Greater Anglia Rolling Stock Updates

[dk1]

321s and 360s are not compatible, if there were, then when we had a failure we would assist each other, but a 321 has to assist a 321 and a 360, a 360.

I've seen a pair of 321s assisting a pair of 315s at Bow Jcn. That was an interesting rake.

 

[Wivenswold]

Thanks Swills and D365, I thought it would be the case, the couplers look completely different. I had similar problems coupling Arfix to Hornby as a child.

 

[Shunter_69]

There is an emergency coupler in a 360 (and a 379 for that matter) for coupling to a tightlock on 321 etc but the dead unit of the two would need to be dragged with brakes isolated as they can’t be coupled electronically.

Doubt it’s happened too many times on the Mainline but Ilford use an emergency coupler attached to the match wagons tightlock when moving 360/379’s (and anything else with a Delner) around the yard with the 08

 

[306024]

There is an emergency coupler in a 360 (and a 379 for that matter) for coupling to a tightlock on 321 etc but the dead unit of the two would need to be dragged with brakes isolated as they can’t be coupled electronically.

Doubt it’s happened too many times on the Mainline but Ilford use an emergency coupler attached to the match wagons tightlock when moving 360/379’s (and anything else with a Delner) around the yard with the 08

I recall that even the strongest driver had trouble lifting the original design of emergency coupler, they were supposed to have put holes in it to reduce the weight. Even so it was really a two person job, so easier to call for assistance with a compatible unit.

 

[Shunter_69]

Surely there are 2 drivers if you fail and are being rescued by another unit

 

[306024]

Surely there are 2 drivers if you fail and are being rescued by another unit

Yes, but that assumes they have both been on the company weightlifting course. And dragging a unit with brakes isolated on the main line is a last resort.

 

[Shunter_69]

Definitely, hence the term emergency coupler

 

[eastdyke]

Looks like there are problems with the proposed Brantham depot this has been published in the latest Rail Magazine https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...er-anglia-s-new-maintenance-depot-at-brantham

A decision over the future of Greater Anglia’s planned Brantham depot, which is due to open in December to stable and maintain new trains, will be made in the first quarter of this year.

An internal newsletter, seen by RAIL, includes an update from Franchise and Programmes Director Mike Kean, who states: “I am conscious that there have been several rumours about the future of this site which can be damaging. I wanted to give an honest update on where we are.

“We have been working hard on it for over a year but still have issues with the landowner selling the land, delivery of the connection and achieving acceptance of how it will operate. Due to this we are looking at alternative stabling sites to accommodate the new trains as well as other locations for a wheel lathe. We are continuing to develop Brantham, but if we cannot solve the land issues we will need a plan B - this is well under way. A further review of Brantham will happen in Q1 of this year.”

On January 15, GA told RAIL: “There remain a number of issues to be resolved to ensure delivery of our new depot at Brantham. These include the preparation of the site, the link line to access the site and the fact that we have yet to agree commercial terms with the landowner involved. We are therefore looking at alternative options for the maintenance and cleaning that is due to be undertaken at Brantham, in case we need to alter our plans. We expect to be able to confirm the next steps, either with Brantham or, if necessary, a new plan within the next three months.”

GA had previously told RAIL on January 3: "“There is no change and no new developments. The project is currently still moving forward with no change to the plans, though we are still finalising the commercial agreement with the land owners. Major investment is taking place in Crown Point anyway because that’s the main base for the Stadler trains.”

The issue has made the local press again, with apparently more detail. East Anglian Daily Times carried a story yesterday:
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/manningtree-level-crossing-could-stop-brantham-depot-1-5366441

Level crossing fears may force rethink for depot on Suffolk/Essex border
Proposals to build a new multi-million pound rail depot at Brantham on the Suffolk/Essex border have been jeopardised because it would force too many trains to use the level crossing at Manningtree station, it has emerged. .......

It is clear that the level crossing issue is not totally grasped by the nature of the conflicting statements and quotes in the story.

(Reporter) There are strict rules on the number of times level crossing gates can close and re-open because of the problem of disrupting traffic.
And the crossing at Manningtree – used by vehicles unable to pass under the very low bridge next to it – is already busy.
The extra trains that would have to pass over the crossing to get to and from the new rail depot planned to be built beside the track at Brantham on the other side of the River Stour would push the number of closures over this threshold.

A Greater Anglia spokeswoman said: “In addition to other issues affecting the development of Brantham depot, a potential further complication relates to the impact of additional train movements on the level crossing at Manningtree.
“We are working with Network Rail to assess the implications and the options for addressing them.”

South Suffolk MP James Cartlidge – whose constituency includes Brantham – called on road and rail bosses to come together to find a solution.
He said: “This is a really important project, the largest inward investment in Babergh’s history were it to go ahead.

“Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that the project is seriously in jeopardy and that this is because of one key factor – Manningtree level crossing.
“I understand that the increased number of rail movements over the level crossing, resulting from the additional journeys of trains going to and from the proposed depot, would exceed a safety threshold that is strictly enforced and unlikely to be easily resolved.

“Anyone with an interest in this project, particularly local people in Brantham, might be puzzled at this development given that the level crossing has been in existence for many years.
“However, whilst this revelation raises many, many issues for wider consideration, my priority and that of all participants must remain to try and keep the scheme alive so that it can deliver the huge benefits it promises for South Suffolk.
“My priority now is to seek an urgent meeting with Network Rail, Greater Anglia and other stakeholders to see if anything constructive can be done in relation to the level crossing”.

The depot future seems to be very much in the balance. It is a great shame that it has taken very nearly a year to get to this point and it does not reflect well upon 'The Industry'.
In the event that the depot does not go ahead it remains to be seen whether the blame will fall upon The Landowner (who surely wants the site sale), Abellio (who surely need a depot) or Network Rail (who surely don't need any bad raps despite having the duty to manage the safety of level crossings).

 

[LAX54]

Could relocate to the Train Ferry site PQ ..... now if you read between the lines in the RAIL mag article........

 

[Alfie1014]

NR ‘should’ have evaluated all bidders plans and/or given an assurance that the depot site was deliverable in the context of operating the railway. It’s rapidly looking as this isn’t going to happen and GA say they have a plan B, I wonder how soon we’ll hear what that is?

 

[eastdyke]

NR ‘should’ have evaluated all bidders plans and/or given an assurance that the depot site was deliverable in the context of operating the railway. It’s rapidly looking as this isn’t going to happen and GA say they have a plan B, I wonder how soon we’ll hear what that is?

But surely any 'plan B' is quite likely to involve an increase in the use of one or more level crossing(s), quite possibly including the one at Manningtree Station?
[Even the 3tph to Norwich is going to increase crossing use on, at the very least, the Ipswich-Norwich section]
Let's hope that not too much egg meets face.

 

[TheEdge]

A figure I had heard floated was at the busiest times it might have seen Manningtree crossing down for as long as 45 minutes as a combination of depot moves, increased passenger services and freights upped the number of movements.

 

[Wivenswold]

There's an underpass at Manningtree crossing. I assume that it doesn't take a double decker bus or HGV though.

 

[Shunter_69]

Sadly not. Harwich yard would have been a possible alternative but that would cause the same issues at Manningtree.

 

[Alfie1014]

But surely any 'plan B' is quite likely to involve an increase in the use of one or more level crossing(s), quite possibly including the one at Manningtree Station?
[Even the 3tph to Norwich is going to increase crossing use on, at the very least, the Ipswich-Norwich section]
Let's hope that not too much egg meets face.

It’s more complicated than that, the GA TSR3 from May 2020 requires 4 trains an hour off peak London to Ipswich and an almost hourly Colchester to Peterborough service so that’s 5 Passenger trains an off peak hour compared to 3 today between Colchester and Ipswich. Though the Peterborough, (which isn’t required to call at Manningtree), could I suppose be combined with a London like it used to be and in addition only 3 of the Ipswich/Norwich services need call at Manningtree

 

[306024]

There's an underpass at Manningtree crossing. I assume that it doesn't take a double decker bus or HGV though.

Or even some single decker buses. Any rail replacement bus contract when the level crossing is also closed has to checked closely to ensure the vehicles specified can get under the bridge. Plus it is one direction at a time, with priority to traffic from the Suffolk side.

You also wonder where the DfT sit in all this. They had to mark Abellio’s homework when they submitted their bid.

 

[superalbs]

I'm not sure I quite understand why the crossing has to stay, surely a new, much larger tunnel/bridge can be created?

 

[Panupreset]

I think there is a cunning plan. Put some many ESR's on the down that most things will just terminate at Colchester to start back to the big smoke right time from there.

 

[jopsuk]

I'm not sure I quite understand why the crossing has to stay, surely a new, much larger tunnel/bridge can be created?

A deeper underpass would cost tens of millions of pounds , require a lengthy closure of the railway line (probably including the station as the end of the platforms is so close and the OHLE would have to be switched off) and an even longer closure of the road, which would mean a very lengthy diversion for road traffic.

A bridge might be cheaper, but would be a huge structure, probably to the west of the station.

 

[TheEdge]

I'm not sure I quite understand why the crossing has to stay, surely a new, much larger tunnel/bridge can be created?

The bridge under the line is practically on the water table. If it was deepened enough to let lorries and double deckers under it would need a lot of no doubt complex and expensive drainage work as the road would be well below the level of the water table.

 

[306024]

The Dutch (ironically) would build an underpass, as they have done in many locations across Holland to eliminate level crossings. This would be the best long term solution here, but would involve total rebuilding of the roundabout on the 'Essex' side affecting the station approach road and small brook. The disruption during construction would be huge, and as always where does the money come from. And yes ongoing maintenance to prevent flooding. Meanwhile good luck with any planning application for a road to the west across Dedham Vale area of outstanding natural beauty.

 

[eastdyke]

...............
You also wonder where the DfT sit in all this. They had to mark Abellio’s homework when they submitted their bid.

Not very comfortably one would imagine. Probably a couple of working groups as we speak, one to write a briefing note on the brace position, another building yet another (franchise) fallout shelter.

 

[ethernet22]

Some photos of the new Stadler trains...

https://www.globalrailnews.com/2018/01/26/first-look-at-greater-anglias-new-stadler-carriages/

 

[Wivenswold]

This is when it starts getting exciting for me, hopefully others too. Shouldn't be long before we see a Class 720/5 in similar condition as work started before Christmas.

 

[hwl]

Is access to the proposed Brantham depot from both the North and South or just from the South with reversing siding at the northern end of the site? If the later then adding access from the Northern end might help reduce the level of Manningtree crossing closures...

 

[eastdyke]

Is access to the proposed Brantham depot from both the North and South or just from the South with reversing siding at the northern end of the site? If the later then adding access from the Northern end might help reduce the level of Manningtree crossing closures...

From south only. The GEML towards Ipswich rises up Brantham Bank on passing the depot site.
On the 'Abellio Greater Anglia new Stadler Flirt trains' thread:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/abellio-greater-anglia-new-stadler-flirt-trains.148431/page-4
@swills stated at post 110:

Have been advised they cannot do an Ipswich end access due to the proximity of the UKPN overhead stuff, gets too close to our / AGA depot OHL

Apart from on that thread there is also stuff on a now closed thread:
'New Depot at Brantham, Suffolk':
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/new-depot-at-brantham-suffolk.142141/

It would be a lot of work for the mods, but it might benefit discussion if that closed thread could be re-opened and all the more recent stuff added in?

 

[hwl]

From south only. The GEML towards Ipswich rises up Brantham Bank on passing the depot site.
On the 'Abellio Greater Anglia new Stadler Flirt trains' thread:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/abellio-greater-anglia-new-stadler-flirt-trains.148431/page-4
@swills stated at post 110:

Apart from on that thread there is also stuff on a now closed thread:
'New Depot at Brantham, Suffolk':
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/new-depot-at-brantham-suffolk.142141/

It would be a lot of work for the mods, but it might benefit discussion if that closed thread could be re-opened and all the more recent stuff added in?

Cheers I suspected the gradient and the UKPN 132kV would make the northern end tricky, I also found it suspicious you couldn't see if there was a Northern access in any of the "selective" CGI why made me thing there wasn't!

 

[Class 170101]

Technically one doesn't have to cross Manningtree Level Crossing to head to Ipswich from Brantham Depot.

Either go to Manningtree East curve / Mistley or Harwich International station to reverse.

 

[Wivenswold]

Someone asked recently about the 321 TSL vehicles' fate and it could have been on this thread.

Eversholt have them for disposal. The 313 and 315s are listed for "Lease and disposal". I assume this means that will offer them for further use or for scrap if there are no takers.

https://www.eversholtrail.co.uk/upl...lable for lease and or disposal 10 Jan 18.pdf

 

[Class465fan]

Does anyone know when the first 720 unit is expected to be completed?