Thameslink new Stock announcement this week

[asylumxl]

Is it just me or do the DfT seem to look at as Thameslink as if it's just the "Core" section? I would say the 377s don't have a stupidly long dwell time.

 

[Nym]

The core section is kinda important.

Anyway, on the subject of franchies, I'd say that there should be a single TOC for all services through Thameslink, possibly to include Great Northern services out of Moorgate, it does seem to make sense as having more than one TOC would be just, well, anoying...

 

[Skimble19]

Nym, there is only one TOC for all services on Thameslink, including the GN route.. FCC..

 

[asylumxl]

The core section is kinda important.

It's not really that important. The important parts are the stations north and south of the core.

Without them they'd have no passengers/customers. I can tell you that barely anybody travels between stations in the core, except a tiny minority of tourists. This is strongly reflected by the fact the train empties out at STP and then fills back up at LBG.

 

[Skimble19]

It is however extremely important operationally.. don't forget in 2018 there should be 24tph going through there

 

[thelem]

Also it's not like it's a trade off - quick doors won't cause any problems outside of the core.

 

[Nym]

Nym, there is only one TOC for all services on Thameslink, including the GN route.. FCC..

I ment AFTER 2018 and the TOC re-arrangment...

And not many pepole travel between Deansgate and Piccadilly, or Salford Central and Victoria, but the're still pretty important sections of track...

 

[asylumxl]

Also it's not like it's a trade off - quick doors won't cause any problems outside of the core.

Well in practice so far sliding doors in my experience provide less insulation both temperature wise and sound wise, and also have more of a draft when shut.

 

[Fincra5]

Well in practice so far sliding doors in my experience provide less insulation both temperature wise and sound wise, and also have more of a draft when shut.

Indeed they do. I much prefer plug doors. Its not like they take that much longer to close....

 

[Minstral25]

Is it just me or do the DfT seem to look at as Thameslink as if it's just the "Core" section? I would say the 377s don't have a stupidly long dwell time.

FCC is very North London / Core centric currently. I would hope that by the time the full Thameslink route is franchised out then they will have a more South of London focus to the operating company whoever wins the franchise.

Southern's 377's are fantastic EMU's - reliable and comfortable for passengers. hope Bombardier wins the contract so we see similar units on the Thameslink routes. I've not travelled much in Desiro's just a few trips on SWT but they seem good units just not quite as good but maybe that is SWT's fault

 

[jon0844]

My concern is the core is going to be a very big problem for FCC, or whoever gets the new franchise, as a simple two-track section with no diversions is going to cause major problems when something goes wrong.

Okay, so with the work, it's expected that the TL side of FCC will have problems - but the problems are often significant, and regular, whereas the GN side is fairly easy to manage.

But, when the GN side is now going through the core and beyond - imagine the knock-on effects of delays. Now you have trains to/from Cambridge and Peterborough delayed due to earlier delays many many miles away. A solution might be to have spare stock so the turnarounds are much slower, allowing recovery, but would there be sufficient spare capacity for this in the order?

I think that in the end, many services on the GN side will have to continue to start and terminate at King's Cross for the GN route to have any chance of keeping to time. Either that or we add about 20 minutes of padding at the end like some Intercity services!

 

[j0hn0]

as long as the 377s are 2+2 seating then no problems with me. The seats on a 2 + 3 are narrow and have about a cm of padding, truly awful seats

 

[jon0844]

Yes, 2+2 seating will be a must. People will expect more space and comfort, and when things are busy, people will expect more standing room. The hope will obviously be to run a more frequent service, so the trains shouldn't get so busy anyway (once people learn to move down a train or wait for the next one - knowing the next one is just minutes away).

If the inner-suburban part of the GN route ever becomes taken over by London Overground, these trains will likely be more like 378s with less seating than the 313s.

I am not sure we'll ever 3+2 seating again, especially given as a nation we're getting larger!

 

[Nym]

Padding at the ends is wholey possible, especially outside the peaks, a comfy 20min turnaround would mean many less knock on delays, especially if there is 4tph at each terminus with standardised stock, cancelation = 5min turnaruond for the next train that comes in.

 

[Aictos]

Might be worth actually reading this NWR document about the Thameslink Programme/IEP:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...Yo6ExOAzA&sig2=nfHEMSsxGRTRYrmeUviNjA&cad=rja

 

[j0hn0]

Might be worth actually reading this NWR document about the Thameslink Programme/IEP:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...Yo6ExOAzA&sig2=nfHEMSsxGRTRYrmeUviNjA&cad=rja

nice 1
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am not sure we'll ever 3+2 seating again, especially given as a nation we're getting larger!

Lord I hope that is the case!!

 

[anthony263]

Also if the WAG do decide to electrify the valley lines network there is going to be an order for at least 50 EMU's and if it is decided to wire through to swansea ATW are going to need at least 5 emu's for the swanline services.

 

[Yew]

Bombardiers bid had internally hung sliding pocket doors, Siemens had external plug sliding doors I think.

So bombardier has 156 doors, siemens has 158 doors?

 

[jon0844]

I know the 379s are based on an outgoing design, and I believe they were sort of hybrid designs - featuring some features of Bombardier's new line - but I think these would work very well for Thameslink.

I have to say that I can't think of a recent Siemens train - the last I've used was probably the Heathrow Connect trains. I haven't seen a 380 in the flesh.

377s are fine, but the 379s seem to have a number of new tweaks - as you'd expect from a newer design. One example is the manual lever to lock the accessible toilet (even if it's just a switch in reality) to give people reassurance that the door is locked.

What I didn't like was inconsistency on the internal door buttons - some on the door, some to the side (and totally different shapes). That's bad design and looks like a bodge. On the outside, the door open button on the door itself is also silly - research has shown how having them to the side makes people stand to the side of the doors, allowing people off.

However, overall, the new Stansted Express trains serve as a good example of how the new TL trains could look with some minor tweaks.

Would they all be built for 100mph running, or capable of more? Once on the ECML, anything between 100 and 125 would be a bonus. If they'll be around for many years, even the Brighton Main Line could potentially be upgraded could it not? Perhaps to 110 in places?

 

[tbtc]

I know the 379s are based on an outgoing design, and I believe they were sort of hybrid designs - featuring some features of Bombardier's new line - but I think these would work very well for Thameslink.

I have to say that I can't think of a recent Siemens train - the last I've used was probably the Heathrow Connect trains. I haven't seen a 380 in the flesh.

377s are fine, but the 379s seem to have a number of new tweaks - as you'd expect from a newer design. One example is the manual lever to lock the accessible toilet (even if it's just a switch in reality) to give people reassurance that the door is locked.

What I didn't like was inconsistency on the internal door buttons - some on the door, some to the side (and totally different shapes). That's bad design and looks like a bodge. On the outside, the door open button on the door itself is also silly - research has shown how having them to the side makes people stand to the side of the doors, allowing people off.

However, overall, the new Stansted Express trains serve as a good example of how the new TL trains could look with some minor tweaks.

Would they all be built for 100mph running, or capable of more? Once on the ECML, anything between 100 and 125 would be a bonus. If they'll be around for many years, even the Brighton Main Line could potentially be upgraded could it not? Perhaps to 110 in places?

Whilst I appreciate the Thameslink units will be a whole separate class, I'd rather that they had more in common with existing stock, especially modern units with the problems ironed out of them (which is what the 379s sound like).

Innovation is fine, but we need something that has an element of "plug and play" about it (if you'll excuse the '90s cliche!)

 

[TukayAway]

Would they all be built for 100mph running, or capable of more? Once on the ECML, anything between 100 and 125 would be a bonus. If they'll be around for many years, even the Brighton Main Line could potentially be upgraded could it not? Perhaps to 110 in places?

The MML has a few stretches of 100mph+ that they could use, but I believe there's problems with delivering 3rd rail power for speeds above 100mph? According to wikipedia, the world speed record for 3rd rail vehicles is 108.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record_for_rail_vehicles

 

[jon0844]

Whilst I appreciate the Thameslink units will be a whole separate class, I'd rather that they had more in common with existing stock, especially modern units with the problems ironed out of them (which is what the 379s sound like).

Innovation is fine, but we need something that has an element of "plug and play" about it (if you'll excuse the '90s cliche!)

I agree that something 100% new (not that I think any train would ever be that revolutionary) could mean loads of new teething problems, so I think something that continues on from the 377/378/379 could be ideal.

No doubt the driving controls and other systems would be familiar to those who sign 377s, and other systems would be compatible too.

As long as the trains allow the driver to open the doors quickly within the core, that would be a bonus!

The MML has a few stretches of 100mph+ that they could use, but I believe there's problems with delivering 3rd rail power for speeds above 100mph? According to wikipedia, the world speed record for 3rd rail vehicles is 108.

I wonder if the Brighton Main Line could ever get OHLE? Not now of course, but within the time these new trains are in service?

 

[WatcherZero]

So is there a Thameslink announcement today after all or is it just another rumour?

 

[jopsuk]

I wonder if the Brighton Main Line could ever get OHLE? Not now of course, but within the time these new trains are in service?

If they ever decide to convert the southern region to OHL, I'd imagine the BML would be the first major route to be converted- with other routes served by Thameslink (and possibly crossrail and HS1) to follow. If it ever happens, I'd reckon the Waterloo routes will be last. By the time it happens, I'd bet on the 455/456/464/466s being life expired.

 

[bangor-toad]

I wonder if the Brighton Main Line could ever get OHLE? Not now of course, but within the time these new trains are in service?

Hi there,
You're missing a word from that first question. It should have the word "again" at the end!
[/pedant]

Of course it wasn't the whole BML, the OHLE ran out as far as Coulsdon North. Here's a link to a little about it:http://www.emus.co.uk/zone/southern/southern1.htm

If you look carefully on the embankment walls between East Croydon and South Croydon there are some of the remains of the original support pillars. There are also some on the walls about a mile south of Clapham Junction.


But to answer the question: I don't think there will ever be a change from 3rd rail to OHLE. The infrastructue is all in place and works. To provide OHLE would require a completly new system to be put in place in addition to the existing services.

I can't imagine any business case being made for this duplication of infrastructure. It's far, far easier and cheaper to specify dual mode, 3rd rail and OHLE, pickups on any new build. With current modern electronics this doesn't seem to pose any problems for manufacturers so I can't see any driver for change.

The "issue" that 3rd rail systems won't run at over 100mph isn't an issue for the BML. It's not very long and there are many stops. Having the top speed increased to say 125mph isn't really going to make any difference.

Cheers,
Jason

 

[jon0844]

Wouldn't there be any scope for some journeys that won't have many stops, say Peterborough/Cambridge, Stevenage (perhaps), St Pancras or Farringdon (Crossrail connection), Gatwick Airport and Brighton?

I suppose people going from Peterborough or Cambridge to Brighton are more likely to be for off-peak / leisure journeys - when there might be suitable paths to run fast services amongst the other services. I'd certainly consider running a few fast trains in the morning/evening at weekends for day trippers - and bet they'd be very well used, especially with the addition of a stop in London and the airport.

But, I accept that it wouldn't make a huge difference running at only 100mph instead of 125mph; it would be the decrease in stops that would make the biggest difference.

Have any stopping patterns been discussed yet, at least in principle?

 

[NXEA!]

Also if the WAG do decide to electrify the valley lines network there is going to be an order for at least 50 EMU's and if it is decided to wire through to swansea ATW are going to need at least 5 emu's for the swanline services.

Off topic, but I thought the original plan for the Valley Lines electrification was that the 315's released by Crossrail would come to Wales, minus the TSO? I heard that using secondhand stock would increase the cost:benefit ratio, I don't know if there's been an official report, but that's what I had heard on this forum, and I'm pretty sure a magazine said something along those lines. Of course not all 315's will be released, unless they're planning to replace the 15 or so left on the West Anglia lines with a new-build of 378-esque units, only about 45-50 will be released. By my reckoning if they electrified all the Valley Lines, that allows 32 150's and 30 Pacers to be released, which is a total of 124 coaches. 41 3-car 315's amounts to 123 vehicles. So if you could send 45 to the Valleys that's 135 vehicles which is a 11 vehicle increase. If you kept the 3+2 layout of the 315's, minus the TSO you'd still have 232 seats, which is more than that of a pair of Pacers (184 seats in a pair of 143's, 180 for 142's, both discounting tip-up seats) and slightly less than a pair of 150's (240 seats not inc. tip-ups). So with less sets you could provide more seats overall for the Valley Lines. For the Swanline services, I'd send 10 of the FCC 377's, and these could fill in on Valley Line turns as well. ATW would still have its 153's for the HoW and 158's and 175's for the Cambrian and North-West runs.

 

[swt_passenger]

Have any stopping patterns been discussed yet, at least in principle?

The diagrams of the Thameslink routes in the South London, Sussex and Kent RUSs all show implied stopping patterns by means of ticks on the relevant coloured lines. I expect on the south side all of the 18 tph through London Bridge will have to stop there, it is still a two track section and is yet to 'fan out' onto different routes, and I suspect East Croydon will also be a standard stop - do any Thameslink miss it out now? South of there Thameslink will still have to interwork with all SN's trains so I'd expect not much change in stopping patterns there either.

Fig 4.1 of Sussex is the sort of thing, the stations called at are generally obvious even when not named:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse... utilisation strategies/sussex/sussex rus.pdf

Fig 9.5 in the South London version covers all routes, but is a bit older:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse... strategies/south london/south london rus.pdf

 

[Peter Sarf]

On the outside, the door open button on the door itself is also silly - research has shown how having them to the side makes people stand to the side of the doors, allowing people off.

Very good point - I hope that is addressed.

 

[asylumxl]

I expect on the south side all of the 18 tph through London Bridge will have to stop there, it is still a two track section and is yet to 'fan out' onto different routes, and I suspect East Croydon will also be a standard stop - do any Thameslink miss it out now?

I don't think so. I think all the peak services which run via Tulse Hill (avoind London Bridge) stop at East Croydon too. I'm welcome to be corrected though.