Construction progress: TPE 350/4

[Goatboy]

Well it is all just a matter of opinion. Use unreliable Class 47's and worn out early build mark 2 coaches or use local suburban DMU's on fairly long distance trains, replace 6 carraiges with 2with 3+2 seating. What do you reckon?

Come up with a third option because, lets face it, neither of those are great?

Maybe somebody can find a spare regional express DMU shuttling on a branch line or working local stopping services

 

[Crossover]

As far as I'm aware that only happens at week-ends.

Possibly - it was a Saturday when I went that way on one. Still, Eagle suggested it never happened, and clearly it does :P

 

[Rhydgaled]

Though of course the acceleration of 170s is such that they are not suited to stopping services...

That's what I've read in the past which led me to the conclusion that 170s, like Voyagers, were a flawed design that isn't really ideal for anything.

I honestly don't get the obsession with avoiding 1/3 2/3 doors.

Well, everyone is saying they provide more standing room. Obviously we don't have TARDIS technology so logically that extra standing room must be at the expense of seats, or legroom, or tables or a combination of these. I personally don't think it acceptable to expect passengers to stand for more than about 5 minutes, except perhaps in the high-peak. Therefore I don't see increasing standing room at the expense of comfort on long-distance (semi-)fast services acceptable.

The other reason is we once sent one of my brothers (not an enthusiast like me) by train from Port Talbot to Nottingham. Oh his return, he said of the Cardiff-Nottingham train "The doors were in the wrong place".

I think you are being far too prescriptive in the five types of route that you are splitting things up into. The real railway is a lot messier. A 125mph service from London becomes a (virtually) "all stops" service as it gets closer to Penzance/ Aberdeen/ Hereford etc.

Messier yes, but I reckon those five types of train cover most bases quite well. The Great Western services you indicate seem to use the stock suitable for the part of the run which requires the highest-standard.

What is Manchester - Pembroke Dock, for example? Fast from Manchester to Crewe, but every stop beyond Carmarthen.

That's regional express. To me at least, the 'regional' bit means the service can be all-stops on sections of route where there is little or nothing in the way of other services, and the 'express' bit means it spends some time running (semi-)fast on a busier stretch of railway. I've seen somebody on here describe 158s as a 'Jack Of All Trades, Master Of None' in the past. Personally, given the diverse nature of regional express work I think a Jack Of All Trades is actually Master Of Regional Express.

Lastly, spend some time on a busy platform like 13/14 at Manchester Piccadilly and note the way that end-door stock stock like 158s takes a lot longer to unload/ fill than something like a 170/185.

Not the first time I've heard that one... As such, when I left the Manchester area I timed the dwell of the 175 I took to Chester. Can't remember the time now, it was months ago, but the dwell was actually similar to the 185s, and faster than the 158 turnrounds in Aberystwyth. I expect that was down to the 175 being empty when it arrived on the platform, but I'd guess the dwell with passengers to alight as well as board could be similar by spreading the passengers over a 5-car 175 rather than 3-car.

Reluctant as I am to take this thread more off topic, I agree with Rhydgaled. Now, what are the chances of getting back to transpenine 350s?

Yes, sorry, off-topic. Although, I think it was said earlier in the topic that the TPE 350s were a temporary measure to make use of the north-west OHLE until the full TPE north wiring scheme is implemented. Perhaps then suitable stock can be introduced (the oft-called-for 25KV AC version of the 444/442).

 

[Class172]

It certainly does happen, I just don't know if it occurs on Sundays also: I have often caught the train from New St on Sat for it to be a 172.

Essentially, it is the same situation as it was pre-2011, the class 150s would run the majority of off-peak services between B'ham - Hereford on Saturdays.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Not the first time I've heard that one... As such, when I left the Manchester area I timed the dwell of the 175 I took to Chester. Can't remember the time now, it was months ago, but the dwell was actually similar to the 185s, and faster than the 158 turnrounds in Aberystwyth. I expect that was down to the 175 being empty when it arrived on the platform, but I'd guess the dwell with passengers to alight as well as board could be similar by spreading the passengers over a 5-car 175 rather than 3-car.

175s are a pretty good compromise between internal ambience and fast unloading.
They have good wide fast-opening end doors, unlike the pokey 158 doors which are so reluctant to open and then only admit one at a time.
Also 175s have decent circulating space and handy perch seats.
180s will be the same.
For all their faults Voyagers are fast-unloaders too.

 

[tbtc]

That's what I've read in the past which led me to the conclusion that 170s, like Voyagers, were a flawed design that isn't really ideal for anything

I've seen somebody on here describe 158s as a 'Jack Of All Trades, Master Of None' in the past

Most trains are compromises, because many routes are a mix of different speeds/ passenger volumes.

You're not going to find something "perfect" on most routes, unless you want to design something very specific (and therefore expensive/ complicated to cascade) like the 460s.

Life is a compromise.

 

[Goatboy]

I often catch 170's for a one hour journey to Birmingham. They seem ideally suited for this. I often catch 159's for a 2-3 hour journey. They also seem ideally suited for this.

It is possible to deliver the right train, we've done it before.

 

[BantamMenace]

Does anyone with a bit of know how know how hard it would be to get a 6-car class 350 ordered from Siemens? Can they just produce their standard four car design with two extra central vehicles?

It's for a piece of work I'm doing and I thought this thread was the best place to ask,

Thank you in advance

 

[fowler9]

I think that the 350's are lovely trains but the one thing that always sticks in the throat if you get one from Liverpool to Birmingham or further for example, it feels no nicer than getting a 507 or 508 from South Parkway to Central. In fact on the 3+2 ones it feels a bit worse. If whoever used them from Liverpool to Scotland it would be better than no service but would always feel like a cheap version of a spoon with Mk 2's.

 

[Blindtraveler]

thats an insult to the MK2s, the same coaches incidentally which, if they hadnt been withdrawn in such numbers would be providing capacitty and allowing us not to have a long rambling argument about the quite frankly unsuitable types of multiple unit that is doing and will continue doing a p**s poor job of replacing them!↲

 

[TheKnightWho]

thats an insult to the MK2s, the same coaches incidentally which, if they hadnt been withdrawn in such numbers would be providing capacitty and allowing us not to have a long rambling argument about the quite frankly unsuitable types of multiple unit that is doing and will continue doing a p**s poor job of replacing them!↲

With all those lovely locos with their p**s-poor acceleration hauling them and eating up paths too, no doubt?

Nostalgia's a great thing, but I'm pretty sure we'd just be watching all those Mk 2s rusting in sidings if we had them as there'd be very little we could do with them.

 

[fowler9]

With all those lovely locos with their p**s-poor acceleration hauling them and eating up paths too, no doubt?

Nostalgia's a great thing, but I'm pretty sure we'd just be watching all those Mk 2s rusting in sidings if we had them as there'd be very little we could do with them.

I understand what you are saying but a really good thing about nostalgia is that we can remember a time when people didn't need to commute between cities to work and so many people weren't forced to move to London to find a job. Even with Crossrail London is close to breaking point. One recent job I had involved a 30 mile daily commute, I will have shown on the stats as someone else using the trains more, I certainly wasn't doing it because I think the trains are better than ever

 

[JonathanH]

With all those lovely locos with their p**s-poor acceleration hauling them and eating up paths too, no doubt?

Nostalgia's a great thing, but I'm pretty sure we'd just be watching all those Mk 2s rusting in sidings if we had them as there'd be very little we could do with them.

A bit of foresight and we could have made the "Auckland modifications" to the ones that remained in the UK further service.

 

[fowler9]

A bit of foresight and we could have made the "Auckland modifications" to the ones that remained in the UK further service.

I loved those commuter trains in Auckland. Ha ha. Lots of fun.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I understand what you are saying but a really good thing about nostalgia is that we can remember a time when people didn't need to commute between cities to work and so many people weren't forced to move to London to find a job. Even with Crossrail London is close to breaking point. One recent job I had involved a 30 mile daily commute, I will have shown on the stats as someone else using the trains more, I certainly wasn't doing it because I think the trains are better than ever

That's true, but it's not the job of the railway to dictate the living patterns of the country, and nor is it really able to. These changes would have happened regardless of the railway, and I think we'd all rather see it in use but perhaps not quite as we'd like rather than flattened and turned into high-speed roads (or whatever other alternative would have been come up with).

 

[fowler9]

That's true, but it's not the job of the railway to dictate the living patterns of the country, and nor is it really able to. These changes would have happened regardless of the railway, and I think we'd all rather see it in use but perhaps not quite as we'd like rather than flattened and turned into high-speed roads (or whatever other alternative would have been come up with).

Of course mate, I completely agree. I still feel that a train that is not diss similar from one you would pop in to town on is not suitable for a long distance journey. That is the fault of the way we have made our country, not the railways.If anything the railways have become an easy target for people struggling to get to work when the problem in my opinion is where we work.

 

[edwin_m]

That's true, but it's not the job of the railway to dictate the living patterns of the country, and nor is it really able to. These changes would have happened regardless of the railway, and I think we'd all rather see it in use but perhaps not quite as we'd like rather than flattened and turned into high-speed roads (or whatever other alternative would have been come up with).

In fact London could not have developed the way it has without its massive network of high-capacity rail and Tube routes, which (despite what we say and read on here) are highly efficient at moving people. Buses couldn't have carried the numbers and cars would have required most of the city to be flattened to convert into roads and car parks.

 

[Brian Aylott]

Does anyone with a bit of know how know how hard it would be to get a 6-car class 350 ordered from Siemens? Can they just produce their standard four car design with two extra central vehicles?

It's for a piece of work I'm doing and I thought this thread was the best place to ask,

Thank you in advance

Not possible to build ANY more 350s
Brian

 

[gnolife]

Anyone know if there is a Saturday diagram out there yet?

I'm looking at doing a Lancashire Day Ranger in early January, and if I can put myself on a 350 between Manchester/Wigan and Lancaster, I will do.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Not possible to build ANY more 350s
Brian

Incorrect, I would think.

You might not legally be permitted to use them, but that just means you wouldn't want to build any more, it doesn't physically stop you building them. The question of whether a 6-car 350 would be as simple as building additional intermediate coaches remains a valid one, if a moot point since you aren't allowed to use new-build 350s after the current 350/3, 340/4 order. Additional intermediate coaches for existing trains that don't meet the regulations might still be permitted though.

 

[HSTEd]

The regulations requiring that no more Class 350s be built are not absolute.
If it was such an inconvenience a one clause bill could be used to allow it.

 

[BantamMenace]

My question was one more regarding the technical implications rather than the political. How hard is it to just slot two more vehicles into the middle of an already commissioned set? After the building of the additional vehicles is it simply an overnight job to insert them into the set or would the train now in 6car formation have to undergo the complete commissioning progress all over again?

I should've made it more clear that I used class 350 as it was an up to date example of where it might occur

 

[Jonny]

My question was one more regarding the technical implications rather than the political. How hard is it to just slot two more vehicles into the middle of an already commissioned set? After the building of the additional vehicles is it simply an overnight job to insert them into the set or would the train now in 6car formation have to undergo the complete commissioning progress all over again?

I should've made it more clear that I used class 350 as it was an up to date example of where it might occur

From a drawing-board point of view it isn't too hard, the trouble is that there needs to be additional power to at least maintain the power-to-weight ratio, or more likely an unpowered carriage that will reduce the power-to-weight ratio and thus reduce the maximum acceleration, with the resultant adverse timetabling implications.

 

[WatcherZero]

My question was one more regarding the technical implications rather than the political. How hard is it to just slot two more vehicles into the middle of an already commissioned set? After the building of the additional vehicles is it simply an overnight job to insert them into the set or would the train now in 6car formation have to undergo the complete commissioning progress all over again?

I should've made it more clear that I used class 350 as it was an up to date example of where it might occur

I would take a couple of weeks to reform them (possibly several months for the first example as they work out the process and iron out the bugs), at least one of the class would have to go through the process of recertification and the rest would have to go through commisioning again.

 

[Haydn1971]

The regulations requiring that no more Class 350s be built are not absolute.

What regulations exactly ? When did they become enacted ?

 

[Rhydgaled]

What regulations exactly ?

Crashworthyness I believe. Not sure if it is UK or EU leglislation though, but I seem to remember reading that the current 350 order was only possible because London Midland had an option on a previous contract, and TPE are actually taking units from within that option. I could be remembering incorrectly though.

 

[Class172]

What regulations exactly ? When did they become enacted ?

Don't take this as being correct too quickly, I may be wrong: I think the new regulations were relating to crash safety standards, to which I think the 172s have also been affected — timings, I have no idea!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Siemens would want any new order to use the Class 700 cab and front end.
It will have all the necessary EU crashworthiness and regulations conformity, plus ERTMS capability and all the modern traction and train management stuff.
Why would anybody want to perpetuate a 10-year-old design?

 

[Monty]

Siemens would want any new order to use the Class 700 cab and front end.
It will have all the necessary EU crashworthiness and regulations conformity, plus ERTMS capability and all the modern traction and train management stuff.
Why would anybody want to perpetuate a 10-year-old design?

Because it's a proven design that is reliable, why would anyone want to buy a unit that is not backwards compatible with the majority of it's existing EMU fleet?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Because it's a proven design that is reliable, why would anyone want to buy a unit that is not backwards compatible with the majority of it's existing EMU fleet?

It would depend on how many you are buying, and the current fleet mix.
I was thinking about TPE (looking for a new fleet) rather than SWT or LM.
Even then, I expect Siemens would charge a premium for building the old model.
Once Class 700 production is in full swing they won't want to go back.
Getting production slots may be problematic anyway (that's why they backed out of Crossrail - the factory is full).