Hitachi 807s

[deltic08]

I have just been watching a video made by Stephen Bowker about the Hitachi train factory and the threat of closure this time next year if no new orders are forthcoming. One solution would be more 807s this time for XC to run between Edinburgh and Sheffield only as bimode electric/battery units. This will allow them to operate from Moorthorpe/Doncaster to Sheffield and back on battery off the wires.
We hope that in three years time, the MML electrification will be complete to Sheffield with XC extended to Derby on electric then Birmingham NS on battery. Sadly battery range will not be enough for Bromsgrove to Westbourne Jnc. and Bristol Parkway to TM and return.
The displaced 4 car 220s will be reduced to 3 cars to displace the 170s to other TOCs and the spare intermediate trailers to make 5 cars into 7 cars for Sheffield, later Birmingham-Devon/Cornwall services. I realise this will mean a change at Sheffield or Birmingham to start with but as electrification is extended to Exeter this will become more of a through train from Edinburgh.
Alternatively, fit with diesel engines for greater range.
Displaced 221s could operate Cardiff-Portsmouth or even Cardiff-Manchester/Holyhead.
This is also assuming that 222s go to Scotrail.

 

[800001]

I have just been watching a video made by Stephen Bowker about the Hitachi train factory and the threat of closure this time next year if no new orders are forthcoming. One solution would be more 807s this time for XC to run between Edinburgh and Sheffield only as bimode electric/battery units. This will allow them to operate from Moorthorpe/Doncaster to Sheffield and back on battery off the wires.
We hope that in three years time, the MML electrification will be complete to Sheffield with XC extended to Derby on electric then Birmingham NS on battery. Sadly battery range will not be enough for Bromsgrove to Westbourne Jnc. and Bristol Parkway to TM and return.
The displaced 4 car 220s will be reduced to 3 cars to displace the 170s to other TOCs and the spare intermediate trailers to make 5 cars into 7 cars for Sheffield, later Birmingham-Devon/Cornwall services. I realise this will mean a change at Sheffield or Birmingham to start with but as electrification is extended to Exeter this will become more of a through train from Edinburgh.
Alternatively, fit with diesel engines for greater range.
Displaced 221s could operate Cardiff-Portsmouth or even Cardiff-Manchester/Holyhead.
This is also assuming that 222s go to Scotrail.

An 807 is Pure electric, not suitable for XC. An 805 as is or lengthened would be suitable for XC.

However any new order needs authorisation from the Government which isn’t going to happen until after the election.

 

[snowball]

We hope that in three years time, the MML electrification will be complete to Sheffield

That sounds grossly optimistic.

 

[BlueLeanie]

An 807 is Pure electric, not suitable for XC. An 805 as is or lengthened would be suitable for XC.

However any new order needs authorisation from the Government which isn’t going to happen until after the election.

Surely an 807 with a battery installed is still pure electric?

 

[JonathanH]

One solution would be more 807s this time for XC to run between Edinburgh and Sheffield only as bimode electric/battery units. This will allow them to operate from Moorthorpe/Doncaster to Sheffield and back on battery off the wires.

Would all CrossCountry passengers change trains at Sheffield? If that was a sensible proposal, York would be a better place for such changes with a bit more space, and the obvious advantage of not needing battery fitted units. Sheffield is a terrible place for through passengers to have to change trains with limited platform availability.

The displaced 4 car 220s will be reduced to 3 cars to displace the 170s to other TOCs

3-car 220s would be terrible replacements for class 170s with significant capacity constraints and less efficient operation.

Displaced 221s could operate Cardiff-Portsmouth or even Cardiff-Manchester/Holyhead.

Again, that isn't a good solution for those routes.

 

[800001]

Surely an 807 with a battery installed is still pure electric?

That then would not be an 807!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2024 ==

Would all CrossCountry passengers change trains at Sheffield? If that was a sensible proposal, York would be a better place for such changes with a bit more space, and the obvious advantage of not needing battery fitted units. Sheffield is a terrible place for through passengers to have to change trains with limited platform availability.


3-car 220s would be terrible replacements for class 170s with significant capacity constraints and less efficient operation.


Again, that isn't a good solution for those routes.

changing at York? You mean service's terminate there? The station is unable to cope with what happens there now, the minute one train is delayed for a couple of minutes runs into the trains over about a 40 minute period

 

[JonathanH]

changing at York? You mean service's terminate there? The station is unable to cope with what happens there now, the minute one train is delayed for a couple of minutes runs into the trains over about a 40 minute period

Would Sheffield be better? The premise being made by the original poster was that CrossCountry services should be split to enable new build units to be constructed primarily for electric running.

 

[RailWonderer]

The best way to keep Newton Aycliffe open would be a Scotrail follow on order for an EMU and hybrid 385 to replace its 318s, 320s and Sprinters. XC's Voyagers are mid life and a decent refubishment and more double units is all they need until another 15-20 years time depending on govt policy when the time comes.

 

[800001]

The best way to keep Newton Aycliffe open would be a Scotrail follow on order for an EMU and hybrid 385 to replace its 318s, 320s and Sprinters. XC's Voyagers are mid life and a decent refubishment and more double units is all they need until another 15-20 years time depending on govt policy when the time comes.

But surely 385 production like is long done!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2024 ==

Would Sheffield be better? The premise being made by the original poster was that CrossCountry services should be split to enable new build units to be constructed primarily for electric running.

Is Sheffield any easier to accommodate terminating services compared to York?

 

[JonathanH]

Is Sheffield any easier to accommodate terminating services compared to York?

No. That was the original poster's idea.

 

[MotCO]

Presumably orders could also come from abroad. (Mexico could replace its HSTs with IETs!)

 

[Chester1]

I am sympathetic to Hitachi staff but not to Hitachi management over the future of Newton Aycliffe. Very well informed members of the forum have said that they are pricing themselves out of future 80X orders and to make matters worse are not interested in offering additional middle coaches.

 

[jagardner1984]

I am sympathetic to Hitachi staff but not to Hitachi management over the future of Newton Aycliffe. Very well informed members of the forum have said that they are pricing themselves out of future 80X orders and to make matters worse are not interested in offering additional middle coaches.

The cynic in me would say DfT have given just enough of a trickle of orders to move the closure announcement just after an election they know they will lose.

Surely Class 80X was originally subject to economies of scale, which now is simply not in play for a few additional vehicles here and there.

My feeling is as soon as XC is split for the operational type reasons above, it’s over, since often other services are much faster anyway - the appeal of XC (such as it is) is the direct train from, for example, Edinburgh to Bristol. Those travellers are probably even more likely to take the EasyJet (at a fraction of the cost).

The use of pricing and grossly inadequate capacity to stifle demand on these routes is one of the more shameful aspects of transport policy of the last decade or so (against some stiff competition). Dft is entirely reliant on the domestic air market that their Net Zero department colleagues next door bemoan, as a way of keeping long distance rail travel, which successive governments have failed to build capacity in, from total collapse.

Glasgow to Bristol, a route from which XC has been steadily withdrawing, has just shy of 600 seats on EasyJet alone one weekday this week - price around £55. On the same day, cheapest XC fare is £156.20. Or with Avanti to Birmingham and a change, saving an hour or so, £120.

 

[class26]

The cynic in me would say DfT have given just enough of a trickle of orders to move the closure announcement just after an election they know they will lose.

Surely Class 80X was originally subject to economies of scale, which now is simply not in play for a few additional vehicles here and there.

My feeling is as soon as XC is split for the operational type reasons above, it’s over, since often other services are much faster anyway - the appeal of XC (such as it is) is the direct train from, for example, Edinburgh to Bristol. Those travellers are probably even more likely to take the EasyJet (at a fraction of the cost).

The use of pricing and grossly inadequate capacity to stifle demand on these routes is one of the more shameful aspects of transport policy of the last decade or so (against some stiff competition). Dft is entirely reliant on the domestic air market that their Net Zero department colleagues next door bemoan, as a way of keeping long distance rail travel, which successive governments have failed to build capacity in, from total collapse.

Glasgow to Bristol, a route from which XC has been steadily withdrawing, has just shy of 600 seats on EasyJet alone one weekday this week - price around £55. On the same day, cheapest XC fare is £156.20. Or with Avanti to Birmingham and a change, saving an hour or so, £120.

The DFT will NOT loose the election, they will still be there regardless of the outcome.

 

[800001]

The cynic in me would say DfT have given just enough of a trickle of orders to move the closure announcement just after an election they know they will lose.

Surely Class 80X was originally subject to economies of scale, which now is simply not in play for a few additional vehicles here and there.

My feeling is as soon as XC is split for the operational type reasons above, it’s over, since often other services are much faster anyway - the appeal of XC (such as it is) is the direct train from, for example, Edinburgh to Bristol. Those travellers are probably even more likely to take the EasyJet (at a fraction of the cost).

The use of pricing and grossly inadequate capacity to stifle demand on these routes is one of the more shameful aspects of transport policy of the last decade or so (against some stiff competition). Dft is entirely reliant on the domestic air market that their Net Zero department colleagues next door bemoan, as a way of keeping long distance rail travel, which successive governments have failed to build capacity in, from total collapse.

Glasgow to Bristol, a route from which XC has been steadily withdrawing, has just shy of 600 seats on EasyJet alone one weekday this week - price around £55. On the same day, cheapest XC fare is £156.20. Or with Avanti to Birmingham and a change, saving an hour or so, £120.

What trickle of orders for Hitachi? They should have been complete by now shouldn’t they? But are running that late with EMR and Avanti, that is only reason they are still producing?

 

[dosxuk]

If Newton Aycliffe can only build IET's and their derivatives, then it's days have always been numbered. There is no requirement for a constant stream of IET derived sets to be delivered to the UK network. Even if they build a handful of sets for XC when they run out of orders next, what will they be building when they finish that order?

That said, I suppose they could stay open a bit longer fixing all the problems with the IETs...

 

[RailWonderer]

But surely 385 production like is long done!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2024 ==

Siemens built 350/3s and /4s a decade after the first batch, I don't see why Hitachi couldn't build more 385s as long as the production lines are still open for that bodyshell and the parts are still in production from their suppliers. If the factory wants to save their skin they can't be fussy about what they build. You either evolve or face the axe.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The decision on Newton Aycliffe will be taken in Japan, which is where all commercial decisions go to. The management at Newton Aycliffe will not decide their own future.

It is well known that Hitachi are concentrating on filling Japan and Italy with orders and unless the UK Government comes up with a big order, Newton Aycliffe doesn’t have a long term future, at least as a train assembly plant.

 

[Chester1]

The cynic in me would say DfT have given just enough of a trickle of orders to move the closure announcement just after an election they know they will lose.

Surely Class 80X was originally subject to economies of scale, which now is simply not in play for a few additional vehicles here and there.

My feeling is as soon as XC is split for the operational type reasons above, it’s over, since often other services are much faster anyway - the appeal of XC (such as it is) is the direct train from, for example, Edinburgh to Bristol. Those travellers are probably even more likely to take the EasyJet (at a fraction of the cost).

The use of pricing and grossly inadequate capacity to stifle demand on these routes is one of the more shameful aspects of transport policy of the last decade or so (against some stiff competition). Dft is entirely reliant on the domestic air market that their Net Zero department colleagues next door bemoan, as a way of keeping long distance rail travel, which successive governments have failed to build capacity in, from total collapse.

Glasgow to Bristol, a route from which XC has been steadily withdrawing, has just shy of 600 seats on EasyJet alone one weekday this week - price around £55. On the same day, cheapest XC fare is £156.20. Or with Avanti to Birmingham and a change, saving an hour or so, £120.

I think the economies of scale would be a major problem down the line but not now when there are two large 80X orders being worked on. Making a small number of sets and mid units straight after the Avanti and EMR orders should be efficient, especially if they are same specification of the three versions being delivered now.

XC could be transformed quicky if they are given the Meridians and the decade long capacity shortage ends. New units are not necessary if XC become the dumping ground for mid life 125 mph DEMUs.

The decision on Newton Aycliffe will be taken in Japan, which is where all commercial decisions go to. The management at Newton Aycliffe will not decide their own future.

It is well known that Hitachi are concentrating on filling Japan and Italy with orders and unless the UK Government comes up with a big order, Newton Aycliffe doesn’t have a long term future, at least as a train assembly plant.

How does the HS2 order fit into the picture? Can Hitachi meet its contractual obligations if it closes Newton Aycliffe?

 

[irish_rail]

If Newton Aycliffe can only build IET's and their derivatives, then it's days have always been numbered. There is no requirement for a constant stream of IET derived sets to be delivered to the UK network. Even if they build a handful of sets for XC when they run out of orders next, what will they be building when they finish that order?

That said, I suppose they could stay open a bit longer fixing all the problems with the IETs...

Well extra coaches to bring some of the GWR 5 car fleet up to 7 or preferably 9 coaches would be one possibility. God knows its needed. Very soon, when the 175s arrive, we will see a big increase in 2x5 car set running which is wasteful and unnecessary. In the long run, a 9 car would be cheaper, provided the change is made soon. I expect the Penzance and Camarthern route will go fully 2x5 car once the 175s arrive, and this could be avoided if some additional coaches where ordered. The fact Bristol is now 100 percent 9 car sets shows where GWR see the 5 car sets running long term. Whether there is money for extending the 5 car sets , I suspect not.

 

[CptCharlee]

Extending the 5 Car GWR units to 7 or 9 car units is much needed. While they are at it install a cafe for the units for Penzance/Plymouth. GWR need a massive uplift for their offering its abysmal.

 

[Trainbike46]

tbh I would prefer if they:
- electrified to Bristol (both ways), Oxford, and Swansea
- ordered new 125mph EMUs of maximum length for those destinations (and Cardiff terminators, obviously)
- Use the 80x for remaining services that aren't fully wired
- Cascade the excess 5-car 80x to XC, for use on diagrams that both start and finish in the Southwest so maintenance can stay at current depots

Definitely agreed GWR, and most other IC operators, need a capacity uplift

Well extra coaches to bring some of the GWR 5 car fleet up to 7 or preferably 9 coaches would be one possibility. God knows its needed. Very soon, when the 175s arrive, we will see a big increase in 2x5 car set running which is wasteful and unnecessary. In the long run, a 9 car would be cheaper, provided the change is made soon. I expect the Penzance and Camarthern route will go fully 2x5 car once the 175s arrive, and this could be avoided if some additional coaches where ordered. The fact Bristol is now 100 percent 9 car sets shows where GWR see the 5 car sets running long term. Whether there is money for extending the 5 car sets , I suspect not.

Is 175s to GWR definitely happening then?

 

[irish_rail]

tbh I would prefer if they:
- electrified to Bristol (both ways), Oxford, and Swansea
- ordered new 125mph EMUs of maximum length for those destinations (and Cardiff terminators, obviously)
- Use the 80x for remaining services that aren't fully wired
- Cascade the excess 5-car 80x to XC, for use on diagrams that both start and finish in the Southwest so maintenance can stay at current depots

Definitely agreed GWR, and most other IC operators, need a capacity uplift


Is 175s to GWR definitely happening then?

Very very strong rumour. Almost certainly provided dft sign it off.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

I expect the Penzance and Camarthern route will go fully 2x5 car once the 175s arrive, and this could be avoided if some additional coaches where ordered.

Can Carmarthen go fully 2x5? I thought they required a split as a couple of months ago my service got terminated at Swansea due to being a 9 car

 

[irish_rail]

Can Carmarthen go fully 2x5? I thought they required a split as a couple of months ago my service got terminated at Swansea due to being a 9 car

Sorry that's my point, the 9 cars will be gone and camarthen and Penzance routes will likely be formed only of 5 car or 10 car sets. The 9 car sets will cascade onto Cheltenham, cotswold plus as at present Bristol. Its a real shame as the internal ambience, atmosphere etc is nicer on a 9 car especially the full length first class coach, but then I guess that's why they are being prioritised for services that serve Didcot and Swindon.......Eye roll

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Sorry that's my point, the 9 cars will be gone and camarthen and Penzance routes will likely be formed only of 5 car or 10 car sets. The 9 car sets will cascade onto Cheltenham, cotswold plus as at present Bristol. Its a real shame as the internal ambience, atmosphere etc is nicer on a 9 car especially the full length first class coach, but then I guess that's why they are being prioritised for services that serve Didcot and Swindon.......Eye roll

Interesting you say that as I tend to prefer travelling in the smaller composite First compartments of the 800-0/802-0 to the long, high capacity feeling full length First carriage of the 800-3/802-1. Feels more secluded, more private, etc.

 

[DanNCL]

Let Newton Aycliffe close. Hitachi made a conscious business decision to price themselves out of further 80x orders. They’ve only got themselves to blame and it’s not the taxpayer’s job to prop them up with additional orders of overpriced rolling stock, especially not when there’s no obvious use for it.

I have just been watching a video made by Stephen Bowker about the Hitachi train factory and the threat of closure this time next year if no new orders are forthcoming. One solution would be more 807s this time for XC to run between Edinburgh and Sheffield only as bimode electric/battery units. This will allow them to operate from Moorthorpe/Doncaster to Sheffield and back on battery off the wires.
We hope that in three years time, the MML electrification will be complete to Sheffield with XC extended to Derby on electric then Birmingham NS on battery. Sadly battery range will not be enough for Bromsgrove to Westbourne Jnc. and Bristol Parkway to TM and return.
The displaced 4 car 220s will be reduced to 3 cars to displace the 170s to other TOCs and the spare intermediate trailers to make 5 cars into 7 cars for Sheffield, later Birmingham-Devon/Cornwall services. I realise this will mean a change at Sheffield or Birmingham to start with but as electrification is extended to Exeter this will become more of a through train from Edinburgh.
Alternatively, fit with diesel engines for greater range.
Displaced 221s could operate Cardiff-Portsmouth or even Cardiff-Manchester/Holyhead.
This is also assuming that 222s go to Scotrail.

There’s multiple issues with that. First is you’d be getting rid of the direct link from Birmingham to Leeds and Newcastle. Not a chance would that be politically acceptable. There’s also the issue of platform capacity in Sheffield for terminating these services, it isn’t there.

Next is the issue of battery range. It’s far from certain that a battery fitted 80x actually would manage the mileage you’re suggesting under battery power. Remember that power supply limitations would mean that the batteries would also be powering the units north of Chathill, which means you’d either need batteries that can fully recharge in the 90 minutes it takes to do York - Chathill or you’d need to terminate at Newcastle, which’d be a non starter because of platform capacity.

220s can’t be shortened to 3 car. 4 car is the shortest configuration a 22x unit can operate in. Even if it were possible it wouldn’t make sense, a 3 car 22x would be a capacity cut compared to a 3 car 170.

But surely 385 production like is long done!

Hitachi still offer the 385 (AT200) and still have the tooling. AT200 Production could be very easily restarted if an order was placed.

The DFT will NOT loose the election, they will still be there regardless of the outcome.

But the DFT will be accountable to a different government who given the likely outcome of the election will have a very different expectation of what the DFT should do.

How does the HS2 order fit into the picture? Can Hitachi meet its contractual obligations if it closes Newton Aycliffe?

Yes. Either Hitachi would do their bit in Italy or, if there’s a UK build clause in the contract, Alstom would do the entire assembly at Derby and Hitachi involvement would be limited to design and components.

 

[irish_rail]

Interesting you say that as I tend to prefer travelling in the smaller composite First compartments of the 800-0/802-0 to the long, high capacity feeling full length First carriage of the 800-3/802-1. Feels more secluded, more private, etc.

Each to their own of course. I also find passenger distribution tends to be appalling on a 10 car with passengers tending to all end up on one half of the train, whilst on a 9 car they spread out better. Camarthen I suppose I get, due to the need to split , and therefore for operational convenience may as well go and make all the Swanseas 10 car too, but Penzance route really should be taking the 9 cars over Bristol , which has no good justification for having 9s over 10s (other than presumably director preference).

 

[Nottingham59]

Camarthen I suppose I get, due to the need to split , and therefore for operational convenience may as well go and make all the Swanseas 10 car too

Camarthen station is in the middle of a flat field. Either lengthen the platform there or stop serving it with direct trains to London. Platform length at Camarthen should not be determining the rolling stock strategy on the GWML

 

[JonathanH]

Platform length at Camarthen should not be determining the rolling stock strategy on the GWML

I think we can rest assured that there isn't going to a fleet of 7-coach 80x units procured by GWR to serve Carmarthen.