First Group's option for 30 more Hitachi AT300s

[DownSouth]

As opposed to footing the bill for running 'full-length' trains around with hundreds of empty seats on legs of their journeys where there are never, ever going to be the passengers to fill them.

Or footing the bill for completely cancelling a service because a longer set has a fault instead of simply short-forming it.

Far better to have a few passengers standing on a train than being left waiting on a platform!

 

[jimm]

As I have shown before the costs from increased numbers of vehicles are actually quite small - since you don't actually need that many extra vehicles.
(A 9-car set matches a 2x5-car lashup).
Once you account for the pain that is attempting to change formation lengths in service it adds a few percent to running costs at most.
Unless you store the extra sets in the platforms at Paddington you will require additional ECS moves too and from stables - however storing in the platform will reduce your station flexibility rather drastically. In disruption you could end up with nine car sets queued and unable to get into platforms because they are half full of stabled trains.
In an approach as congested as the Paddington one will be post-Crossrail it seems like a bad idea to pack in more ECS moves.

Crew savings are likely to wipe that out the extra leasing and mileage costs to a large degree.
Also pretty sure we are at the point where the trains would all be well loaded between Reading and Paddington no matter how long they are.


Portion working with loco hauled stock is an eminently different thing to doing it with units.
The units will require additional crewing unless you want the dilution of the first class offer or similar, they will reduce capacity per metre of platform length and they won't actually need that many vehicles.

There is not necessarily a requirement to have every train be nine-car. "Full length" would mean that there would not normally be lashups.
You can arrange diagrams such that some sets are nine car and arrange for those diagrams to be the ones working the high peak in the peak direction.
Especially on longer journeys where a train might work a handful of trips per day. (Swansea/Plymouth/Penzance especially).


Virgins problems are caused by an idiotic peak-offpeak price split and a hard delineator that has people waiting on the platform while half a dozen sets leave the station before all scrumming onto the first off peak one.
The trains would be far more evenly loaded with a saner fares policy. Rather than a bunch of half empty trains and a handful of drastically overloaded ones.

And yet it is not ordering IEPs, but yet another incompatible unit that will never be ordered by anyone else in all likelyhood.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For example:
Let's compare running 9-car trains Paddington-Penzance compared with a ten car train between Paddington and Plymouth and five cars for the rest of the way.

Journey time for PNZ-PAD is 5hr25 each way, which means something like a 12 hour cycle time. 1tp2h means six sets required in service. So seven sets total.
7 x 9 = 63 vehicles.

You would require seven sets of five cars for the Penzance portion)
7 x 5 = 35 vehicles.

Penzance-Plymouth is 3hr18 - which means something like a 7 hour cycle time. So 4 sets required for that portion.
4 x 5 = 20 vehicles.

55 vehicles doing in that way.
So by embracing this glorious double working concept you have saved a grand total of eight vehicles.
That isn't much when you consider all the operational troubles you've bought yourself.

Yes indeed, you have come out with all this stuff before, others take a different view. If coupling and uncoupling trains in service is such an operational trauma, why is it done all over the world, day in, day out?

Why would you be 'storing' trains at Paddington? They could go to North Pole for maintenance, rather like some HSTs do during the day at Old Oak Common right now, or they could be out there beefing up off-peak frequencies, etc, etc, by splitting 2x5 formations - which can't happen with a 'full-length' train.

Additional crewing - did you notice the bit in the announcement about 100 more staff?

Portion working is a whole lot easier with units than locos, so what's the problem?

And if it is now the case that

There is not necessarily a requirement to have every train be nine-car. "Full length" would mean that there would not normally be lashups.
You can arrange diagrams such that some sets are nine car and arrange for those diagrams to be the ones working the high peak in the peak direction.

could you enlighten us as to what your definition of 'full-length' now is, because if it isn't five cars, is it six, seven, eight or ten, 11, 12? FGW work HSTs in the direction of peak flows with, er, five-car 180s working in the opposite direction on Oxford and Cotswold duties in the way you describe right now...

Virgin's issues are not all about the peak/off-peak split - that is one aspect of the policy at certain points in the day, with long periods in between when there are still lots of seats plying up and down that are not going to be filled, however clever the fares policy.

In what way is the likely West Country order "incompatible", it's basically an IEP with more power and a bigger diesel tank, which you can bet your life will be able to couple to and work with the other 800/801 type trains - unlike the Voyagers and Meridians. The Hitachi announcement yesterday describes them as a refined version of the design and "closely related to the Class 800".

Who else would want to order some anyway? The GW and EC routes will both be equipped with them by the end of 2019, bar the handful of remaining IC225s, West Coast's 221 and 390 fleets have plenty of life in them, and there will be 222s looking for a good home by the bucketload in 2020-21, so unless XC or GC develops a sudden passion for bimodes or Abellio decides to ditch its Scottish HSTs plan, none of which seems likely, can you name me another route that would need a 140mph-capable bi-mode express unit?

 

[andyb2706]

Who else would want to order some anyway? The GW and EC routes will both be equipped with them by the end of 2019, bar the handful of remaining IC225s, West Coast's 221 and 390 fleets have plenty of life in them, and there will be 222s looking for a good home by the bucketload in 2020-21, so unless XC or GC develops a sudden passion for bimodes or Abellio decides to ditch its Scottish HSTs plan, none of which seems likely, can you name me another route that would need a 140mph-capable bi-mode express unit?

This might be a bit pie in the sky suggestion but going off the question in the quote what about a future Trans Pennine operator? Does not the AT-300 fit the bill perfectly?

If I have the facts right the new operator needs to invest in new electric trains for the ongoing electrification of the Trans Pennine route and Northern Hub project and a train capable of 125mph and increase in capacity.

Now with the slow progress of the electrification it could be that the new franchise will be over before the Trans Pennine core network is electrified.

Would not a minimum 5 car bi-mode AT-300 best suit this? It could also be used on the Hope Valley line for the Sheffield services which would result in an earlier cascade of DMU's to other areas.

Especially if First should retain the franchise could they not just tag it on to the order for its sister company FGW?
Just a thought.

 

[jimm]

This might be a bit pie in the sky suggestion but going off the question in the quote what about a future Trans Pennine operator? Does not the AT-300 fit the bill perfectly?

If I have the facts right the new operator needs to invest in new electric trains for the ongoing electrification of the Trans Pennine route and Northern Hub project and a train capable of 125mph and increase in capacity.

Now with the slow progress of the electrification it could be that the new franchise will be over before the Trans Pennine core network is electrified.

Would not a minimum 5 car bi-mode AT-300 best suit this? It could also be used on the Hope Valley line for the Sheffield services which would result in an earlier cascade of DMU's to other areas.

Especially if First should retain the franchise could they not just tag it on to the order for its sister company FGW?
Just a thought.

I raised the idea of TPE use at the start of the thread, though there is, of course, the question of them having end doors, as another poster noted.

 

[northwichcat]

the question of them having end doors, as another poster noted.

Presumably any Intercity stock for the TPE franchise would be for the fast services only.

Are FGW planning to put IEP on to services like this: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C20897/2015/03/24/advanced

If the answer is yes then should we really be questioning whether TPE services are less suitable for IEP?

 

[43074]

Is it not rather early for FirstGroup to be considering new stock for the MML especially since the EM franchise consultation hasn't started and they haven't been shortlisted to bid yet? Having said that, 30 5-car AT300s would appear to fit the requirements for MML rather well especially if Corby's are run by Electrostars thereby reducing the High Speed stock requirement on the MML (there are 36 125mph trains on the MML at the moment).

The TPE suggestions are interesting: whilst the issue of end doors has been raised, the 158s used on these services in the past had end doors. AT300s would also enable services to be accelerated further by better acceleration and a 125mph top speed on the ECML possibly offsetting the impacts of end doors and fulfilling a government policy objective for faster journeys in the North.

Or perhaps it covers the requirement for Hull Trains, the Edinburgh service and a growth build for Great Western and we are reading into it too much?

 

[northwichcat]

The TPE suggestions are interesting: whilst the issue of end doors has been raised, the 158s used on these services in the past had end doors.

The December 2017 TPE services will be very different to the ones which were operated by 158s*. It's like saying the Pendolino services are the same as the ones which used to operate using loco-hauled stock, when the service patterns were revised to be faster and new services were introduced using more commuter style EMUs.

*Exception Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes. Although DfT did try to change it but too many people objected.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably any Intercity stock for the TPE franchise would be for the fast services only.

Are FGW planning to put IEP on to services like this: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C20897/2015/03/24/advanced

If the answer is yes then should we really be questioning whether TPE services are less suitable for IEP?

The difference with services like that (or any service into London) is that the vast bulk of travel is either from London to the local stations, or from the local stations to London. TPE on the other hand has a lot of intermediate travel. This means the issues caused by end doors are much greater.

Yes they used to use 158s but they did cause delay.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes they used to use 158s but they did cause delay.

A problem with the 158s on TPE was too many passengers for the length of train.

We get delays due to overcrowding on Northern 150s now but that doesn't mean the door layout is the problem.

TPE on the other hand has a lot of intermediate travel.

On North TPE much of that is to/from Leeds and Manchester, where the train is usually stopped for a few minutes (except Liverpool-Scarborough services at Manchester where it's not possible due to using platform 13/14.)

 

[andyb2706]

The TPE suggestions are interesting: whilst the issue of end doors has been raised, the 158s used on these services in the past had end doors. AT300s would also enable services to be accelerated further by better acceleration and a 125mph top speed on the ECML possibly offsetting the impacts of end doors and fulfilling a government policy objective for faster journeys in the North.

Or perhaps it covers the requirement for Hull Trains, the Edinburgh service and a growth build for Great Western and we are reading into it too much?

The 125mph for the new stock would not just help on the ECML. If the services stay as much as they are now the 125mph would be useful on the West Coast Main Line and lets not forget the work happening on the Bolton corridor where they are looking at a line speed increase to 100mph in areas (for example Farnworth) Also there is the talked about (but longer term) speed increases on the core routes of TPE and if you look at the governments proposal is to make the Trans Pennine route a proper Inter City route.

 

[43074]

The 125mph for the new stock would not just help on the ECML. If the services stay as much as they are now the 125mph would be useful on the West Coast Main Line and lets not forget the work happening on the Bolton corridor where they are looking at a line speed increase to 100mph in areas (for example Farnworth) Also there is the talked about (but longer term) speed increases on the core routes of TPE and if you look at the governments proposal is to make the Trans Pennine route a proper Inter City route.

True, although I'm not sure 30 units would cover both North and Scottish routes.

 

[markydh]

The 125mph for the new stock would not just help on the ECML. If the services stay as much as they are now the 125mph would be useful on the West Coast Main Line and lets not forget the work happening on the Bolton corridor where they are looking at a line speed increase to 100mph in areas (for example Farnworth) Also there is the talked about (but longer term) speed increases on the core routes of TPE and if you look at the governments proposal is to make the Trans Pennine route a proper Inter City route.

Apart from the fact they don't tilt so would be limited to 110mph or less like current TPE stock...

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Yes, that's my guess, especially given that the core IEP order doesn't appear likely to provide enough capacity on the Cotswold Line at peak time.

Confirmed today by FGW that the AT300s (assuming the DfT approves their purchase) will indeed be used for peak services on the Cotswold Line, as well as their principal role providing services to the South-West. If the DfT doesn't approve their purchase, refurbished HSTs will be used.

It's nice when one's uninformed guesswork is proved right once in a while.

 

[northwichcat]

Apart from the fact they don't tilt so would be limited to 110mph or less like current TPE stock...

350/4s are limited to 100mph.

I'm pretty sure non-tilting trains can run at 125mph between York and Newcastle.

 

[po8crg]

350/4s are limited to 100mph.

I'm pretty sure non-tilting trains can run at 125mph between York and Newcastle.

Arent the 350/4s being approved for 110? I thought they were already, actually.

 

[TheNewNo2]

I saw a letter in the Cornish Guardian, which was complaining vociferously about the new AT300s. Apparently they're bad because they're electric, and they're bad because they have diesel engines, and they're bad because they have cabs. I'm really unsure if there was any bit of the train which was acceptable. The wheels perhaps?

 

[najaB]

I saw a letter in the Cornish Guardian, which was complaining vociferously about the new AT300s. Apparently they're bad because they're electric, and they're bad because they have diesel engines, and they're bad because they have cabs. I'm really unsure if there was any bit of the train which was acceptable. The wheels perhaps?

If it was online, any chance for a link, please?

 

[jimm]

If it was online, any chance for a link, please?

No sign of it, their uploading of readers' letters seems erratic, to say the least.

I saw a letter in the Cornish Guardian, which was complaining vociferously about the new AT300s. Apparently they're bad because they're electric, and they're bad because they have diesel engines, and they're bad because they have cabs. I'm really unsure if there was any bit of the train which was acceptable. The wheels perhaps?

Sounds rather like a few of the posts about them here then...

 

[D365]

Sounds rather like a few of the posts about them here then...

Bi-mode running on OHLE: "Lugging hefty diesels on an electric train is an abomination!"
Running diesel under OHLE: "Meh, what choice do they have? They don't run it long under the electric line anyway"

 

[plastictaffy]

350/4s are limited to 100mph.

Nope, specced the same as the /3's, 110mph capability. They were actually ordered by LM, but with those ten diverted to TPE.