East Anglia fleet future cascade options

[Class 170101]

East West Rail is scheduled to open in 2019/2020. Could 321s or 360s (including 5 car versions) be used there?

Unlikely the scheme is moving to the right as per East West Rail Thread.

 

[F Great Eastern]

317s are finished, they will be scrapped, no doubt about it. It would be folly not to.

There are another 151 newer EMU's (100 x 321, 21 x 360, 30 x 379 becoming available at the same time and nobody in their right mind would pick the 317s over them. I can't even see all the 321s finding further work even when the 317s are scrapped.

Over the next 5-6 years we will probably see more trains scrapped than at any other time for a long long long time since there is going to be so much spare that it won't be possible to find homes for it.

 

[Kite159]

Some of the 321s to Scotland, reduced to being 320s to release/scrap the 318s or as extra capacity?

 

[Class 170101]

Aren't 314s due to go as they aren't having Accesibility mods for post 2020 operation.

 

[158722]

Aren't 314s due to go as they aren't having Accesibility mods for post 2020 operation.

Yes, but replacement planned by new build 385s (something which has always seemed a OTT, given the majority of current 314 turns).

 

[fgwrich]

Without reading the rest of the 20 odd pages, could a solution for GA / Northern & FGW be found by releasing the 156s to Northern, Northern releasing 150/2s to Great Western - with GW holding onto some of the 143/153s until the swaps are available?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Some of the 321s to Scotland, reduced to being 320s to release/scrap the 318s or as extra capacity?

There's not enough of an age difference to make it worthwhile to replace 318s with 320/4s.

I think the reason that ScotRail got seven sets is because the leasing company had that number available at that point in time from London Midland. If there are DDA-compliant 321s that would be going to scrap otherwise it might be a good idea to take them on for the few years before the whole Mk3 EMU fleet will be replaced. If it would be necessary to spend money making them compliant then I wouldn't be so sure about that.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Without reading the rest of the 20 odd pages, could a solution for GA / Northern & FGW be found by releasing the 156s to Northern, Northern releasing 150/2s to Great Western - with GW holding onto some of the 143/153s until the swaps are available?

Not really. The GA units only come on stream after the need to retain units on GW ceases.

 

[sd0733]

AFAIK There are still 7 of the GN fleet unaccounted for coming up in the next few weeks if GA are taking on 6. If those don't end up somewhere then surely the others are really going to struggle!

 

[northwichcat]

Without reading the rest of the 20 odd pages, could a solution for GA / Northern & FGW be found by releasing the 156s to Northern, Northern releasing 150/2s to Great Western - with GW holding onto some of the 143/153s until the swaps are available?

How does that solve anything? Northern need extra Sprinters next year and they have asked Network Rail to extend platforms on 2 rural routes so that they can take 3 car 150s. GWR won't need many 150s by the time the GA 156s are released unless you're proposing they have a large 150/2 fleet so that they can release 158s and/or 16xs.

 

[Clansman]

There's not enough of an age difference to make it worthwhile to replace 318s with 320/4s.

I think the reason that ScotRail got seven sets is because the leasing company had that number available at that point in time from London Midland. If there are DDA-compliant 321s that would be going to scrap otherwise it might be a good idea to take them on for the few years before the whole Mk3 EMU fleet will be replaced. If it would be necessary to spend money making them compliant then I wouldn't be so sure about that.

It would be a wise move for Scotrail to get their hands on around 16 321s then that would allow the 385s to be utilised on more appropriate routes rather than the Cathcart Circle, which is only getting the 385s so that the 314s can be made redundant as soon as.

 

[edwin_m]

But they're not staying at Anglia under current plans. It appears that currently it's cheaper to buy new than refurbish old so what would be the business case for the latter option? Trains are after all just lumps of metal, plastic and glass and can be recycled and reborn as something else.

It may or may not mean that. Old trains may still be cheaper but don't earn as many DfT brownie points in the franchise bid evaluation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You've answered your own question; if you wouldn't make use of the DV capability, then what's the use securing them when the 321s are all available and also more reliable?

And also more flexible, in that 321s can be reduced to 3-car units (aka 320s) with minimal work, whereas 319s have various essential equipment on the fourth car that would have to be moved onto one of the others.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It would be a wise move for Scotrail to get their hands on around 16 321s then that would allow the 385s to be utilised on more appropriate routes rather than the Cathcart Circle, which is only getting the 385s so that the 314s can be made redundant as soon as.

Again, that's forgetting that there is a total of 70 Class 385 trains being ordered (of which there is a dedicated fleet of 24 4-car sets with first class for the E&G shuttle). This is designed to be enough to replace all of the 314s, the DMUs used on the newly-electrified routes and for the 380s to be concentrated on the western Glasgow Central electric routes. After the addition of the seven 320/4s on the remaining electric services there's no need for more EMUs before there is more electrification. Abellio got an option for 10 more 3-car 385s to be delivered in the second half of their franchise which should be enough for the suburban routes that can be wired within that timeframe - that is, Anniesland, East Kilbride and Barrhead.

Because the Fife Circle has been pushed back so far it will take a long time before new electrification will immediately require a large fleet of EMUs. The only medium-term requirement would be for a handful to run stopping services to Perth, Dundee and then up to Aberdeen (with long distance services requiring bi-mode stock so that they can run to Inverness and Edinburgh via Fife). These 385s will be freed up from the Cathcart Circle by the 318/320 replacement fleet that will be required around the middle of the 2020s.

 

[Clansman]

Again, that's forgetting that there is a total of 70 Class 385 trains being ordered (of which there is a dedicated fleet of 24 4-car sets with first class for the E&G shuttle). This is designed to be enough to replace all of the 314s, the DMUs used on the newly-electrified routes and for the 380s to be concentrated on the western Glasgow Central electric routes. After the addition of the seven 320/4s on the remaining electric services there's no need for more EMUs before there is more electrification. Abellio got an option for 10 more 3-car 385s to be delivered in the second half of their franchise which should be enough for the suburban routes that can be wired within that timeframe - that is, Anniesland, East Kilbride and Barrhead.

Because the Fife Circle has been pushed back so far it will take a long time before new electrification will immediately require a large fleet of EMUs. The only medium-term requirement would be for a handful to run stopping services to Perth, Dundee and then up to Aberdeen (with long distance services requiring bi-mode stock so that they can run to Inverness and Edinburgh via Fife). These 385s will be freed up from the Cathcart Circle by the 318/320 replacement fleet that will be required around the middle of the 2020s.

Dejavu lol.

Forgot about why, aside from the 318/320 replacement from a mass fleet, the 385s are going on there.

 

[rj90]

Just seen that the order is for all 5/10 car sets according to all news outlets with detail. Is that an error or will west anglia be getting platform extensions?

 

[jopsuk]

Platform extensions and SDO. Essential, given that a 10-car formation will be roughly the length of a 12-car 379/317. It's be interesting to see how/what is applied at Shelford.
Great Chesterford should be easy (signals permitting). Newport ditto. Elsenham should be pretty easy. Harlow Mill not too hard. Roydon Up platform will be hard (probably need to be SDO) due to the river.

I'm not familiar with the Hertford East branch stations. Not sure about the Lea Valley stations either.

 

[MrPIC]

The Valley stations would be easy enough, Rye House would be fairly easy, St Margaret's too, Ware on the other hand would be trouble, Brick Over-bridge one end and CCTV crossing the other. Hertford East itself would be okay as well I suppose. Hackney Downs might be a trifle hard to extend too.
Won't be able to fit many units in the sidings at Stortford, its already super tight on 2 of the roads even in an 8 car!
Don't know honestly why they moving from a 4/8/12 railway to 5/10, just makes everything difficult.

 

[D365]

Don't know honestly why they moving from a 4/8/12 railway to 5/10, just makes everything difficult.

23m vehicles are superior to 20m in a number of ways - seeing as the Class 345 specification changed from 10x20m to 9x23m, for example, I think that proves my point.

 

[Wivenswold]

23m vehicles are superior to 20m in a number of ways - seeing as the Class 345 specification changed from 10x20m to 9x23m, for example, I think that proves my point.

Absolutely.

I've been mulling over ways of increasing capacity on the GEML line for years and came to the conclusion that 6 and 12 car units was the way forward. So longer 5 and 10 car consists are pretty close.

Simple fact is that there are very few 4 car services that are long enough these days. What's the point of ordering loads of units that really shouldn't be put out in service on their own.

 

[bramling]

23m vehicles are superior to 20m in a number of ways - seeing as the Class 345 specification changed from 10x20m to 9x23m, for example, I think that proves my point.

May well be so operationally, but not from the passenger point of view if it means you get a 5x 23m (115m) train instead of what would have been an 8x 20m train (160m). This is already something seen on SWT.

 

[306024]

Six and two threes, or in this case ten or two fives. Some trains will be easier to find a seat on, others less easy. With a new timetable and different unit diagrams anything could happen.

The main snag is where do they all sleep at night. Many stabling sidings are only 8 cars long.

 

[swt_passenger]

23m vehicles are superior to 20m in a number of ways - seeing as the Class 345 specification changed from 10x20m to 9x23m, for example, I think that proves my point.

I don't think that was a TfL or Crossrail spec change, it was just Bombardier's solution to how best to provide a fixed formation train at 200m overall. I think their decision was most likely based on the ability to have 3 sets of doors per vehicle at that length.

Seems quite unbelievable now that the original ITT (that was available online at one stage) was for 100m units that could run singly in the off-peak...

 

[Class377/5]

I don't think that was a TfL or Crossrail spec change, it was just Bombardier's solution to how best to provide a fixed formation train at 200m overall. I think their decision was most likely based on the ability to have 3 sets of doors per vehicle at that length.

Seems quite unbelievable now that the original ITT (that was available online at one stage) was for 100m units that could run singly in the off-peak...

Your correct it was Bombardier not TfL who came up with the idea of 23m stock. However it's not the best solution on all lines. On curve platforms anything other than end doors means the stepping distance is greater plus there are lines where 23m stoc cannot be cleared too.

People questioned the logic of fixed formations on Thameslink despite evidence of why it was better. However know you now have a train of atleast x length is better for passengers than the mix of 4/8/12.

 

[Alfie1014]

Six and two threes, or in this case ten or two fives. Some trains will be easier to find a seat on, others less easy. With a new timetable and different unit diagrams anything could happen.

The main snag is where do they all sleep at night. Many stabling sidings are only 8 cars long.

Indeed, the logistics of changing from a 20m vehicle suburban railway to a 24m one is going to be challenging to say the least but interesting never the less. As others have said the Aventra platform can it appears provide anything from 20 to 24m car lengths.

Conversely on the Norwich ICs and local Anglia services almost the opposite is happening with 23m vehicles being replaced with a fleet with vehicles around 20m nominal length.

Be interesting to see how dwell times in are impacted with fewer but hopefully wider doors for both types of trains.

 

[rj90]

Platform extensions and SDO. Essential, given that a 10-car formation will be roughly the length of a 12-car 379/317. It's be interesting to see how/what is applied at Shelford.
Great Chesterford should be easy (signals permitting). Newport ditto. Elsenham should be pretty easy. Harlow Mill not too hard. Roydon Up platform will be hard (probably need to be SDO) due to the river.

I'm not familiar with the Hertford East branch stations. Not sure about the Lea Valley stations either.

Hertford east not too hard but needs signals and points moving.
Ware is single platform with an road overbridge at one end and lx at the other
St margarets ok but needs one signal moved
Rye house ok
Broxbourne may be ok already due to 12 car stansted express, but the stock means those trains actually get shorter
Cheshnut is a pain due to lx one end and double junction the other
Waltham cross ok
Enfield lock has a river/brook one end and a lx the other so is a pain
Brimsdown lx one end and probably ok the other
Ponders end ok
Angel road is being rebuilt anyway
Northumberland park probably ok
Tottenham Hale caters for 12 car already
Edmonton green will be near impossible
Seven sisters near impossible


Latest CR2 plans I've seen have big remodelling at almost all those stations including complete station moves in some cases. So to rebuild half of them and mess about with signals seems ridiculous in my book. Plus it's huge money to do it all, and time, and not in cp5 money - and won't be delivered in year 1 of co6, when the trains arrive. I'd imagine they will get it all as 4 car sets with passive provision for doing an SWT and converting a 4 to a 5.

 

[jopsuk]

Broxbourne is a good point- only platforms 2&3 are 12-car, 1 & 4 are only 8-car.

By your descpription several of the short ones could be handled with SDO I think?

CR2, if it goes (as seems to be needed) 4 track from the portals at Tottenham to Broxbourne (to the junction for the Herford branch?) will need every Lea Valley station fundamentally rebuilt, and I'd expect something to be done to ensure there are no level crossings in the process.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not having any 4s removes the temptation for the TOC to run 4s and save money (yes, you, LM).

 

[Class377/5]

Broxbourne is a good point- only platforms 2&3 are 12-car, 1 & 4 are only 8-car.

By your descpription several of the short ones could be handled with SDO I think?

CR2, if it goes (as seems to be needed) 4 track from the portals at Tottenham to Broxbourne (to the junction for the Herford branch?) will need every Lea Valley station fundamentally rebuilt, and I'd expect something to be done to ensure there are no level crossings in the process.

CR2 means four tracking and all level crossing gone (either roads blocked off or over/underpasses built.

 

[jopsuk]

CR2 also means that current "GA" services won't serve the stations between Cheshunt and Tottenham, making that simpler, as (according to the initial consultation) they'll have very frequent connections- 12-16tph CR2 and 4tph STAR (the latter shown as going at least as far as Broxbourne)

 

[Class 170101]

Not having any 4s removes the temptation for the TOC to run 4s and save money (yes, you, LM).

Just run as 5s instead?