Southeastern metro fleet replacement/improvement

[hwl]

As much as I'd like to see some sort of Aventra, they don't offer level boarding, so that's off the cards. Although... this seems a lot like PR speak doesn't it. People are hailing this to be some great new focus on passengers while I see it as just some sort of funny stunt.

Level boarding What SE actually say they mean by level boarding is "Improved accessibility to maximise unassisted boarding" this can be achieve with existing floor highs and angled gap fillers mounted under the floor as bidders were required to do for the HS2 rolling stock tender.

Everyone jumps to assume it has to be Stadler type low floor thinking because that is what Anglia went for in location where they didn't have top worry about maximising on onboard capacity within fixed train lengths.

 

[Snow1964]

The other question is whether the 376s and 707s will also be replaced, and if so, what happens to them.

That's all rather speculative (and not really for this thread), but at times were rumours of one of those fleets going to South Central if passenger numbers pick up significantly. They didn't replace the 455s and 313s but shortened other trains. So can only really reverse the thinning with more carriages.

AFAIK Desiro City is still offered.

Siemens seem to now market it as Desiro Verve

I wouldn't be surprised if it was standard 20m units and humps on the platform.

Or humps in the floor over the bogies, as in Coradia stream pop

 

[hwl]

I wouldn't be surprised if it was standard 20m units and humps on the platform.

There are plenty of nearly ~1000mm platform heights including some at some listed stations and I can't see those being lowered. The most problematic low outliers will probably get raised in some way.

 

[87015]

Is there enough 37s left for ROG to get if this goes to Stadler for the dedicated thunderbird requirement needed for the Anglia ones every 100 miles?

 

[brad465]

That's all rather speculative (and not really for this thread), but at times were rumours of one of those fleets going to South Central if passenger numbers pick up significantly. They didn't replace the 455s and 313s but shortened other trains. So can only really reverse the thinning with more carriages.

For fleet simplicity I can see SE wanting to replace both of them as well, or at the very least the 376s. We'll know for sure if an order is confirmed and they either say they're also going and/or the number being ordered gives us an idea of whether or not they well.

 

[jojoseph72]

I was just sitting there thinking "they're never going to approve funding for all of that..."

The day something like that gets funding approval is the day unicorns and fairies will exist ahahaha.

This is a good point given that London Overground introduced 20m Aventras without a hint of problems. The longer cab variant to be fair, but if that's the issue just order that. The 730 interior would be a perfect fit.

I second this. I think a fleet of Class 710s with more commuter style interior would be what is 100% needed for SE for the Metro and longer distance services (if need be).

 

[DanNCL]

Siemens seem to now market it as Desiro Verve

Desiro Verve is a different and currently unsold product, effectively an evolution of the 380 and 444 and restyled to look similar to the Mireo units Siemens are building for German operators.

Desiro City is still offered to the same spec and brand as the existing units.

 

[778]

I second this. I think a fleet of Class 710s with more commuter style interior would be what is 100% needed for SE for the Metro and longer distance services (if need be)

Maybe a third rail version of a 345? The 700s would have been good for SE metro services.

Rather depends on when contract is signed and election is held.

The current Government might rush it through, and contract could have some very expensive variation clauses (and quicker it is negotiated the less squeezing these down is likely), which would make amending expensive.

How soon after the election could TFL take over the SE metro route? Khan wants it to happen, so Starmer will probably agree to it. If and when TFL do take over then would an all longitudinal layout become much more likely?

 

[brad465]

Interesting X (twitter) comment from Rail Minister,
using words ... confirming plans....

x.com

twitter.com

Does Merriman have the authority to rubber stamp any new fleet for approval? If so the question to ask him in response to this tweet is something along the lines of: "Well if you're pleased with this why don't you say yes and get the ball rolling?"

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Maybe a third rail version of a 345?

I get the feeling if they were to get an Aventra style product it would be based on the 701 , since they operate very similar metro and commuter services, and front facing seating would likely be preferred as it would work for multiple use cases. Plus they have toilets which SE said they desire, 345 and 710 don't.

 

[jojoseph72]

Maybe a third rail version of a 345? The 700s would have been good for SE metro services.

From what I understand (someone mentioned on here) the SE Metro network has a more restrictive network gauge then the average UK one - so it might restrict it to 20m coaches.

Class 345s are 22-23.6m long per coach so might not be compatible. Again I stress I’m just going off info I saw on here so it might be incorrect.

Personally a fleet or 710s, 701s or 707s would be a nice replacement - but this is just our opinion.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Improved accessibility to maximise unassisted boarding" this can be achieve with existing floor highs and angled gap fillers mounted under the floor as bidders were required to do for the HS2 rolling stock tender.

True but post #29

 

[Stephen42]

An update but saying little more than was said back in 2022. Not really sure what the point is. It's not an actual order.

If an order is made - and that's a big IF - will they go for trains that maximise 12-car formation? I doubt it. In fact I'd expect fewer seats so what is now a 10-car will be 8 with same capacity.

Then watch rail grow massively so when eventually introduced in 5 years it'll be a squeeze. Same thing happened with the original networker order with numbers cut back and that was short sited causing problems down the line.

It's a key step in the procurement process, the public announcement of it is PR. While the pre-qualification results are unsurprising it still needed to be done and plenty of conversations with suppliers have probably happened to put out a decent Invitation To Negotiate. Multi billion pound procurements need to be done carefully and often are slow going as a result to avoid costly litigation around improper running of the process.

Fewer seats are pretty much a given, see Class 701 or 700 as overall capacity is the target rather than number of seats. It's fairly clear an order is likely, Southeastern would have a good business case for replacement stock.

Aren't there a load of 5/10 car units sat idle at the moment? Low milage, one careful owner, smoke-free and pet-free environment

Leasing newer trains rather than new build has still not been ruled out or a combination of newer and new build.

Maybe a third rail version of a 345? The 700s would have been good for SE metro services.


How soon after the election could TFL take over the SE metro route? Khan wants it to happen, so Starmer will probably agree to it. If and when TFL do take over then would an all longitudinal layout become much more likely?

There isn't a clean divide for the SE metro route, trains and drivers can be used on both metro and mainline routes on the same day even. Coupled with need for secondary legislation & planning to transfer it across, potentially primary legislation for TFL to be able to run it without a private sector TOC/concession involved and Labour's central government ambitions requiring a lot of legislative time it doesn't seem an easy win.

If there were specific things it be much easier to make representations to the DfT and it to be passed across as a variation along with a Mayor controlled grant for any additional funding required. Longitudinal seating won't be popular with users who will already be upset about fewer seats.

 

[JonathanH]

Fewer seats are pretty much a given, see Class 701 or 700 as overall capacity is the target rather than number of seats. It's fairly clear an order is likely, Southeastern would have a good business case for replacement stock.

It is. However, I think people need to then acknowledge that a train isn't 'full' until there are 70 or 80 standing passengers in each coach. Networkers as built had seats for 344 people in each 4 coach unit and perhaps room for 200 or so standing passengers.

If the number of seats is reduced to around 240 in four coaches, then it has to be expected that there are over 300 standing passengers in those four carriages before the train is considered full.

 

[hwl]

True but post #29

On their webpage (and youtube video on that page) SE define what they actually mean by "level boarding" - it isn't actually "level boarding" in the core Crossrail station or literal meanings. Southeastern are using it as short hand for minimising manually deployed ramps.

Train improvements | Southeastern

www.southeasternrailway.co.uk

The precise details of the improved fleet will be developed during the next stage of the procurement process but improvements could include:

• Improved accessibility to maximise unassisted boarding – developed alongside the RSSB, Network Rail and manufacturers
• Brighter and more spacious interiors to provide more space for more customers on our growing railway
• Improved air conditioning to provide a better and more comfortable environment, particularly as our summers become warmer
• Improved customer information to keep customers up to date and help them to plan any onward journeys
• More reliable trains with improved acceleration and braking to help deliver a more punctual and low cancellation railway
• Equipped with batteries to keep trains running in the event of power supply failure as well as enhancing safety in stations, depots and sidings

and from the FAQs:

Will these trains be accessible?
We are clear that any new or replacement trains must improve customer accessibility and help to remove barriers for everyone to travel by train.

Note this isn't a universal commitment and huge number of the SE platform are above the nominal 915mm standard height

Those bidding to manufacture new trains have been tasked with showing how they would provide level access and/or unassisted boarding at stations across the Southeastern network as defined in the Persons of Reduced Mobility (PRM) National Technical Specification Notices (NTSN).

Note this doesn't just include wheelchair users, more than 24 out of 25 of those with mobility issues don't use wheelchairs

The precise details of how this can be achieved will be developed as part of the procurement process. However, to ensure we provide the best possible solution for our customers, we are already working with the following:

• 
  
• Network Rail – Owners and maintainers of the railway infrastructure, including tracks and platforms
• Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) – The railway’s independent safety, standards and research body
• Manufacturers

Our Metro fleet must be able to safely and reliably call at over 200 platforms across our network. However, as our railway has been built over many years to different standards our platforms vary in height between location and some platform heights vary from one end to the other. In addition, some are curved which can increase the distance between the train and the platform edge, too.

Improving accessibility, particularly the introduction of level access and/or unassisted boarding is a challenge for the whole railway system – but it is a challenge we are working to overcome.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2024 ==

I get the feeling if they were to get an Aventra style product it would be based on the 701 , since they operate very similar metro and commuter services, and front facing seating would likely be preferred as it would work for multiple use cases. Plus they have toilets which SE said they desire, 345 and 710 don't.

The SE tender spec was based on learnings from SWR tender that resulted in the 701.

There were slight evolutions in standing definitions (already improved for the SWR tender vs previous ones):

• Sufficient hand holds and standing space only counting for passenger capacity if there are sufficient usable hand holds for that part of the floor space
• definitions of usable space calculations - people size units not just based on older simplistic X sqm and Y per people per sqm calculations (e.g. central walkway dimensions are critical)

Seating definitions:

• floor space for seats has to align with seats (to avoid repeats of the 700/707/717 window seating)

On this last point if you reduce train floor levels then the floors become narrower:

• (unless you have longitudinal seating) it become harder to align window seat foot space with the seats unless the window seats have arms rests and huge spacers which then radically reduced central walkway width significantly compromising standing capacity.
• accessible toilets then take up even larger amounts of overall foot print and have to me in the middle of vehicle not at the ends

Mixing floor heights also reduces usable floor space including standing space.

Hence for a cost efficient bid accessible spaces (including ramps and any floor height adjustment) and toilets are likely to be in single vehicle to optimise overall capacity per £ of Capex (with a multipler for leasing costs of this metric).

Assuming no bogie movement a 915mm floor height only allows for 65mm between the top of a worn flange and the floor surface which is unworkable for a single level floor

Due to wheel wear the vehicle ride height 9unless compensated for by the air suspension system will vary by about 20mm during the wheel working life.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

If Alstom, then this possibly would be the new Adessia platform instead of Aventra, similiar to the new Irish Rail DART+ commuter fleet. Can't really see SE getting 701s after the fiasco on SWR.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Does Merriman have the authority to rubber stamp any new fleet for approval? If so the question to ask him in response to this tweet is something along the lines of: "Well if you're pleased with this why don't you say yes and get the ball rolling?"

It's above his pay grade.
The signature that matters is the Treasury's, assuming DfT lobby hard enough.
By the time an order is imminent, there'll be a new set of faces/policies at Westminster.
SE being a DOLR TOC possibly simplifies things a bit (all under DfT control).

 

[YorkRailFan]

Interesting X (twitter) comment from Rail Minister,
using words ... confirming plans....

x.com

twitter.com

That would signal that the trains will be built by either CAF, Alstom, Hitachi or Siemens are they are the only ones in the shortlist to have manufacturing facilities in the UK.

 

[hwl]

If Alstom, then this possibly would be the new Adessia platform instead of Aventra, similiar to the new Irish Rail DART+ commuter fleet. Can't really see SE getting 701s after the fiasco on SWR.

As previously covered Adessia is a new branding includes some existing product lines including Aventra (they had to sell the Bombardier Talent 3 branding and some IP as part of the merger so they need a new branding).

Any significant changes are likely to be on the IT side.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2024 ==

It's above his pay grade.
The signature that matters is the Treasury's, assuming DfT lobby hard enough.
By the time an order is imminent, there'll be a new set of faces/policies at Westminster.
SE being a DOLR TOC possibly simplifies things a bit (all under DfT control).

There is also a separate procurement for finance instead of a traditional combined manufacturer and ROSCO approach. This effectively neutralises the OEM's ability to us their wider good financial status to reduce overall borrowing costs as happened with IET and Thameslink contracts (Bad for Hitachi and Siemens, better for everyone else.)

Hence the treasury sign off is just for any expected net change in leasing (going up) and operating (going down) costs which they will have already had a look at.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Siemens or Alstom most likely make it to the final two if I were a betting man.

 

[ComUtoR]

Why is who delivers it more important that what is delivered ?

 

[NSEWonderer]

Why is who delivers it more important that what is delivered ?

Surely that is self explainable? Reputation, history of work and matching closely the requirements of said previous clients etc etc

 

[ComUtoR]

Surely that is self explainable? Reputation, history of work and matching closely the requirements of said previous clients etc etc

From who's perspective ?

I drive : Bombardier, Siemens, Brel/Metcam. Each unit has their own particularities and problems and In all honesty I could not single out a single supplier as being better or worse. ALL have their own specific issues.

If we are too focused on who gets to deliver the unit, then we limit ourselves to what the end product may be. As a Driver and as a Passenger; I know what I want. I do not care if CAF, Alstom, Siemens, et. al. provide it. Ask any passenger if they knew who made their train and I almost guarantee they do not give a flying proverbial. The end product is important and should be the priority.

 

[NSEWonderer]

From who's perspective ?

I drive : Bombardier, Siemens, Brel/Metcam. Each unit has their own particularities and problems and In all honesty I could not single out a single supplier as being better or worse. ALL have their own specific issues.

If we are too focused on who gets to deliver the unit, then we limit ourselves to what the end product may be. As a Driver and as a Passenger; I know what I want. I do not care if CAF, Alstom, Siemens, et. al. provide it. Ask any passenger if they knew who made their train and I almost guarantee they do not give a flying proverbial. The end product is important and should be the priority.

I agree with the final end product being priority but when a company is picking a bidder I'd assume one of the big factors is the reliability of their previous products and how long were the delays to introduction from the manufacturers own side. Then comes the other factors like agreed can they actually meet the spec as closely as possible for a near enough price etc. The problem is Price and speed dictates most of this as well as politics.

As much as the passengers and Drivers are the main ones onboard the trains the company itself or DFT etc will be the client of said Successful bidder and ultimately I'd assume they'd have a list of things they'd want the new stock to have for X amount of money by the best possible candidate that fits the bill. In the video Steve also does say that they'd like to: "Boldly go where other operators have already gone" whilst that could be just him saying words, SE have gone for the 707s that SWR weren't looking to keep which look like solid units and have quite a bit of the things he's mentioned and that was around the time Thameslink was showing off their 700s on the Rainham runners.

Anyway hopefully whatever it is and whoever it is does a decent enough job for the Spec SE want.

 

[ComUtoR]

I'd assume one of the big factors is the reliability of their previous products

Who has been more reliable ? Siemens, Brel/AAB, or Bombardier ? Not from an Enthusiast perspective. Which company provided a decent product as well as being cost effective ?

and how long were the delays to introduction from the manufacturers own side.

Again, what we see as onlookers is VERY different to what happens internally. AFAIK, SE do not have any CAF units or have any experience with them. Should they therefore be excluded ?

as well as politics.

So [proverbial] the passenger and TOC ?

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Brel/AAB,

This isn't relevant anymore since BREL doesn't exist anymore and AAB don't make trains. I think he's talking about the new train to be ordered

 

[NSEWonderer]

Who has been more reliable ? Siemens, Brel/AAB, or Bombardier ? Not from an Enthusiast perspective. Which company provided a decent product as well as being cost effective ?



Again, what we see as onlookers is VERY different to what happens internally. AFAIK, SE do not have any CAF units or have any experience with them. Should they therefore be excluded ?



So [proverbial] the passenger and TOC ?

Siemens. If you're looking at introduction delays, mass unit failures and cost to the operator en mass in delay repay (due to poor unit reliability) etc etc then it would be them in the last 2 Decades.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Why is who delivers it more important that what is delivered ?

Another factor is the production facility of each manufacturer, a manufacturer with a facility in the UK is more likely to be picked due to the jobs created in the UK and boost to the economy.

 

[hwl]

This isn't relevant anymore since BREL doesn't exist anymore and AAB don't make trains. I think he's talking about the new train to be ordered

I think you mean ABB rather than AAB, the descendants of both still exist. BREL effectively got split in two and one part ending up with Bombardier and the other with ABB, ABB became 50% of Adtranz, after a while ABB sold out to Daimler - Chrysler who then sold to Bombardier with Adtranz (including Derby) being about 4 time larger at the time.
The Alstom ex Bombardier electrical (but not software) systems are ex ABB heritage and Alstom are mostly retaining those post merger in preference so so of their own systems for non-French products. ABB and ex Bombardier are still very heavily linked in engineering terms.
Until relatively recently (i.e. just pre 331s) if you bought a CAF EMU it had ABB electrical equipment and before that Siemens and the modern vintage "CAF" traction motors are from TSA (ex ABB Vienna motors factory).
The Stadler locomotives, EMUs and bi/tri-modes are mostly ABB electrical equipment with some traction motors from TSA (ex ABB Vienna motors factory).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2024 ==

Siemens. If you're looking at introduction delays, mass unit failures and cost to the operator en mass in delay repay (due to poor unit reliability) etc etc then it would be them in the last 2 Decades.

Siemens also care about corporate reputation far more than any of the others and will spend money to retain that reputation unlike the others (who can't afford too).
700 roll out wasn't that smooth but GTR handling of some elements saved Siemens reputation there.

Also most Siemens stock was supplied with Siemens maintenance contracts where as most Bombardier stock was operator maintained so it is difficult to compare like for like.

Historically Siemens units had fewer failures than Bombardier but the average impact of a failure was far higher as many of the Bombardier failure were simple reset type fixes.

 

[rdlover777]

My personal hope is Hitachi or Stadler getting the contract