• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

And the Thameslink winner is...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Skimble19

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2009
Messages
1,508
Location
London
321s could also head north as there are the 321/9s working in Yorkshire.

My bet would be 317s to NXEA to replace 315s - which will be "retired"

321s to Yorkshire.

LM won't want the 321s back, they're trying to standardise on Desiros.

365s - refurb (with aircon) and kept on GN.
There aren't enough FCC 317's to replace the 315s. FCC only has 12, although I'm not sure how many 317's are being displaced by the introduction of the 379s. However, combine the extra 317's with the new stock from Crossrail and you might just about have enough to replace the 315s.

LM have already kept a bunch of 321s, wouldn't surprise me if they took more.

Hmm, the 365's don't really need a proper refurb, just a very heavy clean and a refresh. As for aircon, would be nice but unless the next franchise is a long one the cost would probably prohibit it.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
At the last cascade, the following is what ought to have happened:

London Midland order enough Class 350/1s to fully replace both the Class 321 fleet and provide a increase in seating capacity.

The former London Midland Class 321s would then be transferred to National Express East Anglia in order to free up a equal number of Class 317/6s.

These former National Express East Anglia Class 317/6s would then transfer back to First Capital Connect with the existing FCC Class 317 fleet being refurbished to the Class 317/6 standards.

National Express East Anglia would of ordered enough Class 379s for both the Airport work and also to use on the newly speeded up Cambridges by using one of the existing Stansted Express paths, these express workings would either be Liverpool Street-Tottenham Hale-Broxbourne-Bishops Stortford-All stations to Cambridge, Liverpool Street-Tottenham Hale-Broxbourne-Cambridge or just Liverpool Street-Cambridge.

The First Scotrail Class 380s would not been ordered, both Scotrail and TPE going for 4 and 5 car versions of the Class 350 (The 5 car Class 350's would be equal to the Class 444s used by South West Trains).
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,774
Keep yer mits off em! :lol: Apart from length they aren't much different from your Turbo's :lol:
I think so, although I'm not sure if it's planned for them to be operated in pairs to Cambridge then split?

I think it is- but I don't see (even with 26m cars) a 10 car (2x5) IEP formation having as much capacity as 12 car (3x4) 365, even though the latter will be shorter.
 

sprinterguy

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,567
Location
Macclesfield
I think it is- but I don't see (even with 26m cars) a 10 car (2x5) IEP formation having as much capacity as 12 car (3x4) 365, even though the latter will be shorter.
A pair of five car IEP trains will have 500 standard class seats and 118 first class, assuming that the specification remains the same as that announced a few months ago, while a 12 car class 365 train has 735 standard and 72 first so that is quite a big drop in seating capacity.

However if the composite vehicle in the IEP were to be changed to all standard accomodation, then that would bring the number up to 58 first and 560 standard class seats.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
321s could also head north as there are the 321/9s working in Yorkshire.
To do what though? It is true that Northern are taking on the five class 322s for operation on the electrificed Yorkshire lines, but this is to provide additional service reliability on the Leeds to Doncaster route and to displace a couple of peak time DMU workings on the West Yorkshire lines. Without further electrification of MML and/or TPE North, which would be a mouthwatering concept, then there isn't a need for many (or any) more EMUs working out of Neville Hill.

As Skimble19 says, I think it will take a combination of 317s and 321 moving to NXEA alongside the introduction of new Crossrail stock on the inner suburban services to see the demise of the 315s on the Great Eastern.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
At the last cascade, the following is what ought to have happened:

London Midland order enough Class 350/1s to fully replace both the Class 321 fleet and provide a increase in seating capacity.

The former London Midland Class 321s would then be transferred to National Express East Anglia in order to free up a equal number of Class 317/6s.

These former National Express East Anglia Class 317/6s would then transfer back to First Capital Connect with the existing FCC Class 317 fleet being refurbished to the Class 317/6 standards.

National Express East Anglia would of ordered enough Class 379s for both the Airport work and also to use on the newly speeded up Cambridges by using one of the existing Stansted Express paths, these express workings would either be Liverpool Street-Tottenham Hale-Broxbourne-Bishops Stortford-All stations to Cambridge, Liverpool Street-Tottenham Hale-Broxbourne-Cambridge or just Liverpool Street-Cambridge.

The First Scotrail Class 380s would not been ordered, both Scotrail and TPE going for 4 and 5 car versions of the Class 350 (The 5 car Class 350's would be equal to the Class 444s used by South West Trains).
If only things had happened this way, it's a very good plan Ajax103.

However I think the problem with ordering further 350s in their original form is that the cab ends no longer meet crashworthiness standards, so there had to be a revision in the form of the 380s (Although presumably the 20m bodyshells of the 350s could still be constructed without alteration). Just what I've heard reported anyway.

Note that the 350s have 20 metre bodyshells, while the 444s and 380s have 23 metre bodyshells: If it were me, I would have ordered a fleet of four and five car 380s which would be more in keeping with the long distance regional (Bonefide "Intercity" in the case of Manchester to Scotland IMO) as well as with the 185s that would have been replaced on TPE.
 
Last edited:

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,052
Location
Reston City Centre
Whilst I appreciate that many TOCs have some "peak only" duties (with the units being "spare" during the daytime), does anyone think it slightly undesirable to keep a fleet of forty 365s to be used only at rush hour on GN duties) whilst there is so much need for capacity elsewhere on the railways?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To do what though? It is true that Northern are taking on the five class 322s for operation on the electrificed Yorkshire lines, but this is to provide additional service reliability on the Leeds to Doncaster route and to displace a couple of peak time DMU workings on the West Yorkshire lines. Without further electrification of MML and/or TPE North, which would be a mouthwatering concept, then there isn't a need for many (or any) more EMUs working out of Neville Hill

Agreed.

Much as I'd love more EMUs in Yorkshire, there simply aren't enough lines wired to justify more (unless you replaced the Leeds - Carlisle service with a Skipton - Carlisle service to squeeze in one more EMU, but that'd obviously kill off much of the leisure market on the S&C and a A Bad Thing).

There's plenty lines that could do with wiring (Harrogate probably being my priority), of course, but we are entering the strange situation of "the south" having lots of older EMUs (for scrap or to be retained only for peak hour services) whilst "the north" continues with shorter DMUs (despite having lots of lines suitable for those EMUs if the lines were wired up). I wish someone saw the bigger picture, because even an old 313 or 315 would be preferable to a Pacer.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,774
A pair of five car IEP trains will have 500 standard class seats and 118 first class, assuming that the specification remains the same as that announced a few months ago, while a 12 car class 365 train has 735 standard and 72 first so that is quite a big drop in seating capacity.

However if the composite vehicle in the IEP were to be changed to all standard accomodation, then that would bring the number up to 58 first and 560 standard class seats.
.

At those numbers, a 2x5 IEP would have only slightly more standard seats than an 8 car 365- and the IEP will presumably have poor quality standing room!
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,265
At those numbers, a 2x5 IEP would have only slightly more standard seats than an 8 car 365- and the IEP will presumably have poor quality standing room!

Presumably though we have to look at the eventual 'whole picture' of capacity on the Cambridge route - there will also be the 12 car Thameslink departures in the peaks - indeed they might run all day. So the IEP is only a part of the solution - its main rationale being to run in fast paths to/from Hitchin Jn, which will also release capacity on the slow lines. Maybe pairs of IEPs will also run from Peterborough fast - nothing has ever really been established beyond doubt...
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,774
Whilst there will be more capacity provided by extra services, before they were extended to 12 car operation the 0715 and 0745 to Kings Cross were both in the top 5 (maybe even top 3) of the "most over crowded services in the country" list (at 8 cars long)- these do make one or two addtional stops, so perhaps with more, slightly slower, Thameslink services the Royston (and Letchworth?) stops can be dropped from those peak time fast services. It'll be interesting to see also if people change to using TL services rather Kings Cross based on them running to City and London Bridge direct (so getting rid for a lot of people of the need to use the Underground)
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,052
Location
Reston City Centre
It'll be interesting to see also if people change to using TL services rather Kings Cross based on them running to City and London Bridge direct (so getting rid for a lot of people of the need to use the Underground)

Thats a very good point.

A frequent Thameslink core, with direct trains to "City Thameslink" from more "suburban" stations could transform travel patterns with fewer people getting the Underground to/from "the City" - this could be one way to ease congestion on the Northern Line etc.

I appreciate that City Thameslink isn't slap bang in the middle of the financial district, but if it means avoiding a change to the Tube then many commuters may prefer it.
 

dalmahoyhill

Member
Joined
7 Jan 2011
Messages
93
Location
Scotland
wow thats a lot of posts.

I dont want to get into a rolling stock argument, i have travelled on a variety of modern emus and i have thought they are much the much in general. Cannot see large differences in performance or comfort, i think they all do the job ok.

One question on the thameslink spec. I remember roger ford in modern railways mentioned like the IEP, the DofT wanted some way of moving the thameslink stock during a power cut. I.E a diesel engine or batteries. Does anyone know if this mental idea is included within Siemens winning bid?
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
Talk about sore losers. They've got plenty of jobs to finish still, and they're late as they are. If someone can offer a better service and product for the same or less money, then tough luck, that's how business works.
 

GospelOak117

Member
Joined
3 May 2009
Messages
215
Location
Eastern Region
I think it's a shame Alsthom pulled out. Personally I would have been interested to see this, the Alstom X'trapolis UK; a completely revolutionary design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOXYTz0bptY


I know Alsthom don't have the best reputation in this country with some of the old Washwood Heath built products, but are still one of the major players worldwide. Sadly I don't think the powers that be in this country would have had the nerve to go for something so revolutionary.
 
Last edited:

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,892
Location
South Wales
I think it's a shame Alsthom pulled out. Personally I would have been interested to see this, the Alstom X'trapolis UK; a completely revolutionary design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOXYTz0bptY


I know Alsthom don't have the best reputation in this country with some of the old Washwood Heath built products, but are still one of the major players worldwide. Sadly I don't think the powers that be in this country would have had the nerve to go for something so revolutionary.

Quite like that design, but i do remember reading somehwhere that the DFT were a bit put off because it was new technology.

With Merseyrail looking for new EMu's and the possible valley lines electrification maybe there is a chance for alstom.

Bombardier have been let down recently by problems not all of which was their fault, but then again management should have had a contingency plan in place for something like this.

Hopefully Bombardier will be able to get their act together, i think maybe the DFT should oder a new fleet of class 172's for ATW, northern etc for routes where it will be difficult and expensive to do guage enhancement works for the displaced turbos from the thames valley.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
There was also concern that while you save weight of the train as a whole by reducing the numble of bogies the axle weight actually increases and track access charges are based mainly on this number.
 

Skimble19

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2009
Messages
1,508
Location
London
Look at the last type of new technology was ordered from them and I think that alone would have been enough persuasion to say no.. look at the 180s, still failing left right and centre even now.
Whilst I appreciate that many TOCs have some "peak only" duties (with the units being "spare" during the daytime), does anyone think it slightly undesirable to keep a fleet of forty 365s to be used only at rush hour on GN duties) whilst there is so much need for capacity elsewhere on the railways?
I must admit I doubt they would be used purely at rush hour, although even if they were with the amount of 12 car services they would be running I suspect most of the fleet will still be in use. At a guess there's likely to be some services off peak still running into KGX, combine that with the 12 car peak trains and the 365's are still being well used.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,873
Location
UK
Look at the last type of new technology was ordered from them and I think that alone would have been enough persuasion to say no.. look at the 180s, still failing left right and centre even now.
I must admit I doubt they would be used purely at rush hour, although even if they were with the amount of 12 car services they would be running I suspect most of the fleet will still be in use. At a guess there's likely to be some services off peak still running into KGX, combine that with the 12 car peak trains and the 365's are still being well used.

Surely any TOC has this problem with heavy peak demand and trains sitting in the sidings for a lot of the day? Look at Hornsey, or WGC and other locations and you'll see lots of trains during the day - but they aren't needed anywhere else at this time either.

If BR had ever succeeded in getting loads of 365s built as a standard fleet throughout the county (or just NSE?) then it may have been different. You might have even, without everything being broken up, have been able to move the stock around to meet seasonal demand, bulk up capacity for events etc.. but that didn't happen!
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
At least they are being built in the EU. Thanks to freedom of movement, British workers could help build the trains in Germany and probably earn more in the process.
 

j0hn0

Member
Joined
20 Jan 2009
Messages
563
Location
St Albans, England
At least they are being built in the EU. Thanks to freedom of movement, British workers could help build the trains in Germany and probably earn more in the process.

ah yes, but also get taxed more, believe it or not ;)

I earned 6 grand a year more in Germany than I do now, and took home 1 grand a month less.

So you're not exactly giving sound financial advice there. It's true you can work over there to expand your horizons, but would you actually be able to secure the job? You would have to be able to speak German too.
 

thefab444

Established Member
Joined
27 Oct 2006
Messages
3,688
Location
The New Forest
Does "Made In Britain" not mean anything any more? http://kevinjowen-madeinbritain.blogspot.com/

It usually means unreliable with poor quality control. If we take SWT as an example, they gave British manufacturers a chance with the Class 458s. The fact that Alstom/Washwood Heath screwed up so badly was one of the main reasons for SWT turning to Siemens. SWT's fleet of Class 444 trains are now the most reliable fleet of MUs in the country.

Besides, as mentioned in this thread, there are plenty of future orders to come for Crossrail and the Tube. If Bombardier close Derby before those contracts are awarded, they'll lose their only selling point which is more UK jobs.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,873
Location
UK
They won't do anything stupid. They merely want sympathy and to try and put pressure on the Government to ensure (or increase the chances that) they win future deals.
 

thefab444

Established Member
Joined
27 Oct 2006
Messages
3,688
Location
The New Forest
They won't do anything stupid. They merely want sympathy and to try and put pressure on the Government to ensure (or increase the chances that) they win future deals.

Exactly, so it's obviously not the end of the line (pardon the pun) for Derby as Kevin was trying to suggest.
 

DjU

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2009
Messages
254
Location
Essex
It usually means unreliable with poor quality control. If we take SWT as an example, they gave British manufacturers a chance with the Class 458s. The fact that Alstom/Washwood Heath screwed up so badly was one of the main reasons for SWT turning to Siemens. SWT's fleet of Class 444 trains are now the most reliable fleet of MUs in the country.

Besides, as mentioned in this thread, there are plenty of future orders to come for Crossrail and the Tube. If Bombardier close Derby before those contracts are awarded, they'll lose their only selling point which is more UK jobs.

Conversely the reliability figures on the 350s have gone downhill, and the Class 380 delivery has been on a par with some of Bombardier's woes.


All three have had examples of massive problems and have many success stories. (Well maybe not Alstom on the last point :D )
 

thefab444

Established Member
Joined
27 Oct 2006
Messages
3,688
Location
The New Forest
Conversely the reliability figures on the 350s have gone downhill, and the Class 380 delivery has been on a par with some of Bombardier's woes.

Well, I don't understand what the point of the 380s is. Why didn't they just order more 350s?

As for 350s, I suppose SWT's fleet is helped by the fact it is maintained by Siemens rather than in-house, but I thought the same was true of London Midland?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top