Electrification & Rolling Stock Cascade Impact Review

[YorkshireBear]

I think the long and short of it is, we are going to need some more 3 car EMUs from somewhere, either removing 319 carriages or purchasing new ones.

Anyone technically minded out there (Being a simple civil, mechanical engineering and electronics fail me!)

Say you had 3 319s, take 1 carriage out of two of them and add them to another, so you would have 1-6 car 319 and 2-3 car 319s.

 

[WatcherZero]

Wouldnt work, there is only one motor (a trailer) in the four car formation and its a already an underpowered class. To reform them into new formations you would have to produce new motor cars. Porterbrook are talking about removing the other trailer and refitting the motored trailer with a more modern traction package and regenerative brakes to increase power to weight ratio and reduce running costs.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Wouldnt work, there is only one motor (a trailer) in the four car formation and its a already an underpowered class. To reform them into a six car formation you would have to produce new motor cars. Porterbrook are talking about removing the other trailer and refitting with the motored trailer with a more modern traction package and regenerative brakes to increase power to weight ratio and reduce running costs.

Okay thank you, so i guess the spare carriages would be scrapped with all serviceable spare parts kept?
To me it seems the most sensible option , up north 3 car off peak is ideal and the ability to 6 car in the peak is vital.

With that amount of the fleet being kept for the peaks would it be possible to allow a more rigorous midweek maintenance regime that would allow more units released at weekends. (something i think we struggle with up north) Particularly with all the weekend destination places, holidays, trips out and shopping.

 

[WatcherZero]

Actually, thinking about it more it would take some engineering but if you remove the trailers from two thirds of the fleet (58) to three carriages, convert half the trailers you removed to motored trailers you could form 28 five carriage units (DT-MT-MT-T-DT) with slightly better performance than the three car units.

Those 28 five carriage units would be a pain to couple to the three car units but otherwise would cover a majority of peak diagrams quite well working alongside 2x3car units in the morning peak and then continuing to work the busier services during the day while the 3 car units were decoupled to work quieter services. A 5x20m unit would have similar capacity to a 4x23m unit without being as excessive for offpeak as that of a fixed 6x20m unit would be and also wouldnt be a drastic drop in capacity if a 2x3x20m had to be shortformed to a single 5x20m compared to being shortformed to a 3x20m which would be a drastic reduction in capacity and insufficent even today nevermind in a few years time.

 

[northwichcat]

To me it seems the most sensible option , up north 3 car off peak is ideal and the ability to 6 car in the peak is vital.

The track access charges for 319s are very high so I think a mix of 3 and 4 car formations may work best so there is something between 3 and 6 cars for the services that are too busy to have just 3 cars but don't need 6 cars. The Yorkshire locals will have the 333s for that purpose but the North West won't have anything for that purpose.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The track access charges for 319s are very high so I think a mix of 3 and 4 car formations may work best so there is something between 3 and 6 cars for the services that are too busy to have just 3 cars but don't need 6 cars. The Yorkshire locals will have the 333s for that purpose but the North West won't have anything for that purpose.

Why are they so high? Wouldn't expect that for a mk 3 derivative.

 

[northwichcat]

Why are they so high? Wouldn't expect that for a mk 3 derivative.

I don't know. I can't find the Network Rail pdf with all the track access charges (it looks like it's been taken down) but I do have the following I noted from the 2010 prices:

A 6 car 142 (93m length) costs 23.7p per mile
A 4 car 156 (92m length) costs 21.68p per mile

A 4 car 319 (80m length) costs 31.28p per mile
A 4 car 377 (80m length) costs 24.56p per mile

 

[YorkshireBear]

I don't know. I can't find the Network Rail pdf with all the track access charges (it looks like it's been taken down) but I do have the following I noted from the 2010 prices:

A 6 car 142 (93m length) costs 23.7p per mile
A 4 car 156 (92m length) costs 21.68p per mile

A 4 car 319 (80m length) costs 31.28p per mile
A 4 car 377 (80m length) costs 24.56p per mile

Interesting, just out of interest do you have 321?

I can see why a 377 would be more than the DMUs as it is newer has more stuff and is heavier. But the 319 makes very very little sense, are you sure that isn't an 8 car as 15.64p per mile sounds just under what i expected... Just checking :P

 

[northwichcat]

I can see why a 377 would be more than the DMUs as it is newer has more stuff and is heavier. But the 319 makes very very little sense, are you sure that isn't an 8 car as 15.64p per mile sounds just under what i expected... Just checking :P

Actually EMUs have higher track access charges than DMUs so I'd assume it includes a payment to Network Rail for the electricity used given EMUs are lighter and would put less wear on the track.

Edit: found the pdf: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...harges/b - track usage price list for cp4.pdf

So in comparison to Northern's other EMUs:
4 car 321 or 322 (80m length): 30.6p per mile
3 car 323 (70m length): 16.2p per mile
4 car 333 (94m length): 30.26p per mile

So actually the 319s are similar in cost to the 321s but they are both higher than other EMUs.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Oh so that includes electricity? Interesting. Didn't realise that.

i presume generally that the price of fuel for a DMU per mile would put their total cost above EMUs?

It seems to be accepted EMUs are cheaper to run.

 

[Wavertreelad]

The interesting recent developments in procurement seem to be suggestions that Merseyrail would go for tube derived stock to maximise capacity without increasing platform length, not sure what effect that would have on the previous suggestion of having a dual voltage capable fleet for future extensions/new services, whether a pantograph and transformers could be squeezed into a metro unit., particularly if they keep the short formations for flexibility.

I'd find it a strange decision to build tube sized stock when existing tunnels allow full size stock, but I did see read somewhere that Merseyrail were looking at stock that could cope better with the sharp curves on the loop so perhaps this is were the concept of tube derived stock comes from?

 

[Manchester77]

I'd find it a strange decision to build tube sized stock when existing tunnels allow full size stock, but I did see read somewhere that Merseyrail were looking at stock that could cope better with the sharp curves on the loop so perhaps this is were the concept of tube derived stock comes from?

It wouldn't be deep level tube stock it'd most likely be derived from the S Stock and current electrostars

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'd find it a strange decision to build tube sized stock when existing tunnels allow full size stock, but I did see read somewhere that Merseyrail were looking at stock that could cope better with the sharp curves on the loop so perhaps this is were the concept of tube derived stock comes from?

Unless i am mistaken i believe by tube derived stock they mean like the latest S stock and class 378s with wide through corridors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_Overground_Train_Interior.JPG

 

[HSTEd]

I found the CP4 list which shows 25.06p for a 319 (3T1M) and 19.96p for a 4-car 150. So its not THAT much worse that scrapping vehicles makes sense IMO as trailers are only ~40% the cost of motors, are cheaper than 150 vehicles infact.

 

[Manchester77]

Unless i am mistaken i believe by tube derived stock they mean like the latest S stock and class 378s with wide through corridors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_Overground_Train_Interior.JPG

Surely Merseyrail would be better with a fleet of 3 car gangwayed 378s?

 

[northwichcat]

I found the CP4 list which shows 25.06p for a 319 (3T1M) and 19.96p for a 4-car 150. So its not THAT much worse that scrapping vehicles makes sense IMO as trailers are only ~40% the cost of motors, are cheaper than 150 vehicles infact.

OK I didn't realise the 319s only had one vehicle classed as M. Is that common across all EMUs? If so the 322s and older builds would still have the higher track access charges on average than the new stock.

I was using track access charges as a secondary reason for having some 3 car 319s. The primary reason in the North West is we don't have many platforms that'll take 8 cars and some peak time services are already busy 4 cars.

 

[YorkshireBear]

OK I didn't realise the 319s only had one vehicle classed as M. Is that common across all EMUs? If so the 322s and older builds would still have the higher track access charges on average than the new stock.

I was using track access charges as a secondary reason for having some 3 car 319s. The primary reason in the North West is we don't have many platforms that'll take 8 cars and some peak time services are already busy 4 cars.

Are they like the class 321s with one motor coach and 3 trailers? Because that would make sense. I know modern EMUs don't operate that way.

 

[northwichcat]

It seems to be accepted EMUs are cheaper to run.

As I'm sure your aware the main barrier to electrification is the amount of investment required to carry out the electrification installation (including the feasibility study.) After that electric is cheaper and greener.

 

[YorkshireBear]

As I'm sure your aware the main barrier to electrification is the amount of investment required to carry out the electrification installation (including the feasibility study.) After that electric is cheaper and greener.

Yes nearly 5000 posts in that has been drilled into me :P

 

[HSTEd]

OK I didn't realise the 319s only had one vehicle classed as M. Is that common across all EMUs? If so the 322s and older builds would still have the higher track access charges on average than the new stock.

I was using track access charges as a secondary reason for having some 3 car 319s. The primary reason in the North West is we don't have many platforms that'll take 8 cars and some peak time services are already busy 4 cars.

Apparently only the 321/9s and perhaps 320s. Most 321s have two vehicles.
How about transplanting 319 trailers into some 321s to make hybrid five/six car sets? They should be able to make 319 acceleration if the motor vehicles have similar power/traction packs

EDIT: oops, got confused apparently they are all 3T1M

 

[jopsuk]

OK I didn't realise the 319s only had one vehicle classed as M. Is that common across all EMUs?

No, but it is common to all the Mark 3 based EMUs (317-325, 455, 456 and 442). This coach is especially havey on the AC versions due to also having the pantograph and transformer.

The earlier "PEP" design (313-315, 507 & 508) all have two Driving Motor carriages.

Electrostars (357, 375-379) have two, three or four motor coaches with a single trailer vehicle (the pantograph car) but not axles are powered.

Desiros vary- the 350/360/450 (and 380?) uses two Driving Motors with one, two or three trailers (as far as I can gather)

 

[59CosG95]

Speaking of 360's, what will happen to Heathrow Connect's lot when Crossrail takes over their services? To GA? To The North? The dreaded microfleet? Nothing so far has been mentioned about 360's.

 

[anthony263]

Most likely GA will take them on. That said how easily can they be converted to class 350's? if they can and GA dont want them perhaps they can go to another operator.

 

[59CosG95]

Most likely GA will take them on. That said how easily can they be converted to class 350's? if they can and GA dont want them perhaps they can go to another operator.

Probably easy enough. The only major difference between them is that 350's have unit end gangways, while the 360's don't. Apart from that they look identical at the front.

EDIT: To compare the 360 and the 3rd-rail 350 (the 450) I found this on Google Images http://www.michael-zell.de/extern/pcs-unte/engl/pcs_foto12.htm

 

[Eagle]

Don't really see the point of converting only five units. GA can certainly take them on. (Possibly releasing a handful of 321s.)

 

[Class377/5]

Speaking of 360's, what will happen to Heathrow Connect's lot when Crossrail takes over their services? To GA? To The North? The dreaded microfleet? Nothing so far has been mentioned about 360's.

Most likely GA will take them on. That said how easily can they be converted to class 350's? if they can and GA dont want them perhaps they can go to another operator.

Probably easy enough. The only major difference between them is that 350's have unit end gangways, while the 360's don't. Apart from that they look identical at the front.

EDIT: To compare the 360 and the 3rd-rail 350 (the 450) I found this on Google Images http://www.michael-zell.de/extern/pcs-unte/engl/pcs_foto12.htm

The Heathrow Express units 201-204 were originally built as 350/0 (they predate the 350/1 & 450 fleets). Then they were turned into 360's they had a new cab fitted and a 5th car built.

The 360 could have gangwayed cabs if it was desired too but its not cheap (risk levels and actual cost).

 

[tbtc]

There was an interesting discussion on this forum a couple of months ago about the 360s and could these five coach EMUs fit into the GEML where EMUs are currently 4/8/12 coaches long.

 

[Bayum]

There was an interesting discussion on this forum a couple of months ago about the 360s and could these five coach EMUs fit into the GEML where EMUs are currently 4/8/12 coaches long.

Surely if the coaches are 4/8/12 coaches long - a 9 car train would also work?

 

[Eagle]

It does depend. Are there any single-unit diagrams for GE electrics (that don't end up attaching to another unit at some point)? 5-car would probably fit fine on those.

9- and 10-car might pose problems depending on where they go. SDO could be an option, although it's not as easy to set up as some people often think.

 

[TheGrew]

Couldn't the extra coach simply be removed and added to the SWT 450/5s? If not how about the LM 350/2? (I imagine the /1 or /4 might have issues with 110mph running with an extra coach)