also the suggestion that the £189M for the Southern order isn't the 'full' price. There may be some smoke and mirrors there.

Yes - the £189m figure is mysteriously vague, people with knowledge expect the real figure to be higher.

 

[87015]

Any major reason they can't they maintain them at Longsight? Apart from Pendos there seems to be less based there than ever before and there can't be that many of them on shed each night. For ten units which are only a short-medium term fix it seems a bit of a waste, or is this just another case of old railway bad, new money good?

 

[swt_passenger]

To do a sensible cost comparison you need to work in constant value currency (what the Treasury call "net present value"). Allowing for a 6+ year gap (the Class 185s entered service in 2006 but when were they ordered?) I suspect the difference is much nearer to the 25% you might crudely expect for a 4 as opposed to 3 car train than the 50% quoted.

Maths fail there I'm afraid. The increase from a three car to a four car is 33%...

 

[northwichcat]

Wait a minute... no-one's pointed out that a 4 carriage train has 2 driving cabs, exactly the same as a 3 carriage train or a 2 carriage train.

 

[tbtc]

OK let's use a different comparison. I forgot a figure has been given for the new Southern order: £189M for 130 vehicles
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/12/28-boost-for-derby-as-bombardier.html

That's 1.45M per carriage, compared to £1.85M per carriage.

Both are for 20m carriage EMUs which are no longer the latest model.

That's a fairer benchmark.

So, the 350 coaches are more expensive than the 379 coaches but cheaper than the additional Voyager coaches (to use about the only other recent order).

 

[Chris125]

Will those replace the 150's that LM where planning to keep? (the 150/0's IIRC?)

I wouldnt be surprised if LM finally convinced the DfT to order a couple more and cascade the 321's, no doubt helped by the reliability of the 350's.

Chris

 

[swt_passenger]

Wait a minute... no-one's pointed out that a 4 carriage train has 2 driving cabs, exactly the same as a 3 carriage train or a 2 carriage train.

Well actually, I did, back in post #11. That's exactly what I was meaning when I said that a 5 car train would automatically bring the average cost per vehicle down...

 

[Eagle]

I wouldnt be surprised if LM finally convinced the DfT to order a couple more and cascade the 321's, no doubt helped by the reliability of the 350's.

350s on the Abbey line?

 

[NSEFAN]

350s on the Abbey line?

I believe this the main reason why LM still have a few 321s; the Desiros are not currently cleared for this route IIRC.

 

[jopsuk]

...because they've not needed to clear them there. Classes don't get "ceared" for a line for giggles. I'm sure if they wanted to, they could get it done.

 

[DarloRich]

Who says LM are keeping the Marston Vale anyway? :P In five years time it could well be operated by Chiltern 173s (whatever those are).

I wouldnt mind if it was really - but almost all of the platforms will still need to be extended whoever runs the line.

Will the TPE EMU's not just be mainteianed at the depot at Ardwick ( after some remedial work to the site)?

 

[Eagle]

I wouldnt mind if it was really - but almost all of the platforms will still need to be extended whoever runs the line.

The ones that will be served by the Oxford–Bedford semifasts will definitely be extended (Woburn Sands and Lidlington are the ones that EWR Consortium want; but I can imagine it being more than that...)

 

[DjU]

350s on the Abbey line?

No, Trams.

 

[34D]

I can see the logic in all Bedford-Bletchley trains being passed to whoever operates the fabled East West trains - whether this is some private venture or bulked into an existing TOC - of which Chiltern seems the most appropriate contender bearing in mind existing patterns.

Can I ask where 150001 and 150002 are please? I recall they were planned to go to Eastleigh for storage at one point.

 

[MK Tom]

150001/2 are on Reading-Basingstoke now, doing route learning last I heard.

Chiltern might run long-distance EWR services with turbo-based units and just put bubbles on the stopper to get round lengthening the platforms, that'd be a scene I'd like to see!

Referring back to earlier talking about 350s being inappropriate on Manchester-Scotland, aren't they being done with a ''more intercity spec interior''?

 

[DarloRich]

I can see the logic in all Bedford-Bletchley trains being passed to whoever operates the fabled East West trains - whether this is some private venture or bulked into an existing TOC - of which Chiltern seems the most appropriate contender bearing in mind existing patterns.

Can I ask where 150001 and 150002 are please? I recall they were planned to go to Eastleigh for storage at one point.

& @ MKTom - the problem comes in that part of the plan suggests that services will run along the Marston Vale/E-W route and then to and from MK. I understand that is why platform 2a at MKC was constructed.

 

[MK Tom]

& @ MKTom - the problem comes in that part of the plan suggests that services will run along the Marston Vale/E-W route and then to and from MK. I understand that is why platform 2a at MKC was constructed.

I imagine 2A is probably going to be used by terminating Oxford/Aylesbury services. Seeing as the current 2pth that terminate at MKC platform 2 already use up the platform for 45 minutes every hour, requiring 2A to be used every day during the peaks, I struggle to see three additional hourly services being fitted in too without some creative re-scheduling of Euston/Croydon trains.

 

[Eagle]

& @ MKTom - the problem comes in that part of the plan suggests that services will run along the Marston Vale/E-W route and then to and from MK. I understand that is why platform 2a at MKC was constructed.

EWR has no provision for MKC–Bedford services. Services are planned to be:

1tph Oxford–MKC, all stops
1tph Oxford–Bedford, skipping some Marston Vale stops
1tph Marylebone–MKC via Wycombe and Aylesbury
1tph Bletchley–Bedford, all stops, as today.

(The Consortium want either or both of the Oxfords to start back from Reading, but I don't think that's likely given current service patterns—would mean giving up some London paths through Didcot).

 

[swt_passenger]

I imagine 2A is probably going to be used by terminating Oxford/Aylesbury services. Seeing as the current 2pth that terminate at MKC platform 2 already use up the platform for 45 minutes every hour, requiring 2A to be used every day during the peaks, I struggle to see three additional hourly services being fitted in too without some creative re-scheduling of Euston/Croydon trains.

They've already said that if the SN WLL trains cannot be platformed at MK in the peak they'll turn back somewhere else, probably Bletchley.

 

[MK Tom]

EWR has no provision for MKC–Bedford services. Services are planned to be:

1tph Oxford–MKC, all stops
1tph Oxford–Bedford, skipping some Marston Vale stops
1tph Marylebone–MKC via Wycombe and Aylesbury
1tph Bletchley–Bedford, all stops, as today.

(The Consortium want either or both of the Oxfords to start back from Reading, but I don't think that's likely given current service patterns—would mean giving up some London paths through Didcot).

It says in one of the EWR documents that starting from Didcot is also a possibility. Frankly I think it would be better to start them from Swindon. We've gone quite far off topic here it has to be said

 

[WatcherZero]

TPE will be giving a presentation on their 2013 and 2014 timetable changes to the Transport for Greater Manchester Committee on the 19th of feb, briefing notes dont reveal much detail apart from confirming Manchester Airport hourly service alternating Glasgow/Edinburgh and calling at Wigan and that the diesel stock would be used for an extra hourly Liverpool--Manchester-Leeds service alongside some strengthening.

 

[Wolfie]

Maths fail there I'm afraid. The increase from a three car to a four car is 33%...

Hum, take your point but sort of depends on how you look at it - 3 cars should cost 75% the cost of 4 cars......

Ironically my first degree is in maths, stats and computing

 

[WatcherZero]

As my fathers Christmas card said....
Some people see the glass as half empty, some see it as half full, you see the glass as not big enough.

 

[34D]

EWR has no provision for MKC–Bedford services.

At one point, the extension of bedford-bletchley to MK was planned (as a stand-alone scheme, nothing to do with E-W) and I do understand that this was partly behind the alterations at MK. Plans were then deferred.