Idea: AT300/IEP for MML and XC

[Townsend Hook]

Siemens have the Verve but that is little more than a concept at the moment and not suitable for MML and XC

The Verve looks to be just the thing for electrified MML services. If the door configuration was a deal-breaker, I'm sure Siemens could knock out an end-door version, as they did with the Class 444 for SWT.

 

[jimm]

I think the 165/0s would be more than adequate for Exmouth-Paignton. Is it only 165s that can use the metropolitan line?

If all they did was potter up and down the branch maybe, but the Exmouth services are not captive to the branch, so the 75mph limit would remain an issue. Far better to keep them all together as a common fleet with Chiltern - FGW got rid of the five 165/0s Thames Trains had used sharpish when it took over in 2004 - and I can't see Chiltern warning to release any 165s anyway, even if the LO 172s do end up on its books.

All Chiltern dmus except the 172/1s are fitted with tripcocks.

 

[RobShipway]

I think the 165/0s would be more than adequate for Exmouth-Paignton. Is it only 165s that can use the metropolitan line?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


They would need a third rail shoe as well though, would it make more sense to diagram Manchester-Bournemouth separately with a 395 derivative? With the Bristol services Voyagers or AT300?

Also Coventry-Oxford is due to be electrified as part of the Electric Spine.

I cannot see XC getting AT300 trains, as much as it makes sense and having the weight of third rail shoes added. I can possibly see XC getting the Hull Trains class 180's in a few years time though, when being replaced by AT300's. Unless the class 180's go to ATW.

 

[Class 170101]

I doubt you would be able to get around te gauging issues of 165s regarding them opearting at TPE. Don't forget the 165s are slightly wider than most Rolling Stock as BR (Western Region) exploited the wider loading gauge available on Great Western compared to elsewhere.

 

[northwichcat]

I doubt you would be able to get around te gauging issues of 165s regarding them opearting at TPE. Don't forget the 165s are slightly wider than most Rolling Stock as BR (Western Region) exploited the wider loading gauge available on Great Western compared to elsewhere.

Old wives table I'm afraid.

A 323 is half a metre longer than a 165/6 and it a 165/6 would only be 5mm closer to the platform, so by the time the 165/6 is shorter it should be easy to get clearance for using 165/6s on any routes 323s are cleared. Obviously you wouldn't use 16xs on fully electrified routes but the 323s have been used on a range of different routes in the Midlands and North.

165/6s aren't cleared for Cardiff to Portsmouth but Network Rail are undertaking work to get them cleared.

 

[Emblematic]

I cannot see XC getting AT300 trains, as much as it makes sense and having the weight of third rail shoes added. I can possibly see XC getting the Hull Trains class 180's in a few years time though, when being replaced by AT300's. Unless the class 180's go to ATW.

I think you're probably right, at least for the next few years. Going back to the OP's question, my feeling is the current EM and XC franchisees will be tasked with getting their current fleets PRM-TSI compliant at the lowest cost during the direct award period, either by inward cascades, or possibly some low-cost conversions, basically using what's available rather than trying to rush through new procurement; the new franchise bidders will then be able to chose from a range of new-build or cascaded stock in the early 2020s. The HT 180s are a good example, they anticipate introducing their bi-modes in 2020, so that's no help for anyone looking for cascaded stock to meet the PRM-TSI cutoff.

 

[TheWalrus]

I cannot see XC getting AT300 trains, as much as it makes sense and having the weight of third rail shoes added. I can possibly see XC getting the Hull Trains class 180's in a few years time though, when being replaced by AT300's. Unless the class 180's go to ATW.

I think there is a clearance issue somewhere around Birmingham which stopped XC or VT getting the 180s before. Think I read it on here somewhere but not sure if this is so.

The Exmouth services will all be going to Paignton or Exeter I believe which is currently operated by 143s, 153s and 150s, and will be 150s after GW electrification. Therefore 165/0s would be fine for that route as the current stock and proposed stock share 75mph top speed with 165/0s. What is the line speed between Exeter and Paigntin is it 60mph?

 

[superalbs]

I think there is a clearance issue somewhere around Birmingham which stopped XC or VT getting the 180s before. Think I read it on here somewhere but not sure if this is so.

The Exmouth services will all be going to Paignton or Exeter I believe which is currently operated by 143s, 153s and 150s, and will be 150s after GW electrification. Therefore 165/0s would be fine for that route as the current stock and proposed stock share 75mph top speed with 165/0s. What is the line speed between Exeter and Paigntin is it 60mph?

The speed between Exeter St Thomas and Starcross reaches 100mph, but after Starcross it stays around 70mph until Newton Abbot, dropping to about 50mph.

 

[sprinterguy]

They would need a third rail shoe as well though, would it make more sense to diagram Manchester-Bournemouth separately with a 395 derivative? With the Bristol services Voyagers or AT300?

Also Coventry-Oxford is due to be electrified as part of the Electric Spine.

They wouldn't need third rail pickup by any means, they could operate perfectly well over third rail territory on diesel power (subject to gauging restrictions), the same as the East Coast sets will operate under 1500V overhead between Pelaw and Sunderland.

I rather thought that the "Electric Spine" proposal had largely fallen by the wayside, particularly with regards to the Oxford to Coventry section and with regard in other aspects to the delay to or sidelining of MML electrification.

 

[TheWalrus]

The speed between Exeter St Thomas and Starcross reaches 100mph, but after Starcross it stays around 70mph until Newton Abbot, dropping to about 50mph.

With the Marsh Barton call added will they get a chance to reach 100mph even if the units were capable? I would imagine not therefore the good acceleration of the 165s could come into play.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They wouldn't need third rail pickup by any means, they could operate perfectly well over third rail territory on diesel power (subject to gauging restrictions), the same as the East Coast sets will operate under 1500V overhead between Pelaw and Sunderland.

I rather thought that the "Electric Spine" proposal had largely fallen by the wayside, particularly with regards to the Oxford to Coventry section and with regard in other aspects to the delay to or sidelining of MML electrification.

They could but wouldn't be able to make use of the third rail power.