Southern add 40 vehicles to order

[jopsuk]

Just curious if anyone can explain, why are trains usually never longer than 12 cars in the UK at least?

Most countries with intensive train services seem to have train lengths that top out somewhere near 250m, with 300m+ being usually the preserve of ultra long distance trains.

 

[Wolfie]

Is the current standard of interior suitable for Airport services though?The first two local services to go over to electric in the North West will be Liverpool-Manchester Airport and Liverpool-Manchester Victoria.

The former attracts a lot of business use and obviously luggage and there have been calls for whatever replaces the 156s to be better suited for Airport use.

The latter ideally needs a high density seating layout. However, if all the 'new' units arrive with more luggage space and 2+2 seating then maybe the Victoria-Liverpool service could get 323s cascaded off existing Manchester Airport services (Piccadilly-Airport stoppers and Manchester-Crewe via Airport services.)

my bold and italics

Last time I looked Luton and Gatwick were both airports and Thameslink served them both.....

 

[Wath Yard]

This Railnews article contains a pretty big clue as to why the 40 and additional 216 carriages are being ordered. It looks like the 313s and 442s are safe for a while yet.

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2012/11/16-dft-acts-to-ease-thameslink.html

The Department for Transport confirmed that cascades to newly-electrified lines were part of the plan. A spokesman told Railnews: "The potential procurement for 116 vehicles and options for a further 100 could enable the early cascade of rolling stock to initiate the delivery of the electrification schemes outlined in HLOS, that would otherwise be delayed because of the current schedule for the delivery of the Thameslink Rolling Stock Programme.”

 

[Wolfie]

Indeed, every Siemens has said its a simple matter of putting pan and transformer in and adjusting the software becaused Siemens thought it through. Current 378 fleet can only be extended one car more because Bombardier didn't plan enough ahead.

Why the dig at Bombardier?

The 378s were procured as three car trains and can go up to five. Not only does infrastructure (eg the old East London line stations) stop further expansion but, to state the blindingly obvious, 6=2x3 (ie further expansion could be achieved by reverting to the original configuration and running two tains connected together!)....

 

[Class377/5]

Modern Railways have posted on their Twitter account that the GWML could be getting new emu's for the Oxford services.

Maybe now the penny is dropping that the class 319's wont be ready for use on the GWML when the wires reach Reading, Newbury & Oxford.

That could mean extra class 319's to go elsewhere when they are displaced from Thameslink although I suspect some will be allocated to the GW region for use between Cardiff & Bristol TM.

There's been a lot of suggestion about this - with the GWML slows potentially needing 110mph running.

I'd expect one fleet of "local" EMUs for services between Swansea/ Valley Lines/ Cardiff/ Bristol though - may need some franchise remapping!

Been reported for awhile now that GW was to get 110mph, is this the first confirmation that they are going to? Doesn't that mean the aborts West gets more than enough EMUs?

This Railnews article contains a pretty big clue as to why the 40 and additional 216 carriages are being ordered. It looks like the 313s and 442s are safe for a while yet.

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2012/11/16-dft-acts-to-ease-thameslink.html

Hmmm but 5 cars on Thameslink? Maybe allow 10 peak services then rather than current 8 cars. Would free up some 319s but likely one for one change. Some additional increase in capacity but less flexible fleet.

Why the dig at Bombardier?

The 378s were procured as three car trains and can go up to five. Not only does infrastructure (eg the old East London line stations) stop further expansion but, to state the blindingly obvious, 6=2x3 (ie further expansion could be achieved by reverting to the original configuration and running two tains connected together!)....

Because Bombardier can't make five cars six, even with the 376s that were built to be five cars from start. Poor planning when others can. Three cars was interim with four cars the normal. It wasn't an after thought.

 

[sprinterguy]

Hmmm but 5 cars on Thameslink? Maybe allow 10 peak services then rather than current 8 cars. Would free up some 319s but likely one for one change. Some additional increase in capacity but less flexible fleet.

There is no mention of the 5-car Class 377/6s being used on Thameslink in that article. Replacement of the Thameslink rolling stock (Class 319s) would appear to hinge more on the prospective order for 116 carriages (+100) in 4-car formation.

 

[Class377/5]

There is no mention of the 5-car Class 377/6s being used on Thameslink in that article. Replacement of the Thameslink rolling stock (Class 319s) would appear to hinge more on the prospective order for 116 carriages (+100) in 4-car formation.

Third from bottom suggests it. Why else would the new eight ordered need to be dual voltage when the 377/6 isn't? Never said it was confirmed but read this;

Speculation has now started about what role the additional trains would play. The present Southern network would be unlikely to need another 216 vehicles, and the fact that they would be dual-voltage would make them suitable for the core Thameslink route, which involves a change of traction current at Farringdon.

On subject of 377/6, here's the first released picture.

http://www.rail.co/2012/11/16/southern-plans-to-extend-electrostar-order/

 

[northwichcat]

Last time I looked Luton and Gatwick were both airports and Thameslink served them both.....

So Thameslink serve them both using the most recently refurbished 319s? If not you've gone off on a tangent from what I was asking.

I was following up a comment where someone claimed the most recently refurbished 319s could be put in to service in the North West without refurbishment. I was under the impression that the 377s on Thameslink were primarily used on services between St Pancras and Gatwick.

Luton's annual passenger numbers are half that of Manchester's, even though I accept the claim about Gatwick.

 

[sprinterguy]

Third from bottom suggests it. Why else would the new eight ordered need to be dual voltage when the 377/6 isn't? Never said it was confirmed but read this;

As I say, that is talking about the 216 prospective new carriages. Not the forty carriages that are additional to the existing class 377/6 order.

 

[Wath Yard]

The fact 116 is divisible by 4 but not 5 does suggest these will be like-for-like replacements on Thameslink and the chances are that the specification will be that they must be compatible with current Thameslink and Southern trains which probably means more 377s. At this rate Derby will be building more carriages due to the late running of the Thameslink procurement than if it had won the order!

 

[northwichcat]

Modern Railways have posted on their Twitter account that the GWML could be getting new emu's for the Oxford services.

Maybe now the penny is dropping that the class 319's wont be ready for use on the GWML when the wires reach Reading, Newbury & Oxford.

I am confused why alternatives for the 319s on Thames Valley keeps coming up but not for the North West. While the 317s have been suggested for the North West that just seems to be an educated guess and assumes that somewhere else (including Anglia) doesn't put forward a case for using them.

 

[sprinterguy]

The fact 116 is divisible by 4 but not 5 does suggest these will be like-for-like replacements on Thameslink.

That seems most likely to me. 29 x 4-car units will be enough to replace the 26 x Class 319/3s (Formerly 319/1s).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am confused why alternatives for the 319s on Thames Valley keeps coming up but not for the North West.

Because the 319s have to go somewhere and the North West doesn't have any possible special conditions such as a desire to see 110mph running?

 

[tbtc]

I am confused why alternatives for the 319s on Thames Valley keeps coming up but not for the North West

...because the Thames Valley routes may need 110mph stock. The North West won't.

 

[Class377/5]

As I say, that is talking about the 216 prospective new carriages. Not the forty carriages that are additional to the existing class 377/6 order.

Ah sorry I'd missed that part. However in 2014 it might not be soon enough. I wonder if the new eight are for that and any further are to backfill on Southern?

So Thameslink serve them both using the most recently refurbished 319s? If not you've gone off on a tangent from what I was asking.

I was following up a comment where someone claimed the most recently refurbished 319s could be put in to service in the North West without refurbishment. I was under the impression that the 377s on Thameslink were primarily used on services between St Pancras and Gatwick.

Luton's annual passenger numbers are half that of Manchester's, even though I accept the claim about Gatwick.

Nope, ALL 319 do Brighton services and any can be diagramed. Current 377 do about 60% of those services, rest done by 319/2 still mainly sme as when they left Southern tho bar is gone and 319/4 recently refurished.

 

[northwichcat]

...because the Thames Valley routes may need 110mph stock. The North West won't.

I thought 110mph running on Thames Valley was being looked at for 2019-2024 with commuter IEP or equivalent intended to replace the 319s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because the 319s have to go somewhere and the North West doesn't have any possible special conditions such as a desire to see 110mph running?

So needing 6 car formations on Manchester-Preston without needing wholescale platform lengthening doesn't count as a special condition?

Also if you believe what's been posted further up in the thread it sounds like the 319s may need new pantographs to run on newly electrified lines.

 

[Class377/5]

I thought 110mph running on Thames Valley was being looked at for 2019-2024 with commuter IEP or equivalent intended to replace the 319s.

So needing 6 car formations on Manchester-Preston without needing wholescale platform lengthening doesn't count as a special condition?

Also if you believe what's been posted further up in the thread it sounds like the 319s may need new pantographs to run on newly electrified lines.

Pantograph issue seems to be confusion with BR OHLE not bring compatable not the units. Even if it was the pans, it's simple and easy to fix.

However I still maintain that the north should be moved to an 8 car railway.

 

[sprinterguy]

So needing 6 car formations on Manchester-Preston without needing wholescale platform lengthening doesn't count as a special condition?.

If every train on the Manchester to Preston corridor is made up of 4 x 20metre carriages then I don't think that there is an essential need for six carriage formations. There's the opportunity for increasing the frequency of services, which would do much to further reduce the need for 6-car formations. Although if Northern/the next operator of the franchise really sees 6-car formations on the Bolton corridor as essential then just replace the (slower) class 323s on Stoke and Crewe services with 319s and use the 323s on the Bolton corridor.

Also if you believe what's been posted further up in the thread it sounds like the 319s may need new pantographs to run on newly electrified lines.

No, I don't believe it, not to the extent that it will actually stop the 319s working in the North West with the minimum amount of alteration and effort possible. The sheer volume of rapid fire conjecture that has erupted on this thread is astounding. Why would it be widely assumed by official sources that the class 319s are going to be used in the North West if the catenary system that is being erected is not fit for this purpose? And why would the technology used in this latest electrification scheme be so startlingly different to that which has been used in every other 25kV overhead electrification scheme in the past fifty years?

 

[northwichcat]

If every train on the Manchester to Preston corridor is made up of 4 x 20metre carriages then I don't think that there is an essential need for six carriage formations.

The peak time services on that corridor now are mainly either 2 x 150 formations or 2 x 185 formations and some of the 2 x 150 formations on Hazel Grove services are overcrowded.

I appreciate the Manchester-Preston passengers will have the class 350 via Wigan option but that's only hourly and a lot of people travel between Bolton and Manchester. Even 156s in the off-peak period can be overcrowded on that section if they are in single formation.

Like North TPE, the Bolton corridor needs extra carriages now, not in a couple of years time and replacing 2 x 150s with a single 319 will not be good enough.

And why would the technology used in this latest electrification scheme be so startlingly different to that which has been used in every other 25kV overhead electrification scheme in the past fifty years?

Do you recall the renewed underground track in Liverpool city centre a few years ago? The 507s and 508s needed wheel modifications to be able to run on it, which led to many cancelled and short formed services after the works were supposed to have been completed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However I still maintain that the north should be moved to an 8 car railway.

I'm not convinced at the present time we should make making platforms at stations like Blackrod long enough to take 8 carriages when there's a greater pressing need for investment on other lines. 6 carriage trains or SDO seems like a better short term solution to me.

 

[Wath Yard]

I'm not convinced at the present time we should make making platforms at stations like Blackrod long enough to take 8 carriages when there's a greater pressing need for investment on other lines. 6 carriage trains or SDO seems like a better short term solution to me.

No but the stoppers, which call at stations like Blackrod and Leyland, could be 4 car and the fasts, which only usually call at Bolton, Chorley, Preston and 1 or two stations after could be 8. Most, if not all stations could handle 8 car units - I'm not positive about Chorley.

 

[fgwrich]

Pantograph issue seems to be confusion with BR OHLE not bring compatable not the units. Even if it was the pans, it's simple and easy to fix.

However I still maintain that the north should be moved to an 8 car railway.

It'll still be interesting to see what end product comes out of this order - i remember seeing this posted in one of the magazines around about this time last year:

Bombardier were not keen to build this order, they wanted Southern to have more expensive 379 trains and argued that they did not want to build 377s... they will be a 'crossbreed" between the 377 and the 379.

In other words, it'll be a 379 with the mind of a 377 for compatability. The computer system was iirc another one of Bombardiers excuses at the time too.

As for units for the Thames Valley, it seems that the DfT has set it's sights on a fleet of new 125MPH EMUs for the Thames valley services. What these will be is anyones guess (although i know what i'd prefer, a nice new fleet of Siemens/CAF 332s).

 

[D365]

Ooh, this sounds fun! But what will DfT tell Siemens... But first things first, let's pray for plug-and-play action with the 377/6s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Or not tell Siemens, because that and the existing Thameslink fleet would not even make up half the proposed vehicles.

 

[bronzeonion]

Do the new 'Star trains not have ribbon glazing because the company who did them went bust? Thats what I remember reading somewhere.

I really feel sorry for the people who have to use the trains in the NW, even after electrification they dont get nice new trains but knackered things with no aircon from the south!

Oh and they definitely are just a 379 judging by the CGI image! http://www.rail.co/2012/11/16/southern-plans-to-extend-electrostar-order/ The drivers seat even has the NX moquette from the 379's! Haha

 

[D365]

I don't understand what you mean by "knackered old trains from the south" as at least the ex-Thameslink 319s (which won't be ex- status for a long time yet) will receive new traction, fresh interiors and air-con, similar to the 317722 trial. Plus, they may get a few of them 377s for a bit. I'm hoping for the 317 refurb project to be extended to all EMUs up to the Networkers or so. But that's another story. Please DafT, tie everything up asap.

 

[bronzeonion]

I don't understand what you mean by "knackered old trains from the south" as at least the ex-Thameslink 319s (which won't be ex- for a long time) will receive new traction, fresh interiors and air-con, similarly to the 317722 trial. Plus, they may get a few of them 377s for a bit. I'm hoping for the project to be extended to all EMUs up to the Networkers or so. But that's another story. Please DafT, tie everything up asap.

Will they? Well that makes it a little better

 

[starrymarkb]

Do the new 'Star trains not have ribbon glazing because the company who did them went bust? Thats what I remember reading somewhere.

Cost/weight reduction I believe - Various suppliers do glazing units. New ICEs also lack full ribbon glazing (ICE3NG and the second batch of ICE-T - old - new)

Also if Bombardier did do a 23m end door design then it would need the new pointy cab (as a new design it would need to meet the same regulations as the 380 - I don't think Bombardier have a gangway option on their Aventra cab)

 

[northwichcat]

Ooh, this sounds fun! But what will DfT tell Siemens... But first things first, let's pray for plug-and-play action with the 377/6s.

Or not tell Siemens, because that and the existing Thameslink fleet would not even make up half the proposed vehicles.

DfT don't have to tell Siemens anything. There was no invitation to tender issued for the TPE 350/4s (also 40 vehicles) which was awarded to Siemens, this was tagged on the LM 350/3 order for which Siemens won through a tendering process. The initial additional 40 vehicles for Southern will be tagged on to an existing order that Bombardier won through a tendering process. As already stated anything additional over those 40 vehicles will be subject to a new tender.

If anything Bombardier have more of the case to challenge the TPE 350/4s being awarded to Siemens, given that the TPE requirements for new EMUs are different to the LM requirements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

"knackered old trains from the south" as at least the ex-Thameslink 319s (which won't be ex- status for a long time yet) will receive new traction, fresh interiors and air-con, similar to the 317722 trial.

That was what was originally proposed by Lord Adonis. However, no invitation to tender has yet been issued for refurbishing the 319s so we don't know exactly what refurbishment they'll receive. All units that aren't life expired are expected to get some sort of refurbishment program over the next few years to comply with DDA (unless they already fully comply.)

The 319s are also similar in age to the 156s that they'll replace on some services and are effectively an electric version of a 150 that they'll replace on other services so they aren't exactly something the average passenger will be excited about.

 

[D365]

DfT don't have to tell Siemens anything. There was no invitation to tender issued for the TPE 350/4s (also 40 vehicles) which was awarded to Siemens, this was tagged on the LM 350/3 order for which Siemens won through a tendering process. The initial additional 40 vehicles for Southern will be tagged on to an existing order that Bombardier won through a tendering process. As already stated anything additional over those 40 vehicles will be subject to a new tender.

I meant the 116+140 proposal - it doesn't have to be Electrostar, but if the trains will end up in the South region (or South East, either from day one or some time in the future), it would make sense to be a follow-up to the current order. And as I added, there won't be enough to 377-ise Thameslink, let alone replace the 319s.

That was what was originally proposed by Lord Adonis. However, no invitation to tender has yet been issued for refurbishing the 319s so we don't know exactly what refurbishment they'll receive. All units that aren't life expired are expected to get some sort of refurbishment program over the next few years to comply with DDA (unless they already fully comply.)

The 319s are also similar in age to the 156s that they'll replace on some services and are effectively an electric version of a 150 that they'll replace on other services so they aren't exactly something the average passenger will be excited about.

Because, unfortunately, we don't know when the 319s will be able to be released. Obviously all trains that carry on into the 2020s will need DDAising, so it makes sense to combine this with a rolling refurbishment plan. The 317 refurbishment is supposed to keep the class going for 20 more years. If this job carried on well with the 319s, they'll practically be new?

 

[northwichcat]

Because, unfortunately, we don't know when the 319s will be able to be released.

Note that FGW issued an invitation to tender for refurbishing the 180s before they'd even secured a lease for take any of them on again (after originally letting them all go.)

If this job carried on well with the 319s, they'll practically be new?

In the same way the 507s and 508s were practically new after the Merseyrail refurbishments and now they're really struggling to try and get 40 years out of them?

 

[starrymarkb]

If anything Bombardier have more of the case to challenge the TPE 350/4s being awarded to Siemens, given that the TPE requirements for new EMUs are different to the LM requirements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Long term they are going to LM though and will have LM interiors rather then TPE...

I think most TOCs specify a number of "options" in their orders. It's very common in Aviation to order xx aircraft with options for yy to the same customer spec* and price

 

[northwichcat]

Long term they are going to LM though and will have LM interiors rather then TPE...

That's not entirely correct. Press releases have confirmed that the TPE units will be spec'ed to include a more long distance style interior and that the TPE units will be leased directly by TPE and maintained by Siemens at Ardwick, not subleased from LM as some older reports suggested.