New TPE Train Discussion

[Bletchleyite]

I'd expect 23m.

 

[47802]

I'm curious to know whether a train comprising five loco hauled carriages will offer less capacity than a doubled up class 185. I'm also wondering whether TPE have chosen to operate sets of five carriages because they feel that it sufficiently satisfy demand or whether that is the limit for a class 68 crossing the Pennines.

Figure quoted is 287 LHCS and 286 for the EMU which is less than 2 x 185's and less than the 5 Car AT300's presumably because these trains will be 23m rather than 26m. Info coming from elsewhere is saying the driving trailers will be built last and the new carriages will initially operated T&T. Whether that will be as a 4 car train or using a coach from another set is not indicated.

 

[quantinghome]

...the new carriages will initially operated T&T.

7600 horsepowers. Nice.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm curious to know whether a train comprising five loco hauled carriages will offer less capacity than a doubled up class 185. I'm also wondering whether TPE have chosen to operate sets of five carriages because they feel that it sufficiently satisfy demand or whether that is the limit for a class 68 crossing the Pennines.

To be fair, not many 185s run doubled up - so yes, with the extra services too, there will be a good boost to seats

 

[IanXC]

A gentle reminder.

Can we please stay on topic, there are a number of threads available covering a number of related topics which have taken this thread away from its purpose.

Can I ask that we make use of those and stay on topic!

Thanks

 

[HSTEd]

At this point I should work on a plan for a newbuild class of 125mph CoCo electrics that will be justified by the TPE order and can then be used to retraction the entire MArk 3 and Mark 4 fleet into a huge uniform supply of trains.

And it will have both 415V and 1000V ETS available to avoid the necessity of rewiring, just having to make sure that rolling stock groupings are homogenous.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

All this speculation yet nothing has been revealed internally....

23m minimises the amount of platforming lengths to just Yarm, if we go for 26m then Warrington, Liverpool parkway, seamer, Chester le street and possibly st helens will all need lengthening as will Newcastle also need some rethinking over it's platform use

 

[47802]

All this speculation yet nothing has been revealed internally....

23m minimises the amount of platforming lengths to just Yarm, if we go for 26m then Warrington, Liverpool parkway, seamer, Chester le street and possibly st helens will all need lengthening as will Newcastle also need some rethinking over it's platform use

Well the figure of 287 seats comes from Rail Technology Magazine so assuming that's correct I doubt thats a 26m seating capacity if it is then its inefficient at the side of AT300's

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

23m minimises the amount of platforming lengths to just Yarm, if we go for 26m then Warrington, Liverpool parkway, seamer, Chester le street and possibly st helens will all need lengthening as will Newcastle also need some rethinking over it's platform use

Given that the required technology seems to have reached maturity (ie it's reliable) who's to say that the new stock won't include ASDO, regardless of vehicle length?

 

[Greybeard33]

All this speculation yet nothing has been revealed internally....

23m minimises the amount of platforming lengths to just Yarm, if we go for 26m then Warrington, Liverpool parkway, seamer, Chester le street and possibly st helens will all need lengthening as will Newcastle also need some rethinking over it's platform use

TPE will no longer be serving Warrington Central or Liverpool South Parkway by the time these trains are delivered - both Liverpool services will be on the Chat Moss line.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

TPE will no longer be serving Warrington Central or Liverpool South Parkway by the time these trains are delivered - both Liverpool services will be on the Chat Moss line.

Every likelihood of the CLC remaining a diversionary route when the Chat Moss is closed, as happens at the moment (although usually it is the other way round).

 

[Greybeard33]

Every likelihood of the CLC remaining a diversionary route when the Chat Moss is closed, as happens at the moment (although usually it is the other way round).

But diversions will be non-stop surely, so platform lengths will not matter?

 

[notlob.divad]

All this speculation yet nothing has been revealed internally....

23m minimises the amount of platforming lengths to just Yarm, if we go for 26m then Warrington, Liverpool parkway, seamer, Chester le street and possibly st helens will all need lengthening as will Newcastle also need some rethinking over it's platform use

St Helens Junction is 118m on the up and 120m on the down. So I think 5 23m would fit, with the Loco off the front. 5 26m would not. But then doubled up 185s won't either.
I am not sure about Newton-Le-Willows which will be the other TPE stop. I don't know if platform alterations are part of the current upgrade plan.

 

[AndrewE]

Why? What's wrong with an electric-hauled LHCS set that will be internally exactly the same as one of the EMUs except for having a locomotive on one end?

1) You can't have through passenger access on a train longer than the basic unit (like current Voyagers on Anglo Scottish services: extra costs of manning 2 shops, no hot food in one of the units, no comprehensive ticket inspections without double-manning each job).
2) no possibility of running Liverpool and Manchester to Glasgow and Edinburgh services as they do with EMUs on Belgium (trains of 3 3- or 4-car units would provide these options every hour.)
3) DVT at one end of each set so loss of flexibility there (plus restrictions on seating layouts etc)
4)Additional platform length needed for multiple sets - we're talking about the North here, don't forget, even Haymarket can't cope with 11-car Pendolinos!

Having said all that, I would still welcome reconditioned loco/Mk III coaches/ DVT fixed sets on Liverpool to Newcastle or Cardiff to Manchester services to replace the poxy 2 and 3-car DMUs working them currently.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A gentle reminder.

Can we please stay on topic, there are a number of threads available covering a number of related topics which have taken this thread away from its purpose.

Can I ask that we make use of those and stay on topic!

Thanks

This forum is unusual (in my experience) in that the actual thread title vanishes as soon as you look at it - until you want to reply, when it only reappears in small print at the top of the screen, not where you are looking when you are composing a reply to a post.

It might help people to stay on-topic if they were reminded of it while reading the discussion... Re-reading this I can see that it is in Traction and Rolling stock, but there is nothing to remind me of the title!
Just saying
A

 

[RichmondCommu]

Info coming from elsewhere is saying the driving trailers will be built last and the new carriages will initially operated T&T. Whether that will be as a 4 car train or using a coach from another set is not indicated.

In terms of the cost of fuel and I'm guessing track access charges that would be sheer lunacy. Not to mention loco availability as you would obviously need two loco's per train.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'd expect 23m.

Assuming the new coaches are in some way similar to the Cally Sleeper vehicles, 22m would be a reasonable bet.

 

[WatcherZero]

In terms of the cost of fuel and I'm guessing track access charges that would be sheer lunacy. Not to mention loco availability as you would obviously need two loco's per train.

Its from Tony Miles, I asked whether the DVT would be converted in the UK due to the time consuming non standard work which would slow down the production line. He said that because of that they would be built together at the very end of the production run and that the trains would initially enter service top and tailed by locos until they had been completed.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Platform lengthening's had been announced as part of the franchise so I would expect at least Chester le St and Yarm to be tackled. Malton would also need another rebuild as would seamer. There are no doubt others.

Currently CLC trains diverted via the moss stop at NLW vice WAC with buses linking the two. There's also the link via WBQ to Chester as a connection. No reason why chat moss diversions via CLC won't use WAC...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But diversions will be non-stop surely, so platform lengths will not matter?

Current (Northern) practice is for stops at Newton le Willows instead of Warrington Central, and vice versa.
TPE seems to prefer to terminate Chat Moss services in Manchester, but then there is still a CLC service.

 

[jopsuk]

just because one order of carriages is 22m doesn't mean that an entirely independent order will be as well. The length will be whatever the customer ordering needs for their requirements (probably within a 20-26m range). For example London Overground are getting 20m versions of Aventra versus Crossrail's 22.2m, Hitachi regard the 20m Class 395 and 26m CLass 800/801/802 as AT300, etc

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think it's actually a DVT, which implies no passenger accommodation. More likely to have most of the coach available for passengers with a staff area behind the cab, as with the end cars of Pendolinos and Voyagers.

Maybe Top and Tail is only during delivery of the sets, so only some of them are running but they already have the full loco fleet so might as well use two on each train. Incidentally the term Top and Tail usually indicates the rear loco isn't powering and may in fact be shut down, and if this applies here the extra weight without extra power means the T&T sets will have worse performance than the final push-pull versions.

 

[northwichcat]

For North West platform lengthening Network Rail originally proposed

 4x 24m car length at Mossley Down, Greenfield Down, Marsden, Slaithwaite, Mouldsworth, Delamere, Cuddington, Greenbank, Plumley Down, Ashley Down, Hathersage and Grindleford
 4 x 23m car length at Dove Holes, Chapel-en-le Frith, Middlewood, Woodsmoor, Humphrey Park, Glazebrook Down, New Lane, Bescar Lane, Moses Gate, Hall i’th’wood, Darwen, Ramsgreave & Wilpshire, Langho, Whalley and Clitheroe
 6 x 24m car length at Liverpool South Parkway Up and Down fast platforms, Widnes, Warrington Central and Newton-le-Willows
 3 x 23m car at Bamber Bridge Up

However, that may change with TPE not being able to keep 170s until North TPE electrification, Northern not getting as many 170s as envisaged and TPE getting new trains to replace 185s.

 

[DarloRich]

Platform lengthening's had been announced as part of the franchise so I would expect at least Chester le St and Yarm to be tackled. Malton would also need another rebuild as would seamer. There are no doubt others.

Currently CLC trains diverted via the moss stop at NLW vice WAC with buses linking the two. There's also the link via WBQ to Chester as a connection. No reason why chat moss diversions via CLC won't use WAC...

Yarm will need doing. It seems so small. Years since i used Chester le Street but that seems to have a short, by modern standards, platform

 

[po8crg]

I imagine the actual driving vehicles will be DTSO or DFO (depending on whether they are standard or first class accomodation).

The argument for DFO is that it means that all the other carriages would be the same (all TSOs) and that the carriage with slightly less passenger space (because of the driving cab at the end) is the one with first. This would make reforming to add additional standard accomodation easier.

The arguments against are that it would make the amount of first-class accomodation completely inflexible (you can't add a second DFO, and you don't have any FOs to add) and that it would mean that any push-pull running would have to be standard-class only.

I note (from the CAF press release) that it's actually 66 passenger cars, which probably means one spare car, rather than an extra driving trailer.

So the order could be as simple as 13*DFO and 53*TSO.

 

[Mordac]

Looks like the RMT found something to complain about as usual:

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2016/05/24-second-spanish-rolling-stock-win.html

Second Spanish rolling stock win confirmed

NEW trains for Transpennine Express are to be built by the Spanish firm of CAF, after no bids were received from a manufacturer with a British base.

TPE said the deal was 'great news', but the RMT said the decision to choose a Spanish builder was a 'sad indictment' of the railways.

The order for two new fleets is the second to be made by FirstGroup for Transpennine Express. It has already signed a contract for 19 five-car trains, to be supplied by Hitachi.

The latest deal completes First's rolling stock commitments on Transpennine and involves two more fleets, consisting of 12 five-car Civity UK intercity electric trains financed by Eversholt Rail and 13 five-car intercity trains financed by Beacon Rail Leasing.

The contracts are a second recent British win for CAF, which is already providing new trains for Northern. The firm has also built the new fleet of trams for Midland Metro in Birmingham.

Transpennine Express said the new fleets will provide an extra 13 million seats a year -- enough to fill Old Trafford stadium more than 150 times.

In total, 44 new trains are now set to come into service on Transpennine Express by 2019.

TPE managing director, Leo Goodwin said: “This is great news for our customers and we are delighted to have concluded the deals that will bring much needed and much wanted extra carriages across our network.

“This will enable us to transform the customer experience over the life of our franchise and our three new train fleets will form a key part of this improvement.

“Whether travelling to work, for business or leisure, our services are going to offer more seats, improved connectivity and a higher standard of comfort. The on-board experience will be second to none and we will provide customers with a real alternative to the car and congested road network.”

The news of the latest orders received an unenthusiastic reception from the RMT. The union's general secretary Mick Cash said: "It is a sad indictment of our railways that, at a time when our steel-making and manufacturing industries are in crisis, these new trains are not being built here in Britain.

"With the pressures on our railways, and the constant demand for extra capacity, the Government should embark on some joined up thinking and make serious efforts to use these opportunities to protect UK steel making and our manufacturing base."

Did Bombardier even bid for these? This is why I utterly despite the unions in this country. This has nothing to do with workplace issues and everything to do with political grand standing.

 

[northwichcat]

Did Bombardier even bid for these? This is why I utterly despite the unions in this country. This has nothing to do with workplace issues and everything to do with political grand standing.

According to TPE no manufacturer with a British production line was interested in building the new EMUs. While for Northern Bombardier offered a new EMU but not a new DMU or DEMU, meaning the only manufacturers to offer both types of trains which Northern needed were CAF and Stadler.

Also have the RMT realised that Bombardier Derby build aluminium trains not steel trains?

 

[YorkshireBear]

According to TPE no manufacturer with a British production line was interested in building the new EMUs. While for Northern Bombardier offered a new EMU but not a new DMU or DEMU, meaning the only manufacturers to offer both types of trains which Northern needed were CAF and Stadler.

Also have the RMT realised that Bombardier Derby build aluminium trains not steel trains?

The unions are an example of how to turn any story into an agenda piece. No matter how good. I am sure they will complain when Hitachi wins work for Europe and builds them here.

 

[DarloRich]

Looks like the RMT found something to complain about as usual....This is why I utterly despite the unions in this country. This has nothing to do with workplace issues and everything to do with political grand standing.

The unions are an example of how to turn any story into an agenda piece. No matter how good. I am sure they will complain when Hitachi wins work for Europe and builds them here.

What would you prefer the unions to do? behave like good little boys and not upset your morning grapefruit? The point is valid. 1000's of steel workers are at risk of being sacked yet we cant use some of their product to make trains in our own country. Does that not concern you? Many of the people in the affected group think no one is speaking for them and are angry, would you prefer if no one did and they simply slipped away quietly into an uncertain world?

Any understanding of the history of the TU or Labour movement would indicate that unions are based upon an overtly political position. That is the whole point - to represent their members and seek to influence those in power to provide better treatment for workers.

Are you that naive or brainwashed by the mainly convservative press?

BTW - utterly despise? really :roll:

 

[northwichcat]

The point is valid. 1000's of steel workers are at risk of being sacked yet we cant use some of their product to make trains in our own country.

The RMT missed an excellent opportunity to back British steel building - when Osborne was talking to the Chinese about getting them involved in the HS2 construction. However, it seems the RMT didn't realise what was going on with the steel industry at that time - despite the broadsheet papers realising - so they decided to make a fuss now and put forward a generic argument in objection which makes it (yet again) look like they don't know what they're talking about. In my opinion the RMT are an embarrassment to Trade Unions as they do a very good job at making the general public anti-Trade Union.

 

[hwl]

1000's of steel workers are at risk of being sacked yet we cant use some of their product to make trains in our own country.

The amount of steel in a new UK passenger train is much reduced and is falling since most new designs have Aluminium body shells and inside frame bogies that have reduced steel usage dramatically from the late BR era (the inside frame bogies have reduce the steel /cast iron requirement by a few tonnes /car on the Desiro City and Aventra designs).

Lucchini tend to use recycled steel for the wheel sets any way.

The steel requirement for UK rolling stock would keep them going for substantially less than a day.

We can't compete with the China on cost so our export markets (circa 30%+ of UK production) have largely evaporated and the significant volume of low quality re-bar is where the Chinese steel companies are doing well in the UK (the lowest of the lowest quality wise).