A modern version of (Regional Express)

[Topological]

The premise of this thread is that there is a need to replace the 158s, 165s and 166s that are plying their trade on regional express trains across the country. See for example the discussion on the 175 to GWR thread.

Rules:
1. Power etc are all uprated to meet modern standards, with options for batteries included
2. No doors can be moved. The modern 158 will look like a current 158
3. Interior specifications will include a reasonable seat and power supplies. There will be working wifi. These are not for discussion, but will be "modern"
4. Production lines can be set up to build these by A N Other company.

Which class represents the best blueprint to use? (up to 3 choices are allowed)

(Note that more modern classes are included)

 

[Brubulus]

Either Stadler FLIRT, or as a more leftfield choice, Talgo push-pull sets with level boarding. Talgo is supposedly the cheapest way to achieve level boarding, while a loco-based system might help reduce costs and better enable new power sources. There's also the option of any other platforms which can support speeds of up to 110mph, level boarding and batteries.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure Talgo would suit the UK's poor regional track quality very well. It's basically a Pacer - no bogies!

Personally I would go for a tri-mode (battery, OHLE and diesel) version of the Class 730/2 pretty much exactly as it is bar that I'd remove one row from the centre section of each vehicle and space the seats out a bit as they really are quite cramped as they are. But that might fail on not being able to change the door positions.

Maybe consider dropping the floor between the bogies in one vehicle (which would have the accessible toilet) for low floor access.

Obviously a shorter version than 5 car is possible, but to be honest I think 5 car is a nice length for a regional express, and as they wouldn't need to work in multiple a full width cab could be provided which would make the working environment better for the driver and guard. Maybe do 4s and 5s, given that 2s are off the agenda.

 

[HSTEd]

If we are going to order 3-4 car sets, I'd suggest you'd want to go along the lines of the 185 in having a half carriage or full carriage with longitudinal seating, to really soak up crush loads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we are going to order 3-4 car sets, I'd suggest you'd want to go along the lines of the 185 in having a half carriage or full carriage with longitudinal seating, to really soak up crush loads.

I would suggest 4 and 5 car sets. These wouldn't be directly replacing all 158s one presumes (as they often work non-regional express routes too), and 5-car is a good length for a regional express as TPE are proving. No need for multiple working, which can mean a full width cab.

 

[Topological]

The Flirt didnt appear on the list because it is a modern unit itself and incorporates things like the dropped floor. I was worried people would choose that without thinking which of the other common frames might be good in a modern form.

Dropped floors are a good idea, but guide towards bodyshells with doors at 1/3rds. We can assume for this purpose you could design a lower floor 150, 170, 185 or 19x as well by creating a matching styled "power pack".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dropped floors are a good idea, but guide towards bodyshells with doors at 1/3rds. We can assume for this purpose you could design a lower floor 150, 170, 185 or 19x as well by creating a matching styled "power pack".

Trains don't, as indeed many specs of FLIRT don't (and the Class 444 for example), have to have an identical door pattern on every vehicle. It might not actually be that bad a layout to have say a 3 car train with a between-bogies drop on the middle car, with the two end vehicles having narrower end doors in each corner but the middle vehicle having one wide set of double doors in the low floor area, maximising the amount of space in that area by not wasting it on two sets of doors.

If you're not going low floor on every vehicle you don't need a "power pack", you can just put the power related gubbins under the high floor coaches and the low floor one be a trailer.

I'm increasingly convinced that this is the optimal layout rather than going for a faffy design like most of the UK FLIRTs and METROs - the design just doesn't seem to scale down well into the UK loading gauge and you get nonsense like ramps all over the place.

 

[Zomboid]

For my money the best train of this type we presently have is the 444. So use that as the template.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For my money the best train of this type we presently have is the 444. So use that as the template.

A 444 with a between-bogies drop on the middle coach would be a really quite good train, I agree. But do add some more luggage capacity - a rack the full width of a window in each coach is probably about right.

 

[Zomboid]

They do need more luggage space, that's true. But interior fit out is entirely changeable.

 

[35B]

The Flirt didnt appear on the list because it is a modern unit itself and incorporates things like the dropped floor. I was worried people would choose that without thinking which of the other common frames might be good in a modern form.

Dropped floors are a good idea, but guide towards bodyshells with doors at 1/3rds. We can assume for this purpose you could design a lower floor 150, 170, 185 or 19x as well by creating a matching styled "power pack".

Why are you constraining the rules in this way? Ignoring the designs you've ignored (Flirt, Hitachi AT100 and AT200, cl. 380), why is it somehow desirable to clone 40-year old designs? When the 158s were new, would you really have thought that copying the cl 123/4 or cl 126 would have been desirable?

For what it's worth, I'd have cl. 180 style interior space married with cl. 22x robustness, but borrowing extensively from the last 30 years of train design to get something improved. Oh, and I'd have them all with electric transmission and pantograph fitted.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think single leaf or end doors are really justifiable in this environment.

Rapid boarding and deboarding is essential to modern British railway operations. To do otherwise will impose major infrastructure costs that we simply cannot pay.

For that reason, I don't think the 180, the 158 or 810 are remotely suitable.

If anything I'd suggest the 395 would be a better base than those trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If anything I'd suggest the 395 would be a better base than those trains.

Have you been on a 730/2? Aside from the cramped seating layout they really are quite good.

 

[321362]

I would say the CAF Civities fit quite well. 195 but bimode for unelectrified lines, and 331s for electrified lines.

 

[HSTEd]

Have you been on a 730/2? Aside from the cramped seating layout they really are quite good.

Yes, albeit only from New Street to University and the reverse.

They do seem quite nice.

EDIT:
That appaers to have been a 730/0, but still.

 

[KevinBrum12]

Agree with the choice of the 730 bodyshell and surely a hybrid version could be built with the 730/0 interior? A third rail/battery version would be ideal for Waterloo-Exeter?

 

[Topological]

I have added some of the more popular choices to the list. I hadnt really considered EMUs, but should have done.

The premise remains that it has to be an existing body as the base. That is not because the current set of bodies are the optimum, it is more to make the whole thing relatable. All of the answers in this thread have run on UK rails already.

There are absolutely new platforms out there which operate in other countries that might be very suitable. But, this thread is more to think about what is tried and tested in the UK.

 

[HSTEd]

I agree with @Bletchleyite that a five-car trainset might be the best option, although I think a Class 395 nose might be best if we are going down that route. Might as well rig for high speeds even if they don't initially use them. Lots of places where higher speed may make operations easier in timetabling terms. And we'd have to get to speeds well above 125mph before high speed rail crash standards become an issue, so I doubt there is much of a cost increment.

I'd recommend one carriage dedicated to the disabled seating and toilet, with the remainder fitted with longitudinal seats for crowd busting. This could be a low floor trailer if technically necessary to get level boarding.
Half a carriage of first class and then the remainder just standard class without frills.

 

[Bayum]

Have you been on a 730/2? Aside from the cramped seating layout they really are quite good.

I voted 730 for this reason. One of the better short-long distance variants we’ve seen in a while bar the FLIRTS.

 

[35B]

I have added some of the more popular choices to the list. I hadnt really considered EMUs, but should have done.

The premise remains that it has to be an existing body as the base. That is not because the current set of bodies are the optimum, it is more to make the whole thing relatable. All of the answers in this thread have run on UK rails already.

There are absolutely new platforms out there which operate in other countries that might be very suitable. But, this thread is more to think about what is tried and tested in the UK.

And that is the fundamental problem with the premise of this poll.

 

[BogiePicker]

Surely you'd just go for the widest vehicle for its length, which is the 165/166 (assuming clearances allow)

 

[Bevan Price]

I think my choice would be a bi-mode equivalent of the 5 coach 730/2 (electric+diesel) until UK sees logic and electrifies much more widely. (Adding batteries as well would make them too heavy, expensive & complicated.)

 

[tbtc]

The question is supposing that "there is a need to replace the 158s, 165s and 166s that are plying their trade on regional express trains across the country"

It really depends on whether we ignore certain services currently run by 158/175/166s to focus on only the longer distance ones and, if so, where do we draw the line?

If it's to replace ALL 158/165/166s, I'd go for the 185 carriages, given the combinations of local/ medium/ longer distance passengers you tend to have on these kind of services, the peak demands and the passenger churn you often have at intermediate stations

I know that the OP was specifying a single train, so I don't want to be suggesting several different types to suit each specific route, but I hope it's not outlandish to suggest we build both three and four coach versions (allowing six/seven/eight/ nine coach services and allowing portion working, given that the old DMUs are a mixture of two/three coaches and the need to serve routes like Waterloo-Exeter)

Obviously there are some routes that these trains currently run which see predominantly one type of passenger (158s from Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh, 165s from London to Aylesbury), but it would be very difficult to find a train absolutely perfect for both of these - anything would have to be a bit of a compromise, and insisting on all of them being low density/ five coach/ 125mph/ tri-mode etc seems designed to demand such a high cost train that you can almost guarantee the Government of the day would insist on trimming back the number of units to add few as possible, maybe doing the classic fudge of tarting up some existing trains to include them in the numbers of "brand new and "nearly new"'

I know that some people want everything to be up to InterCity standard but we need to focus on boring/ practical/ everyday journeys, the best dwell times at big stations part way through the journey etc - a 180-esque train would be fine for a handful of routes but OTT on the Thames Valley branches

However, for the purposes of the question, if you discount anything under, say, fifty miles(?), I'd be more tempted to at least consider end -doored trains, still with wide doors and designed to accommodate quite a few standing passengers when needed - a 185-esque design should still tick most boxes, no one design will tick every box though

As a simple benchmark, ask yourself "Would It Cope With Liverpool To Norwich?"

Capable of dealing with the churn mid-journey (Piccadilly, obviously, but also Sheffield/ Nottingham etc), some short distance peak demands to soak up (e.g. Manchester - Stockport), some long distance passengers for whom this is the only real option (especially at the East Anglia etc), bits of electrification (through Greater Manchester, the ECML from Grantham to Peterborough, short sections at each end of the journey), splitting mid route (Nottingham), scope for some large baggage.

Yes, a 185 is more of a '"Jack Of All Trades" than a "Master" of any one route, but few of the current 158/165/166 services only have a single type of passenger (however much some may want to pigeon-hole things as "Outer Suburban" or whatnot)