GWR Class 800

[NotATrainspott]

Also, there isn't any realistic way to increase capacity with what RAGNAROKR and Dave1987 want instead of the IEP/AT300. The way things are, there's plenty of scope to increase train lengths without needing further infrastructure works or reducing performance. If you go for massively refurbished HST carriages between brand new locomotives, you can never provide as much passenger-carrying length without needing to extend and rebuild platforms and even if you did, every extra carriage would cause performance to decrease.

 

[Rich McLean]

I was thinking that Great Western would just keep hold of a handful of HSTs for a while longer, in order to cover the shortfall while using the West of England AT-300s on the GWML, as after all Scotrail don't need all of the HSTs: Once you take Scotrail's 27 sets and 16 sets retained temporarily for the West of England into account, that leaves 10 HST sets going spare. Five HST sets are after all owned by First Rail Holdings, too, and already have the longest lease expiry date (04/2019).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As the 9-car electric IEP sets are only due for delivery between February and July 2018, this might not represent that much of a delay.

The 5 First Group Holdings owned HST sets are set to be allocated to Oxford - Paddington fasts (those that start/terminate at Oxford) working alongside 800s until the wires eventually reach Oxford

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Also, there isn't any realistic way to increase capacity with what RAGNAROKR and Dave1987 want instead of the IEP/AT300. The way things are, there's plenty of scope to increase train lengths without needing further infrastructure works or reducing performance. If you go for massively refurbished HST carriages between brand new locomotives, you can never provide as much passenger-carrying length without needing to extend and rebuild platforms and even if you did, every extra carriage would cause performance to decrease.

This question of platform length keeps turning up. Some stations have very long platforms, a relic of the days when trains could be 350 metres long; a couple that come to mind immediately are Reading and Darlington. Some London terminals have lost platform length that could be reinstated.

Without doing a thorough infrastructure survey, to claim that longer trains are impossible is just an unsupported assertion. If you do not have all the track and station plans to hand, it is impossible to say one way or another.

Selective door operation is an effective though not ideal solution for short platforms at intermediate stations.

 

[Dave1987]

Also, there isn't any realistic way to increase capacity with what RAGNAROKR and Dave1987 want instead of the IEP/AT300. The way things are, there's plenty of scope to increase train lengths without needing further infrastructure works or reducing performance. If you go for massively refurbished HST carriages between brand new locomotives, you can never provide as much passenger-carrying length without needing to extend and rebuild platforms and even if you did, every extra carriage would cause performance to decrease.

When did I ever mention about "refurbished HST carriages"?

 

[jopsuk]

Some London terminals have lost platform length that could be reinstated.

By massively reducing passenger circulating space in stations that every year are handling record numbers of passengers or by very expensive modifications to station throats that may reduce approach/departure speeds and affect throat junction capacity?

 

[The Ham]

By massively reducing passenger circulating space in stations that every year are handling record numbers of passengers or by very expensive modifications to station throats that may reduce approach/departure speeds and affect throat junction capacity?

Quite, just look at the number of passengers waiting for a platform announcement at the London Termini. Plus those who have just arrived and are trying to get elsewhere.

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

Quite, just look at the number of passengers waiting for a platform announcement at the London Termini. Plus those who have just arrived and are trying to get elsewhere.

Also why give the passengers space that could be filled by a retail outlet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite, just look at the number of passengers waiting for a platform announcement at the London Termini.

That, of course, could be solved by packing in that outmoded practice and showing the platform numbers earlier. They could be shown as soon as the train has arrived at the station and disembarked - you can then lock the doors to prevent boarding until it is ready (and people can queue by a door if they wish).

Not as operationally easy for cleaning etc, but I'm sure that can be solved, e.g. use of local door.

 

[najaB]

That, of course, could be solved by packing in that outmoded practice and showing the platform numbers earlier. They could be shown as soon as the train has arrived at the station and disembarked - you can then lock the doors to prevent boarding until it is ready (and people can queue by a door if they wish).

Wouldn't really make a difference, even when the platforms go up a good 10-15 minutes beforehand there's still a rush.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wouldn't really make a difference, even when the platforms go up a good 10-15 minutes beforehand there's still a rush.

VT services at Euston tend to have longer turnarounds than 10-15 minutes - it's typically nearer half an hour.

LM services in Silverlink days worked perfectly well with platforms displayed at all times - they aren't heavily cleaned at Euston, nor are reservations placed. Indeed, platforms 8 to 11 are set up for waiting passengers with benches etc. And platforms are relatively consistent these days, commuters know them and ignore the displays unless an alteration is announced, so odds on there will already be a good number who have gone down anyway (or used RTT).

 

[The Ham]

That, of course, could be solved by packing in that outmoded practice and showing the platform numbers earlier. They could be shown as soon as the train has arrived at the station and disembarked - you can then lock the doors to prevent boarding until it is ready (and people can queue by a door if they wish).

Not as operationally easy for cleaning etc, but I'm sure that can be solved, e.g. use of local door.

However that may cause problems if a train on the adjoining platform comes in and disembarks a load of people who would then have to interact with the people on the platform waiting for their train to open its doors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However that may cause problems if a train on the adjoining platform comes in and disembarks a load of people who would then have to interact with the people on the platform waiting for their train to open its doors.

Not half as much as when that happens when the fast moving scrum is heading down the ramp, particularly on P16-18. Yes, it does happen, with alarming regularity. I've also seen it at Paddington, where the narrower platforms make it all the more dangerous.

Better to let passengers move in dribs and drabs down to the correct platform, an approach used in other parts of England (but Scotland are also fond[1] of scrum boarding).

[1] Or not. Inverness used to barrier each platform and people would queue, yes properly in single file, for the train. Now it's a scrum at a single set of barriers. A definite non-improvement there.

 

[jimm]

TOCs do strange things because of the rolling stock cost profile.
They will turn out old trains at weekends while keeping new ones at the depot, if the maintenance costs are less (impending overhauls etc).
Refusing to lengthen trains off-peak and at weekends is another tactic.
With IEP we are tied to a contracted number of unit diagrams with a high level of availablilty, so it all depends on the ingenuity of the diagrams.
But you are likely to get 5-car trains on some busy services, just like Virgin runs a single Voyager on some Euston-Birmingham trains because it is linked in with longer-distance diagrams.

Well GWR won't have any 'old trains to turn out at weekends' on high-speed services, will it?

GWR is indeed pretty ingenious at diagramming, which has been used to great effect in the past few years - and again only last month with changes to the service out of London in the middle of the afternoon - to run more services on the Cotswold Line and boost capacity, while also ensuring that things like the sequence of HSTs to handle demand from Oxford towards London in late afternoon is maintained. Or at weekends, when the 180s stay in the depot and Turbos work many Cotswold Line trains, coupling these to another set between Oxford and London to ensure there is sufficient capacity on the busiest leg of the journey.

So the chances are that they will also be quite nifty at diagramming the 800/AT300 fleets so that 'busy services' will get a nine-car or 2x5 formation unless there is some very good reason.

But there certainly will be five-car formations out there in the peaks, because, for example, many trains out of London in the mornings do not need anything like the 550+ seats on an HST, never mind 600+ on a long IEP formation, hence the current use of Class 180s on the 0545 and 0652 to the Cotswold Line and the 0721 to Oxford from Paddington. When there were more 180s available, they would probably cover a couple of other London to Oxford morning peak fasts and be doing the same sort of job out to Cheltenham as well.

But the whole point of these trains is to provide enough seating for every service. For the amount they are costing there should be enough seats for all passengers on every service. You will have some very very unimpressed passengers if these new trains arrive with less seats on services and passengers are forced to stand.

Really? Where has anyone, not least the DfT, ever said that? Is existing long-distance rolling stock such as HSTs, the 22x family and Pendolinos exempt from this stricture about providing enough seating for every service? XC would be in dire trouble if it was obliged to comply with operating in this way.

This question of platform length keeps turning up. Some stations have very long platforms, a relic of the days when trains could be 350 metres long; a couple that come to mind immediately are Reading and Darlington. Some London terminals have lost platform length that could be reinstated.

No, you keep bringing it up. No one else seems to have a burning passion for splitting Liverpool Street into two again or driving a wedge into part of the concourse at Paddington just so the odd platform or two can take an extra-long formation.

 

[Dave1987]

Well GWR won't have any 'old trains to turn out at weekends' on high-speed services, will it?

GWR is indeed pretty ingenious at diagramming, which has been used to great effect in the past few years - and again only last month with changes to the service out of London in the middle of the afternoon - to run more services on the Cotswold Line and boost capacity, while also ensuring that things like the sequence of HSTs to handle demand from Oxford towards London in late afternoon is maintained. Or at weekends, when the 180s stay in the depot and Turbos work many Cotswold Line trains, coupling these to another set between Oxford and London to ensure there is sufficient capacity on the busiest leg of the journey.

So the chances are that they will also be quite nifty at diagramming the 800/AT300 fleets so that 'busy services' will get a nine-car or 2x5 formation unless there is some very good reason.

But there certainly will be five-car formations out there in the peaks, because, for example, many trains out of London in the mornings do not need anything like the 550+ seats on an HST, never mind 600+ on a long IEP formation, hence the current use of Class 180s on the 0545 and 0652 to the Cotswold Line and the 0721 to Oxford from Paddington. When there were more 180s available, they would probably cover a couple of other London to Oxford morning peak fasts and be doing the same sort of job out to Cheltenham as well.



Really? Where has anyone, not least the DfT, ever said that? Is existing long-distance rolling stock such as HSTs, the 22x family and Pendolinos exempt from this stricture about providing enough seating for every service? XC would be in dire trouble if it was obliged to comply with operating in this way.

So you are admitting that during the off-peak there is the chance that on some services people might be forced to stand because it is deemed that a full formation is way over the top but a single five car isn't enough. I'm sure those off-peak passengers will be delighted with that. It's that kind of Cante Blanche attitude that has caused huge over crowding on many XC services.

 

[NotATrainspott]

So you are admitting that during the off-peak there is the chance that on some services people might be forced to stand because it is deemed that a full formation is way over the top but a single five car isn't enough. I'm sure those off-peak passengers will be delighted with that. It's that kind of Cante Blanche attitude that has caused huge over crowding on many XC services.

Oh for goodness' sake. Given the increases in frequency enabled by having more suitable train lengths, how much total capacity will there be off-peak? Unlike XC, which halved train lengths and doubled frequency without then adding extra capacity, the IEP half-train has much more than half the capacity of the trains it will be replacing (in the case of 180s, it will have more) and then there's going to be significantly more services, many of which will be run by trains with more seats than the HSTs.

Is it an efficient use of resources to cart around air all the time? Absolutely not. The money to do that has to come from somewhere and that would either be ticket revenue or extra taxpayer subsidy. Having 10% more passengers than there are seats isn't the end of the world on the GWML, where distances are relatively short compared to the north-south lines. It's not like XC where you'll regularly end up with enough extra passengers on board to make extra carriages an economic investment, if they were actually available to be added.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The additional paths in the DfT timetable specification is going to mean quite a bit of 5 car running in the off peaks but with that huge increase in paths there will be a large amount of load spreading, as compared to the current service pattern.

That was modelled in some detail for the Direct Award, to validate the lack of overcrowding and the units were diagrammed accordingly. All available were out in service during the off peak except those requiring their mandatory maintenance windows and, iirc, all peak London services were bid as at least load 9.

 

[RobShipway]

Oh for goodness' sake. Given the increases in frequency enabled by having more suitable train lengths, how much total capacity will there be off-peak? Unlike XC, which halved train lengths and doubled frequency without then adding extra capacity, the IEP half-train has much more than half the capacity of the trains it will be replacing (in the case of 180s, it will have more) and then there's going to be significantly more services, many of which will be run by trains with more seats than the HSTs.

Is it an efficient use of resources to cart around air all the time? Absolutely not. The money to do that has to come from somewhere and that would either be ticket revenue or extra taxpayer subsidy. Having 10% more passengers than there are seats isn't the end of the world on the GWML, where distances are relatively short compared to the north-south lines. It's not like XC where you'll regularly end up with enough extra passengers on board to make extra carriages an economic investment, if they were actually available to be added.

For me in an ideal world XC would be either getting AT300's or AT300's go to VWC to replace the class 221's which then can be passed to XC to use on double trains where needed.

But I would add that even with XC, there are times when two class 22x's couple together are not needed.

Outside of peak hours i.e. 6am - 9am, you would not need double 22x's on any trains from Bournemouth or Reading, but on the any train from these two places that leaves between 6am - 9am or arrives back between 4pm - 7pm to either Reading or Bournemouth you do need two times 22x trains couple together.

 

[D365]

For me in an ideal world XC would be either getting AT300's or AT300's go to VWC to replace the class 221's which then can be passed to XC to use on double trains where needed.

Discussions about CrossCountry and West Coast are not relevant at this time, but I'm surprised to have to remind you that non-tilt stock is not being considered under the West Coast franchise.

 

[Dave1987]

Oh for goodness' sake. Given the increases in frequency enabled by having more suitable train lengths, how much total capacity will there be off-peak? Unlike XC, which halved train lengths and doubled frequency without then adding extra capacity, the IEP half-train has much more than half the capacity of the trains it will be replacing (in the case of 180s, it will have more) and then there's going to be significantly more services, many of which will be run by trains with more seats than the HSTs.

Is it an efficient use of resources to cart around air all the time? Absolutely not. The money to do that has to come from somewhere and that would either be ticket revenue or extra taxpayer subsidy. Having 10% more passengers than there are seats isn't the end of the world on the GWML, where distances are relatively short compared to the north-south lines. It's not like XC where you'll regularly end up with enough extra passengers on board to make extra carriages an economic investment, if they were actually available to be added.

Well for a start the leasing costs are that high I'm sure they have planned to get away with as much 5 car running as they think they can. Also consider that these are going to be around for 27 yrs and I'm sure passenger numbers will grow in that time. I'm sure you will see mega overcrowded 5 cars in the future and no way to strengthen them because of the way the DFT have ordered these trains.

 

[JamesRowden]

Well for a start the leasing costs are that high I'm sure they have planned to get away with as much 5 car running as they think they can. Also consider that these are going to be around for 27 yrs and I'm sure passenger numbers will grow in that time. I'm sure you will see mega overcrowded 5 cars in the future and no way to strengthen them because of the way the DFT have ordered these trains.

I somehow think that Hitachi would welcome more profit.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

By massively reducing passenger circulating space in stations that every year are handling record numbers of passengers or by very expensive modifications to station throats that may reduce approach/departure speeds and affect throat junction capacity?

Massively reducing nothing, as a generalisation. Each station is different. Kings Cross has gained circulation area with its splendid new concourse at the side. Platforms stops at Paddington might be extended back to their original position and the circulation area increased by further enlarging the mezzanine area which was inserted over The Lawn and subsequently extended. Alternatively or additionally, the bridge from the Hammersmith Lines could be enlarged and provided with additional facilities to create a second circulation area to reduce the number of people who use the one at the platform ends.

There are architectural solutions which could provide long-term improvements. It is easier to dismiss a proposal by throwing up obstacles and saying that something cannot be done than to look into ways of doing it. Who would have even thought that the area between the Great Northern Hotel and the original Kings Cross station could be transformed into one of the finest indoor public spaces in London?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, you keep bringing it up. No one else seems to have a burning passion for splitting Liverpool Street into two again or driving a wedge into part of the concourse at Paddington just so the odd platform or two can take an extra-long formation.

I keep bringing it up because sooner or later it will have to be addressed. London stations are on congested sites and creative architectural solutions can resolve difficulties which tend to get labelled insoluble, often, on this forum, through the use of colourful language to overstate the point being made - "massive", "burning passions".

Liverpool Street was a special situation - and we are not talking about the GE on this thread. However, if you have been there in the past ten years you will know that the old winding walkway has been replaced by a new high level concourse at street level, which could be enlarged if necessary.

Given the right brief, architects can often provide solutions to problems which get dismissed as insoluble. Well-trained architects are taught to step back, look at the wider context and think creatively.

 

[Haydn1971]

Also consider that these are going to be around for 27 yrs and I'm sure passenger numbers will grow in that time. I'm sure you will see mega overcrowded 5 cars in the future and no way to strengthen them because of the way the DFT have ordered these trains.

Are you seriously suggesting that no other new trains will be brought into service after the SET's ? Your arguments against IEP just get weaker and weaker the more you bark on.

 

[The Ham]

Are you seriously suggesting that no other new trains will be brought into service after the SET's ? Your arguments against IEP just get weaker and weaker the more you bark on.

Given that the AT300's will be supplementing the IEP order, he has already been provided wrong on this. Also, I wouldn't be suprised to see more trains ordered (or at least unit lengthening) as part of the next franchise. This would be possible as the order could be in place soon after the 80x's would have been delivered for delivery early/mid 2020's.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Massively reducing nothing, as a generalisation. Each station is different. Kings Cross has gained circulation area with its splendid new concourse at the side. Platforms stops at Paddington might be extended back to their original position and the circulation area increased by further enlarging the mezzanine area which was inserted over The Lawn and subsequently extended. Alternatively or additionally, the bridge from the Hammersmith Lines could be enlarged and provided with additional facilities to create a second circulation area to reduce the number of people who use the one at the platform ends.

There are architectural solutions which could provide long-term improvements. It is easier to dismiss a proposal by throwing up obstacles and saying that something cannot be done than to look into ways of doing it. Who would have even thought that the area between the Great Northern Hotel and the original Kings Cross station could be transformed into one of the finest indoor public spaces in London?

There is nothing stopping this from happening as well as using 26m stock, I would argue that doing it after getting higher capacity trains would make it better value. As it would provide for more rail capacity meaning that the construction costs are split between more people.

If Paddington could be lengthened to have platforms of circa 315m that could allow for 12 coach trains (2x6 coachs) which could allow for trains of upto 800 passengers. That would mean that one half train could have the capacity of circa 75% of the existing HST's.That would mean that potion working could happen for longer without needing to build more lines (HSx between London and the West/Wales).

 

[TheKnightWho]

Given that the AT300's will be supplementing the IEP order, he has already been provided wrong on this. Also, I wouldn't be suprised to see more trains ordered (or at least unit lengthening) as part of the next franchise. This would be possible as the order could be in place soon after the 80x's would have been delivered for delivery early/mid 2020's.

I wouldn't be tremendously surprised to see XC getting new stock in the early 2020s, which could well be an AT300 derivative.

 

[tbtc]

For the shorter distance services something like the 377 would have been more suitable for what have become commuter routes - probably now as far as Bristol

Your solution for London – Bristol is to replace the 125mph HSTs with 100mph 377s?

In, what, sixteen coach formation (because we have to apparently base train GWML lengths on what the Royal Scot to Glasgow was fifty years ago)?

Would we have to extend all of the intermediate stations to cope with that (Chippenham etc)?

You really are trolling well, Sir

But the whole point of these trains is to provide enough seating for every service. For the amount they are costing there should be enough seats for all passengers on every service. You will have some very very unimpressed passengers if these new trains arrive with less seats on services and passengers are forced to stand.

Well considering the DFT have ordered them I would suggest they should have ordered enough to ensure sufficient seating on all services.

Er the comments I and others have made is that some of you seem to believe that no one ever travels during the off peak so 5 car formations would be perfectly adequate. I have seen lots of off peak services that are very well loaded and if a 5 car set was used you would have many people standing!

I'm sure you will see mega overcrowded 5 cars in the future and no way to strengthen them because of the way the DFT have ordered these trains.

Simple couple of questions Dave...

1. IIRC your line is the GEML (?)... do the 315/ 317/ 321s spend all day in twelve coach formation? Or does the TOC run shorter formations off-peak?
   
2. If there are off-peak services running as only four/eight coaches then what happens if there’s a passenger without a seat? Do you automatically add another four coaches because nobody should be forced to stand in your ideal world?

I’m just curious because we currently see (5x23m) 180s doing long distance services from Kings Cross/ (4x23m) 222s doing long distance services from St Pancras/ (5x23m) Voyagers doing long distance services from Euston/ (3x23m) 168s doing long distance services from Marylebone/ (3x23m) 166s doing long distance services from Paddington... yet you can’t accept that there are some services in the middle of the day on the GWML that a (5x26m) IEP will be able to cope with?

Some of these are quite carefully diagrammed - e.g. the "slow" Sheffield service usually gets a five coach 222 but there's an off-peak diagram from London to Sheffield in the morning and back south in the afternoon with just four coaches because EMT know that the direction of flow is generally in the opposite direction at those times.

Also worth pointing out the frequency increases - e.g. Bristol going up to four/hour - so that passengers will be spread over a greater number of trains.

Nobody is saying that there are *no* passengers off peak (before you reach for your usual Strawman argument) – if there were no passengers off peak then we wouldn’t see plans for a dozen fast services per hour from Paddington towards Reading! But there are some services in the middle of the day that have fewer passengers than services at rush hour – just like there are some services at places like Hereford that don't require as many seats as they do when reaching Paddington - unbelievable, right?

I suspect GWR have a list of such services and by now have a shrewd idea of how to allocate stock accordingly to cover them, never mind that the new timetables will step up frequencies in many places anyway

This bears repeating

And that which people forget - if passenger growth increases as predicted, or more than expected because of new trains and electrification, the franchise will generate more money and more trains and/or carriages can be afforded.

IEP is going to be in production for a number of years, there's no reason at all why we won't see lengthening, additional sets or a mixture of both. It's not like we're dealing with the sorts of niche train fleets which have plagued post privatisation Intercity operations - Class 175s, Class 180s, and even the Class 222s.

It might not be possible to always extend the diesel sets, depending on what happens with emissions legislation, but the electric sets should easily manage 10 or 15 years of production.

Great points.

Hitachi seem to be in this for the long haul (no pun intended) - if we can get a second order of 390s built years after the production line closed then it should be perfectly simple to order more 80xs - given that the GWML and ECML orders will likely be followed by TPE orders there may even be a conveyor belt of them

The idea that Hitachi will close the factory gates once the IEP is over and destroy the "jigs" is rather silly.

How do you work that one out? The maths has been done on this thread previously, and there are sufficient AT-300s ordered for Great Western to allow each HST to be replaced by either a 9 or 10-car AT-300 formation, and enough 5-car units left over to replace the 180s on a one for one basis, too.

Worth repeating this for anyone who think there's going to be a reduction in overall seating.

Massively reducing nothing, as a generalisation. Each station is different. Kings Cross has gained circulation area with its splendid new concourse at the side. Platforms stops at Paddington might be extended back to their original position and the circulation area increased by further enlarging the mezzanine area which was inserted over The Lawn and subsequently extended. Alternatively or additionally, the bridge from the Hammersmith Lines could be enlarged and provided with additional facilities to create a second circulation area to reduce the number of people who use the one at the platform ends.

There are architectural solutions which could provide long-term improvements. It is easier to dismiss a proposal by throwing up obstacles and saying that something cannot be done than to look into ways of doing it. Who would have even thought that the area between the Great Northern Hotel and the original Kings Cross station could be transformed into one of the finest indoor public spaces in London?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I keep bringing it up because sooner or later it will have to be addressed. London stations are on congested sites and creative architectural solutions can resolve difficulties which tend to get labelled insoluble, often, on this forum, through the use of colourful language to overstate the point being made - "massive", "burning passions".

Liverpool Street was a special situation - and we are not talking about the GE on this thread. However, if you have been there in the past ten years you will know that the old winding walkway has been replaced by a new high level concourse at street level, which could be enlarged if necessary.

Given the right brief, architects can often provide solutions to problems which get dismissed as insoluble. Well-trained architects are taught to step back, look at the wider context and think creatively.

How though?

Easy to sit at a keyboard and say that architects should be able to come up with a solution that allows sufficient concourse space for the huge increase in passenger numbers (plus the various shops/ coffee places/ pubs that passengers expect) at the same time as increasing platform lengths... blame other people for not being creative enough...

I wouldn't be tremendously surprised to see XC getting new stock in the early 2020s, which could well be an AT300 derivative.

Could well be, or we could see XC get some of the bi-mode 800s from the GWML/ ECML (with new 801s ordered for GWML/ ECML as the electrification means that fewer bi-modes are required).

There's certainly a lot of LDHS stock that'll be needing replacement (either due to age or because of further electrification) over the next decade - we may see an AT300 fleet similar in size to the HST fleet.

 

[Dave1987]

Are you seriously suggesting that no other new trains will be brought into service after the SET's ? Your arguments against IEP just get weaker and weaker the more you bark on.

No my argument hasn't got any weaker the more I have "barked" on. In fact my opinions on this are broadly similar to some very well respected journalists! The DFT have ordered diagrammed vehicles. So if a 5 car train is packed out regularly off-peak it would take a contract change with Hitachi for that service to be strengthened, and as a result make the contract even more expensive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Given that the AT300's will be supplementing the IEP order, he has already been provided wrong on this. Also, I wouldn't be suprised to see more trains ordered (or at least unit lengthening) as part of the next franchise. This would be possible as the order could be in place soon after the 80x's would have been delivered for delivery early/mid 2020's.

The AT300 order is completely separate from the IEP order. The DFT have ordered diagrammed vehicles not trains. So what ever will be five car trains post IEP introduction will stay as five cars no matter how packed they may be until the TOC agrees more diagrammed vehicles with Hitachi at yet more expense. I believe the new Northern and TPE franchises are ordering way more trains than they will need to anticipate for future growth.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Simple couple of questions Dave...

1. IIRC your line is the GEML (?)... do the 315/ 317/ 321s spend all day in twelve coach formation? Or does the TOC run shorter formations off-peak?
   
2. If there are off-peak services running as only four/eight coaches then what happens if there’s a passenger without a seat? Do you automatically add another four coaches because nobody should be forced to stand in your ideal world?

I’m just curious because we currently see (5x23m) 180s doing long distance services from Kings Cross/ (4x23m) 222s doing long distance services from St Pancras/ (5x23m) Voyagers doing long distance services from Euston/ (3x23m) 168s doing long distance services from Marylebone/ (3x23m) 166s doing long distance services from Paddington... yet you can’t accept that there are some services in the middle of the day on the GWML that a (5x26m) IEP will be able to cope with?

Some of these are quite carefully diagrammed - e.g. the "slow" Sheffield service usually gets a five coach 222 but there's an off-peak diagram from London to Sheffield in the morning and back south in the afternoon with just four coaches because EMT know that the direction of flow is generally in the opposite direction at those times.

Also worth pointing out the frequency increases - e.g. Bristol going up to four/hour - so that passengers will be spread over a greater number of trains.

Nobody is saying that there are *no* passengers off peak (before you reach for your usual Strawman argument) – if there were no passengers off peak then we wouldn’t see plans for a dozen fast services per hour from Paddington towards Reading! But there are some services in the middle of the day that have fewer passengers than services at rush hour – just like there are some services at places like Hereford that don't require as many seats as they do when reaching Paddington - unbelievable, right?

The idea that Hitachi will close the factory gates once the IEP is over and destroy the "jigs" is rather silly.

I never said Hitachi would "destroy" the jigs at all once IEP is delivered. I'm sure they would quite happily take another extremely expensive order. Considering the MP's will be very very keen to keep Newton Aycliffe busy and tempt Hitachi into fulfilling their plans of building body shells there I'm sure there will be many many orders going to Hitachi in the next few years no matter how big the cost is. At the end of the day the MP's aren't paying are they!

Having witnessed "careful" diagramming where they basically try and get away with as few units on a service as possible I have no doubt that some people will be forced to stand. Just like the people claiming you could run five car trains on the off-peak London - Norwich services merely because they are off-peak trains and no one ever travels off-peak. Anyone who actually sees those services would know that a five car train would be absolutely wedged!

On GEML there are plenty of services both peak and off-peak I believe could do with extra units added to them. But GEML suffers with a distinct lack of rolling stock. This IEP contract is brand new so all services should have adequate numbers of seats for now and the future.

Could well be, or we could see XC get some of the bi-mode 800s from the GWML/ ECML (with new 801s ordered for GWML/ ECML as the electrification means that fewer bi-modes are required).

There's certainly a lot of LDHS stock that'll be needing replacement (either due to age or because of further electrification) over the next decade - we may see an AT300 fleet similar in size to the HST fleet.

I believe you are right here. The DFT seem to be in love with Hitachi now and can see order after order going their way, even though most of those orders would not be bolted together in this country anyway.

 

[The Ham]

I wouldn't be tremendously surprised to see XC getting new stock in the early 2020s, which could well be an AT300 derivative.

It depends on what happens with ICWC and if XC franchise gets an extension or not.

If ICWC get rid of all their 221's there would be enough trains to replace all the current XC 220's with 221's (where they run as single units) and then use the remaining fleet to run more services doubled up and potentially have enough spare units to also replace the HST's (as depending on how busy the HST services are a pair of 220's may be enough or a pair of 221's maybe required).

Add to that the possibility of being able to run EMU's between Manchester and the south coast (in which case 110mph probably wouldn't make much difference in journey times but could provide significant seating capacity enhancements) and there may not be a need for any other new trains.

The reason that Voyagers maybe retained is that there are limited places where they would be useful, meaning that the cost to use them would likely be less than that of a new train as Voyager Leasing would potentially struggle to find an alternative use for them. Meaning that as long as the new (or retained) TOC can show lease (including maintenance) costs then Voyager Leasing would probably have to at least match (on a cost per passenger basis) if not beat that price to keep them in use.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

until the TOC agrees more diagrammed vehicles with Hitachi at yet more expense.

You're essentially trying to break the news story that "running more carriages is more expensive". The response to that is 'duh'.

That's how the railway works, it costs more money to operate stock you own or lease more intensively, and it costs more money to buy or lease additional stock.

There may be contractual agreements in place for minimum guaranteed usage, but rolling stock is a competitive business, Agility Trains are unlikely to price themselves out of the business of providing additional diagrams at additional cost.

It'll be like a phone call or something, where the first minute is £1, then it's 5p per minute for each additional minute. The contracted diagrams will be expensive, the additional diagrams will be so cheap, because as long as there's some profit available, Agility Trains will want their stock earning them money.

GWR have AT300 units on order through a traditional ROSCO, the pricing for them is competitive, the operating costs for those units will be ferociously competitive. Agility won't want their stock not making any additional profit whilst conventionally leased in AT300 sets do all the extra work.

 

[The Ham]

No my argument hasn't got any weaker the more I have "barked" on. In fact my opinions on this are broadly similar to some very well respected journalists! The DFT have ordered diagrammed vehicles. So if a 5 car train is packed out regularly off-peak it would take a contract change with Hitachi for that service to be strengthened, and as a result make the contract even more expensive.

The DfT have ordered diagrammed vehicles (IIRC a set number of units to be available per day), however there maybe ways around contract changes. As does the contract say when and where they have to run? I would guess not Yes it may take a contract change to alter a 5 coach unit to a 9 coach unit by adding in more (new) coaches.

If the TOC can dictate when and where an IEP unit can run then they can pair up 5 coach sets by ordering more AT300's (either as straight replacements or as a 9 coach set or even if demand requires it as a longer set) to replace the IEP sets required to do so.

Also do you know how much a change in the contract would be? It may well be that (given the extra income that it would generate them rather than someone else in the case of using AT300's) that the companies involved in the IEP contract could price it fairly keenly.

The AT300 order is completely separate from the IEP order. The DFT have ordered diagrammed vehicles not trains. So what ever will be five car trains post IEP introduction will stay as five cars no matter how packed they may be until the TOC agrees more diagrammed vehicles with Hitachi at yet more expense. I believe the new Northern and TPE franchises are ordering way more trains than they will need to anticipate for future growth.

The point I was making was that a the time of the IEP order that it was assumed that it would be IEP, some HST's and the 180's. Now it is known that it will be IEP and AT300's with the AT300's supplementing some services which may have required IEP trains to run (i.e. Cotswold Line services). As such it must be possible for a follow on order to provide extra capacity without altering the contract.

Likewise the continued use of the Intercity 225's would also imply that other trains can be used without impacting on the contract.

This would appear to be confirmed in the response to a freedom of information request found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4888/dft-f0008119.pdf

Which states:

To enable Agility Trains and Network Rail to price their proposals for the IEP order and its necessary infrastructure work, the DfT has produced routes on the Great Western and East Coast Main Lines over which IEP trains will be cleared for operation. These do not fix the services or timetables that may operate after deployment, which will be defined as part of the future franchise specification and re-franchising competition for both routes. A summary of the current assumed routes over which IEP will be cleared for operations is contained in Annexes A and B, and illustrative diagrams of these routes are provided at Annex C.

I read that as saying that the TOC can set the services and timetables without it impacting on the contract.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I'm sure they would quite happily take another extremely expensive order.

The GWR AT300 order, through Eversholt Rail is valued at £361m for what will be 173 bi-mode vehicles (22 x 5 car, 7 x 9 car). That's an average cost of £2.086m per vehicle at July 2015 prices.

The most recent orders, for Class 387 vehicles, have had a cost of around £1.482m per vehicle, for a 20m EMU only design.

The last diesel powered vehicles to be ordered, the Bombardier 23m Class 172, were ordered by Porterbrook (£92.6m) and Angel Trains (£33m). 93 vehicles were ordered (24 x 2 car and 15 x 3 car), for an average cost of £1.350m per vehicle at January 2008 prices.

The Hitachi Class 395, ordered through HSBC Rail (now Eversholt) was valued at £250m for an initial 168 vehicles (28 x 6 car) representing a cost of £1.488m per vehicle in June 2005 prices.

The combination of 26m bodylength, bi-mode traction and 140mph top speed would make the cost of around £2.1m per vehicle reasonable and realistic.

It's worth mentioning, finally, that the Caledonian Sleeper will be receiving unpowered coaching stock valued at approximately £2m per vehicle.