Great British Railways: Potential effects on new trains orders?

[RobShipway]

Inner suburban, outer suburban and regional express can all be built out of a single body.
The turbostar/electrostar performs all those functions as it is.

There is little reason in the modern era to build 75mph rolling stock.

You could quite easily end up with:

• 325kph/200mph Large loading gauge train
• 325kph/200mph Classic loading gauge train
• 100mph bi-mode
• 100mph electric

I would have to agree with the above, as the platforms. If you note that there is several types Aventra train. The types of Aventra that we have could fill what you said Rhydgaled.

For instance you have the class 345, that is limited to 90mph which would cover the Inner Suburban Electric train, along with the class 710.

But from the same family, you have the class 720 and class 730 that would be able to perform both the Outer Suburban and regional express duties. The only issue would be, is if some of the line did not have electrification. But I do believe that Bombardier/Alstom can build a bi-mode version of the Aventra train, whether the second power is diesel or battery that would be up to the rolling stock company.

So with the Aventra platform you have a train that covers, Inner & outer suburban, Regional Express IPEMU/Bi-mode and Regional express electric.

Just one type of train would be madness. At a minimum, I think at least 7 types are likely to be needed:

• 325kph/200mph electric
• INTERCITY electric 125/140mph
• Regional Express electric 100mph
• Regional Express bi-mode (hydrogen + electric) 100mph
• Regional Express IPEMU 100mph
• Outer Suburban electric 100mph
• Inner Suburban electric 100/75mph

You may also need bi-mode and battery versions of the suburban trains, and may need a 75mph regional train (again possibly in battery and hydrogen forms, although you probably won't need an electric-only version of that).

Your Inter-City Electric is the likes of Hitachi AT300 (Class 8xx) and CAF Civity class 397. Difference is though, CAF can use their Civity platform for both Intercity and suburban trains. Whereas Hitachi with their AT300, have to shrink the platform to be the AT200 (Class 385) for it to work.

You also have Stadler with it's Flirt package. Now I would class the Class 745 trains, in the Regional Express 100mph sector myself, hence why I would say that the class 755 units which are based on the same platform probably the Regional Express Bi-mode, down to the Inner Suburban Electric in the list. Yes, I know that some will say that the class 755 are only 3 or 4 carriage trains. But in some areas what is considered as suburban trains is done by 2 - 4 car multiple units.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The regional express trains and indeed the outer and inner suburban trains can be created from one basic train platform though

The Electrostars for example operate on all sorts of routes, when you consider how different the use of the 378s and 379s is.

Same basic platform yes, but with bodyshell differences. The Electrostars might be used on all sorts of routes, but that doesn't mean they are ideally suited to all of those routes. For long-distance passengers, there is too much standing space created by the double-width doors. For example, the class 397 is built on the same Civity platform as the class 196 - the 196 is a suburban design; a 100mph 397 with the cabs from a 196 would be regional express.

'Regional Express' is also refered to as 'Inter-Urban' in some documents, words which essentially have the same meaning as Inter-City; if you think an Electrostar is suitable for Regional Express work then you are effectively saying an Electrostar (assuming you could magically make it keep to time) would be acceptable for a London to Edinburgh journey. There are Regional Express journies that are longer than London to Edinburgh.

Inner suburban, outer suburban and regional express can all be built out of a single body.
The turbostar/electrostar performs all those functions as it is.

There is little reason in the modern era to build 75mph rolling stock.

You could quite easily end up with:

• 325kph/200mph Large loading gauge train
• 325kph/200mph Classic loading gauge train
• 100mph bi-mode
• 100mph electric

Nope; see above - while you could use the same design platform (for commonality of spares etc.) the bodyshells need to be different. I'm also not sure you'd want to use 200mph classic-compatibles across the entire 125mph intercity network. I also forgot another type earlier; 140mph suburban units (for the HS1 domestic services - much the same as the 140mph intercity product but with shorter vehicles and doors at thirds)

I would have to agree with the above, as the platforms. If you note that there is several types Aventra train. The types of Aventra that we have could fill what you said Rhydgaled.

For instance you have the class 345, that is limited to 90mph which would cover the Inner Suburban Electric train, along with the class 710.

But from the same family, you have the class 720 and class 730 that would be able to perform both the Outer Suburban and regional express duties. The only issue would be, is if some of the line did not have electrification. But I do believe that Bombardier/Alstom can build a bi-mode version of the Aventra train, whether the second power is diesel or battery that would be up to the rolling stock company.

So with the Aventra platform you have a train that covers, Inner & outer suburban, Regional Express IPEMU/Bi-mode and Regional express electric.

Your Inter-City Electric is the likes of Hitachi AT300 (Class 8xx) and CAF Civity class 397. Difference is though, CAF can use their Civity platform for both Intercity and suburban trains. Whereas Hitachi with their AT300, have to shrink the platform to be the AT200 (Class 385) for it to work.

Agreed, the Aventra platform (just like the Civity platform) could fulfil most of the requirements. It couldn't be a single class of train though - you'd need a suburban Aventra (wide doors) and a Regional version (narrow doors, more like a 444 - some of the CGI renders of the bi-mode Aventra had these).

 

[HSTEd]

. I'm also not sure you'd want to use 200mph classic-compatibles across the entire 125mph intercity network.

I think it is likely that vestigal 125mph "intercity" operations will be conducted with surplus'd classic compatibles as the high speed network grows.
We won't need large numbers of new such units for a couple of decades at least at this point.

 

[RobShipway]

Nope; see above - while you could use the same design platform (for commonality of spares etc.) the bodyshells need to be different. I'm also not sure you'd want to use 200mph classic-compatibles across the entire 125mph intercity network. I also forgot another type earlier; 140mph suburban units (for the HS1 domestic services - much the same as the 140mph intercity product but with shorter vehicles and doors at thirds)

The class 395 Units are not Suburban units, they are High Speed Commuter trains. But I would also class them as Regional Express trains as they do not stop at every station while on 3rd rail lines.

What the Class 810 bi-mode units with East Midlands Railway will be classed as when introduced in 2023, I don't know as by the looks of it they will be an updated version of the class 395, but operating on EMR's Intercity routes.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The class 395 Units are not Suburban units, they are High Speed Commuter trains. But I would also class them as Regional Express trains as they do not stop at every station while on 3rd rail lines.

To be honest, the 395s don't really fit into my normal Intercity/Regional Express/Regional/Outer-Suburban/Inner-Suburban categorisation system (neither do any of the three types of GA FLIRTs) and I know next to nothing about their calling pattern on 3rd rail routes. If they are limited stop as you say then, apart from the need to reach 125/140mph on HS1, I suppose something like a 444 (regional express) would be a good fit for those services.

What the Class 810 bi-mode units with East Midlands Railway will be classed as when introduced in 2023, I don't know as by the looks of it they will be an updated version of the class 395, but operating on EMR's Intercity routes.

The artist's impression on Wikipedia suggests the 810s will be more like a Voyager or 180 (end doors) than a 395.

I think it is likely that vestigal 125mph "intercity" operations will be conducted with surplus'd classic compatibles as the high speed network grows.
We won't need large numbers of new such units for a couple of decades at least at this point.

If Britain starts decarbonising its railways properly then new EMUs will be needed to cascade the 810s and 805s to XC at some point - and GWR will need either new EMUs or (my preference) new AT300 trailer and motor coaches to release some 800s to XC as well.

 

[Domh245]

What the Class 810 bi-mode units with East Midlands Railway will be classed as when introduced in 2023, I don't know as by the looks of it they will be an updated version of the class 395, but operating on EMR's Intercity routes.

They're much closer related to the existing 80x, but with better diesel performance and shorter carriages. They'd be intercity by most peoples reckoning, though trying to pigeonhole stock into distinct roles (especially when there are so many 'muti-role' services) is a fools errand

 

[RobShipway]

They're much closer related to the existing 80x, but with better diesel performance and shorter carriages. They'd be intercity by most peoples reckoning, though trying to pigeonhole stock into distinct roles (especially when there are so many 'muti-role' services) is a fools errand

True.

 

[Mikey C]

To be honest, the 395s don't really fit into my normal Intercity/Regional Express/Regional/Outer-Suburban/Inner-Suburban categorisation system (neither do any of the three types of GA FLIRTs) and I know next to nothing about their calling pattern on 3rd rail routes. If they are limited stop as you say then, apart from the need to reach 125/140mph on HS1, I suppose something like a 444 (regional express) would be a good fit for those services.

The 395s services stop at most stations once they leave HS1, they skip a few of the smaller ones, but no more than the "classic" Kent coast trains would have done. For example the services via the Medway Towns stop at nearly all the stations, so serve local needs as well. Indeed on such services the narrow doorways do slow things down

Same basic platform yes, but with bodyshell differences. The Electrostars might be used on all sorts of routes, but that doesn't mean they are ideally suited to all of those routes. For long-distance passengers, there is too much standing space created by the double-width doors. For example, the class 397 is built on the same Civity platform as the class 196 - the 196 is a suburban design; a 100mph 397 with the cabs from a 196 would be regional express.

'Regional Express' is also refered to as 'Inter-Urban' in some documents, words which essentially have the same meaning as Inter-City; if you think an Electrostar is suitable for Regional Express work then you are effectively saying an Electrostar (assuming you could magically make it keep to time) would be acceptable for a London to Edinburgh journey. There are Regional Express journies that are longer than London to Edinburgh.

Nope; see above - while you could use the same design platform (for commonality of spares etc.) the bodyshells need to be different. I'm also not sure you'd want to use 200mph classic-compatibles across the entire 125mph intercity network. I also forgot another type earlier; 140mph suburban units (for the HS1 domestic services - much the same as the 140mph intercity product but with shorter vehicles and doors at thirds)

Agreed, the Aventra platform (just like the Civity platform) could fulfil most of the requirements. It couldn't be a single class of train though - you'd need a suburban Aventra (wide doors) and a Regional version (narrow doors, more like a 444 - some of the CGI renders of the bi-mode Aventra had these).

Changing the door position on the same basic train is a relatively minor change though. After all the existing Aventras have a wide variety of lengths and door arrangements already, 2 door 20m, 2 door 23m and 3 door 23m, and that seems to have caused far fewer problems than the shorter cabs in the 701s!

 

[D365]

What the Class 810 bi-mode units with East Midlands Railway will be classed as when introduced in 2023, I don't know as by the looks of it they will be an updated version of the class 395, but operating on EMR's Intercity routes.

How do the 810s have anything to do with the 395? There is a 15 year age gap between them.

 

[Rhydgaled]

How do the 810s have anything to do with the 395? There is a 15 year age gap between them.

They are both AT-300s with a less-than-26m vehicle length. In other words, as trains go they are quite similar in a number of respects, but not in others.

 

[D365]

They are both AT-300s with a less-than-26m vehicle length. In other words, as trains go they are quite similar in a number of respects, but not in others.

”AT300” is a marketing name. Just like the 387s are completely different to the 357s in their specification.

 

[RealTrains07]

One of the things mentioned is that 75 distinct types of train is too many - yet most of that is because of the lifespan of trains and sourcing from different companies. In line with lot of the anti-competitive rhetoric in the White paper it seems they want more standardisation.

Which is utterly comical considering recent events have shined quite a bad spotlight on standardisation and why its a bad strategy.

Standardisation will kill the the rail manufacturering industry. Will nullify any form of competition which is why our rail manufacturing industry is the way it is at the moment by having 5 private companies competing against eachother for contracts.

It will do far more harm than good if standardisation policy carries on the way its going.

 

[Meerkat]

With the railways under closer government control, ie politicians having fewer scapegoats, I can’t see Stadler getting more orders unless all UK factories are busy or Stadler takes one over from a loser.
It would be a brave politician who bought Stadler trains when a UK factory was about to close.
Fleet replacements might become more aligned with factory capacity - when Derby runs out of work magically it might suddenly be time to replace Southern/Southeastern metro fleets with a curiously tight spec to ensure fleets can be swapped around the 3rd rail metro systems…..

 

[RealTrains07]

With the railways under closer government control, ie politicians having fewer scapegoats, I can’t see Stadler getting more orders unless all UK factories are busy or Stadler takes one over from a loser.
It would be a brave politician who bought Stadler trains when a UK factory was about to close.
Fleet replacements might become more aligned with factory capacity - when Derby runs out of work magically it might suddenly be time to replace Southern/Southeastern metro fleets with a curiously tight spec to ensure fleets can be swapped around the 3rd rail metro systems…..

Thats whats concerning about GBR. That future train orders will be done not because new trains are needed but for the sake of protecting jobs and keeping factories open.

We have too many factories to provide for such a specific amount of demand.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Thats whats concerning about GBR. That future train orders will be done not because new trains are needed but for the sake of protecting jobs and keeping factories open.

We have too many factories to provide for such a specific amount of demand.

Indeed and the crunch will come before GBR is fully created and built a strategy for what it wants to do with passenger services. Alstom Litchurch Lane and Hitachi Newton Aycliffe are likely to be first factories at risk by late 2022 with CAF not far behind in early 2023. Siemens Goole will be sitting rosy with Piccadilly Line order though.

So will be interesting to see if more orders are placed before the crunch comes but I doubt it and we will back to where BREL unravelled in early 90's.

 

[Wolfie]

I must confess I have not read the report, but did expect there to be a note of getting down from the 75 distinct types of trains down to say 3 or 5 types of trains or even 1.

The Planner:
It will come down to £££ as it always does.

The money side would be cut down, with just ordering one type of train to suit multiple routes which I know is something that British Rail tried to do a few times.

There is a real danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in over-standardisation. It positively discourages technical innovation which is why we were still building slam door stock with separate bodies/chassis and 1940s designed electric motors well into the 1970s when other nations had moved forward years before.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Sep 2021 ==

Isn't it arguable that both Siemens and Bombardier also have had a similar experience to Hitachi in the procurements of classes 700 and 345 being led by the DfT? Which had subsequently been rolled out wider (as variants at least).
The interesting question would be if you were going for greater standardisation and were doing the Crossrail and Thameslink procurements now, would you buy the same train for both lines? They seem to be fulfilling a very similar role.

I could see Hitachi having a head-start on replacing anything long-distance, like @Bletchleyite said, but there's a lot more to UK rolling stock than that. There almost certainly needs to be something with onboard power of some form to replace the existing 1xx series when they hit end of life, I don't think either of Hitachi's current UK offerings fit that niche. Then there are non-long distance electric services, currently provided by 3xx and 4xx. Would they be provided by variants of the Aventras and Desiro City? Or is that a distinct enough use-case that it deserves a different train type?

Train manufacturers also tend to end of life their designs after a while, which provides an opportunity for manufacturers to compete.

You couldn't have the same stock on Thameslink and Crossrail as Siemens' existing order book precluded it. The recent 80xs cracking problems show the dangers of putting all your eggs in one basket.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Sep 2021 ==

It's an absolute mystery why each new generation of trains now seems to have seats that are worse than what went before.

When we buy new trains, why can't the old, better seats just be transferred across

Because they don't meet modern crash-resistance standards.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Sep 2021 ==

Just one type of train would be madness. At a minimum, I think at least 7 types are likely to be needed:

• 325kph/200mph electric
• INTERCITY electric 125/140mph
• Regional Express electric 100mph
• Regional Express bi-mode (hydrogen + electric) 100mph
• Regional Express IPEMU 100mph
• Outer Suburban electric 100mph
• Inner Suburban electric 100/75mph

You may also need bi-mode and battery versions of the suburban trains, and may need a 75mph regional train (again possibly in battery and hydrogen forms, although you probably won't need an electric-only version of that).

Agreed

 

[Bletchleyite]

In reality you can probably combine all the RE and Suburban ones into two types with different power systems and seating layouts, cf: the Northern 195s/331s or the 350/1s and /2s.

 

[D365]

In reality you can probably combine all the RE and Suburban ones into two types with different power systems and seating layouts, cf: the Northern 195s/331s or the 350/1s and /2s.

At this point, what would it achieve?

 

[Bletchleyite]

At this point, what would it achieve?

Commonality is a big saver of money - why otherwise would easyJet only buy Airbus and Ryanair only Boeing?

I understand it is one of the key drivers for Northern choosing CAF - they wanted DMUs and EMUs that were the same other than the means of powering them.

 

[43096]

I understand it is one of the key drivers for Northern choosing CAF - they wanted DMUs and EMUs that were the same other than the means of powering them.

Although you can’t work them in multi. Am I right in thinking they have different control electrical systems: 24V for the 195s, 110V for the 331s?

 

[ashkeba]

Commonality is a big saver of money - why otherwise would easyJet only buy Airbus and Ryanair only Boeing?

I understand it is one of the key drivers for Northern choosing CAF - they wanted DMUs and EMUs that were the same other than the means of powering them.

Easyjet only have about 300 in their fleet. How many trains of each type will GBR have?

When you get bigger and especially when you have few natural competitors - GBRwill be a monopoly in many regards - having some fleet diversity is useful for reliability in both service provision and maintenance skills.

 

[quantinghome]

I'm OK with some fleet diversity but please no more microfleets.

 

[D365]

Although you can’t work them in multi. Am I right in thinking they have different control electrical systems: 24V for the 195s, 110V for the 331s?

Fairly typical for a DMU and EMU respectively.

 

[Rhydgaled]

In reality you can probably combine all the RE and Suburban ones into two types with different power systems and seating layouts, cf: the Northern 195s/331s or the 350/1s and /2s.

Under the floor maybe. One standard set of underframe equipment for EMUs and a second with batteries and perhaps a third with fuel cells. But then again you have a requirement for different numbers of toilets, so you may need underframe varients with and without toilet tanks.

Above the floor, you need different bodyside/door layouts - Crossrail has three doors per-side, Thameslink has metro-sliding doors (faster than plug doors, but much less sleek and aerodynamic) and proper long-distance stock has narrower doorways. You could potentially use the same 'underframe' design (with extra toilet tanks) for a regional express EMU (like a 444) and for a suburban EMU (like a 331) though. Similarly, you could use the same bodyshell design for a regional express EMU and for a regional express bi-mode.

 

[D365]

Above the floor, you need different bodyside/door layouts - Crossrail has three doors per-side, Thameslink has metro-sliding doors (faster than plug doors, but much less sleek and aerodynamic) and proper long-distance stock has narrower doorways. You could potentially use the same 'underframe' design (with extra toilet tanks) for a regional express EMU (like a 444) and for a suburban EMU (like a 331) though. Similarly, you could use the same bodyshell design for a regional express EMU and for a regional express bi-mode.

This is exactly my point. Beyond established railway conventions, what would mechanical/electrical standardisation achieve when EMU designs are always going to vary so significantly?

A nice idea in theory but has absolutely no grounding in reality.

 

[HSTEd]

This is exactly my point. Beyond established railway conventions, what would mechanical/electrical standardisation achieve when EMU designs are always going to vary so significantly?

A nice idea in theory but has absolutely no grounding in reality.

Because most of these door modifications are not strictly necessary in the modern era.

For example Turbostars and Class 185s demonstrate that the wide doors at thirds is entirely workable for significant journeys, especially with modern door seals.

Plug doors have basically been abandoned on DfT orders and ultimately you could make a longer distance train, if you wanted one, by simply plugging up one of the doorways on a Turbostar and putting seats there.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Because most of these door modifications are not strictly necessary in the modern era.

For example Turbostars and Class 185s demonstrate that the wide doors at thirds is entirely workable for significant journeys, especially with modern door seals.

Plug doors have basically been abandoned on DfT orders and ultimately you could make a longer distance train, if you wanted one, by simply plugging up one of the doorways on a Turbostar and putting seats there.

Not strictly necessary, since there's nothing physically stopping you putting a class 150 on a Manchester to Milford Haven run for example. It doesn't make it a pleasant experience for a long-distance passenger though.

 

[HSTEd]

Not strictly necessary, since there's nothing physically stopping you putting a class 150 on a Manchester to Milford Haven run for example. It doesn't make it a pleasant experience for a long-distance passenger though.

I'd argue the interior fit out, which is far more mutable that the bodyshell these days is far more important.

If we took a Class 700 and put a Class 444-esque interior in it, would it be much worse than a Class 444?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we took a Class 700 and put a Class 444-esque interior in it, would it be much worse than a Class 444?

Isn't that near enough what a 350/1 is? I'd happily take a journey of any length on one.

To be honest I'm warming to 195s a bit. They are 170s on the cheap but they do have some very good features e.g. the massive overheads.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'd argue the interior fit out, which is far more mutable that the bodyshell these days is far more important.

If we took a Class 700 and put a Class 444-esque interior in it, would it be much worse than a Class 444?

Good question, and I think the answer is it could be anything from slightly worse to much worse depending on the weather outside, exactly what the interior fit out is and what each individual passenger's priorities are.

For example, in his column in the August 2021 Modern Railways, Alan Williams compares the current 156s and 158s on the Whitby line with the proposed future use of class 600 units (ex-321s). Here are some quotes:

• "the end doors of the Class 156 and 158 units are prized features"
• "an undisturbed central saloon"
• "table seats and lots of windows"
• "open the double doors of a ‘321’ into the saloon on a winter’s day on the Moors and it will feel more like a gale than a breeze!"

Some of that could be addressed by putting internal partition doors in on both sides of the external doorways to create proper vestibules (part of the 'interior fit out') but putting more tables in means less seats (or legroom) overall and it's a similar story with toilets. The wider doors of a 321 or 700 mean less space for passenger comforts, so comfort is going to be at least slightly worse. A 197 has broadly the same number of seats as a 175 but less toilets, tables and legroom - add more tables or an extra toilet to match the 175 in that respect and the introduction of 197s would represent a reduction in seating capacity. Narrower doors (as found on a 444, 175 or 397) might fix that issue even if they were positioned 'at-thirds'.

There also isn't an obvious place to put the small (non-wheelchair) toilets in a unit with pure doors-at-thirds, meaning they are plonked in a corner of the passenger saloon with seats on the opposite side of the aisle. That potentially makes those seats rather unpleasant for anyone using them, and means if you need to use the facility everyone in the coach can see you're going to the loo. The latter doesn't bother me too much, but my grandmother wasn't impressed when I showed her a seat plan of a 170 or 185 to prove to her that units with doors-at-thirds do indeed have toilets sometimes. She feels that that door to the toilet should lead off a vestibule, not the passenger saloon. With these factors in mind, the best thing to do with the small toilets in my view is to have them leading off a vestibule with a cycle space, not seats, across the aisle. This means one of the doors on each coach needs to be either at or near (the length of one small toilet) the vehicle end. The other door on the coach can be wherever you like as long as it doesn't force poor legroom and/or screw up seat alignment with windows.

Isn't that near enough what a 350/1 is? I'd happily take a journey of any length on one.

Don't 350s have 20m bodyshells versus the 23m of a 444? If so, it makes a comparison difficult since the different vehicle length also impacts the capacity of the train.