Generic Shared EMU Design

[Doomotron]

Continuing from this post,

I believe there may be room for a shared pool of a generic dual-voltage EMU design that could be shared between Great Northern, Southern and Southeastern. This would be similar to the arrangement for the Class 350s in their early days, where Central and Silverlink shared the same fleet, with the trains wearing a generic livery. Southern in particular has a major shortage of trains after losing the 455s and 313s. Even though the 387s moving from GN will mean they have more trains despite sending some 377s to Southeastern, they are still far down from what they had before. Southeastern has the ongoing task of replacing the Networkers. Even though they have a tender for a replacement fleet, this will be years off. The ex-Southern 377s won't be enough to replace the entire 465/9 fleet, let alone making a dent in the overall Networker fleet. While this generic EMU would not be a total fleet replacement, a portion of the fleet could be used alongside the ex-Southern 377s on services currently operated by 465/9s. Great Northern don't seem to need new trains as much as Southern and Southeastern, but they have lost the 317s, 321s and 365s, so I'd assume that the generic EMU fleet could help provide extra services.

The closest thing we have to this hypothetical fleet is the Class 387 fleet, as it is a large group of nearly identical units running for different operators. Obviously we can't have more of them built, so it would have to be a completely new fleet. Below I have written a draft specification for the new fleet:

• 20m coaches
• 4 coach units
• Dual-voltage
• End gangways
• Two sets of double leaf doors per coach
• Generic livery
• Generic interior

I am not sure of how large the fleet would need to be, or where it would be maintained. My best guess at the moment is for 70 units, maintained at one or more London depots. Drivers from all three operators would sign the units, and the trains would be kept as one. Therefore, any upgrades to the trains would have to be done to the entire fleet. This means that the units could be swapped between operators with no fuss at all, potentially running for different operators on the same day.

 

[JamesT]

Do these operators actually have peaks of demand at different times?
This seems a very complicated solution to operators not having enough stock. Which would be sorted by the DfT allowing increases in fleet size, rather than having another fleet split between operators.

 

[JonathanH]

Southern in particular has a major shortage of trains after losing the 455s and 313s.

Is no one ever going to give this up?

The fleet is surely smaller because a) there is less demand and b) changes have been made to the timetable that mean the Electrostar fleet is used more efficiently. In time, the fleet may grow again, just as it did with the original 377s, when the 313s were taken on, and when the 377/6s arrived. It will depend on the right business case being made.

It is good to see incremental changes happening on Southern as a result of the 379 led cascade and hopefully that will continue as more 387s become available, but that doesn't mean that all of the pre-2020 services and formations need to ultimately be restored.

For me, the key question, which perhaps removes the need for the new fleet of trains suggested in this thread, is what happens with the 376s. If Southern genuinely has a "major shortage of trains", then the Networker replacement fleet should be specified to free up the 376s for Southern. This would then allow some 387s to go back to GN if that is needed. If the 376s stay at Southeastern, then it is admission that Southern is not considered by anyone in a position to do something about it to have a shortage of trains.

Back in slam door days, some trains did move between Southern, Southeastern and South West Trains as needs changed, but there was never really a need for complex diagrams that allowed them to operate for more than one operator on the same day.

In practice, what is being suggested in this thread can already be done by allowing 387s to move between GN and Southern and 377s to move between Southern and Southeastern as timetables change.

 

[43096]

Continuing from this post,

I believe there may be room for a shared pool of a generic dual-voltage EMU design that could be shared between Great Northern, Southern and Southeastern. This would be similar to the arrangement for the Class 350s in their early days, where Central and Silverlink shared the same fleet, with the trains wearing a generic livery. Southern in particular has a major shortage of trains after losing the 455s and 313s. Even though the 387s moving from GN will mean they have more trains despite sending some 377s to Southeastern, they are still far down from what they had before. Southeastern has the ongoing task of replacing the Networkers. Even though they have a tender for a replacement fleet, this will be years off. The ex-Southern 377s won't be enough to replace the entire 465/9 fleet, let alone making a dent in the overall Networker fleet. While this generic EMU would not be a total fleet replacement, a portion of the fleet could be used alongside the ex-Southern 377s on services currently operated by 465/9s. Great Northern don't seem to need new trains as much as Southern and Southeastern, but they have lost the 317s, 321s and 365s, so I'd assume that the generic EMU fleet could help provide extra services.

The closest thing we have to this hypothetical fleet is the Class 387 fleet, as it is a large group of nearly identical units running for different operators. Obviously we can't have more of them built, so it would have to be a completely new fleet. Below I have written a draft specification for the new fleet:

• 20m coaches
• 4 coach units
• Dual-voltage
• End gangways
• Two sets of double leaf doors per coach
• Generic livery
• Generic interior

I am not sure of how large the fleet would need to be, or where it would be maintained. My best guess at the moment is for 70 units, maintained at one or more London depots. Drivers from all three operators would sign the units, and the trains would be kept as one. Therefore, any upgrades to the trains would have to be done to the entire fleet. This means that the units could be swapped between operators with no fuss at all, potentially running for different operators on the same day.

If there is a need for more 387-type units, then the current answer should be to use the 350/2s somewhere (Great Western?) to free up more 387s. If there is a need for more Electrostar type stock for GTR, then build more Networker replacement sets for South Eastern and move 376s across. In other words, a Network SouthEast-style cascade between sub-sectors.

 

[Kite159]

South Eastern will be resolve whenever the order for Networker replacements are made, which will probably be in a similar sort of time scale.

The big issue with sending 376s to Southern is the lack of DOO cameras, as it will mean bringing back any platform equipment which might have been removed or fallen into disrepair since the 455s left.

 

[JonathanH]

The big issue with sending 376s to Southern is the lack of DOO cameras, as it will mean bringing back any platform equipment which might have been removed or fallen into disrepair since the 455s left.

Other stock has been upgraded with DOO cameras in the past. All comes down to whether there is a business case to do so.

Different operational needs are an example of why a generic shared EMU design might not be possible.

 

[Kite159]

Other stock has been upgraded with DOO cameras in the past. All comes down to whether there is a business case to do so.

All comes down to the cost of upgrading them to have both DOO cameras and also to get fitted with SDO so they can operate on Southern services which have short platforms where all 10 coaches won't open.

 

[Bletchleyite]

20m Aventras would appear to fit the bill. A low floor vehicle would be nice though.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

That’s basically what the Universal Networker (see my profile picture) would have become had other matters not intervened

 

[Mikey C]

London commuter EMUs, even in the privatisation era, are still relatively similar to each other. Other than the long distance 444s, every EMU running south of the river has 20m carriages with 2 doors, and trains have moved around between operators, e.g. 377s moving from Southern to SE, the 460s moving over to SWT to be merged with their 458s, the 707s moving over to SE.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I can see a need for more stock on the fast East Croydon to Victoria route. Most off peak times I travel these days it is back to how it was in the peaks before Covid !. People left behind, running along the platform to shorter queues at other doors (thts me) and delays getting doors shut and train away from East Croydon (usually having arrived late for the same reason).

I think a problem is that it is harder to justify investment/costs in a railway that is only busy Tuesday to Thursday rather than Monday to Friday as was before Covid. So the mathematics will be weakened and it follows that Tuesday to Thursday will inevitably be busier then Monday to Friday used to be before Covid.

But I wonder how Weekends are shaping up ?.
Seems they can be busier than pre Covid so perhaps the Weekend carryings could make up for the loss of the justification from losing Monday and Friday carryings - but I doubt if the Weekend is busier than Monday and Frday ?.

Before leasing/buying/building new DC units - It does seem pragmatic to get redundant AC only EMUs (eg dwindling number of stored 321s) into service North of the Thames to allow dual voltage units to migrate South of the River. Obviously it relies on the practicalities of suitability.

I would love to have seen the 321s find a new home on newly electrified suburban routes outside the South East. But we do not do electrification in the UK. Irony is we have created a surplus of AC EMUs but need more DC EMUs !.

I do wonder if we would have a surplus of DC units if all the 701s magically got into service ?.

 

[popeter45]

alternative idea ive talked a bit before

standardised coaching stock with powered end coaches of same design that effectly act like loco's with gangways and seating, think HST style setup
vast majority of the time could be fixed formation but does allow peridoic reforming based on demand as well (e.g. 4 coaches in winter, 6-8 in summer for tourist destinations) as easier swapping out of faulty coaches

 

[Peter Sarf]

alternative idea ive talked a bit before

standardised coaching stock with powered end coaches of same design that effectly act like loco's with gangways and seating, think HST style setup
vast majority of the time could be fixed formation but does allow peridoic reforming based on demand as well (e.g. 4 coaches in winter, 6-8 in summer for tourist destinations) as easier swapping out of faulty coaches

Snag is most MUs end up with equipment in almost all the coaches so which coaches become dumb trailers. Also adding coaches would slow the unit down unless it was over-powered in its short formation.

For your example 4cars extended to 6-8 cars you might as well just slap another 4car unit on. Units are so clever these days that pulling a faulty coach out is more involved than worth it - got to keep all the computerised bits happy. Even the Mark5 loco hauled coaches that TPE have know how many they are. The sleepers are mainly fixed as a pair of up to 8 coaches (each so maximum 16). That is except for the one 8 coach portion that splits at Edinburgh for Fort William and Aberdeen - but that requires an extra control coach to be added to one of the portions that otherwise would be brainless.

Gone are the days of adding extra coaches or using marginal old stock for summer tourist extras or winter extras for commuters.

 

[Mikey C]

deleted

 

[43096]

Snag is most MUs end up with equipment in almost all the coaches so which coaches become dumb trailers. Also adding coaches would slow the unit down unless it was over-powered in its short formation.

For your example 4cars extended to 6-8 cars you might as well just slap another 4car unit on. Units are so clever these days that pulling a faulty coach out is more involved than worth it - got to keep all the computerised bits happy. Even the Mark5 loco hauled coaches that TPE have know how many they are. The sleepers are mainly fixed as a pair of up to 8 coaches (each so maximum 16). That is except for the one 8 coach portion that splits at Edinburgh for Fort William and Aberdeen - but that requires an extra control coach to be added to one of the portions that otherwise would be brainless.

Gone are the days of adding extra coaches or using marginal old stock for summer tourist extras or winter extras for commuters.

Yet both SNCB/NMBS and DB have managed i the last few years to introduce double-deck driving motor coaches that will work with variable numbers of trailers that can also be used as LHCS. So it can be done.

 

[PeterC]

Yet both SNCB/NMBS and DB have managed i the last few years to introduce double-deck driving motor coaches that will work with variable numbers of trailers that can also be used as LHCS. So it can be done.

But Britain is "special" so foreign ideas can't work here.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Yet both SNCB/NMBS and DB have managed i the last few years to introduce double-deck driving motor coaches that will work with variable numbers of trailers that can also be used as LHCS. So it can be done.

For some reason the UK has moved on from DVTs used with the class 91s + Mk4s and the class 87s/90s + Mk3s. Lest we forget the DBSOs in the Glasgow-Edinburgh push-pull sets. I don't know why we seem to have all but eradicated those DVTs (and DBSOs) in favour of multiple units.

 

[Doomotron]

I would love to have seen the 321s find a new home on newly electrified suburban routes outside the South East. But we do not do electrification in the UK. Irony is we have created a surplus of AC EMUs but need more DC EMUs !.

I do wonder if we would have a surplus of DC units if all the 701s magically got into service ?.

The surplus of AC units is also a bit of a myth now. I first saw people talking about it when the 379s, 360s and 350/2s were about to go off-lease with seemingly no home, but now the first two have been rehomed leaving the 350/2s as the only AC fleet that's unaccounted for. The 701s are entering service and the Networker replacement is in progress, and those are the two big jobs for the third rail network that need to be done. My generic fleet idea would help increase Southern's fleet size, but would only be useful for Southeastern if the units could be in service before the Networker replacements.

While there are ongoing electrification projects in this country, I think the opinion of many members on this forum that Britain is too slow to electrify and is a laughing stock is deeply flawed. As stupid as it would be to sign off on a project like this, a project to electrify lines as quickly as possible would quickly get through any spare 350/2s and 321s (not that you'd want to use 321s on newly electrified routes anyway) and a proper fleet order would be required. The surplus, therefore, would become a deficit.

alternative idea ive talked a bit before

standardised coaching stock with powered end coaches of same design that effectly act like loco's with gangways and seating, think HST style setup
vast majority of the time could be fixed formation but does allow peridoic reforming based on demand as well (e.g. 4 coaches in winter, 6-8 in summer for tourist destinations) as easier swapping out of faulty coaches

This is basically a second HST and therefore would have the same benefits and downsides as an HST. It could work for long distance routes, but only if those in charge of running the trains were able to juggle the fleet effectively (in particular the inevitable variants of the power cars).

For some reason the UK has moved on from DVTs used with the class 91s + Mk4s and the class 87s/90s + Mk3s. Lest we forget the DBSOs in the Glasgow-Edinburgh push-pull sets. I don't know why we seem to have all but eradicated those DVTs (and DBSOs) in favour of multiple units.

Moving away from loco-hauled stock is sensible, as it improves performance and capacity in one go. While you could get away with using locomotives on lightly loaded long-distance routes, on busier ones it is frankly inexcusable.

It's worth noting that the new TGV Ms have two decks and power cars, but have roughly the same capacity as a single-deck Class 395 of an equivalent length.

 

[RailWonderer]

While there are ongoing electrification projects in this country, I think the opinion of many members on this forum that Britain is too slow to electrify and is a laughing stock is deeply flawed. As stupid as it would be to sign off on a project like this, a project to electrify lines as quickly as possible would quickly get through any spare 350/2s and 321s (not that you'd want to use 321s on newly electrified routes anyway) and a proper fleet order would be required. The surplus, therefore, would become a deficit.

I agree. The Czech Republic has a higher percentage of their railways electrified and no one would say their network is better than ours.

Heavy red tape, regulation, high energy costs and such make UK infrastucture double to triple the cost than in other countries in Europe - it's a systemic issue not limited to rail infrastructure and certainly that's why for a country with our GDP we should have more electrification and don't.

Edited for typos.

 

[43096]

I agree. The Czech Republic has a higher percentage of their railways electrified and no one would say their network is better than ours.

No-one?

I'd far rather travel by train in Czech that I would here. Far more enjoyable.

 

[Transilien]

This design could be useful for suburban services around Glasgow to replace the 318s/320s as they are somewhat similar to South London metro routes.

 

[Snow1964]

To some extent we (as in UK) have given up on standard designs.

313, 314, 315, 507, 508 were variants of same design
317-322 and 455 were another design
350, 360, and 450s are variants
720, 730 etc are similar

In each case the design spawned orders of hundreds of vehicles, 1000+ in some cases.

Why we are even considering different basic designs for Northern and GWR and Scotrail BEMUs (or more precisely the first order does have options that others can use) is not great. GBR should be looking at designs that can be built for next 1000+ vehicles over a decade, not lots of micro fleets

 

[Transilien]

Why we are even considering different basic designs for Northern and GWR and Scotrail BEMUs (or more precisely the first order does have options that others can use) is not great. GBR should be looking at designs that can be built for next 1000+ vehicles over a decade, not lots of micro fleets

Its one of the worst effects of privatisation as we no longer have an organisation that could think deeply about the future of the railway, beyond the next franchise tender.

 

[Doomotron]

I agree. The Czech Republic has a higher percentage of their railways electrified and no one would say their network is better than ours.

Heavy red tape, regulation, high energy costs and such make UK infrastucture double to triple the cost than in other countries in Europe - it's a systemic issue not limited to rail infrastructure and certainly that's why for a country with our GBP we should have more electrification and don't.

I have no personal interest in electrification for the sake of electrification. This includes doing it to reduce the country's carbon footprint. For me, electrification should be done strategically when it can improve service quality.

While I'm straying quite far from the topic now, the criteria I have for considering electrification is:

• Would the electrification extend from a line that is already electrified, or bridge a gap between two? (This is only relevant if the service pattern on the unelectrified line also uses electrified track on part of its journey).
• Would the electrification allow a service that runs on electrified track for most of its journey to run electric only, or on electricity for a longer distance?
• Would the electrification increase the amount or speed of services already present on the line, or allow new services to start?
• Would the electrification be able to use the existing electric trains of the operator who runs a line?

Based on this, I do not believe (as an example) that East West Rail between Bicester and Bletchley should be electrified, because it fails three of the criteria. Bedford to Bletchley isn't electrified, and neither is the Chiltern Main Line, so to make an EWR electrification worthwhile much more than just East West Rail would need to be electrified.

Meanwhile, the Marshlink Line passes the three tests that EWR fails because it is bridging two sections of third rail, can use the massive Electrostar fleet (and could allow Ore services to be extended, meaning the Marshlink would pass the service criteria as well), and would allow 171 services that run mostly on electrified track to be withdrawn.

To some extent we (as in UK) have given up on standard designs.

313, 314, 315, 507, 508 were variants of same design
317-322 and 455 were another design
350, 360, and 450s are variants
720, 730 etc are similar

In each case the design spawned orders of hundreds of vehicles, 1000+ in some cases.

Why we are even considering different basic designs for Northern and GWR and Scotrail BEMUs (or more precisely the first order does have options that others can use) is not great. GBR should be looking at designs that can be built for next 1000+ vehicles over a decade, not lots of micro fleets

There are plenty of generic designs being built or available to buy, including ones you mentioned, so I'm not sure why you're saying we've 'given up' on generic designs.

The only reason the proposal I made in the first post would work is because Southern, Southeastern and Great Northern use almost identical trains in specification already. If the generic design I proposed was built for Scottish services, they'd be hopeless because they have too many coaches, and they have the wrong length. Northern, GWR, and particularly ScotRail each need different things in a train and so the new trains (which will the large generic orders anyway) should be specified for the needs of the region rather than a 'that'll do' approach for the whole country. Again, my proposal isn't ground-breaking, and if this thread was started ten years ago the obvious answer would be Class 387s - but so far no modern 387 equivalent actually exists.

 

[HSTEd]

It's worth noting that the new TGV Ms have two decks and power cars, but have roughly the same capacity as a single-deck Class 395 of an equivalent length.

This depends on the interior.

A TGV-M in the single-class Ouigo configuration will have a capacity of 740 people in 200m. The Class 395 gets ~340 in 120m. Even accounting for the superior capacity of interior vehicles, I don't think its going ot be that close.

It's probably going to be a ~30% efficiency improvement when all is said and done.


On the other hand, I agree that EMUs are probably the future.

We could build a battery-electric EMU with all axles motored and the horsepower to be traction limited all the way to 110mph.
Even a flat front EMU would be able to thrash our existing conventional intercity sets with that sort of performance.

A 4-car Class 350 masses 175 tonnes and has sixteen axles.
To accelerate like a tube train (~1.15m/s/s) to around 110mph (~50m/s) would require around 10MW, so 16 600kW motors, which are available in the market with impressive power to weight ratios.

Using the battery for traction requirements would allow the transformer to be undersized to only meet average net demand, saving weight for the giant motor systems.