Future Local Branch Line Trains

[RobShipway]

I posted the following in the future of class 379 thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/future-of-class-379.163185/

Not sure if there is enough units, parts etc... But I think you are more likely to have something like a class 230 along the Marlow/Bourne End route.

The only branch route where you could run a four car train is the route to Henley-On-Thames. This could potentially be a battery operated train, whether it is class 387 or 379.

Now, if finance was available an ideal option would be a two/three car version of class 555 or 777 for both Marlow/Bourne End, Windsor and Greenford routes and possibly Henley-On-Thames or use a similar Metro platform from another manufacturer such as Alstom Metropolis or Movia (London Underground S Stock) or Siemens Inspiro. Another option would be to convert the LU 1992 stock, that within the next few years is going to be withdrawn, to be replaced with Siemens Inspiro based trains. But that is probably a discussion for another thread.

Now, I know that Vivarail s company does not exist anymore. I also note that GWR have taken ownership of Class 230 unit 230 001 and all Vivarail Intellectual property rights. In 2023/2026 you will have the replacement of the 1992 stock from Waterloo & City Line & Central Line. Could the same be done with the 1992 stock as was done with the D78 stock, if finance etc.... was made available?

 

[SynthD]

They are smaller trains, with a lower floor. The platforms can’t extend out as other trains, freight on the Greenford line, use them too.

 

[MarkyT]

They are smaller trains, with a lower floor. The platforms can’t extend out as other trains, freight on the Greenford line, use them too.

With the FLIRT, Stadler has demonstrated that partially low floor trains for the continental market can be adapted for the UK with a revised floor set at our standard height of 3ft for level boarding, and bodysides profiled accordingly. Stadler can supply articulated AKKU (BEMU) versions of the FLIRT, which, at 46m in length for the 2-car, might be suitable for some of our difficult branches, if the UK profiled bodyshells were substituted. These trains don't have a separate power pod as per the bi/tri-mode FLIRTs being supplied to UK currently, so the batteries must be accommodated somewhere on the passenger-carrying cars.

https://www.stadlerrail.com/en/flirt-akku/details/

 

[D365]

Could the same be done with the 1992 stock as was done with the D78 stock, if finance etc.... was made available?

Anything "could" be done. However, the D78 stock being sold into private hands was the culmination of a unique set of circumstances that is unlikely to happen again.

Perhaps more likely is that, if the Greenford trial proves successful, the WMT 230s are converted to battery operation.

 

[JonathanH]

Perhaps more likely is that, if the Greenford trial proves successful, the WMT 230s are converted to battery operation.

Who owns the WMT 230s now?

Ah, answered my own question
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-borderlands-line.191986/page-47#post-6024953

Lombard North Central, so the lease would need to be moved to GWR, and maintenance organised.

 

[30907]

Who owns the WMT 230s now?

Ah, answered my own question
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-borderlands-line.191986/page-47#post-6024953

Lombard North Central, so the lease would need to be moved to GWR, and maintenance organised.

Seems a sensible solution - and it wouldn't be totally stupid to have a BEMU fleet shared between Thames Valley branches and Marston Vale (and forget Borderlands!)

PS before anyone says privatisation makes it impossible, NSE let alone BR Regions might have struggled too.

 

[cactustwirly]

Seems a sensible solution - and it wouldn't be totally stupid to have a BEMU fleet shared between Thames Valley branches and Marston Vale (and forget Borderlands!)

PS before anyone says privatisation makes it impossible, NSE let alone BR Regions might have struggled too.

The needs of the Marston Vale are completely different to the Thames Valley

 

[30907]

The needs of the Marston Vale are completely different to the Thames Valley

So why are 230s being trialled for both? (I said branches - ie Greenford, Windsor, Marlow, Henley.)

 

[zwk500]

So why are 230s being trialled for both? (I said branches - ie Greenford, Windsor, Marlow, Henley.)

230s were a stopgap for the Marston Vale until EWR comes in. 230s are being trialled on the Greenford Branch to prove the concept of battery operation with fast-charge.

If the Greenford Battery trial is successful, I would expect trains other than old underground stock to be used - either new FLIRTs in 40m configuration if the production line is still open, or maybe a modification of existing turbo units.

 

[RobShipway]

The needs of the Marston Vale are completely different to the Thames Valley

Whilst I do not disagree with you comment, I do wonder why class 755/756 units where not ordered for use on both Watford - St Albans Abbey and Bletchley - Bedford routes?

Yes, the class 230 where constructed 2015 onwards and the class 755 did not start to be built until 2018. However, Stadler did have the bi-mode flirt trains on their books prior to 2015.

 

[zwk500]

Whilst I do not disagree with you comment, I do wonder why class 755/756 units where not ordered for use on both Watford - St Albans Abbey and Bletchley - Bedford routes?

Yes, the class 230 where constructed 2015 onwards and the class 755 did not start to be built until 2018. However, Stadler did have the bi-mode flirt trains on their books prior to 2015.

because they would have been a microfleet for LNR, and the 230s were only ever a stopgap until EWR was in place. the Abbey line can take 4 cars so could use a standard 350, why overcomplicate things?

 

[RobShipway]

because they would have been a microfleet for LNR, and the 230s were only ever a stopgap until EWR was in place. the Abbey line can take 4 cars so could use a standard 350, why overcomplicate things?

But with EWR you are still going to need non electric units whether they be diesel or electric. On that basis surely, if EWR where ready for use it would be better to have class 769 units that GWR have now dropped as they are similar to the class 319 units being used on the Watford - St Albans route.

Even with the class 230 units, LNR has a microfleet. Yes, you will have the class 730 units replace the class 319, 323 and 350/2 units. But for LNR the class 730 will be replacing the class 319 units used on services out of London Euston to the likes of Milton Keynes, not those on Watford - St Albans route.

The only other option would be if the class 350/2 units where to be converted to battery - electric units, that way they could be used both on Watford - St Albans and Bletchley - Bedford routes. The class 230 with LNR, could then be moved to GWR for use on Slough - Windsor and Maidenhead - Marlow routes.

Twyford to Henley-on-Thames would get replacement trains to whatever replaces class 165/166 on Reading - Basingstoke/Reading - Redhill/Gatwick services. Whether it be battery - Electric Class 379 units or built from new battery Electric or Hydroflex/Diesel Alstom Aventra trains. If you go for the latter, do you make it tri - mode and maybe have enough built to be replacing the class 165/166 fleet not in only in the Thames Valley, but in the Bristol and West area also? Or alternatively do you go for a Stadler flirt tri-mode train?

 

[zwk500]

But with EWR you are still going to need non electric units whether they be diesel or electric. On that basis surely, if EWR where ready for use it would be better to have class 769 units that GWR have now dropped as they are similar to the class 319 units being used on the Watford - St Albans route.

EWR is going to be diesel only, no wires. So gettting bi-modes would be optimistic in the extreme. There's a reason the 196s are being used.

Even with the class 230 units, LNR has a microfleet. Yes, you will have the class 730 units replace the class 319, 323 and 350/2 units. But for LNR the class 730 will be replacing the class 319 units used on services out of London Euston to the likes of Milton Keynes, not those on Watford - St Albans route.

A cheap, temporary microfleet is the key. 769s wouldn't have worked on the Marston Vale as they're twice as long as the platforms.

Or alternatively do you go for a Stadler flirt tri-mode train?

Fundamentally, this. FLIRTs come right down to 40m or so, so could be used either in pairs or with 2-car and 4-car versions.

 

[MattRat]

I personally don't understand the call for Flirts, which are longer distance trains. As far as I'm aware, for most branch shuttles, they are short enough for the Stadler METRO family, and the trains will be cheaper. Might not be up to everyone's standards, but you won't be on them for more than 30 minutes most likely. The Class 777 battery trials have also been very successful, and back up my point.

And yes, I'm aware some branches will only need units temporarily, but a bus has clearly worked for those routes, and this is coming from someone who hates buses replacing trains.

 

[Trainbike46]

EWR is going to be diesel only, no wires. So gettting bi-modes would be optimistic in the extreme. There's a reason the 196s are being used.

To be honest, getting bimodes (or units easily turned into them, like the 231s) is just sensible futureproofing, as least when buying new

A cheap, temporary microfleet is the key. 769s wouldn't have worked on the Marston Vale as they're twice as long as the platforms.

Fundamentally, this. FLIRTs come right down to 40m or so, so could be used either in pairs or with 2-car and 4-car versions.

Ideally you would want gangways for that no?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Mar 2023 ==

I personally don't understand the call for Flirts, which are longer distance trains. As far as I'm aware, for most branch shuttles, they are short enough for the Stadler METRO family, and the trains will be cheaper. Might not be up to everyone's standards, but you won't be on them for more than 30 minutes most likely. The Class 777 battery trials have also been very successful, and back up my point.

And yes, I'm aware some branches will only need units temporarily, but a bus has clearly worked for those routes, and this is coming from someone who hates buses replacing trains.

FLIRTs are proving very succesful on the East Anglia Branches. In addition, the modular platform means that they are available as diesel units - something that is unfortunately required for at least some branches - which I don't think is possible for the METRO platform (though then again, if someone really wanted it I am sure Stadler would build it) which is electric or battery only, and if the 777 experience is something to go by, it may even be hard to have the same unit have both batteries and 25kV OHLE compatibility, something that will be needed for non-electrified branches of/sharing track with electrified lines

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Mar 2023 ==

I personally don't understand the call for Flirts, which are longer distance trains. As far as I'm aware, for most branch shuttles, they are short enough for the Stadler METRO family, and the trains will be cheaper. Might not be up to everyone's standards, but you won't be on them for more than 30 minutes most likely. The Class 777 battery trials have also been very successful, and back up my point.

And yes, I'm aware some branches will only need units temporarily, but a bus has clearly worked for those routes, and this is coming from someone who hates buses replacing trains.

FLIRTs are proving very succesful on the East Anglia Branches.

In addition, the modular platform means that they are available as diesel units - something that is unfortunately required for at least some branches - which I don't think is possible for the METRO platform (though then again, if someone really wanted it I am sure Stadler would build it) which is electric or battery only, and if the 777 experience is something to go by, it may even be hard to have the same unit have both batteries and 25kV OHLE compatibility, something that will be needed for non-electrified branches of/sharing track with electrified lines

So while not necessarily the best solution for every branch line, FLIRTS have a lot going for them

 

[Bletchleyite]

I personally don't understand the call for Flirts, which are longer distance trains. As far as I'm aware, for most branch shuttles, they are short enough for the Stadler METRO family, and the trains will be cheaper. Might not be up to everyone's standards, but you won't be on them for more than 30 minutes most likely. The Class 777 battery trials have also been very successful, and back up my point.

And yes, I'm aware some branches will only need units temporarily, but a bus has clearly worked for those routes, and this is coming from someone who hates buses replacing trains.

The FLIRT is the Flinker Leichter Innovativer Regional-Triebzug, which "conveniently" translates (ish) to "fast, light, innovative regional train", as first conceived, which has been tweaked a bit over time. It definitely wasn't born as a long distance train, what has happened (as has similarly happened with the likes of the Desiro and Aventra) is that as 110mph has rapidly become the standard top speed for regional EMUs (which they mostly are) they have found use in low speed intercity routes as well, as a result of which Stadler changed "innovativer" for "intercity" in the name.

The FLIRT was basically a follow-on development from the GTW (which doesn't have a silly name - it just stands for Gelenktriebwagen = articulated multiple unit). That unit is/was little more than a fancy Pacer. They do now offer the WINK which is a redone version of that using FLIRT parts.

The METRO platform was conceived for building low speed, narrow loading gauge U-Bahn trains for e.g. the Berlin U-Bahn. Merseyrail has pushed this design very close to its limit by specifying a body that is much more like that of the FLIRT.

The interior of any of these units can be whatever you like. Merseyrail's seats aren't a standard Stadler product, I've never seen them anywhere before so they could even be an entirely custom job (designed by someone who had no idea about ergonomics, it has to be said).

In short, no the METRO isn't the platform you'd use for a branch line self-powered unit, and I don't think Stadler have used the platform for that anywhere.

 

[D365]

Without the power of hindsight - the 230s were the best available option for the Marston Vale.

 

[dk1]

Without the power of hindsight - the 230s were the best available option for the Marston Vale.

But always very risky as there was no alternative or easy back up plan.

 

[D365]

But always very risky as there was no alternative or easy back up plan.

Same as the majority of rolling stock projects.

 

[dk1]

Same as the majority of rolling stock projects.

Not many that were quite as niche & reliant as this.

 

[RobShipway]

Same as the majority of rolling stock projects.

It maybe me, but going with a train manufacturer that had just started out who was taking ex underground surface D78 stock trains and converting them into either diesel-electric, bi-mode or fully electric train was I would have said more risky than many other projects from existing manufacturers at the time.

 

[MarkyT]

It maybe me, but going with a train manufacturer that had just started out who was taking ex underground surface D78 stock trains and converting them into either diesel-electric, bi-mode or fully electric train was I would have said more risky than many other projects from existing manufacturers at the time.

A small company can't offer the same guarantees. If you buy, lets say, Alstom, you've got a huge multinational to sue in event of unsatisfactory delivery, so even though you still haven't got the trains, you have a good chance of at least getting some of your money back. More likely, for reputation's sake, a big manufaturer will be better placed to take a loss on remedial work. Such an event with a new start-up risks fatal cashflow problems.

 

[D365]

It maybe me, but going with a train manufacturer that had just started out who was taking ex underground surface D78 stock trains and converting them into either diesel-electric, bi-mode or fully electric train was I would have said more risky than many other projects from existing manufacturers at the time.

However the Marston Vale is a total edge case. A route with 40 metre platforms, needing a 10-15 year interim solution. Other than going back to 150s, there are no feasible alternatives.

 

[MattRat]

However the Marston Vale is a total edge case. A route with 40 metre platforms, needing a 10-15 year interim solution. Other than going back to 150s, there are no feasible alternatives.

I'd say the 3 options are 150s, 153s, or the current solution of buses.

 

[D365]

I'd say the 3 options are 150s, 153s, or the current solution of buses.

And the latter two are much less than optimal, i.e. not a solution.

 

[MattRat]

And the latter two are much less than optimal, i.e. not a solution.

Well 153s might have more life left in them, and buses are cheap.

 

[RailWonderer]

However the Marston Vale is a total edge case. A route with 40 metre platforms, needing a 10-15 year interim solution. Other than going back to 150s, there are no feasible alternatives.

196s will apparently soon be cleared for platform 1a at Bedford but will need SDO since platforms are too short for even a 2 car 196. I think only the front coach doors would open.

Edited for spelling

 

[Bletchleyite]

196s will apparently soon be cleared for pltform 1a at Bedford but will need SDO since patforms are too short for even a 2 car 196. I think only the front coach doors would open.

They could do local door if they wanted, but in odd cases it might mean blocking a level crossing for the duration of the call. However about half the platforms are long enough anyway.

I looked this all up in the Sectional Appendix, it can be found here:

Alternative solutions for the Marston Vale Line

Thought I would chuck this in to avoid too much speculation in the main thread. Obviously "buses" are one option, but this is to look at other options. As a start, I've found the relevant Sectional Appendices...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

So why are 230s being trialled for both? (I said branches - ie Greenford, Windsor, Marlow, Henley.)

Because people would rather recycle knackered 70s trains that’ll be morbidly ancient by the time they finally bin them off than order in new. If GWR have any sense they’ll include a suitable variant in their upcoming order for said branch lines.

 

[D365]

Because people would rather recycle knackered 70s trains that’ll be morbidly ancient by the time they finally bin them off than order in new. If GWR have any sense they’ll include a suitable variant in their upcoming order for said branch lines.

To think, ~8 years ago, that people were decrying TfL's replacement of the D Stock

A suitable variant of what? GWR now owns the fast charge technology, a suitable prototype/demonstrator unit and is employing ex-Vivarail staff to boot. Other than Merseyrail, the rollout of battery units has been far too slow. I think (and hope) that GWR is in a really good position to lead the innovation here.