Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[Drsatan]

With regards to the Desiro City EMUs for SWT (assuming they are ordered), would it not make sense from a logistical point of view to add those on as a follow on order to the main TSGN order? Otherwise, it may prove uneconomical for Siemens to restart production (which is what happened with the 350/1s I believe).

 

[TEW]

SWT won't simply be able to order Desiro City units, either of their own accord or as a follow on order. There will have to be an OJEU notice and open competition. That doesn't mean Siemens won't win of course but it isn't as simple as SWT ordering Desiro City units.

 

[Pumbaa]

There will have to be an OJEU notice and open competition. That doesn't mean Siemens won't win of course but it isn't as simple as SWT ordering Desiro City units.

There has been, and the decision was meant to be at the start of this month.

 

[starrymarkb]

With regards to the Desiro City EMUs for SWT (assuming they are ordered), would it not make sense from a logistical point of view to add those on as a follow on order to the main TSGN order? Otherwise, it may prove uneconomical for Siemens to restart production (which is what happened with the 350/1s I believe).

At least 46 10 car sets*? That would be well worth restarting production for. Even if Tooling has been destroyed 460 vehicles is an order not to be sniffed at. (That would be the same number of vehicles as the original 450 order) So new tools would be built.



*Based on 91 455s

 

[TEW]

There has been, and the decision was meant to be at the start of this month.

I thought there had been. I can't imagine anyone other than Siemens winning it but as Desiro City units are incompatible with Desiros anyway there is little operational reason for opting for Siemens again. Potentially Siemens will have bid based on heavy maintenance being done at their current Northam depot which will make their bid more cost effective?

 

[Pumbaa]

I thought there had been. I can't imagine anyone other than Siemens winning it but as Desiro City units are incompatible with Desiros anyway there is little operational reason for opting for Siemens again. Potentially Siemens will have bid based on heavy maintenance being done at their current Northam depot which will make their bid more cost effective?

They're to be based at Wimbledon on a supply only basis. I personally doubt that Siemens can put in the lowest bid, and it will end up going to someone else. To my (cynical) mind, it explains the drawn out process. SWT have previously been vocal in wanting to continue their affiliation with Siemens.

 

[Manchester77]

If SWT really want Siemens then surely they'll put in the ITT that the trains have to be fully comparable with their existing desiros just as the DfT did with the 377/6 order specifying they had to be compatible with the existing 377s so they got bombardier.

 

[Pumbaa]

They can't reasonably say that though as the service types are very different and there is no everyday requirement for compatibility. With the Siemens 350 add-on order, and the new Bombardier orders, there was a greater degree of common working.

The new-gen Desiros aren't compatible with old-gen Desiro, and there's no need for them to be.

 

[Domh245]

I thought that the 10 car OJEU was withdrawn and replaced with the 458/5s and 456s, or was that something completely separate? If not, is this replacing or just supplementing the 455s, I'd hope merely supplementing with the amount of investment going into them. Also could this be an opportunity for Hitachi to get some more orders for Newton Aycliffe, depending on the delivery dates

 

[starrymarkb]

They're to be based at Wimbledon on a supply only basis. I personally doubt that Siemens can put in the lowest bid, and it will end up going to someone else. To my (cynical) mind, it explains the drawn out process. SWT have previously been vocal in wanting to continue their affiliation with Siemens.

Nothing to stop Siemens quoting a service package along side a supply only price.

 

[TEW]

They're to be based at Wimbledon on a supply only basis. I personally doubt that Siemens can put in the lowest bid, and it will end up going to someone else. To my (cynical) mind, it explains the drawn out process. SWT have previously been vocal in wanting to continue their affiliation with Siemens.

I knew they were going to be ordinarily based at Wimbledon, as retractioning the 455s with the subsequent increased maintenance intervals frees up the space for the new fleet. Wasn't sure if the bidder would be required to provide some maintenance still though. Is it know who bid for the contract?

 

[Manchester77]

They can't reasonably say that though as the service types are very different and there is no everyday requirement for compatibility. With the Siemens 350 add-on order, and the new Bombardier orders, there was a greater degree of common working.

The new-gen Desiros aren't compatible with old-gen Desiro, and there's no need for them to be.

Thanks I didn't know that I thought that inter working was similar to that on southern

 

[Monty]

I thought that the 10 car OJEU was withdrawn and replaced with the 458/5s and 456s, or was that something completely separate? If not, is this replacing or just supplementing the 455s, I'd hope merely supplementing with the amount of investment going into them. Also could this be an opportunity for Hitachi to get some more orders for Newton Aycliffe, depending on the delivery dates

It's a separate tender, the 458/5s and 456s are part of HLOS. This tender to my knowledge isn't.

 

[swt_passenger]

It's a separate tender, the 458/5s and 456s are part of HLOS. This tender to my knowledge isn't.

As I understood it the 458/5 and 456 project results from the HLOS for CP4 requirement - which has mainly provided for the 10 car Windsor side improvements.

That tender was originally issued in 2009 and was for:

"120 to 180 vehicles (20 metre) to operate in 5 car formation"

...and SWT ended up with only 108 vehicles, a bit on the low side, and as we know the 456s are not enough to provide for 10 car operations wherever 455s currently operate.

Presumably though the latest tender is to allow for both the further lengthening projects the HLOS for CP5 introduces, such as 10 car to Reading, and presumably further 10 car operations on the main suburban side, for which the platform extensions have already been done.

The latest tender was first issued in mid 2013 and initially called for a batch of:

"135 to 250 vehicles (20 metre) formed in Units of between three and five vehicles to operate in up to 10 car formation."

Additionally, in an amendment to that tender issued in Sept 2013 it (unexpectedly) it suddenly turned out that either new or existing trains could be used:

The rolling stock may be either new build or an existing fleet. Where the fleet is new build it must be dual voltage and the chosen supplier will be required to enter into a maintenance support arrangement for the period following the introduction of the whole fleet up to approximately 31.3.2019. Where the fleet is an existing fleet it must operate on a DC network and be compatible with an existing fleet operated by Stagecoach South Western Trains Limited and modified to meet its requirements.

So to clarify some of the ideas in an earlier post...

starrymarkb suggests '46 x 10 car sets', based on the numbers of 455s, but they've explicitly asked for units of 3-5 vehicles, and in any case the total number asked for is nothing like enough to replace the 455s. But why would they do that anyway, given that they are to be re-tractioned, and operated with 456s to make up 10 car trains?

The way the tender reads they haven't ever asked for 10 car fixed formation trains in the style of Thameslink either, although there have been PR photos of long Desiro City lookalikes in SWT 'red livery' they are simply Siemens PR, and I don't think any inferences can be drawn from them...

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I thought that the 10 car OJEU was withdrawn and replaced with the 458/5s and 456s, or was that something completely separate?...

As I've attempted to explain in the previous reply, there have been two distinctly separate tenders about 5 years apart, the 458/5s and 456s are definitely the result of the 2009 tender - which back in 2009 was generally assumed to be for new (probably Desiro variant) trains. Porterbrooks's 458/5 lash-up undercut new trains price wise presumably...

 

[Class377/5]

I thought there had been. I can't imagine anyone other than Siemens winning it but as Desiro City units are incompatible with Desiros anyway there is little operational reason for opting for Siemens again. Potentially Siemens will have bid based on heavy maintenance being done at their current Northam depot which will make their bid more cost effective?

Is there any evidence that a Desiro City and Desiro UK can't run together (Siemens did once do a press video implying they could)?

Note Southern tendered for compatible units and they got the 377/6 which until a few weeks ago couldn't couple to any other 377 (and are still limited to /2 & /3 only) and the 387 Electrostars which can't work with any other.

 

[TEW]

Well 380s are incompatible with earlier Desiros as the coupler is mounted the opposite way up, which was the only way to comply with the latest crash regulations. I'm just presuming that the same limitation will apply to the Desiro City.

 

[starrymarkb]

Well 380s are incompatible with earlier Desiros as the coupler is mounted the opposite way up, which was the only way to comply with the latest crash regulations. I'm just presuming that the same limitation will apply to the Desiro City.

IIRC the Thameslink Desiro cities will have mechanical/emergency couplers only? as they are fixed formation

 

[jon0844]

Well 380s are incompatible with earlier Desiros as the coupler is mounted the opposite way up, which was the only way to comply with the latest crash regulations. I'm just presuming that the same limitation will apply to the Desiro City.

Please excuse me if it's a stupid thing to ask, but how difficult and costly would it be to modify the couplers on existing/older trains to make them compatible - and also comply with the latest regulations?

 

[TEW]

IIRC the Thameslink Desiro cities will have mechanical/emergency couplers only? as they are fixed formation

I'm not sure. I've just checked pictures of the 700 mock up and a 350, and the electrical boxes are mounted the other way up on the two. Below the coupler head on the 350, above it on the 700. That would appear to rule out simple compatibility between Desiros and the Desiro City.

 

[swt_passenger]

IIRC the Thameslink Desiro cities will have mechanical/emergency couplers only? as they are fixed formation

The ITT required them to be able to run in multiple for ECS and rescue purposes, but without a gangway hinged in the way the 380 is there'd theoretically be no reason to mount the electrical connection in any particular orientation.

However the units pictured in the latest Modern Railways do have the electrical coupler above the mechanical latch, same way up as the 380.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Please excuse me if it's a stupid thing to ask, but how difficult and costly would it be to modify the couplers on existing/older trains to make them compatible - and also comply with the latest regulations?

It's just been done with the 458/5s - so I guess it's just a question of paying the bill...

I don't think the 380's coupling is a fundamentally different design though - it's just that the front face of the coupling is further forward with respect to the cab framework, so the gangway had to go forward with it. But my question regarding the 380 is a bit 'chicken and egg'. Is the electrical coupler on top because it has to be, or because it could be?

 

[Class377/5]

I'm not sure. I've just checked pictures of the 700 mock up and a 350, and the electrical boxes are mounted the other way up on the two. Below the coupler head on the 350, above it on the 700. That would appear to rule out simple compatibility between Desiros and the Desiro City.

Your confusing a Class 700 with a Desiro City platform there. Just because a 700 us that way doesn't mean every single Desiro City will be incompatible with Desiro UK especially when you consider the Desiro City can come with a gangway and varying lengths. Its a modular design that can work together. LM for example have had informal talks with Siemens over Desiro Cities (for future post 350/3 orders).

Its all about what you specify in the tender.

 

[TEW]

Well the 380s couldn't have the coupler mounted the opposite way up because it didn't meet crash regulations. There's no real reason to have the 700s coupler mounted either way up as they are unlikely to couple to either 380s or other Desiros. I haven't seen anything to suggest that it's possible for the Desiro City to have the coupler mounted the same way up as Desiros, but I haven't seen anything to suggest they can't either. It does follow on logically from the fact the 380s can't couple to other Desiros and the 700s have the coupler mounted the wrong way up to couple though.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'd have assumed that if it were possible and desirable to turn the couplers over on any of the earlier Desiros, they'd still only have to comply with crash regulations of when they were originally built, rather than today's standards.

 

[TEW]

Yes, I'd imagine it would be fine to turn over the couplers on earlier Desiros even if it isn't possible to have the couplers mounted on the Desiro City the same way as previous Desiros.

 

[Class 170101]

I can't see if this question has been asked and answered already so I apologise in advance if it has and will grateful to be pointed in the right direction.

I see these units (the Class 700s) appear to have no end doors in the front of the train. I thought this mandatory in tunnels, particularly the Thameslink tunnels, due to the restrictive loading guage and to be used as a means of escapein an emergency. Has this restriction been relaxed / abandoned?

 

[westcoaster]

I can't see if this question has been asked and answered already so I apologise in advance if it has and will grateful to be pointed in the right direction.

I see these units (the Class 700s) appear to have no end doors in the front of the train. I thought this mandatory in tunnels, particularly the Thameslink tunnels, due to the restrictive loading guage and to be used as a means of escapein an emergency. Has this restriction been relaxed / abandoned?

There is no longer any single bore tunnels in the central core so no need for them.

 

[starrymarkb]

I can't see if this question has been asked and answered already so I apologise in advance if it has and will grateful to be pointed in the right direction.

I see these units (the Class 700s) appear to have no end doors in the front of the train. I thought this mandatory in tunnels, particularly the Thameslink tunnels, due to the restrictive loading guage and to be used as a means of escapein an emergency. Has this restriction been relaxed / abandoned?

End doors were only required for the narrow single track tunnels between Farringdon and Moorgate. Now that branch has closed end doors are not needed as the rest of the current core is double track full width tunnels. When the ECML link opens there will be single track bores again, but these are built to modern standards with an evacuation walkway to the side.

 

[Class 170101]

Thats interesting when the Bank tunnels were built for the DLR it was said that the side walkway was adequate and no end doors were required on trains. However this was later changed and end doors were required after all for Bank operation.

 

[jon0844]

Presumably down to the type of construction for the walkway, signage, lighting and goodness knows what else.

Presumably tunnels now have much bigger walkways, are more accessible, have better ventilation etc?

 

[Class377/5]

Thats interesting when the Bank tunnels were built for the DLR it was said that the side walkway was adequate and no end doors were required on trains. However this was later changed and end doors were required after all for Bank operation.

I was under the impression that the original DLR stock was barred from being used on the Bank extension and was replaced fairly quickly by newer units with end doors. So end doors have always been a requirement to reach Bank but not always a requirement of DLR units.