Greater Anglia Rolling Stock Updates

[Bletchleyite]

It's crap, every place it's been used it's been used as an excuse to cram seats more together by counting the distance from the seat behind to the front of the indent rather than the actual distance between seats.

What's the problem? It's that distance that counts.

 

[F Great Eastern]

What's the problem? It's that distance that counts.

Because it requires you to sit with your knees together dead central rather than actual proper spacing of seats, the seats will be much closer together at the end of the day, there will be only a little less room for knees, but it means that getting in and out of seats is going to be worse because there will be little room since you canot avail of the room in the seat backs until you sit down.

This seat is not suitable for a journey like London to Norwich, it's a seat that is suitable for short distance or local DMU services, for what it's aimed at, but it is not suited to longer distance services.

By the front of the indent I don't mean the part closet to your knees, I mean the part furthest in, it's far better to have the space between the two seats to be a certain amount rather than a small part of the seat to have that certain amount and the rest to be tightly packed.

As I said, the Norwich passengers and the MK3 passengers are going to have a fit about being downgraded to a local DMU seat. The layout as shown on page 4 of the PDF I posted is laughable, it's no way suitable.

So funny that on their flagship service, they are going for such a lean, lightweight, crammed in seat, guess that's what happens when you buy too many trains, corners have to be cut and they're cut many.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, we shall see. I think they look comfortable and the pitch looks decent.

 

[F Great Eastern]

I suspect there is a reason there is no proper photos of airline seats in those images, apart from the last one which has an angle from the side and behind since such angle will always make the gap and pitch bigger than it is.

See attached for what I mean, how someone can say that the idea suggested in the image is going to be good for passengers is beyond me. nearly as funny as the fact the marketing suggests the LEAN way is desirable having your knees rest against the seat in front rather than actually having room,

 

[jopsuk]

surely the seats can't be quite that close- passengers do after all need to be able to get in and out!

 

[lordbusiness]

Before the franchise award passenger groups,press, the DfT, local MP's in fact virtually everyone wanted new trains, more seats and more seats.

They've got them.

People munchers....3 plus 2, no first, minimum toilets.

 

[TheEdge]

F Great Eastern, I'm guessing you will only be happy if the whole thing goes up in flames? And on the flip side even if these came out looking like the LeoExpress FLIRTs you'd still find a reason to complain?

When those pictures came out internally a few weeks ago the most cynical of all possible observers, us rail staff, thought that actually they look pretty damn good and if they come out like that Anglia will actually have a pretty decent fleet. The Mk3s may be nice but practically they are at the end of their design life and on a route as congested as the GEML when you think about it its almost criminal to waste 2 coaches on every train for non-passenger vehicles. The 153s (for all TOCs) for reasons well known are spent. The 156s and 321s may have been late 80s built but that is now 30 years ago, they are now getting to the same age as the first generation EMUs and DMUs they replaced. If you kept the more modern units (170, 360 and 379) you'd just end up with small non standard fleets that would complicate maintenance.

Manningtree and Crown Point are already being measured out and preparatory work being done on the ground to handle them so that isn't being left till the last minute. I also wouldn't be surprised if these turn out to have a fairly smooth introduction, the FLIRTs may be new to the UK but they are already a proven design.

But you clearly have the insider knowledge on absolutely everything about them and know it all already...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I really, really like the look of the FLIRTs (yes, I know, I'm a self-confessed fan of the concept - but some of the European ones have good interiors and some bad - this is definitely one of the good ones). I'd be more than happy if son-of-LM were to gain some for WCML fast services, for instance.

I agree the Aventras are just a 23m 350/2 (or an updated Class 321), though, and look rather rubbish. But not cheap rubbish, deliberately specified as such to increase capacity, not to save money.

 

[Bornin1980s]

The latter could maybe use engines with a lower power output (or derated for cheaper maintenance)?

That's what I wondered. I suppose the two sided nature of the pack necessitates an even number of engines for stability.That said, wouldn't it make more sense to use two engines on all units, perhaps slightly uprated for the longer units? Would that even be necessary, when older trains could at one time take an extra carriage without a thought?

I've never been a big fan of having an engine for every carriage. Kind of defeats the purpose of a train. The airline industry uses two large engines instead of three or four whenever possible to save fuel. Why has the railway industry developed in the opposite direction?

 

[MCR247]

What on earth have planes got to do with anything?!

 

[Wivenswold]

F Great Eastern, I'm guessing you will only be happy if the whole thing goes up in flames? And on the flip side even if these came out looking like the LeoExpress FLIRTs you'd still find a reason to complain?

When those pictures came out internally a few weeks ago the most cynical of all possible observers, us rail staff, thought that actually they look pretty damn good and if they come out like that Anglia will actually have a pretty decent fleet. The Mk3s may be nice but practically they are at the end of their design life and on a route as congested as the GEML when you think about it its almost criminal to waste 2 coaches on every train for non-passenger vehicles. The 153s (for all TOCs) for reasons well known are spent. The 156s and 321s may have been late 80s built but that is now 30 years ago, they are now getting to the same age as the first generation EMUs and DMUs they replaced. If you kept the more modern units (170, 360 and 379) you'd just end up with small non standard fleets that would complicate maintenance.

Manningtree and Crown Point are already being measured out and preparatory work being done on the ground to handle them so that isn't being left till the last minute. I also wouldn't be surprised if these turn out to have a fairly smooth introduction, the FLIRTs may be new to the UK but they are already a proven design.

But you clearly have the insider knowledge on absolutely everything about them and know it all already...

Totally agree. The Flirts look fantastic. For anyone who travels on Anglia Regional it's going to be a massive upgrade. The IC and Stansted units also look very nice. My disappointment over the Aventras is purely personal and the additional seats that these units bring will be welcomed closer to London.

Anyone who is preparing for meltdown when the new trains come on-line is perhaps forgetting that the existing fleet size will be in pretty good shape with additional capacity in the form of ex-GN units. There may be delays to introduction but subbing new units with the usual teething problems that are to be expected will not be an issue.

 

[87015]

Has the power unit for the bi-modes been mentioned anywhere? I am aware (but unsure where from!) that the three cars have two "power packs" and the four cars double that, but not what the actual unit / output is?

 

[Rick1984]

Has 3+2 been put in a 23m train before?

 

[jopsuk]

I've never been a big fan of having an engine for every carriage. Kind of defeats the purpose of a train. The airline industry uses two large engines instead of three or four whenever possible to save fuel. Why has the railway industry developed in the opposite direction?

Because the two are very different. With trains grip is an issue, by distributing the power output amongst multiple axles the grip issues are reduced. Furthermore, whilst motors of a similar physical size may have got more powerful, that physical limitation still exists. Jet plane design has evolved to accommodate ever larger engines- with the 737s having distinctly hit their limit (the flattened nacelles) whilst the big jets have engines as large as the fuselage of small planes.

 

[47802]

Totally agree. The Flirts look fantastic. For anyone who travels on Anglia Regional it's going to be a massive upgrade. The IC and Stansted units also look very nice. My disappointment over the Aventras is purely personal and the additional seats that these units bring will be welcomed closer to London.

Anyone who is preparing for meltdown when the new trains come on-line is perhaps forgetting that the existing fleet size will be in pretty good shape with additional capacity in the form of ex-GN units. There may be delays to introduction but subbing new units with the usual teething problems that are to be expected will not be an issue.

I don't actually see why there should be any meltdown Bombardier have got chance to iron out any issues with the Aventra's on the Crossrail version. and the Flirts are a proven design just not in the UK and adapted to our Loading Gauge, plus Bombardier have got better at delivering on time in the last few years.

 

[47802]

Has 3+2 been put in a 23m train before?

323's and 165/166 although the later are meant to take advantage of the slightly more generous GW loading gauge.

 

[Rick1984]

At 2.8 the class 323 send to be quite wide?
These Aventra's I imagine will be built for more typical British loading gauge, which, with 3+2, could mean a whole new level of cramped.
As they'll potentially be doing Norwich services I think 2+2 with arm rests would be more sensible and people will just have to put up with standing.

 

[47802]

At 2.8 the class 323 send to be quite wide?
These Aventra's I imagine will be built for more typical British loading gauge, which, with 3+2, could mean a whole new level of cramped.
As they'll potentially be doing Norwich services I think 2+2 with arm rests would be more sensible and people will just have to put up with standing.

On the other hand the majority of Trains that the Aventra's will be replacing are 3+2

 

[43096]

The Regioshuttle is a very early design of Stadler's and I agree it's rubbish. The FLIRT is a very high quality design indeed. If you want to try one, there's a ton (tonne? ) of them in various parts of Europe.

The Regioshuttle wasn't originally a Stadler design. IIRC it was an ADtranz design, which later passed to Stadler when they bought the Pankow factory, after a period as a joint venture.

 

[Bornin1980s]

Has the power unit for the bi-modes been mentioned anywhere? I am aware (but unsure where from!) that the three cars have two "power packs" and the four cars double that, but not what the actual unit / output is?

You might have got this from the same Modern Railways article I read. I suppose the choice of two or four engines, rather than three, is because of the side-by-side nature of the power pack. As for the engines themselves, there has been no word on the British engines from anywhere, but I understand the last batch of Stadler bi-modes to enter service in Italy used a pair of Deutz TCD 16 L V8s with a combined output of 700 kW (940 hp)http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/first-electro-diesel-flirts-ordered.html
Deutz also makes a 12 L V6 version of the same engine. I suppose one option would be two V8s or four V6s, equivalent to adding a third V8. That said, the article on the Italian trains states that an extra coach can be added in future, presumably without upgrading the power units. Maybe Modern Railways just made a mistake. At this stage, it's even possible that plans for power unit could be changed, though I do hope they will remain above floor.

By the way, if they do go with the Deutz option, fans of screaming diesels and old trucks would be disappointed to learn that Deutz engines are no longer air cooled.

 

[47802]

You might have got this from the same Modern Railways article I read. I suppose the choice of two or four engines, rather than three, is because of the side-by-side nature of the power pack. As for the engines themselves, there has been no word on the British engines from anywhere, but I understand the last batch of Stadler bi-modes to enter service in Italy used a pair of Deutz TCD 16 L V8s with a combined output of 700 kW (940 hp)http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/first-electro-diesel-flirts-ordered.html
Deutz also makes a 12 L V6 version of the same engine. I suppose one option would be two V8s or four V6s, equivalent to adding a third V8. That said, the article on the Italian trains states that an extra coach can be added in future, presumably without upgrading the power units. Maybe Modern Railways just made a mistake. At this stage, it's even possible that plans for power unit could be changed, though I do hope they will remain above floor.

.

I think its pretty unlikely that the engines will not remain above the floor since that's the design of their train and the floor will be slightly lower than conventional UK trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Stadler don't presently make an underfloor engined DMU so I think we can be certain they won't be underfloor engined.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At 2.8 the class 323 send to be quite wide?
These Aventra's I imagine will be built for more typical British loading gauge, which, with 3+2, could mean a whole new level of cramped.
As they'll potentially be doing Norwich services I think 2+2 with arm rests would be more sensible and people will just have to put up with standing.

Desiros are quite narrow even in their 20m guise (2.76m I believe), so it's quite possible they will be wider than those. Comfort (or lack of) can also depend on the train having a square rather than sloped profile, which it also does.

Doesn't make 3+2 acceptable, but I wouldn't assume it will be any narrower than previous implementations.

 

[northwichcat]

Not sure if it's been mentioned but the time scales for handing back the Sprinters are now on the Porterbrook website

1 x 156 on 1/10/2019
5 x 153s on 1/12/2019
8 x 156s on 31/12/2019

Presumably that means the bi-modes are due to enter service by the autumn of 2019.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I guess the 153s will likely go to Gillette, but what's likely to happen to the 156s? Northern or EMT I guess?

I suppose you *could* put a 153 permanently between two halves of 156 and remove the cabs, producing a 3-car unit, but it'd be rubbish.

 

[northwichcat]

At 2.8 the class 323 send to be quite wide?

Indeed, they are only 1cm narrower than the 165s and 166s and the 323 carriages are around 50cm longer. It's really a common misconception that the 165s and 166s are a special size which can't be used elsewhere.

 

[northwichcat]

I guess the 153s will likely go to Gillette, but what's likely to happen to the 156s? Northern or EMT I guess?

I imagine EMT to replace the 153s is most likely.

However, I noticed earlier that Northern only have 11 x 150s which belong to Porterbrook, so as I suggested in the Wales & Borders thread - maybe Porterbrook would agree to those going to W&B (who have 36 of their 150s) if it's part of a deal for Northern to lease the off-lease 156s?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, they are only 1cm narrower than the 165s and 166s and the 323 carriages are around 50cm longer. It's really a common misconception that the 165s and 166s are a special size which can't be used elsewhere.

The only thing that prevents 165s and 166s being used elsewhere is, AIUI, the wide stepboards. The same thing is true of Merseyrail stock - the stepboards are about 8" wide and protrude well over the platform edge (meaning no gap), whereas other places where PEP EMUs are used a more conventional, narrower stepboard is used.

323s can, AIUI, go pretty much anywhere there are wires.

 

[Class 170101]

Of course if they don't build Manningtree in time, and do some resignalling and install some bi-di working there too, then the new trains will not be around to try anyway

If there is no bi-di between Manningtree North and Manningtree Station South there is 3 single points of failure getting trains out of that depot, that will do wonders for capacity and PPM. :roll:

 

[59CosG95]

The only thing that prevents 165s and 166s being used elsewhere is, AIUI, the wide stepboards. The same thing is true of Merseyrail stock - the stepboards are about 8" wide and protrude well over the platform edge (meaning no gap), whereas other places where PEP EMUs are used a more conventional, narrower stepboard is used.

323s can, AIUI, go pretty much anywhere there are wires.

IIRC, said 323s'll need mods for 2020 access regs, but that doesn't mean they'll be any less popular with TOCs; I'm sure the fact that LM (or WMR as they're due to become) want the whole shabang of them to increase 6-car formations on the Cross-City, due to their unparalleled acceleration (which, on the Cross-City's southern section particularly, is paramount). So, while they can go anywhere, the West Midlands is their almost certain destination.

Anyhow, back to GA stock updates.