New TPE Train Discussion

[Dave1987]

Oh but with bi-modes they'll have the excuse to give up halfway!

Excuse me for having a contrary opinion to you, I do sincerely apologise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The thing is there will only ever be a limited number of bi-modal trains needed, as such once one company gets a design to market with a substantial order (I.e. IEP) then it is going to be more difficult for another company to get a design to market that can compete on price. As such there will be limited players in the market.

There will, for some time yet be routes where a pure DMU will still be running substantial distances off the wires and so there is little advantage in having only bi-modal and EMU trains.

Even with all the 22x's potential becoming spare we could still see XC ordering bi-modal trains as the 222's will not be freed up soon enough and the ICWC 221's may not all be released. As such (depending on what SWT do for the WofE services) you could see the 22x's going to Chiltern, Scotrail and possibly SWT in the mid 2020's as longer sets (scraping end coaches).

You have to bear in mind that we are currently needing to order a lot more units than we are getting rid of just to keep up with passenger demand, as such there could well be need for a lot of bi-modal, DMU and EMU trains over the next 10 years.

You also have to remember that very few people have traveled on a bi-modal train and so TOC's may be cautious about having them.

You might want to tell Haydn1971 that. I believe he has visions of the railway network being dominated by bi-modes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've seen no evidence that there will be more than one step up into the carriage: From the platform to the train, like just about any other train.

Expect the fact that it has already been documented that there is a considerable step from the platform into the vestibule and then a ramp up into the seating area. So the high floors are considerably higher than the platform.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to separate out DfT sanctioned and TOC ordered Bi-modes. In total, 545 carriages worth of bi-mode trains have been ordered, either as part of the IEP deal or subsequently by First (that's not including any prospective TPE order, as we don't know for sure yet). That's not so far away from the total number of 723 production HST carriages that were originally constructed. In total, over a thousand AT-300 vehicles, of bi-mode and electric variants, have been ordered to date (not including the earlier 395s).

Because as we know the DFT made the decision after it was made apparent the TOC's would not go for the decision the DFT wanted! So the only bi-modes to be ordered by a TOC are the comparatively small number First have ordered.

 

[sprinterguy]

it has already been documented that there is a considerable step from the platform into the vestibule and then a ramp up into the seating area. So the high floors are considerably higher than the platform.

So, yes, just one step, and a shallow ramp within the saloon on intermediate vehicles.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because as we know the DFT made the decision after it was made apparent the TOC's would not go for the decision the DFT wanted! So the only bi-modes to be ordered by a TOC are the comparatively small number First have ordered.

Which doesn't detract from the fact that a large number of bi-mode trains are being introduced onto the network, however they've been ordered.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You might want to tell Haydn1971 that. I believe he has visions of the railway network being dominated by bi-modes.

I'm not sure what the point of your posts is at the moment. No-one is suggesting the entire rail fleet will become bi-mode - what was being suggested is that bi-modes serve as a useful stop-gap, and are limited because they will generally only be used in places where a route has been substantially electrified but not entirely. By their very nature, with planned rolling-electrification, these routes will only exist in that form for a limited time. There is no point running bi-modes on fully electrified or completely unelectrified lines, and so as routes are electrified they will reduce in number. As other mainlines are partially electrified, we may see new ones ordered, or electric AT300s (or others) converted back to bi-modes and cascaded to operate routes that use branch lines or extend further than electrification. Just because there will only be a limited number due to necessity does not mean they won't be sticking around.

The flexibility of these trains is what makes them so useful. You can moan and complain about dragging diesel engines under the wires, but economically you have to make a choice between that, running diesel under the wires (also wasteful) or fixing a whopping great loco on the front when going off the wires. Bi-modes have been deemed the most economical choice of the three, which means they are less wasteful than the other two - the waste caused through diesel under the wires or from time lost through attaching locos would be even greater. If you find this implausible, you're perfectly welcome to put in a Freedom of Information request to Network Rail asking for a breakdown of the calculations.

Yes, of course, in an ideal world we wouldn't need them because the entire network would be electrified - unfortunately we live in reality where that isn't the case. Bi-modes allow us to make the best use of that.

(And no, before you start, I'm not interested in clap-trap about hating you for disagreement, censoring you or otherwise thinking you can't have an opinion. You can. I just think it's wrong.)

 

[Dave1987]

Electrification is a huge investment, waiting until a full route is finished over a period of 4-5 years locks out the economic benefits of the electrification until the end. Use of bi-modes allows for part wired use from day one of operations, extending the benefits as electrification spreads. You don't have wasteful single-mode locos or multiple units, you have a multiple unit fleet that can gradually evolve with the diagrams that become possible via phased electrification. This phased approach is tried and tested in every part of industry, we do it on smart motorways, putting central barriers in first on one section, moving that process onto the next section, then you bring in verge works, then comms, then testing and introduction, a phased rolling process. At the end of the electrification Civil's works, some bi-modes get cascaded to other franchises or networks, some get retained, some get converted to full EMU's - simples !

Wow can you take the rose tinted specs off for a second?

You said about environmental stuff. How is a train that wastes energy by accelerating tonnes and tonnes of engines and fuel under the wires eco friendly? We are already at a stage where the national grid is at crisis point with supply. And then when in diesel mode the diesel engines are accelerating all the tonnes of kit not in use for the overheads so wasting fuel. Yeah really really environmentally friendly.

Secondly I could believe you about a rolling stage of electrification if there hadn't been a massive balls up with GW electrification and subsequent "pauses" to electrification elsewhere until the political upheaval took its toll and they were forced to unpause it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So, yes, just one step, and a shallow ramp within the saloon on intermediate vehicles.

Er I believe its a double step into the vestibule followed by a ramp into the saloon so they are clearly a lot higher than the platforms.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which doesn't detract from the fact that a large number of bi-mode trains are being introduced onto the network, however they've been ordered.

Yes one route will be dominated by bi-modes. Haydn1971 seems to believe there will be bi-modes all around the country.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not sure what the point of your posts is at the moment. No-one is suggesting the entire rail fleet will become bi-mode - what was being suggested is that bi-modes serve as a useful stop-gap, and are limited because they will generally only be used in places where a route has been substantially electrified but not entirely. By their very nature, with planned rolling-electrification, these routes will only exist in that form for a limited time. There is no point running bi-modes on fully electrified or completely unelectrified lines, and so as routes are electrified they will reduce in number. As other mainlines are partially electrified, we may see new ones ordered, or electric AT300s (or others) converted back to bi-modes and cascaded to operate routes that use branch lines or extend further than electrification. Just because there will only be a limited number due to necessity does not mean they won't be sticking around.

The flexibility of these trains is what makes them so useful. You can moan and complain about dragging diesel engines under the wires, but economically you have to make a choice between that, running diesel under the wires (also wasteful) or fixing a whopping great loco on the front when going off the wires. Bi-modes have been deemed the most economical choice of the three, which means they are less wasteful than the other two - the waste caused through diesel under the wires or from time lost through attaching locos would be even greater. If you find this implausible, you're perfectly welcome to put in a Freedom of Information request to Network Rail asking for a breakdown of the calculations.

Yes, of course, in an ideal world we wouldn't need them because the entire network would be electrified - unfortunately we live in reality where that isn't the case. Bi-modes allow us to make the best use of that.

(And no, before you start, I'm not interested in clap-trap about hating you for disagreement, censoring you or otherwise thinking you can't have an opinion. You can. I just think it's wrong.)

Well considering these things aren't even coming into service until towards the end of the century and I would hope NR has got its act together by the mid 2030's and got the majority of the mainlines electrified I really don't even see the point of them at all. Instead of pumping money into this tech we should be all hand to the pump in getting the lines electrified. They are a symptom of the whole way in which this country thinks. Just like its taken us 30 yrs to realise we need another runway at Heathrow. The Chinese planned, designed and built an airport in 5 years.

 

[Greybeard33]

It's the 21st century, loco hauled is over, multiple units are here to stay, ultimately wired power is the end goal, but realistically speaking it's going to take a while to get there. The Northern franchise didn't ask for bi-modes, thus the winning bid from Arriva didn't offer them, oddly though, First without external influence from the DfT went out and bought some, because they thought, hey, great idea and these work in our economic model. No one else has done so yet because there hasn't been a solution for UK rail... Until now...

There's several franchises coming up that may evaluate the option, some may head down the new (or existing) DMU under wires route, some may head down the bi-mode route and some may not have to because they have the freedom in the franchise to just run straight DMU/EMU's logically on unwired and wired lines, either way, Bombardier, Siemens, Alstom etc will be peddling their bi-mode solutions on each and every opportunity they get, not to wind you up, but because the economics work - after all, that's what companies like First, Arriva, Stagecoach are all about - Making money for shareholders as efficiently as possible.

The Northern ITT made clear that bi-modes would be acceptable to meet the requirement for 120 new carriages - so long as they were not EMUs with a "last mile diesel" capability. The fact that the winning bidder proposed DMUs instead suggests that the economics did not work for the type of regional/commuter bi-mode needed for Northern's network - straight DMUs offered the prospect of less taxpayer subsidy and/or more profit for Arriva's and the ROSCO's shareholders.

Only one manufacturer's intercity bi-mode has so far been successfully marketed in Britain. There is no evidence yet that bi-mode solutions will be competitive with DMUs for regional or commuter trains, even on partly-wired routes.

 

[sprinterguy]

Er I believe its a double step into the vestibule followed by a ramp into the saloon so they are clearly a lot higher than the platforms.

Looking at images of the vestibule on the class 800 mock-up, it appears you are correct and there will be a small step-up to vestibule floor level from step board level.
http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/hitachirail-eu/images/class-800-801-interiors-vestibule-323835

It doesn't look to be any greater than that found on a Voyager, or a mark 3 carriage for that matter.

Yes one route will be dominated by bi-modes. Haydn1971 seems to believe there will be bi-modes all around the country.

If TPE do indeed order AT-300s then they will have a fairly wide geographic spread: GWML, ECML and North Transpennine.

 

[Haydn1971]

No-one is suggesting the entire rail fleet will become bi-mode - what was being suggested is that bi-modes serve as a useful stop-gap, and are limited because they will generally only be used in places where a route has been substantially electrified but not entirely. By their very nature, with planned rolling-electrification, these routes will only exist in that form for a limited time.

I'd go a tad further in that there will be a handful of routes that end up being mostly electrified with maybe up to a 20-30% unwired section(s) at the extremities for a long time into the future. York to Scarborough for example on TPE, maybe some of the Highland routes too - unless of course some breakthrough in battery or hydrogen power comes to the fore. But completely agree, bi-modes are a part solution for today's problems.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Well considering these things aren't even coming into service until towards the end of the century and I would hope NR has got its act together by the mid 2030's and got the majority of the mainlines electrified I really don't even see the point of them at all. Instead of pumping money into this tech we should be all hand to the pump in getting the lines electrified. They are a symptom of the whole way in which this country thinks. Just like its taken us 30 yrs to realise we need another runway at Heathrow. The Chinese planned, designed and built an airport in 5 years.

Mainlines and all intercity branches by 2030? You must be having a laugh.

The issues with electrification come from manpower and training, not from spending money on this (which have been calculated to be a cost-saving anyway).

 

[Haydn1971]

The fact that the winning bidder proposed DMUs instead suggests that the economics did not work for the type of regional/commuter bi-mode needed for Northern's network - straight DMUs offered the prospect of less taxpayer subsidy and/or more profit for Arriva's and the ROSCO's shareholders.

It's all about the money after all

 

[coppercapped]

This is pretty fantastic, actually. Does this mean we'll be likely to be seeing traction-change boards before junctions (such as that south of York for TPE) rather than simply switching at the station?

It's not fantastic - it's what's supposed to happen as the spec. requires that power change-over can happen on the move. The tests simply showed that the kit works.

 

[northwichcat]

Or it could have been

Arriva proposed c.140 new DMU vehicles as well as new EMUs
Bidder x proposed 120 new bi-mode vehicles with only cascaded stock joining them

With no real difference in subsidy but the Arriva bid scored better for quality.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It's not fantastic - it's what's supposed to happen as the spec. requires that power change-over can happen on the move. The tests simply showed that the kit works.

I wasn't implying that Hitachi had gone above-and-beyond the spec. I was expressing happiness at the fact that this is what the trains are capable of.

 

[Dave1987]

Mainlines and all intercity branches by 2030? You must be having a laugh.

The issues with electrification come from manpower and training, not from spending money on this (which have been calculated to be a cost-saving anyway).

Why? If this High Output Piling thing that NR and the DFT were so passionate about could be made to actually do what it is supposed to do there is no reason what so ever that we could not have most of the UK electrified in the next 15-20 years! If we actually planned stuff properly. But instead we are pumping vast sums of money into bi-modes that should be irrelevant within a decades or two if things were planned properly!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unlike classic DMUs, take the engine off and scrap it (leaving perhaps one for a limp-home facility) and you have an EMU.

 

[Haydn1971]

But instead we are pumping vast sums of money into bi-modes that should be irrelevant within a decades or two if things were planned properly!

Vast sums ? As noted by Neil, the bi-mode trains remain useful after the bi-mode feature becomes unnecessary - simply pull the diesel power pack out and hey presto, an EMU ! There isn't a huge cost associated with doing this, the recent First order worked out at £2.08m per 26m carriage (125/140mph units), vs £1.4m per 20m carriage (100mph Class 707 units) - works out at £1.82m per 26m length of carriage - thus for an extra £0.26m per carriage, you get trains that can go up to 40% faster, plus have the functionality to go off wires - sounds like a bargain to me ! (Class 802 cost from Modern Railways, Class 707 cost from Wikipedia).

 

[Dave1987]

Vast sums ? As noted by Neil, the bi-mode trains remain useful after the bi-mode feature becomes unnecessary - simply pull the diesel power pack out and hey presto, an EMU ! There isn't a huge cost associated with doing this, the recent First order worked out at £2.08m per 26m carriage (125/140mph units), vs £1.4m per 20m carriage (100mph Class 707 units) - works out at £1.82m per 26m length of carriage - thus for an extra £0.26m per carriage, you get trains that can go up to 40% faster, plus have the functionality to go off wires - sounds like a bargain to me ! (Class 802 cost from Modern Railways, Class 707 cost from Wikipedia).

Yeah after the development costs have all been piled into the IEP project for GW and EC!

Yes you can pull the engines out, but that leaves you with a train that has high floors and no reason for it. Not to mention the increased dwell times.

Look we have argued this to death on other threads. My opinions are broadly similar to the likes of RF. I haven't heard anything that has made me not believe these things are not an expensive waste of time that is covering up for the DFT's colossal balls up in the planning of electrification.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes you can pull the engines out, but that leaves you with a train that has high floors and no reason for it.

A huge amount seems to be being made of this "high floor" thing. People cope with ramped and stepped floors on buses every day without moaning about it. It really is nothing.

It also wouldn't be the case for a regional design, as a smaller engine would be required. These are bi-modes that can do 125mph on both electricity and diesel. Go for, say, 75 or even 100mph on diesel, and the engine needn't be as big.

Not to mention the increased dwell times.

What increased dwell times? It has end doors, but end doors are what are required for an InterCity EMU.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Why? If this High Output Piling thing that NR and the DFT were so passionate about could be made to actually do what it is supposed to do there is no reason what so ever that we could not have most of the UK electrified in the next 15-20 years! If we actually planned stuff properly. But instead we are pumping vast sums of money into bi-modes that should be irrelevant within a decades or two if things were planned properly!

We are planning things properly. Electrification requires clearance works as well as piling, and an enormous amount of money to boot. Money had to be spent on trains, and this was considered the most economic way of doing it - there is literally no incentive for the DfT to waste money on something like this.

This is seriously stretching as an argument.

 

[The Ham]

A huge amount seems to be being made of this "high floor" thing. People cope with ramped and stepped floors on buses every day without moaning about it. It really is nothing.

It also wouldn't be the case for a regional design, as a smaller engine would be required. These are bi-modes that can do 125mph on both electricity and diesel. Go for, say, 75 or even 100mph on diesel, and the engine needn't be as big.

Quite, as I have pointed out before a slope of 1:40 (the same crossfall on a perceived by most flat footway would gain you about 200mm (after allowing for a smooth roll over in the middle) in the centre 3.5m of a 20m long hump or 175mm in the centre 6m of the same hump.

The loss of headroom under the racks would be more noticeable than the ramp.

 

[TheKnightWho]

What increased dwell times? It has end doors, but end doors are what are required for an InterCity EMU.

I think Dave is imagining some sort of hike up Everest every time we get on and off, when in fact it's a hardly-noticeable bump How he squares what he's got in mind with strict disability-access requirements I have no idea.

 

[Dave1987]

A huge amount seems to be being made of this "high floor" thing. People cope with ramped and stepped floors on buses every day without moaning about it. It really is nothing.

It also wouldn't be the case for a regional design, as a smaller engine would be required. These are bi-modes that can do 125mph on both electricity and diesel. Go for, say, 75 or even 100mph on diesel, and the engine needn't be as big.

Its called dwell times. If passengers are required to go up say 2 steps to get on board a train with mid doors because the floor is high that increases dwell times. If the engines are smaller and a higher floor is not needed then the problem goes away. I haven't seen a single thing saying they are even offering a smaller engine version.

What increased dwell times? It has end doors, but end doors are what are required for an InterCity EMU.

I suggest you look back through RF & IW's columns, they explain exactly why dwell times might be increased at the likes of Reading even with power doors.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think Dave is imagining some sort of hike up Everest every time we get on and off, when in fact it's a hardly-noticeable bump How he squares what he's got in mind with strict disability-access requirements I have no idea.

Nope it what I read in an RF or IW column (cant remember which) but of course if you know better than they do I suggest you write to them and tell them they are talk rubbish.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We are planning things properly. Electrification requires clearance works as well as piling, and an enormous amount of money to boot. Money had to be spent on trains, and this was considered the most economic way of doing it - there is literally no incentive for the DfT to waste money on something like this.

This is seriously stretching as an argument.

5 times overspend on GW electrification, yup that's planning for you! This is the efficient way of appeasing voters with shiny new trains.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Nope it what I read in an RF or IW column (cant remember which) but of course if you know better than they do I suggest you write to them and tell them they are talk rubbish.

And their justification is? What is the extra raise in the middle of the carriage? Do you have it to hand, instead of claiming it's enormous?

5 times overspend on GW electrification, yup that's planning for you! This is the efficient way of appeasing voters with shiny new trains.

And this has what to do with the IEP programme exactly? Not keeping records of signalling cables and running into problems with piling, and issues with the high-output piling train don't, as far as I know. Again - you're tying together things which don't have anything to do with each other to push an agenda.

 

[Dave1987]

Anyway I will let this thread get back to the TPE order rather than turning into another bi-mode argument thread.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And their justification is? What is the extra raise in the middle of the carriage? Do you have it to hand, instead of claiming it's enormous?

July 2014 Informed sources in Modern Railways magazine. The length of the coaches along with the tapering, ramp down and step down onto the platform will all contribute to longer dwell times they said.

And this has what to do with the IEP programme exactly? Not keeping records of signalling cables and running into problems with piling, and issues with the high-output piling train don't, as far as I know. Again - you're tying together things which don't have anything to do with each other to push an agenda.

It has to do with the fact that bi-modes were created by Hitachi off the back of the GWIP and the because DFT wanted bi-modes. Otherwise the product wouldn't exist!

Honestly that is my last post on the subject now.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It has to do with the fact that bi-modes were created by Hitachi off the back of the GWIP and the because DFT wanted bi-modes. Otherwise the product wouldn't exist!

Honestly that is my last post on the subject now.

No, I know why they exist. That doesn't explain how they're the cause of it going 5 times over-budget (or whatever it is).

There are many aspects to projects - you can't just blame the parts you dislike for the bad with no evidence.

 

[Haydn1971]

Honestly that is my last post on the subject now.

Now I'm not a betting man... But !

 

[The Ham]

And their justification is? What is the extra raise in the middle of the carriage? Do you have it to hand, instead of claiming it's enormous?

Dave goes fairly quite when I talk about highway gradients and how they could gain a reasonable amount of extra space whist being hardly noticeable to most people (even when they are walking perpendicular to the slope).

 

[Dave1987]

Now I'm not a betting man... But !

On this thread I hasten to add! I will discuss/argue with you all day on other threads.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Have spoken to one of my managers. He advises me of the following.

The procurement order for 44 5 car units are still in discussion but nothing has yet been confirmed with the winning builder. There will be 44 new 5 cars along with 29 refurbished 185's. They will have new seating, wi-fi, media servers offering on board entertainment streamed to your mobile device, improved catering. The new units will see use on LIV-SCA, MIA-NCL/MBR, LIV-EDB ECML MIA/LIV-GLC/EDB WCML with refurb 185's for MAN/LDS/HUL and MIA-CLE.

TPE will NOT be making use of any of the following rolling stock:-

Mk3 LHCS -that includes the pretendolino
HST 125's
180's - they are going to GC when GWR have their bi-modes

And absolutely no 442's being shoved by cats! Not happening! Nada!

Bi-modes have been mentioned and AT300 derivatives have been suggested, but nothing has yet been confirmed

 

[northwichcat]

Have spoken to one of my managers. He advises me of the following.

The procurement order for 44 5 car units are still in discussion but nothing has yet been confirmed with the winning builder. There will be 44 new 5 cars along with 29 refurbished 185's. They will have new seating, wi-fi, media servers offering on board entertainment streamed to your mobile device, improved catering. The new units will see use on LIV-SCA, MIA-NCL/MBR, LIV-EDB ECML MIA/LIV-GLC/EDB WCML with refurb 185's for MAN/LDS/HUL and MIA-CLE.

TPE will NOT be making use of any of the following rolling stock:-

Mk3 LHCS -that includes the pretendolino
HST 125's
180's - they are going to GC when GWR have their bi-modes

And absolutely no 442's being shoved by cats! Not happening! Nada!

Bi-modes have been mentioned and AT300 derivatives have been suggested, but nothing has yet been confirmed

All bar the last sentence was confirmed in a TPE presentation, a link to which has been posted on here. Unfortunately, a MEN journalist who was at the presentation made a mess of her article on it and mentioned cascaded trains for TPE and some posters on here have chosen to ignore posts which have already told them it is incorrect.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

A TPE presentation which everyone and their dogs seem to have seen except those who work for TPE.....

However it helps to provide some clarification, after all, the cascaded HST's have been re-let 3 times over and the fleet of 24 442's has grown to 44.....