Class 397s - Why?

[absolutelymilk]

Could SDO be used for Manchester Airport (or just lock one train out of use)? How long are the platforms?

 

[43096]

My undertanding was that the entire fleet was originally supposed to go to London Midland but that half were diverted away to Manchester-Scotland for political reasons. i.e. at that time all the stock being planned for the North West electrification scheme was second hand 319s. This was sold to the South as a loan deal with the trains to return once new stock had been procured (the term 'Baby Pendolino' was bandied around quite a bit). The big surprise is that it is going to actually happen.

That is not the case. The TPE 350 fleet was not diverted from the LM order. I could be wrong, but I think it was a joint procurement, which made sense given the small number of vehicles involved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is not the case. The TPE 350 fleet was not diverted from the LM order. I could be wrong, but I think it was a joint procurement, which made sense given the small number of vehicles involved.

I believe this is correct - they were always intended for TPE, but were procured via an order placed by LM partly to ease procurement but also partly with a long-term view that they would end up on the south WCML once TPE had finished with them. Though they aren't quite to the same spec, they have an additional toilet (presumably because TPE got their fingers well and truly burnt with the ridiculous layout of the Class 185 which hides one of them the wrong side of 1st, causing queues, and causing people to think there isn't one if it's out of order) and more luggage racks at the expense of a couple of rows of seats, as well as 2+1 in 1st.

One surprising "feature" is that, the above notes aside, they have the Class 350 seat layout in Standard, which is much more cramped than the Class 185.

 

[sprinterguy]

Could SDO be used for Manchester Airport (or just lock one train out of use)? How long are the platforms?

200 metres, and no it couldn't, as you'd foul the station throat and put the leading cab well beyond the starting signal, which is more or less at the platform end.

 

[Chester1]

200 metres, and no it couldn't, as you'd foul the station throat and put the leading cab well beyond the starting signal, which is more or less at the platform end.

Aside from that, the 3tpd Liverpool - Glasgow service will join and split with Manchester Airport services at Preston.

 

[Bovverboy]

Aside from that, the 3tpd Liverpool - Glasgow service will join and split with Manchester Airport services at Preston.

The Manchester Airport - Glasgow Central services currently run as single 350 or single 185*, so assuming that the forthcoming routine is going to be single 397s then the facility is there for a coupling up to take place at Preston. This does not impact on the question of whether or not Manchester Airport to Edinburgh services will be able to use double 397s, since at the moment there is next to no interworking between Edinburgh and Glasgow services.

* There is at present a working on a Saturday where an ex-Glasgow 185 runs combined with a second, Preston - Airport - Preston.

 

[driver9000]

I fear 5 x 23m is going to be too short in short order. Any scope to extend to 6?

(Mind you I fear that of TPE in general - I think the terrible overcrowding is causing suppressed demand given that driving is not as bad "up north" as it is into London - I think we'll see the same problem continuing, and possibly even the LH sets getting a follow on order or being reformed into 6 or even 7-car sets)

The software on the 397 is future proof to handle a unit 8 coaches long.

 

[driver9000]

Could SDO be used for Manchester Airport (or just lock one train out of use)? How long are the platforms?

All platforms at Manchester Airport take 8 coaches.

 

[fgwrich]

Mk5s are a metre shorter per vehicle, so about one row of seats per vehicle. Some of these services are quite badly overcrowded so this is quite important. CAF don't seem to be offering a 23/24m Mk5 for some reason, they're all 22m including the TPE ones.

The 22m length of the Mk5s will be down to the compromise required for the Caledonian Sleeper as, if that ended up as all 23m stock it would end up fouling Euston amongst other places. So CAF has created these Mk5s to cater really for those, with any further orders remaining as 22m - Wasn't the TPE order a tag on order as well?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The 22m length of the Mk5s will be down to the compromise required for the Caledonian Sleeper as, if that ended up as all 23m stock it would end up fouling Euston amongst other places. So CAF has created these Mk5s to cater really for those, with any further orders remaining as 22m - Wasn't the TPE order a tag on order as well?

I don't think it was a tag-on in the same way the 350s were, but the Sleeper order meant there was already the basic design and production infrastructure in place- which brings down the cost compared to developing an entirely new product.

 

[bastien]

Why? So we have a new set of seats to moan about, of course!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think it was a tag-on in the same way the 350s were, but the Sleeper order meant there was already the basic design and production infrastructure in place- which brings down the cost compared to developing an entirely new product.

Though it's surprising that producing the same thing 1m longer would be a great challenge - the Aventra, for example, is offered in a menu of different lengths and widths, as is the king of small variation orders, the Stadler FLIRT.

I would be surprised if the 397 intermediate coaches aren't just basically a 23m version of the same thing with traction motors and other EMU related equipment underneath. So why was a 23m version not offered to TPE? Was it just that "time was of the essence" and the 22m version would be able to be built 6 months quicker, say?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Though it's surprising that producing the same thing 1m longer would be a great challenge - the Aventra, for example, is offered in a menu of different lengths and widths, as is the king of small variation orders, the Stadler FLIRT.

I would be surprised if the 397 intermediate coaches aren't just basically a 23m version of the same thing with traction motors and other EMU related equipment underneath. So why was a 23m version not offered to TPE? Was it just that "time was of the essence" and the 22m version would be able to be built 6 months quicker, say?

But why bother adding 1m if there isn't a pressing need to do so? Especially if doing so would indeed delay delivery by 6 months.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes, if you have the designs, done the modelling and have the production tooling already then while theoretically a simple body stretch it wouldn't be free of extra cost.