SouthEastern fleet replacement updates

[fgwrich]

Depends on how much Siemens wants to restart the production line for the Desiro City product. But I agree more 707s but maybe split into 4 & 6 coach units for the different lengths.

Unless thinking outside the box, fixed length 8 & 12 coach units similar to the 700s. Although that will probably bring a larger cost to rebuild the depots to cope with longer units

I would say it also depends on how much Siemens really want it. Sadly, despite the recent opinion (and poll on here) they’ve found themselves rather cast out of a lot of fleet replacements and orders recently (GA, SW, LNWR, HS2) with only the LUL Piccadilly Line contract to keep them going for now. At least Goole will need work in the future, so pending any further orders from TfL, that could sway things for them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only if there is a UK version ready, which I doubt there is.

Umm, yes, there is a UK Network Rail Stadler Metro ready for Merseyrail - Class 777. Level boarding too. Would be a great idea.

Accessibility rules are only going to get tighter, so if the railway is going to want to move towards reducing dispatch staff and DOO level boarding is going to be the only option to maintain accessibility.

The longer distance services are likely to have some sort of OBS or guard or whatever you'd call them, so putting down a ramp isn't as big a deal on those.

 

[Bald Rick]

Wouldn't third rail extension be cheaper than every train lugging around batteries?

Nope, as the batteries are (as stated) for other reasons than operating on non electrified sections. This is likely to be a common requirement on all future EMU orders. Also helps with residual lease values !

Where are Southeastern going to run over non-electrified routes of up to 20 miles?

Grain branch. But also very useful for running when, say, the con rail is iced over, or there’s flooding, or snow above the con rail, or a power outage, etc. etc. Could easily add 1% to performance.

The more interesting question is whether the price is right.

An even more interesting question is that DfT must have approved this. To do so there must have been a compelling financial reason. Now what is that? Lease costs ? Upcoming maintenance? Performance benefit? Something else?

 

[Horizon22]

Nope, as the batteries are (as stated) for other reasons than operating on non electrified sections. This is likely to be a common requirement on all future EMU orders. Also helps with residual lease values !



Grain branch. But also very useful for running when, say, the con rail is iced over, or there’s flooding, or snow above the con rail, or a power outage, etc. etc. Could easily add 1% to performance.




An even more interesting question is that DfT must have approved this. To do so there must have been a compelling financial reason. Now what is that? Lease costs ? Upcoming maintenance? Performance benefit? Something else?

I'd go for maintenance personally and that they're getting more than a bit battered. Think performance figures are decreasing. Also they're not optimised (3 doors, 2+2 seating) metro stock these days.

 

[brad465]

Grain branch. But also very useful for running when, say, the con rail is iced over, or there’s flooding, or snow above the con rail, or a power outage, etc. etc. Could easily add 1% to performance.

If there's flooding would trains still be running, considering flooding tends to block lines regardless of what electrification (if any) is present?

An even more interesting question is that DfT must have approved this. To do so there must have been a compelling financial reason. Now what is that? Lease costs ? Upcoming maintenance? Performance benefit? Something else?

Could there also be a case of trying to make sure production facilities in the UK stay open, given, as stated above, no other major orders are currently being considered in the near future?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2022 ==

I'd go for maintenance personally and that they're getting more than a bit battered. Think performance figures are decreasing. Also they're not optimised (3 doors, 2+2 seating) metro stock these days.

Partly that, but if when further details emerge it transpires they also want to ditch 376s for a simplified fleet then there's extra maintenance cost savings in that.

 

[Horizon22]

If there's flooding would trains still be running, considering flooding tends to block lines regardless of what electrification (if any) is present?


Could there also be a case of trying to make sure production facilities in the UK stay open, given, as stated above, no other major orders are currently being considered in the near future?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2022 ==


Partly that, but if when further details emerge it transpires they also want to ditch 376s for a simplified fleet then there's extra maintenance cost savings in that.

Also Southeastern still haven't solved their chronic stabling capacity shortage.

 

[JonathanH]

Could there also be a case of trying to make sure production facilities in the UK stay open, given, as stated above, no other major orders are currently being considered in the near future?

But bringing Networker replacement forward just slightly delays the point at which there are no major orders.

It does seem that this is about maintenance costs, rather than a political order to keep a factory open.

 

[brad465]

Also Southeastern still haven't solved their chronic stabling capacity shortage.

If this new fleet follows the trend of many previous major fleet introductions with the building of a new depot for them specifically then presumably this would be solved (although where they'd do this other than Chart Leacon perhaps), although I also thought covid-related use reductions have at least temporarily relieved storage issues.

 

[Bald Rick]

If there's flooding would trains still be running, considering flooding tends to block lines regardless of what electrification (if any) is present?

No, the power has to go off when the con rail is in contact with water, trains only have to stop when the running rail is completely covered, and there are exceptions to that.

Could there also be a case of trying to make sure production facilities in the UK stay open, given, as stated above, no other major orders are currently being considered in the near future?

Im sure that’s not a factor.

 

[brad465]

But bringing Networker replacement forward just slightly delays the point at which there are no major orders.

It does seem that this is about maintenance costs, rather than a political order to keep a factory open.

Even if politics is not the primary driver (I agree it probably isn't), it could easily cause political issues if a factory had to close and/or lay off staff due to lack of activity. The fleet replacement can also be sold to a number of constituencies where the new stock will operate as improving service capacity and quality.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2022 ==

No, the power has to go off when the con rail is in contact with water, trains only have to stop when the running rail is completely covered, and there are exceptions to that.

I see, I was aware that completely covered rails isn't safe for operation, but as the height difference between them and the third rail is relatively small the concept of different operating rules didn't occur to me.

 

[Bald Rick]

I see, I was aware that completely covered rails isn't safe for operation, but as the height difference between them and the third rail is relatively small the concept of different operating rules didn't occur to me.

to be fair it’s a rare event, but it does happen.

but the big win is for iced con rail and unplanned power outages.

 

[Doomotron]

Partly that, but if when further details emerge it transpires they also want to ditch 376s for a simplified fleet then there's extra maintenance cost savings in that.

Unlikely to be a 376 replacement - they're just about to be refurbished.

Umm, yes, there is a UK Network Rail Stadler Metro ready for Merseyrail - Class 777. Level boarding too. Would be a great idea.

Accessibility rules are only going to get tighter, so if the railway is going to want to move towards reducing dispatch staff and DOO level boarding is going to be the only option to maintain accessibility.

The longer distance services are likely to have some sort of OBS or guard or whatever you'd call them, so putting down a ramp isn't as big a deal on those.

Forgot about those. Although even then they're unlikely to be seriously considered, having no similarities to existing stock on the SE network.

 

[brad465]

Unlikely to be a 376 replacement - they're just about to be refurbished.

True, but there have been worse examples of refurbishing soon before replacement. As I said before we'll have to wait for a fulfilment to see exactly what's going on.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Higher capacity interiors surely aren't going to make up for losing two carriages on a very busy route serving areas of major growth if they go from 8 to 6.

It's quite possible no add on orders will be made so inadequate train lengths run for decades?

Well I live nearby, and I don’t see the argument. At the moment, even at high peak, it’s a half-hourly 8 car. So how are those loaded? And, if you assume that’s 16 coaches per hour, how would 4 x 6 (24 coaches per hour) be worse when it’s a 50% capacity uplift and possibly more if it’s a higher capacity carriage?

 

[ScotGG]

8 cars can still be rammed.

There are no plans to alter 2*8 car to 4*6 car.

If they did they'd take up potential 12 car paths to Charing Cross or Cannon Street from Dartford/Medway to Lewisham.

It'd be a waste of capacity to run 6 car on an 8 car railway in the peaks even if higher capacity carriages.

 

[Snow1964]

Unlikely to be a 376 replacement - they're just about to be refurbished.

I wouldn’t put it past DfT to have some unpublished masterplan.

Something like move 376s to South London (Southern), release 377s that took over from old 455s, switch some 377s to 387 workings, reallocate 387s to somewhere like Oxford. But speculation is not really for this thread.

Returning to the tender announcement, the optional quantity (based on 20m length) suggests it’s not really decided if this order is directly replaces certain fleets, or also covers bit more than just the aging networker fleet. The option is not big enough to cover whole of 707 or 376 fleet.

There is a good chance that price vs maintenance cost of patching up existing fleet will be a major factor. Whilst a standardised fleet simplifies things, there are other potential possibilities (eg the old way of taking out a trailer coach, shortening a unit, limiting its speed then using them on branches). Similarly could you bodge some of the 2car and 4car networkers into 3car units, and restrict them to peak hour extras away from busy London sections. Variations that might be cost effective for a few years. The 465s are only 8 years older than some 375s, so if some can manage extra few years (even on restricted usage), they could be looked at with a 375 replacement order in 2030s instead.

 

[ScotGG]

It'd make sense for the 376s to go to Southern but only if the add-on element of this future order was taken up, as without it Southeastern would see a reduction in stock.

That is fine now. By 2027? And then in the 2030s? Unlikely to work. SE London is still projected to be one of the areas with highest population growth in the entire country.

Any covid drop - if it ever happened - in overall population now appears to have gone and its rising again.

The Liz line only really helps one of the Metro lines.

 

[JackTheLad]

The Liz line only really helps one of the Metro lines

Certainly true now the CST rounders are going from December

 

[RailWonderer]

As for what could replace the Networkers, the only manufacturers that are 'ready' are Hitachi, Alstom and CAF. Each has their disadvantages - the Hitachi AT100 is an unproven design having never been built (although going for the AT200 may be sensible as they can directly replace 377/5s too, at the risk of not being totally suitable as Networker replacements), CAF trains are not particularly good (although we have to wait and see how the WMR and TFW ones turn out) and Alstom can't deliver on time at all.

Only if there is a UK version ready, which I doubt there is.

Pretty sure they're out of production anyway... The tooling is likely gone anyway so restarting the production line would cost a premium.

It's called the class 777 and is being introduced on Merseyrail and the near identical 555 on the Tyne and Wear metro.
Also the Siemens order book is empty besides the Picadilly line order so I would say their high quality stock would work well with the 707s they have already. Hitachi's order book is full with Avanti and EMR's orders and Alstom and Hitachi are also building the HS2 stock in a few years time.

Finally, assuming the DfT did authorise this order, it would be on cost, so they would rather have SE wait longer for trains at a lower cost than pay more for a manufacturer that can build them faster.

 

[Doomotron]

The 465s are only 8 years older than some 375s, so if some can manage extra few years (even on restricted usage), they could be looked at with a 375 replacement order in 2030s instead.

That said, even the oldest 375s are in a far better state to the Networkers - hard to believe they're even from the same decade.

Weirdly train design hasn't changed that much since the Electrostars and early Desiros. The jump from Networkers was large but MU design is effectively same as it was over 20 years ago. The 385s are the newest Electrostar-like design yet don't seem all that different. That's why I suggested them as potential 377/5 replacements too. But overall I doubt this fleet replacement could replace the 375s. They're in very good shape, currently receiving their fourth (?) update and don't shout 'replace me' like the Networkers overwhelmingly do.

Plus there is the point that a train to replace both Networkers and Electrostars could do neither very well. Metro trains and what are effectively long-distance regional units have little in common, so while a Metro design could feasibly replace 375/9s a regional unit would be in no way capable of working metro workings. Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud at this point, sorry.

Also the Siemens order book is empty besides

It's not that easy though. Desiro Cities are out of production at the moment and restarting the production line will inevitably cost a premium.

 

[Geogregor]

At least they have now finally recognised the need for toilets which are essential obviously.

About time. Provision of toilets at stations are patchy, especially in the evenings

Shame with the aircon though. With the changing climate it surely should be an essential requirement.

 

[ComUtoR]

Shame with the aircon though. With the changing climate it surely should be an essential requirement.

It's listed as a key requirement

 

[Stephen42]

About time. Provision of toilets at stations are patchy, especially in the evenings

Shame with the aircon though. With the changing climate it surely should be an essential requirement.

The new stock requires air conditioning throughout, it's only the leasing tender which says cab air conditioning only is acceptable. Not sure there's much stock that doesn't have air conditioning but does have toilets that could last until 2042 anyway.

 

[Geogregor]

The new stock requires air conditioning throughout, it's only the leasing tender which says cab air conditioning only is acceptable. Not sure there's much stock that doesn't have air conditioning but does have toilets that could last until 2042 anyway.

Ah, I see, I was reading to fast and didn't realize there are two different tenders. Thanks.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

8 cars can still be rammed.

There are no plans to alter 2*8 car to 4*6 car.

If they did they'd take up potential 12 car paths to Charing Cross or Cannon Street from Dartford/Medway to Lewisham.

It'd be a waste of capacity to run 6 car on an 8 car railway in the peaks even if higher capacity carriages.

I don’t know what’s in your mind but it’s impossible to ignore the fact we had been booked to have a quarter-hourly service between Lewisham and Victoria by May 2023 in the original ITT and there is nothing to say it won’t come about.

4 x 6 is better than 2 x 8.

 

[ScotGG]

I don’t know what’s in your mind but it’s impossible to ignore the fact we had been booked to have a quarter-hourly service between Lewisham and Victoria by May 2023 in the original ITT and there is nothing to say it won’t come about. 4 x 6 is better than 2 x 8.

What an odd response. Do you normally converse in such an ignorant and defensive manner? Strange.

Anyway 2 tph is quite possible for the mid term if you actually look at what is planned internally.

You may "live near the line" but appear to have no clue what loadings are like nor what is happening.

Still, keep making assumptions based on the past.

And if 4 tph do happen one day, it's blindingly obvious they should ideally be 8 tph given the stock order is until the 2040s and Lewisham is changing a tad, and hospitals are growing in Camberwell. Do you actually know the area at all?

 

[WizCastro197]

I don’t know what’s in your mind but it’s impossible to ignore the fact we had been booked to have a quarter-hourly service between Lewisham and Victoria by May 2023 in the original ITT and there is nothing to say it won’t come about.

4 x 6 is better than 2 x 8.

But you also have further trains to Cannon Street and Charing Cross? It isn’t mine you are stuck with just two trains per hour. There are other alternatives. Oh yes and DLR

Most trains are rammed that’s how it works. Look at us in Reigate? We have 4 coaches that are rammed all day. I think you are lucky in a respect that Lewisham is changing and New stock will be introduced.


I must agree with @ScotGG
I read it in such a defensive manner as well.

Now back on topic hopefully

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is there any way by which they could be built in Goole?
I guess it should be recognised that even trains built in Derby involve some work being done abroad and trains built abroad include UK manufactured components. Is there any clue to the percentage value of UK manufacturing of the different options?

UK component content is quite low, and is often limited to the UK-specific items like TPWS and other cab equipment needed for a UK safety case.
Brakes might be UK-origin. I can't remember if we make seats domestically.
UK body fabrication helps a lot (Hitachi, Alstom), plus final assembly, testing etc, as it's all labour intensive.
But the key components (eg design, traction systems, bogies etc, and even bodyshells) will likely all be from EU/EEA/Japanese sources.
And as Hitachi has shown, they can build the same product in the UK, Italy or Japan, using the same components.

 

[Russel]

Silly. There's a perfect opportunity to finally give Southeastern a big, simple, homogeneous Metro fleet. Yet, it appears they want to have majority one fleet, with random toiletless, gangway-less, (air conditioning less in the 376's case) 376s and 707s turning up every now and then. Glad the horrendous Networkers are finally condemned though.

The railways finances are not in the best of conditions along with the rest of the country, I'm not sure replacing stock such as the 376 and 707 fleets that have plenty of life left in them will be very high on the priority list.

 

[XAM2175]

UK component content is quite low, and is often limited to the UK-specific items like TPWS and other cab equipment needed for a UK safety case.
Brakes might be UK-origin. I can't remember if we make seats domestically.

Ehh, not necessarily. In the case of Class 700 units, British content included:

• CCTV and DOO monitoring systems: Petards, Gateshead;
• Pantograph and shoegear: Brecknell Willis, Chard;
• Flooring: Altro, Letchworth Garden City;
• Exterior lighting: BMAC, Audenshaw;
• GSM-R system: Siemens, Poole;
• Drivers desk and instruments, equipment cubicles, and cable harnesses (both within and between vehicles): Siemens, Hebburn;
• and as suggested, AWS/TPWS systems, DVD footswitch, DRA switch, and power switchover controller: Unipart, Doncaster.

Obviously though yes bodyshells are by far and away the largest single manufacturing task.