Logic of Trans-Pennine Electrification ?

[gimmea50anyday]

Why wouldn't it. Taking into account the coach lengths you'll probably find 100 more seats in a mini pendo than current 350's

 

[northwichcat]

Why wouldn't it. Taking into account the coach lengths you'll probably find 100 more seats in a mini pendo than current 350's

It'll depend how they are furbished. 5 standard class coaches on a 9 car Pendolinos provide less standard class seats than on the 3 car class 323s.

 

[sprinterguy]

Why wouldn't it. Taking into account the coach lengths you'll probably find 100 more seats in a mini pendo than current 350's

Taking into account the current seating capacities of the various Pendolino vehicles, a hypothetical 5-car Pendolino with one first class driving car would probably have around thirty, perhaps forty, more standard class seats than a 350/1, and probably not a great deal more first class seating depending on what they decided to do with the kitchen arrangement although it would be considerably more luxurious than London Midland's first class provision!

 

[YorkshireBear]

I think 4 cars that can be doubled up to 8 cars is a good way forward to be honest. They can go 110mph which is realistically all you need on northern WCML. And it will fit the platforms better.
Plus IMHO, the wider doors down the carriages make airport travel with large luggage easier. A pendilino would, again IMHO, have very large dwell times.

 

[sprinterguy]

I sincerely hope TPE do not get a fleet of 350's. as much as electric stock is needed a 4 car 350 at 20m per carriage has just 17 more seats than a 3 car 185 at 23m per carriage.

If the figures that were published at the time of the TPE 350 announcement still hold true then the TPE 350s will have 25 more standard class seats than a class 185, even in the worst case scenario that the 350 standard class total (191) includes tip-up seats. It should be 29 more seats overall (including all tip-up seats), which perhaps isn't particularly surprising when a four carriage 350 is only half a carriage length longer than a three carriage 185.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

17-25 either way isn't much of a capacity increase. It just looks good on paper and the headline news stories that 3 cars are being replaced by 4cars. It's not what the passengers nor the staff want!

 

[Class377/5]

17-25 either way isn't much of a capacity increase. It just looks good on paper and the headline news stories that 3 cars are being replaced by 4cars. It's not what the passengers nor the staff want!

Passengers and staff don't want a capacity increase?

 

[D365]

Passengers and staff don't want a capacity increase?

'50', all the 185s are being retained so there will be a capacity increase... Direct comparison; 25x10 = 250 more seats when comparing 10 of 4x20 350/4 to 3x23 185. It adds up.

 

[ainsworth74]

Passengers and staff don't want a capacity increase?

I think it's more that this isn't the capacity increase that we want. Basically all TPEs routes need a step change in capacity (such as adding an extra 23m vehicle) not just adding a extra dozen or so seats. That being said it will at least allow more 185s to deployed back onto core TPE services rather than running to Scotland which should provide some extra capacity elsewhere.

 

[Class377/5]

I think it's more that this isn't the capacity increase that we want. Basically all TPEs routes need a step change in capacity (such as adding an extra 23m vehicle) not just adding a extra dozen or so seats. That being said it will at least allow more 185s to deployed back onto core TPE services rather than running to Scotland which should provide some extra capacity elsewhere.

Yet considering your newish fleet is about to be replaced with a new fleet, getting extra DMU vehicles for a few years is asking for too much. Especially as the industry expects to buy 300-400 DMU carriages in th next thirty years.

The step change is with wires going up allowing better overall improvements such as journey time, frequency and more units. One extra vehicle isn't going to magically improve everything as much as electrification will.

Or are you suggesting just go to four car 185 and that's ll the staff and passengers ever want?

 

[WestCountry]

Yet considering your newish fleet is about to be replaced with a new fleet, getting extra DMU vehicles for a few years is asking for too much. Especially as the industry expects to buy 300-400 DMU carriages in th next thirty years.

The step change is with wires going up allowing better overall improvements such as journey time, frequency and more units. One extra vehicle isn't going to magically improve everything as much as electrification will.

Or are you suggesting just go to four car 185 and that's ll the staff and passengers ever want?

Doesn't look to me like he's arguing for new DMUs, rather that when electric stock replaces the 185s it should have substantially more capacity. If the electric trains have almost identical capacity to the existing stock (which would be the case with 4-car 350s), electrification certainly won't "magically improve" capacity. :roll:

Perhaps 4x23m 444-style units, with platform extensions to allow 8-car sets? 4x20m would have no advantage over the 185s, extending platforms to 10x23m (with 5-car sets) would almost certainly cost too much.

 

[tbtc]

350/4s are only planned for the Scottish TPE services and only planned as a short term measure. There's nothing to suggest that would be running on the Huddersfield route.

Anyhow, after this small batch of 350s is built (for LM and TP) anyone wanting something similar will need to order 380s (i.e. 23m coaches). Maybe a fleet of three and four coach 380s would suit the Huddersfield line (running as six/ seven/ eight coaches on the core Manchester - York section), but that's just speculation.

Also, the increase from four an hour through Huddersfield to six an hour will be an increase in capacity (even if the trains aren't much longer).

 

[Bevan Price]

If the figures that were published at the time of the TPE 350 announcement still hold true then the TPE 350s will have 25 more standard class seats than a class 185, even in the worst case scenario that the 350 standard class total (191) includes tip-up seats. It should be 29 more seats overall (including all tip-up seats), which perhaps isn't particularly surprising when a four carriage 350 is only half a carriage length longer than a three carriage 185.

Agreed. some of the TPE trains on the Manchester / Scotland routes are often full and standing; electrification can be expected to attract more passengers. So, a train with only 25 more standard class seats than a Class 185 is pathetically inadequate.

 

[tbtc]

Agreed. some of the TPE trains on the Manchester / Scotland routes are often full and standing; electrification can be expected to attract more passengers. So, a train with only 25 more standard class seats than a Class 185 is pathetically inadequate.

The problem with the Scottish route is that it's very variable in terms of loadings - the midweek trains can be very quiet, the weekend ones can be packed.

I should repeat that the 350/4s are only a short term measure (to ensure that there's EMUs ready for when the wires go up) and longer trains will be ordered in due time

 

[61653 HTAFC]

350/4s are only planned for the Scottish TPE services and only planned as a short term measure. There's nothing to suggest that would be running on the Huddersfield route.

Anyhow, after this small batch of 350s is built (for LM and TP) anyone wanting something similar will need to order 380s (i.e. 23m coaches). Maybe a fleet of three and four coach 380s would suit the Huddersfield line (running as six/ seven/ eight coaches on the core Manchester - York section), but that's just speculation.

Also, the increase from four an hour through Huddersfield to six an hour will be an increase in capacity (even if the trains aren't much longer).

Though there'll definitely be a need for extra capacity west of HUD when the wires go up- as the current stopper will be replaced by 2 semi-fasts per hour calling at 2 of the 4 smaller stations between Huddersfield and Stalybridge. In face, these semi-fasts are currently planned to be the only non-local services to call at Dewsbury and Stalybridge- so I'd argue these might need lengthening in the peaks more drastically than the 'true' express services...

 

[WatcherZero]

350/4s are only planned for the Scottish TPE services and only planned as a short term measure. There's nothing to suggest that would be running on the Huddersfield route.

Anyhow, after this small batch of 350s is built (for LM and TP) anyone wanting something similar will need to order 380s (i.e. 23m coaches). Maybe a fleet of three and four coach 380s would suit the Huddersfield line (running as six/ seven/ eight coaches on the core Manchester - York section), but that's just speculation.

Also, the increase from four an hour through Huddersfield to six an hour will be an increase in capacity (even if the trains aren't much longer).

Its an interesting point, Transport Scotland wanted cheaper Desiro 350's but Siemens said they could only have the 380 as a kind of Desiro 1.5 between the original and the new Desiro City model. Siemens is eager to move the Desiro City into production and phase out the Desiro so it may be quite hard to persuade them to build a fresh order of 380's.

 

[Class377/5]

350/4s are only planned for the Scottish TPE services and only planned as a short term measure. There's nothing to suggest that would be running on the Huddersfield route.

Anyhow, after this small batch of 350s is built (for LM and TP) anyone wanting something similar will need to order 380s (i.e. 23m coaches). Maybe a fleet of three and four coach 380s would suit the Huddersfield line (running as six/ seven/ eight coaches on the core Manchester - York section), but that's just speculation.

Also, the increase from four an hour through Huddersfield to six an hour will be an increase in capacity (even if the trains aren't much longer).

There's also the 20m Desiro City units on offer as well if you had to have Siemens.

Doesn't look to me like he's arguing for new DMUs, rather that when electric stock replaces the 185s it should have substantially more capacity. If the electric trains have almost identical capacity to the existing stock (which would be the case with 4-car 350s), electrification certainly won't "magically improve" capacity. :roll:

Perhaps 4x23m 444-style units, with platform extensions to allow 8-car sets? 4x20m would have no advantage over the 185s, extending platforms to 10x23m (with 5-car sets) would almost certainly cost too much.

Actually he was arguing for new DMU vehicles. Isn't going to happen. Electrification will help improve capacity by reducing journey times and allowing additional services to run. That's how you increase capacity.

Also note I didn't state it would magically improve capacity, all I said is electrification will improve things unlike adding a extra EMU would magically improve. Maybe read it twice next time yeah? :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its an interesting point, Transport Scotland wanted cheaper Desiro 350's but Siemens said they could only have the 380 as a kind of Desiro 1.5 between the original and the new Desiro City model. Siemens is eager to move the Desiro City into production and phase out the Desiro so it may be quite hard to persuade them to build a fresh order of 380's.

350 doesn't meet safety specs hence why they developed a new build based on Desiro City. Bombardier have done so with 379, 377/6 & 377/7 fleets.

 

[WatcherZero]

The shell wasnt really the issue and easily bodged by Siemens, The order was tendered before EN 15227 was ratified and awarded a week after, however the date for compliance when tendering was 5th March 2011 and delivery compliance is 3rd June 2017, three years after the tender and half a decade after they were delivered so it never had to comply. Siemens updated the crashworthiness voluntarily.

The main issue was Transport Scotland wanted the cheaper mature traction package of the 350 while Siemens wanted to sell them the Desiro City. So it ended up with a compromise design taking the 350's traction package and bogies and putting it in a Desiro City shell with the new City features most notably 'fly by wire' electronics, HVAC and doors as well as more modern standardised rather than the bespoke brakes of the 350.

As Ian Polson Siemens General Manage put it, everything below the floor is a 350 and 'everything above the floor' is altered. They wanted to change the bogies too because they thought they were a 'conservative' design that was clunky and heavy.

 

[northwichcat]

350/4s are only planned for the Scottish TPE services and only planned as a short term measure. There's nothing to suggest that would be running on the Huddersfield route.

Anyhow, after this small batch of 350s is built (for LM and TP) anyone wanting something similar will need to order 380s (i.e. 23m coaches). Maybe a fleet of three and four coach 380s would suit the Huddersfield line (running as six/ seven/ eight coaches on the core Manchester - York section), but that's just speculation.

The reason TPE are getting 350s is because it's been tagged on to a LM tender for which a term was compatibility with existing EMUs in the LM fleet. A 380 is not compatible with 321s, 323s or even 350s so that's why Siemens went down the class 350 road.

If the 350s were to stay on Manchester Airport-Scotland and the proposed Liverpool portions needed to be added then I imagine we could see another class 350 order.

LM getting the 350/4s in the future may depend on them losing their 321s or 323s to another operator. Which operator would take either of those on? Northern will need extra EMUs but there's been suggestions Northern's 32xs might be cascaded elsewhere. Anglia don't want extra EMUs and if they did they would likely take on the released 317s again.

There have also been proposals for 350s being replaced by 5 car 125mph units on Northampton-London, so LM might have surplus EMUs even without taking on the 350/4s.

 

[Class377/5]

The reason TPE are getting 350s is because it's been tagged on to a LM tender for which a term was compatibility with existing EMUs in the LM fleet. A 380 is not compatible with 321s, 323s or even 350s so that's why Siemens went down the class 350 road.

If the 350s were to stay on Manchester Airport-Scotland and the proposed Liverpool portions needed to be added then I imagine we could see another class 350 order.

LM getting the 350/4s in the future may depend on them losing their 321s or 323s to another operator. Which operator would take either of those on? Northern will need extra EMUs but there's been suggestions Northern's 32xs might be cascaded elsewhere. Anglia don't want extra EMUs and if they did they would likely take on the released 317s again.

There have also been proposals for 350s being replaced by 5 car 125mph units on Northampton-London, so LM might have surplus EMUs even without taking on the 350/4s.

We won't see another 350 order. The design is out dated (just like he Electrostar) and only reason there are 20 being built is during the process the rules changed. Don't forget LM was expect these units in 2009-10 as a follow on order to the 350/2's.

Only choice from here on from Siemens is a Desiro City which comes in various lengths (anything between 3 to 12 carriages), electrical supplies and with or without a front end corridor.

 

[northwichcat]

We won't see another 350 order. The design is out dated (just like he Electrostar) and only reason there are 20 being built is during the process the rules changed. Don't forget LM was expect these units in 2009-10 as a follow on order to the 350/2's.

The original tender is here: http://www.publictenders.net/tender/1132740

The tender was for up to 120 carriages in a mixture of 3 and 4 car formations, so it was understood that if it went ahead in full then LM would have given up all of their 321s and 323s.

The expected delivery date would have been May 2011: - "London Midland requires that the new vehicles are introduced into passenger revenue earning service from May 2011."

The tender really relied on Northern taking on the 323s and another operator taking on LMs and Northerns 321s. However, with the Thameslink announcement resulting in a load of surplus 319s and the Scotrail class 380 order resulting in surplus 322s, the tender couldn't go ahead as it was without resulting in non-life expired EMUs sitting in sidings.