Electrification & Rolling Stock Cascade Impact Review

[tbtc]

If the Thameslink/ Southern/ Great Northern TOC is going to be running 100mph/ 110mph EMUs north of the Thames on the fast Cambridge/ Kings Lynn services then surely they could do the same on a St Pancras - Corby service?

No reason why London - Corby would have to remain part of the current EMT franchise - it'd have more in common with the rest of the Thameslink service to Bedford (than with the fast services to Nottingham/ Derby/ Sheffield).

 

[Class377/5]

If the Thameslink/ Southern/ Great Northern TOC is going to be running 100mph/ 110mph EMUs north of the Thames on the fast Cambridge/ Kings Lynn services then surely they could do the same on a St Pancras - Corby service?

No reason why London - Corby would have to remain part of the current EMT franchise - it'd have more in common with the rest of the Thameslink service to Bedford (than with the fast services to Nottingham/ Derby/ Sheffield).

TSGN won't be running 110mph services but 100mph with 110mph capable stock as the 377/8 will be diagrammed to mix with the 377/5 & /2s so runs will be limited to 100mph.

There's certainly no plans to run 110mph on the GN side with only 100mph stock being used anyway (aside any future increases a la 350/1s).

 

[HSTEd]

TSGN is going to be swimming in excess units after the Thameslink Programme stock arrives, and many people assume it will be the 319s and some of the 377s that moves.... but might they not kick out the entire Class 365 fleet?

That would remove an entire stock type from inventory and combined with some additional units ordered for the Moorgate services (either using some 3-car 377s or 6-car Desiro Cities) it would allow them to gradually standardise on only two train types?

 

[northwichcat]

TSGN is going to be swimming in excess units after the Thameslink Programme stock arrives, and many people assume it will be the 319s and some of the 377s that moves.... but might they not kick out the entire Class 365 fleet?

When North TPE electrification was announced a Guardian journalist suggested it could result in the 365s moving North but 99% of people on this forum seem to have dismissed that as even being possible.

 

[HSTEd]

When North TPE electrification was announced a Guardian journalist suggested it could result in the 365s moving North but 99% of people on this forum seem to have dismissed that as even being possible.

Why?
Half the 365's normal duties appear to be taken up by Desiro Cities directly and the remaining fleet is reduced essentially to the Cambridge Cruisers.
Would it not be simpler just to use some of the surplus Class 377s to expel the 365s from the Southern ECML entirely rather than keep them around for no real reason?

 

[158722]

When North TPE electrification was announced a Guardian journalist suggested it could result in the 365s moving North but 99% of people on this forum seem to have dismissed that as even being possible.

I've just about completed a bit more analysis of the potential impacts of the Trans-Pennine scheme (on top of the other projects already noted) in the OP. One possibility is that by 2019, Northern could justify a requirement for almost all 86 class 319s! Something around 50+ existing DMU diagrams look to be able to over to EMUs, hence if Northern also received sufficient 319s to displace the 323s (to LM) and 321/9s/322s (to EA?), then the overall total starts to get close to the full 86 319s, with a little slack to allow for further wiring projects in CP6 - such as Sheffield to Leeds and Doncaster, where further EMUs will be justified.

I'll post an updated set of notes later!

 

[Class377/5]

TSGN is going to be swimming in excess units after the Thameslink Programme stock arrives, and many people assume it will be the 319s and some of the 377s that moves.... but might they not kick out the entire Class 365 fleet?

That would remove an entire stock type from inventory and combined with some additional units ordered for the Moorgate services (either using some 3-car 377s or 6-car Desiro Cities) it would allow them to gradually standardise on only two train types?

When North TPE electrification was announced a Guardian journalist suggested it could result in the 365s moving North but 99% of people on this forum seem to have dismissed that as even being possible.

Why?
Half the 365's normal duties appear to be taken up by Desiro Cities directly and the remaining fleet is reduced essentially to the Cambridge Cruisers.
Would it not be simpler just to use some of the surplus Class 377s to expel the 365s from the Southern ECML entirely rather than keep them around for no real reason?

The only public document (page 29) so have has stated 365 to remain on the GN to provide the entire Kings Cross services of TGSN with includes additional Peterborough services in peak alongside all day Cambridge and Kings Lynn Services.

Note since this written IEP for Kings Lynn is no longer proposed.

The 313 aren't expected to be replaced in the TSGN franchise but under its successor in the mid 2020's.

That with the fact that you'd have to clear the 377 into Kings Cross, down the NCL and north of Hornsey depot (currently only cleared from NLL to Hornsey depot). Why replace a stock that purpose built for a route, well liked? Why not give others NEWER units if indeed the 377's are actually spare than just change for changes sake?

Note as well other areas may require SDO which will require walk through units like the 377s.

Moving them north/anywhere just don't add up as its a lot of work for no pay off.

 

[JamesRowden]

I calculate that the Thames Valley will need the following number of sets of 4-car EMUs in service once Crossrail and all planned electrification is complete if my guess of the peak service pattern occurs:

Reading-Paddington (Semi-fast [along relief line])
2tph
120 min cycle
8-car during peak
8 sets

Oxford-Stopping-Reading-Fast-Paddington
2tph
210 min cycle
8-car during peak
14 sets

Newbury-Stopping-Reading-Fast-Paddington
2tph
150 min cycle
8-car during peak
10 sets

Milton Keynes-Oxford-Paddington
1tph
240 min cycle
8-car during peak
8 sets

Bedford-Oxford-Reading
1tph
240 min cycle
4-car during peak
4 sets

Basingstoke-Reading-Heathrow
2tph
150 min cycle
4-car during peak
5 sets

Windsor Branch
1 set (for shuttle)

Henley Branch
1 set (for shuttle)
2 sets (for once per peak journey to/from Paddington)

Marlow Branch
1 set (for shuttle)
2 sets (for once per peak journey to/from Paddington)

TOTAL: 56 sets (NOT INCLUDING SPARES) (some branch services might need to be shorter than 4-cars to fit in the platforms and the through services to Paddington will need to be lengthened at Twyford/Maidenhead [or maybe some stock could be saved by linking these services together at Maidenhead]), some stock will be needed to run the Bletchley-Bedford stopping service if Great Western operate it, alternatively another operator might operate the Reading-Bedford service)

 

[anthony263]

Well the Marlow branch will need a 3 carriage unit as a 4 carriage unit cannot fit the Marlow platform at Bourne end unless you extend it out to the main road.

I am not sure if there is going to be a through service between Bassingstoke and Heathrow Airport (This is the 1st time I have heard of such a service.) as well as the Newbury - Reading - London service, as far as I was aware there would be a 30 minutely Newbury - Reading shuttle with a Westbury/Bedwyn - London semi-fast service together with the London - Plymouth/Penzance services

 

[JamesRowden]

Well the Marlow branch will need a 3 carriage unit as a 4 carriage unit cannot fit the Marlow platform at Bourne end unless you extend it out to the main road.

I am not sure if there is going to be a through service between Bassingstoke and Heathrow Airport (This is the 1st time I have heard of such a service.) as well as the Newbury - Reading - London service, as far as I was aware there would be a 30 minutely Newbury - Reading shuttle with a Westbury/Bedwyn - London semi-fast service together with the London - Plymouth/Penzance services

The London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy reccomended that the Reading-Paddington peak frequency should increase from 11tph to 16tph with 6 of those being Thames Valley services. By deduction, I thought that these would be:

• Milton Keynes-Oxford-Reading (extension of Oxford-Reading [fast])
• 2X Oxford-Paddington (conversion of stopping services to run fast east of Reading)
• Westbury-Paddington (DfT showed this as an extension of the Bedwyn servcies and operated by IEP [in its reasoning for the size of the IEP order])
• 2X Newbury-Reading (extension of stopping servcies)

The Basingstoke-Heathrow service is just my guess of what would be a good use of the network (since the connections at Basingstoke should be productive) (Cross Country could also run services to Heathrow)

 

[158722]

I just updated the original posting with a few of the other projects analysed and (I hope!) with all comments/corrections/extra information which have been posted here now integrated in the text.

 

[anthony263]

The London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy reccomended that the Reading-Paddington peak frequency should increase from 11tph to 16tph with 6 of those being Thames Valley services. By deduction, I thought that these would be:

• Milton Keynes-Oxford-Reading (extension of Oxford-Reading [fast])
• 2X Oxford-Paddington (conversion of stopping services to run fast east of Reading)
• Westbury-Paddington (DfT showed this as an extension of the Bedwyn servcies and operated by IEP [in its reasoning for the size of the IEP order])
• 2X Newbury-Reading (extension of stopping servcies)

The Basingstoke-Heathrow service is just my guess of what would be a good use of the network (since the connections at Basingstoke should be productive) (Cross Country could also run services to Heathrow)

A word of warning that the Bristol TM - London services via parkway look like they will run non stop between Bristol Parkway and London Paddington according to the IEP timetable put together by the DFT.

That said I wonder if perhaps a stop at Reading might be added especially if trains are following other services

 

[Bald Rick]

TSGN is going to be swimming in excess units after the Thameslink Programme stock arrives, and many people assume it will be the 319s and some of the 377s that moves.... but might they not kick out the entire Class 365 fleet?

That would remove an entire stock type from inventory and combined with some additional units ordered for the Moorgate services (either using some 3-car 377s or 6-car Desiro Cities) it would allow them to gradually standardise on only two train types?

All will be revealed when the franchise ITT comes out next week.

 

[D365]

I just updated the original posting with a few of the other projects analysed and (I hope!) with all comments/corrections/extra information which have been posted here now integrated in the text.

I love how you've adopted my 'CorPan' nickname for the MML Corby-St Pancras route - itself inspired by the pre-Thameslink 317 'BedPan'
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All will be revealed when the franchise ITT comes out next week.

Will it all unravel? I'll wait and see, what drama and pretense

 

[Kettledrum]

In terms of traffic that uses this length there are a few trains to Newbury, Bedwyn, Plymouth and Cornwall which use a short length to just past Reading West (so those will only change when the relevant sections are wired up), otherwise it's XC services between Manchester and Bournemouth (with electric spine could become EMU's depending on how far OHLE reaches) 1tph, XC services between Newcastle and Southampton (still has gaps in the OHLE elsewhere until at least CP6) 0.5tph and GW service between Reading and Basingstoke 2tph.

As such, it is likely that if XC gets some EMU's for the Manchester service that would enable them to strengthen more of their services by using the free up Voyagers. Although nothing has been confirmed and it'll only be a small order until some of the other gaps in the XC network are wired up, which then makes it less likely to happen quickley (unless they can tag it onto someone elses order, GWML and/or MML 110mph EMU's?). It is likely that once the Voyagers come off lease that XC will try to run as many services with HST's (doing more as they retire form the GWML and ECML) until they can place a sizable order for EMU's, possibbly early in CP6.
.

I think you're being too optimistic here on 2 counts:

1. Unfortunately I don't think that XC will try and run as many services as possible with HST's - they don't even use all their HSTs they currently have so unless they are contractually forced to, I don't think this will happen.
2. I'm not sure a small order for new EMUs will happen, because there are all the MK4 coaches and the class 91 locos available that will have been displaced from the ECML. I think these may be used, although they're probably not ideal, they may be a lot cheaper.

 

[JamesRowden]

A word of warning that the Bristol TM - London services via parkway look like they will run non stop between Bristol Parkway and London Paddington according to the IEP timetable put together by the DFT.

That said I wonder if perhaps a stop at Reading might be added especially if trains are following other services

I expect that the additional 2tph Bristol-Paddington services will run fast through Reading with a Berks & Hants, slow Oxford or Heathrow Express service taking the space produced behind it.

 

[tbtc]

I think you're being too optimistic here on 2 counts:

1. Unfortunately I don't think that XC will try and run as many services as possible with HST's - they don't even use all their HSTs they currently have so unless they are contractually forced to, I don't think this will happen.
2. I'm not sure a small order for new EMUs will happen, because there are all the MK4 coaches and the class 91 locos available that will have been displaced from the ECML. I think these may be used, although they're probably not ideal, they may be a lot cheaper.

All depends what the next franchise requires - at the moment the reluctance to use HSTs is due to the leases and the fact that the contract doesn't require them to use more than a couple of HSTs a day. That may all change

TSGN won't be running 110mph services but 100mph with 110mph capable stock as the 377/8 will be diagrammed to mix with the 377/5 & /2s so runs will be limited to 100mph.

There's certainly no plans to run 110mph on the GN side with only 100mph stock being used anyway (aside any future increases a la 350/1s).

There's forty 365s - that's a lot of units to keep on the "Great Northern" for the sake of two departures an hour off-peak (one to Cambridge, one to Kings Lynn). Just how many peak extras are there going to be?

Any stock suitable for London - Corby should be able to do London - Cambridge too (whether 100 or 110 mph). London - Corby would be better with TSGN than with EMT, I reckon.

 

[northwichcat]

The only public document (page 29) so have has stated 365 to remain on the GN to provide the entire Kings Cross services of TGSN with includes additional Peterborough services in peak alongside all day Cambridge and Kings Lynn Services.

That's not the only public document to talk about the long term future of GN. Page 27 of the Foster review suggests it could be run by 377s or re-engineered 365s by 2016 and by 2026 either 377s or new EMUs. A footnote also says "it is by no means the definitive solution and a detailed assessment of the available options must be carried out."

It would be nice for DfT to do a master document with all current plans for stock cascades and to update it every few months as required. However, with DfT trying to make out they don't control which franchise takes on which stock and only control the amount of new rolling stock ordered it wouldn't tie in with their argument.

 

[tbtc]

It would be nice for DfT to do a master document with all current plans for stock cascades and to update it every few months as required. However, with DfT trying to make out they don't control which franchise takes on which stock and only control the amount of new rolling stock ordered it wouldn't tie in with their argument.

True.

Would be fascinating to see where all of the current classes of units (plus whatever newbuilds) end up by the end of the decade - but, as you say, the DFT want to give the impression that they aren't pulling the strings and this will all happen organically.

 

[The Ham]

I think you're being too optimistic here on 2 counts:

1. Unfortunately I don't think that XC will try and run as many services as possible with HST's - they don't even use all their HSTs they currently have so unless they are contractually forced to, I don't think this will happen.
2. I'm not sure a small order for new EMUs will happen, because there are all the MK4 coaches and the class 91 locos available that will have been displaced from the ECML. I think these may be used, although they're probably not ideal, they may be a lot cheaper.

In response:

- By the time XC start their new franchise or soon after there will be a lot of HST's which the leasing companies will want to get a return on, as such the lease costs of the HST's are likely to favourable compared to Voyagers.

- There are already too many passengers for the voyagers on many services existing, so XC should look at ways to cater for this whilst keeping their costs down. Running Voyagers in pairs is unlikely to achieve this.

- it very much depends on what happens with the Mark 4's, as there have been a few other suggestions for their use other than XC, as such nothing can be assumed.

- as XC may well still require services to run paired up over sections, it may well be that an EMU order does happen. I would guess that the average number of coaches per set is 7, so as to be able to run 5 coach sets (which can be doubled up), 7 coach sets and 9 coach sets. There may also be a few 4 coach sets which can be paired with 7 coach sets and/or 10 coach sets. In doing so the length of the trains can better match the demand along routes.

 

[158722]

In response:

- it very much depends on what happens with the Mark 4's, as there have been a few other suggestions for their use other than XC, as such nothing can be assumed.

I would suggest that the Mk4s may find a happy home on the Midland mainline, post-2019 when they start to be displaced by EC IEPs and the wires go up to Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield and Leeds. 30 rakes of 8 Mk4s (2 FO, 6 SO, buffets removed from existing sets with a mini-buffet/Cafe created in an SO) gives 240 vehicles (plus spares & the DVTs and 91s, naturally!) to replace the 227 vehicles EMT currently have (143x 222 vehicles and 84 MK3s). The 30 sets would be comfortably able to cover say 25 diagrams, which is more than required to allow 2 tph to Nottingham, 2 tph to Sheffield (and eventually Leeds) with a 5th tph to Derby, for example, noting that Corby may pass to Thameslink or be covered (along with Leicester-Nottingham stoppers) by a small fleet of EMUs.

And the 222s? Off they go to GW for Devon & Cornwall to replace the remainder of the HSTs not displaced by the IEPs. I also believe that Project Thor (extra electric power cars for the Voyager & Meridien fleets) will be back on the agenda in some form or other for a post-2020 scenario with extra coaches built to create bi-modes or pure EMUs.

 

[Chris125]

I would suggest an IEP-type train for Nottingham & Sheffield and a Javelin-type train for Corby, if they were to have a different train. Obviously it is better have have as uniform a train fleet as possible.

Could Hitachi deliver that many trainsets on top of their other commitments, especially if they want to secure Crossrail?

And the 222s? Off they go to GW for Devon & Cornwall to replace the remainder of the HSTs not displaced by the IEPs. I also believe that Project Thor (extra electric power cars for the Voyager & Meridien fleets) will be back on the agenda in some form or other for a post-2020 scenario with extra coaches built to create bi-modes or pure EMUs.

I think it's more likely the DfT will take up the option for further IEP bi-modes for the West Country, with at least some of the Meridians/Voyagers going to Scotland where interest has been expressed in using intercity rolling stock on the Highland Mainline IIRC.

I can't see Project Thor being revived, it was widely reported as proving far more expensive than initially thought so was not financially viable - trying again a decade later simply means there is a decade less to earn back the investment over the lifetime of the rolling stock.

...that said, perhaps some could become battery powered if the forthcoming experiment goes well?

Chris

 

[158722]

I think it's more likely the DfT will take up the option for further IEP bi-modes for the West Country, with at least some of the Meridians/Voyagers going to Scotland where interest has been expressed in using intercity rolling stock on the Highland Mainline IIRC.

I can't see Project Thor being revived, it was widely reported as proving far more expensive than initially thought so was not financially viable - trying again a decade later simply means there is a decade less to earn back the investment over the lifetime of the rolling stock.
Chris

Both valid points, but I'm having some difficulty in seeing what practical and ecnomically viable use can be made of the 27 class 222s sets as well as the 78 class 220/221s once the MML and (hopefully) the Derby-Birmingham/Bromsgrove-Bristol gaps in the XC network are all wired within CP5 and CP6 plus (again hopefully) some mini-Pendos to replace most of the WC 221s.

Yes, we can all suggest homes for 125mph, diesel-thirsty DMUs in Scotland, Wales or cross-country routes like Norwich-Liverpool or Cardiff-Notts/Birmingham-Stansted, but I would suggest many of the possible cascades created by further wiring, simply won't add up when the cost of new electric trains is factored in. Better to consider converting 220-222s to bi-mode or pure EMUs as there isn't a huge justification for them elsewhere.

 

[JamesRowden]

Both valid points, but I'm having some difficulty in seeing what practical and ecnomically viable use can be made of the 27 class 222s sets as well as the 78 class 220/221s once the MML and (hopefully) the Derby-Birmingham/Bromsgrove-Bristol gaps in the XC network are all wired within CP5 and CP6 plus (again hopefully) some mini-Pendos to replace most of the WC 221s.

Yes, we can all suggest homes for 125mph, diesel-thirsty DMUs in Scotland, Wales or cross-country routes like Norwich-Liverpool or Cardiff-Notts/Birmingham-Stansted, but I would suggest many of the possible cascades created by further wiring, simply won't add up when the cost of new electric trains is factored in. Better to consider converting 220-222s to bi-mode or pure EMUs as there isn't a huge justification for them elsewhere.

The Voyagers will be nearly 25 years old at the end of CP6 (2024) and from what I have heard, it is at about that age that major work might be needed to keep DMU/DEMUs running.

 

[D365]

The Voyagers will be nearly 25 years old at the end of CP6 (2024) and from what I have heard, it is at about that age that major work might be needed to keep DMU/DEMUs running.

Don't suppose that could be combined with retro-active panto/electric coaches...

 

[158722]

The Voyagers will be nearly 25 years old at the end of CP6 (2024) and from what I have heard, it is at about that age that major work might be needed to keep DMU/DEMUs running.

Perhaps the perfect time to build a few new electric power cars, insert them in the 221s & 222s and remove all of those thirsty diesel engines then...

 

[D365]

Perhaps the perfect time to build a few new electric power cars, insert them in the 221s & 222s and remove all of those thirsty diesel engines then...

Oh snap :P

 

[Bodie]

I know there is a specific thread about the TPE's 350/4's but can't find it.

What I want to know is...

From what I can see the 350's are all but ready to go and could be in service within the year at the very least.
However putting the wires up between Manchester and Preston is some way off.

Am I right so far?

If so what is the stop gap for TPE. They don't want brand new trains sat around waiting.
Are they going to introduce the units before the wires are up?
If so will they pair them with 185's and use the 185 to drag the 350 to Preston where they can split???

Thanks

 

[tbtc]

I know there is a specific thread about the TPE's 350/4's but can't find it.

What I want to know is...

From what I can see the 350's are all but ready to go and could be in service within the year at the very least.
However putting the wires up between Manchester and Preston is some way off.

Am I right so far?

If so what is the stop gap for TPE. They don't want brand new trains sat around waiting.
Are they going to introduce the units before the wires are up?
If so will they pair them with 185's and use the 185 to drag the 350 to Preston where they can split???

Thanks

They are going to run via the Chat Moss line to join the WCML there and run via Wigan (so no more Bolton - for now at least)

 

[swt_passenger]

They are going to run via a different route for the first year or so aren't they? Is it Manchester to Newton le Willows that is the first phase? To Preston direct isn't planned until 2016 or something.

That's why people are discussing in one of the other threads that there'll be reduced capacity through Bolton.