TPE franchise awarded to First

[jimm]

I know that the AT300 is a fully modular design. What I'm saying is that I don't expect it to be worthwhile to create another AT300 configuration for use for only a few years. See, there's not a vast market for 125mph capable commuter trains with diesel engines, as TP North is really the only route where they're needed. The only other 125mph diesels lines are the GWML, which is having all its main line commuter services into London wired completely, the MML, which is already wired on the fasts to Bedford and will be wired beyond around the same time as TP North, and XC which doesn't actually need commuter trains capable of 125mph. As there has been no clear improvement in the ability to fit powerful diesel engines to AT300 carriages without needing to raise the floor, having a commuter door layout isn't going to be any easier either. You don't want to have a particularly high step up, and unlike an end-doored design you can't hide the raised floor with a slope at either end.

Yes, it's modular, therefore it can be tailored to a particular need at minimal extra cost. What's your problem about this?

Why do you think the trains would only be used by TPE for a few years? Who says they have to move anywhere else anyway?

Take off the engine rafts and you have electric trains that can stay on the same routes for years - assuming you don't want to keep the diesels for diversionary purposes via unwired routes and never mind that, as I keep saying, there is no sign yet of a plan to wire Scarborough or Middlesbrough, so you will continue to need plenty of the bi-modes to serve them for a long time after the TPE core is wired.

If they go for a 23m bodyshell - and the 185s clock in at 23.763m - that should give them enough extra room to play with, compared with a 20m Class 395 bodyshell, to keep the doors in the 'low-floor' areas at the ends of coaches and accommodate shallow ramps to the raised central section over the engine.

As for the notion that XC doesn't need 125mph commuter trains, do you ever travel on their services at peak times in and out of Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Oxford and Reading? A lot of XC's passengers would be delighted by an influx of trains like this.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Yes, it's modular, therefore it can be tailored to a particular need at minimal extra cost. What's your problem about this?

Why do you think the trains would only be used by TPE for a few years? Who says they have to move anywhere else anyway?

Take off the engine rafts and you have electric trains that can stay on the same routes for years - assuming you don't want to keep the diesels for diversionary purposes via unwired routes and never mind that, as I keep saying, there is no sign yet of a plan to wire Scarborough or Middlesbrough, so you will continue to need plenty of the bi-modes to serve them for a long time after the TPE core is wired.

If they go for a 23m bodyshell - and the 185s clock in at 23.763m - that should give them enough extra room to play with, compared with a 20m Class 395 bodyshell, to keep the doors in the 'low-floor' areas at the ends of coaches and accommodate shallow ramps to the raised central section over the engine.

As for the notion that XC doesn't need 125mph commuter trains, do you ever travel on their services at peak times in and out of Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Oxford and Reading? A lot of XC's passengers would be delighted by an influx of trains like this.

The basis of my argument is:

1. To run in diesel mode over the Pennines and either keep to the same time as the current 185s, the three engines in a five car AT300 set (remember that, and that normally every DMU carriage is powered) will need to be quite powerful.

2. The only engine powerpacks powerful enough for this role would be large enough to require the raised floor that AT300s have in intermediate carriages, whether equipped or not.

3. In an ideal world, the AT300s for TP North would have doors not just at the end of the carriages. However, if there's a raised floor in the middle of the carriage, then putting the doors any further along would mean putting them in an area with a higher floor.

4. The raised floor would be high enough to make it problematic for passengers to step up from the platform. It would reduce the improvement from having the doors in that location, as more passengers would require assistance boarding and alighting.

5. The wiring will go up only a few years after these trains are introduced. When that wiring goes up, it will be possible to use electric-only trains for the bulk of services. Yes, initially that won't include the extensions to Middlesbrough or Scarborough, but the Manchester-Leeds stoppers and Liverpool-Newcastle-Edinburgh expresses will be able to go fully electric. Electrification of local lines which have use as diversionary routes will be a priority after TP North is done.

6. Even if the diesel power packs can be removed from the new trains once the wires are up, the raised floor cannot be lowered. The trains would then spend the majority of their service life (25 out of 30 years, say) running in electric mode with much more awkward steps than you would get elsewhere.

7. There will be plenty of use for end-doored bi-mode AT300 stock in 2023 once TP North wires are up. They could be sent to lengthen more trains on ICEC and/or GWR, take over Grand Central open access duties if 140mph running and complete fleet commonality on the ECML is desired, be used by ScotRail if the HSTs fail completely (unlikely) or most likely of all, be used on CrossCountry SW-NE services once there are more wires to be used.

8. There is a reasonable market for a 26m carriage length AT300 derivative with commuter doors that would never need to have self-powered capability.

If point no. 1/2 doesn't turn out to be true, and it would be possible to get away with smaller engines that wouldn't need the floor to be raised, then there would be no problem having commuter doors and so there's no long term reason why the stock should be moved away from the line. If true though, then I don't see why anyone would want to introduce a compromised design that would end up needing to spend most of its life on routes not ideally suited to it.

 

[northwichcat]

Regarding TPE door alignment why not:

Carriage A - First Class with end doors
Carriage B - Reservable Standard with table bays and toilet and end doors
Carriage C - Non-reservable Standard without table bays or toilet and wide middle doors
Carriage D - Reservable Standard with table bays and toilet and end doors
Carriage E - Reservable Standard with table bays and end doors

Then carriage C would provide something like 75 unreserved seats aimed at people making shorter journeys and of course they would be allowed to sit in seats which haven't got reservations in other carriages as well.

 

[Haydn1971]

1. To run in diesel mode over the Pennines and either keep to the same time as the current 185s, the three engines in a five car AT300 set (remember that, and that normally every DMU carriage is powered) will need to be quite powerful.

As I said above, define "quite powerful" - the 185 has 1680kW vs the 800 which has 2100kW - the standard AT300 has less kW per carriage (420kW) than a 185 - the 185 doesn't do 100mph over the Pennines, it's lucky to get up to 90mph, more typically 70mph - as you can see, the power outputs are meaningless to the lay person, so without knowing how much power is actually required to achieve a set speed for a given weight of train, with consideration to rolling resistance and the fact that a 185 uses a transmission rather than the electric motors of a AT300 all plays a part - I may be completely off the mark, but clearly, the TPE five car train doesn't need to do 125mph over the Pennines, nor does it need the power of the 185 to achieve 100mph, let alone 125mph.

2. The only engine powerpacks powerful enough for this role would be large enough to require the raised floor that AT300s have in intermediate carriages, whether equipped or not.

Again, it's not just about power output, the AT300 has 420kW per car (over five cars), the 185 has 560kW per car (over three cars).

 

[Philip Phlopp]

As I said above, define "quite powerful" - the 185 has 1680kW vs the 800 which has 2100kW - the standard AT300 has less kW per carriage (420kW) than a 185 - the 185 doesn't do 100mph over the Pennines, it's lucky to get up to 90mph, more typically 70mph - as you can see, the power outputs are meaningless to the lay person, so without knowing how much power is actually required to achieve a set speed for a given weight of train, with consideration to rolling resistance and the fact that a 185 uses a transmission rather than the electric motors of a AT300 all plays a part - I may be completely off the mark, but clearly, the TPE five car train doesn't need to do 125mph over the Pennines, nor does it need the power of the 185 to achieve 100mph, let alone 125mph.

Again, it's not just about power output, the AT300 has 420kW per car (over five cars), the 185 has 560kW per car (over three cars).

Power is irrelevant until you both start to include mass and drag in your calculations.

 

[jimm]

The basis of my argument is:

1. To run in diesel mode over the Pennines and either keep to the same time as the current 185s, the three engines in a five car AT300 set (remember that, and that normally every DMU carriage is powered) will need to be quite powerful.

No point repeating Haydn1971's points on this

2. The only engine powerpacks powerful enough for this role would be large enough to require the raised floor that AT300s have in intermediate carriages, whether equipped or not.

So what? As per the interminable mentions of raised floors in the Class 800 thread, what's the issue with a raised floor section? You're not asking people to scale Mount Everest, it's just an inch or two of extra height addressed by using a shallow ramp.

3. In an ideal world, the AT300s for TP North would have doors not just at the end of the carriages. However, if there's a raised floor in the middle of the carriage, then putting the doors any further along would mean putting them in an area with a higher floor.

No it wouldn't. Look at a Class 395 and see where its doors are. Stick in three extra metres of length and you could push the doors out over the bogies, where you won't need a raised floor as the engine raft has to fit between the bogies.

4. The raised floor would be high enough to make it problematic for passengers to step up from the platform. It would reduce the improvement from having the doors in that location, as more passengers would require assistance boarding and alighting.

Addressed by positioning the doors as per my point above. I'm not suggesting that you would be stepping straight from the platform into a 'high-floor' section, as that would clearly not be suitable. If all else fails, then you could stick with end doors but the resulting dwell times in the peak in the TPE core would not be pretty, same as they weren't with the 158s in a period when there were fewer passengers around.

5. The wiring will go up only a few years after these trains are introduced. When that wiring goes up, it will be possible to use electric-only trains for the bulk of services. Yes, initially that won't include the extensions to Middlesbrough or Scarborough, but the Manchester-Leeds stoppers and Liverpool-Newcastle-Edinburgh expresses will be able to go fully electric. Electrification of local lines which have use as diversionary routes will be a priority after TP North is done.

I know when the wires will go up thanks. We have no idea when the wires will go up to the likes of Scarborough or Middlesbrough, never mind Cleethorpes. As for diversionary routes then being an electrification priority, I'll believe that when I see it. The Calder Valley might get done but the key priorities after TPE, MML and East-West are more likely to be XC and some associated infill in the GW area such as Swindon-Gloucester and Cardiff-Gloucester and more West Midlands area wiring to free up 172s to replace elderly Sprinters. Maybe followed by Manchester-Sheffield(-Doncaster), from where some bi-modes may then be useful to go on to Cleethorpes. There is likely to be plenty of work for them with TPE long after the wires go live between Leeds and Manchester.

6. Even if the diesel power packs can be removed from the new trains once the wires are up, the raised floor cannot be lowered. The trains would then spend the majority of their service life (25 out of 30 years, say) running in electric mode with much more awkward steps than you would get elsewhere.

Again, what's the issue with a slightly raised floor section and where are all these awkward steps going to be?

7. There will be plenty of use for end-doored bi-mode AT300 stock in 2023 once TP North wires are up. They could be sent to lengthen more trains on ICEC and/or GWR, take over Grand Central open access duties if 140mph running and complete fleet commonality on the ECML is desired, be used by ScotRail if the HSTs fail completely (unlikely) or most likely of all, be used on CrossCountry SW-NE services once there are more wires to be used.

All of which is possible. But if the trains are actually built with 1/3, 2/3 doors then why move them anywhere else?

8. There is a reasonable market for a 26m carriage length AT300 derivative with commuter doors that would never need to have self-powered capability.

If point no. 1/2 doesn't turn out to be true, and it would be possible to get away with smaller engines that wouldn't need the floor to be raised, then there would be no problem having commuter doors and so there's no long term reason why the stock should be moved away from the line. If true though, then I don't see why anyone would want to introduce a compromised design that would end up needing to spend most of its life on routes not ideally suited to it.

There may be such a market, there may not. But until we actually see what design it is that First plans to order, we really have no idea about whether any compromises in the design will be required. And if so, whether any such compromises will turn out to be the 'problems' you seem to perceive

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regarding TPE door alignment why not:

Carriage A - First Class with end doors
Carriage B - Reservable Standard with table bays and toilet and end doors
Carriage C - Non-reservable Standard without table bays or toilet and wide middle doors
Carriage D - Reservable Standard with table bays and toilet and end doors
Carriage E - Reservable Standard with table bays and end doors

Then carriage C would provide something like 75 unreserved seats aimed at people making shorter journeys and of course they would be allowed to sit in seats which haven't got reservations in other carriages as well.

That is an interesting idea. People might want to note in thinking about it that the Class 444, widely seen to be an end door unit, actually does have some doors nearer thirds in position.

 

[NotATrainspott]

So what? As per the interminable mentions of raised floors in the Class 800 thread, what's the issue with a raised floor section? You're not asking people to scale Mount Everest, it's just an inch or two of extra height addressed by using a shallow ramp.

No it wouldn't. Look at a Class 395 and see where its doors are. Stick in three extra metres of length and you could push the doors out over the bogies, where you won't need a raised floor as the engine raft has to fit between the bogies.

I've heard conflicting accounts of whether there's an extra internal step inside the doorways to intermediate vehicles as well as the ramp. These are fine on the long distance runs the 80x trains are going to run on.

Addressed by positioning the doors as per my point above. I'm not suggesting that you would be stepping straight from the platform into a 'high-floor' section, as that would clearly not be suitable. If all else fails, then you could stick with end doors but the resulting dwell times in the peak in the TPE core would not be pretty, same as they weren't with the 158s in a period when there were fewer passengers around.

The dwell times would still not be as bad as they were back then because dwell times are an effect of train length as well as door position. Longer trains are never going to have worse passenger distribution than short ones. On top of that there's also going to be the services which will still be run by doubled up 185s to soak up some of the passenger demand. The total number of carriages running on the route is going to increase considerably, and although it wouldn't be perfect if the new trains didn't have commuter doors, it's going to be a hell of a lot better than it is today.

I know when the wires will go up thanks. We have no idea when the wires will go up to the likes of Scarborough or Middlesbrough, never mind Cleethorpes. As for diversionary routes then being an electrification priority, I'll believe that when I see it. The Calder Valley might get done but the key priorities after TPE, MML and East-West are more likely to be XC and some associated infill in the GW area such as Swindon-Gloucester and Cardiff-Gloucester and more West Midlands area wiring to free up 172s to replace elderly Sprinters. Maybe followed by Manchester-Sheffield(-Doncaster), from where some bi-modes may then be useful to go on to Cleethorpes. There is likely to be plenty of work for them with TPE long after the wires go live between Leeds and Manchester.

When TP North is wired you can run 4tph of 6tph as electric trains, each of which could be as long as the infrastructure will allow. Even if the other 2tph continue to have end doors, the total number of carriages would still increase far more. It's not going to be the end of the world.

Again, what's the issue with a slightly raised floor section and where are all these awkward steps going to be?

If the 'slightly raised' section means the floor at the doors is going to be that much higher, then it will be a problem.

All of which is possible. But if the trains are actually built with 1/3, 2/3 doors then why move them anywhere else?

If they're built with that door arrangement, then why would you move them indeed? I was trying to present an argument which follows from the step beforehand. If the earlier assumptions hold, only then are the later ones to be considered. If you can't design a useful commuter design, and are forced to use less suitable but entirely standard design instead, then you can cascade those away not long after. Other routes like XC are going to need new trains regardless of whatever else that happens, so it's not as if there would be a surplus of trains.

There may be such a market, there may not. But until we actually see what design it is that First plans to order, we really have no idea about whether any compromises in the design will be required. And if so, whether any such compromises will turn out to be the 'problems' you seem to perceive

Yes, I know. I'm either going to be right, or Hitachi, First and the leasing companies will have solved some of the problems that are core to my argument and so it fails.

 

[markydh]

Is it me who finds it baffling that there is an argument about the bi-modes being ordered? The whole point of bi-modes is the fact they can be converted to fully electric relatively easily! That's one of the benefits of IEP...

 

[Class 170101]

5. The wiring will go up only a few years after these trains are introduced. When that wiring goes up, it will be possible to use electric-only trains for the bulk of services. Yes, initially that won't include the extensions to Middlesbrough or Scarborough, but the Manchester-Leeds stoppers and Liverpool-Newcastle-Edinburgh expresses will be able to go fully electric. Electrification of local lines which have use as diversionary routes will be a priority after TP North is done.

The reason why you would cascade them away is that the standard 26m end-doored bi-mode design most likely isn't well-suited for use on TP North. Obviously if you manage to get commuter doored bi-mode trains instead, then there's no need to cascade them away (just remove the engine rafts) but it seems entirely plausible that for the few years when bi-mode will be needed on these TP North runs, they may as well go with a completely off-the-shelf (read: cheaper) design which would be perfectly at home in future when moved to other routes, such as CrossCountry. After those few years, the fully wired routes can switch over to the new electric stock designed specifically for TP North.

The Bi-modes will still be needed for routes like Scarborough and Middlesbrough. They will also be needed for diversions via the Calder Valley, Castleford and potentally Warrington Central if the route via Newton Le Willows route is blocked at any time (assuming route knowledge is kept via Warrington Central). Politically it would be unacceptable to put passengers on buses when an alternative rail route is available.

 

[jimm]

Yes, I know. I'm either going to be right, or Hitachi, First and the leasing companies will have solved some of the problems that are core to my argument and so it fails.

Who'd have thought the people ordering and designing the trains may have thought about how to make it all work coherently, doors and floor levels included, to provide something suited to TPE-style operations and packing enough power to climb the Pennines, so as to avoid all your hypothetical problems.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Who'd have thought the people ordering and designing the trains may have thought about how to make it all work coherently, doors and floor levels included, to provide something suited to TPE-style operations and packing enough power to climb the Pennines, so as to avoid all your hypothetical problems.

Yes, I know the people paid to do this actually do this as their job. However, everyone is equally subject to the laws of physics and if initial problems beget other problems, then a compromise would be almost certain to result.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Who'd have thought the people ordering and designing the trains may have thought about how to make it all work coherently, doors and floor levels included, to provide something suited to TPE-style operations and packing enough power to climb the Pennines, so as to avoid all your hypothetical problems.

If it wasn't looking likely that Hitachi were going to get the business, I'd suggest the new-style 125mph 23m Desiro with a 2+2 carpeted interior similar to the 380s (plus a 1st class bit) as near enough ideal. I'm sure Hitachi can build something similar - indeed the proposed Scottish Hitachi units look almost identical to the 380s except for the odd window in the front gangway.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

If it wasn't looking likely that Hitachi were going to get the business, I'd suggest the new-style 125mph 23m Desiro with a 2+2 carpeted interior similar to the 380s (plus a 1st class bit) as near enough ideal. I'm sure Hitachi can build something similar - indeed the proposed Scottish Hitachi units look almost identical to the 380s except for the odd window in the front gangway.

That's the old AT200 design, you need the new AT200 design.

We think the cab needed adjustments to the design to meet the updated crash regulations.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Regarding TPE door alignment why not:

Carriage A - First Class with end doors
Carriage B - Reservable Standard with table bays and toilet and end doors
Carriage C - Non-reservable Standard without table bays or toilet and wide middle doors
Carriage D - Reservable Standard with table bays and toilet and end doors
Carriage E - Reservable Standard with table bays and end doors

Then carriage C would provide something like 75 unreserved seats aimed at people making shorter journeys and of course they would be allowed to sit in seats which haven't got reservations in other carriages as well.

That's not a bad idea, it could be that the only way to meet the varied needs of the TPE route would be to include some variations within each set. I'd perhaps suggest that more than one carriage out of five would need to be of a more "commuter" type layout but there's really no reason that such an approach couldn't be taken. Though if we apply this idea to an AT300 variant it might work better if the driving cars (with end doors) were able to accommodate an engine to allow the mid-doored vehicles to be unpowered, or at least without engines, so that they could have a level floor.

 

[Dave1987]

Yes, I know the people paid to do this actually do this as their job. However, everyone is equally subject to the laws of physics and if initial problems beget other problems, then a compromise would be almost certain to result.

You won't convince jimm that bi-modes aren't utterly brilliant, no matter what problems you point out they will just be dismissed. Why bother?

 

[Greybeard33]

That's not quite the whole picture, it's been established that although 125mph running is possible, IEP 800 is intended to run at 100mph on diesel to reduce strain on the engines, whereas the 802 is configured to run up to 125mph on diesel out the box, from Newbury onwards to Penzance. The extra power is nice for the gradients and just PR spin as far as I can see.

As with the XC fleet of Voyagers, power is just as important to playing catch up as it is getting up hills. Without any facts and figures, your argument against is just as weak as mine for. If you are so hell bent on dismissing several members thoughts on this, then your gonna have to come up with something more credible than loose claims of being more power and needs the power for hills etc...

Well, I was only repeating what is on the manufacturer's website:

The fleet of AT300 trains will be closely related to the Class 800 bi-mode trains designed for the Department for Transport’s Intercity Express Programme, but will utilise higher engine operating power to cope with the gradients in Devon and Cornwall. They will run as electric trains between London and Newbury, and are equipped with bigger fuel tanks to cater for the long distance journeys to Plymouth and Penzance.

http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/at300-for-the-west-of-england_156.html
In fairness the same page does also say:

About AT300 trains
The AT300 trains are a train platform developed by Hitachi Rail. Their most famous relatives in the UK are the Class 395 Javelin™ train currently in service in Kent and the Class 800/801 train for the Intercity Express Programme. This family of trains is designed for intercity travel, with speeds of up to 140 mph for the Class 395 Javelin and 125 mph for the Class 800/801 trains for electric operation and 100 mph for bi-mode operation. The Class AT300 has larger fuel tanks than the Class 800 bi-mode trains and engines that operate at a higher power output.

However, as I understand it, it is the engine power output that is limited (to reduce wear and tear) not the permitted train speed - the 800 will be capable of 125mph on diesel in favourable conditions, with 100mph being in the nature of guaranteed performance under specified conditions of adverse gradient and headwind.

So what? As per the interminable mentions of raised floors in the Class 800 thread, what's the issue with a raised floor section? You're not asking people to scale Mount Everest, it's just an inch or two of extra height addressed by using a shallow ramp.

No it wouldn't. Look at a Class 395 and see where its doors are. Stick in three extra metres of length and you could push the doors out over the bogies, where you won't need a raised floor as the engine raft has to fit between the bogies.Again, what's the issue with a slightly raised floor section and where are all these awkward steps going to be?

All of which is possible. But if the trains are actually built with 1/3, 2/3 doors then why move them anywhere else?

If the doors were over the bogies in a 23m carriage they would not be 1/3, 2/3 - more like 1/5, 4/5. And by extending the flat floor area and reducing the car length, the "shallow ramp" would have a steeper slope than the current 800 design - would this be acceptable for PRM-TSI compliance?

With a 23m car length, would there be enough underfloor space for the other required equipment/systems in addition to the engine raft?

But until we actually see what design it is that First plans to order, we really have no idea about whether any compromises in the design will be required. And if so, whether any such compromises will turn out to be the 'problems' you seem to perceive

Agreed. We will have to wait and see.

 

[NotATrainspott]

You won't convince jimm that bi-modes aren't utterly brilliant, no matter what problems you point out they will just be dismissed. Why bother?

I'm not criticising the concept of bi-modes, I'm pointing out that given the constraints that Hitachi found it may well not be possible to get an off-the-shelf bi-mode unit perfectly suited for the few years when TP North won't have wires. I'm quite sure that if asked, they could produce an AT200 with enough diesel power to trundle along at 75mph on rural routes and branch lines, but that's not going to cut it crossing the Pennines at the highest speed the infrastructure will be modified to allow.

 

[The Ham]

As I pointed out on the class 800 thread a gradient of flatter than 1:20 (I.e. 1:20.1) is allowed under DDA rules.

Assuming that a 23m coach end doors (8m ramp) could have a maximum increase in height of 0.4m, although to allow for space in the middle fit the power raft and a smooth transition over the top it's more likely to be circa 0.2m.

Which could mean that with 1/3 2/3 doors that would only leave circa 7m between the doors probably leave much scope to increase floor heights.

However if they are being designed with 125mph front ends what is to stop a large engine being provided in the two end coaches and 3 smaller engines under the three middle coaches. In doing so the engines could cope with higher speeds on rough terrain while they are needed. Then when the core is wired up then there is scope to remove some of the engines.

Given there is potentially more scope to increase floor heights under the driver's cabs than there is under passenger seating then it could have been that this is what has been done. Especially if there is only one (passenger use) door in the end coaches.

 

[Haydn1971]

However, as I understand it, it is the engine power output that is limited (to reduce wear and tear) not the permitted train speed - the 800 will be capable of 125mph on diesel in favourable conditions, with 100mph being in the nature of guaranteed performance under specified conditions of adverse gradient and headwind.

So where about's on the TransPennine North corridor between York and Manchester can you do 125mph ? I seem to recall most of the line has 90-50mph speed limits. Plus I refer the honourable gentlemen upwards to my post on kW and the application of power via motors etc...

 

[jimm]

Yes, I know the people paid to do this actually do this as their job. However, everyone is equally subject to the laws of physics and if initial problems beget other problems, then a compromise would be almost certain to result.

All designs are a compromise to some extent. Bimode trains included. People on here can't even agree on what constitutes a comfortable seat for trains.

You won't convince jimm that bi-modes aren't utterly brilliant, no matter what problems you point out they will just be dismissed. Why bother?

And there you go again, putting words in other people's mouths. Never mind that we haven't been discussing the overall merits or otherwise of bimodes anyway.

An all-electric railway network would be lovely but we're not in that position, are we? Unless fairygodmother dave1987 is going to cast a spell and thousands of miles of 25kv overhead suddenly appear...

Alternatively we could just leave TPE as it is until wires appear and let people carry on trying to wedge themselves into inadequate Class 185s for another seven or eight years. That would go down well in the North.

Never mind the question of how to maintain the services to Scarborough/Middlesbrough and what you do if the core route via Standedge or other bits of the network are closed and there are no wires on the diversion routes.

 

[northwichcat]

Alternatively we could just leave TPE as it is until wires appear and let people carry on trying to wedge themselves into inadequate Class 185s for another seven or eight years. That would go down well in the North.

The delay in releasing 185s would increase the chance of another operator deciding there aren't enough DMUs available so a new order is required and now that CAF have an up-to-date UK DMU design the cost of further new DMUs will be lower.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The delay in releasing 185s would increase the chance of another operator deciding there aren't enough DMUs available so a new order is required and now that CAF have an up-to-date UK DMU design the cost of further new DMUs will be lower.

Abandoning electrification and just doing an order for brand-new DMUs to get the train lengths up would be a viable option, but not a very forward looking one.

 

[northwichcat]

Abandoning electrification and just doing an order for brand-new DMUs to get the train lengths up would be a viable option, but not a very forward looking one.

What I'm getting is if bi-mode for TPE wasn't happening, it would be more likely that more DMUs would be ordered. Therefore, bi-mode is the more forward looking option as some could be replaced by electric only trains post-Manchester to York electrification and leave bi-mode available to cascade to other partially electrified routes.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

What I'm getting is if bi-mode for TPE wasn't happening, it would be more likely that more DMUs would be ordered. Therefore, bi-mode is the more forward looking option as some could be replaced by electric only trains post-Manchester to York electrification and leave bi-mode available to cascade to other partially electrified routes.

You could run TransPennine with cascaded HST sets, running under a derogation to avoid power door fitment, if you really want to avoid buying bi-mode AT300 type units.

Hire in some train despatch assistants who either stay at stations or ride on the train, their role would be helping the guard out with closing doors, helping passengers on and off with luggage, directing people to empty carriages, dealing with SDO stuff etc.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Alternatively we could just leave TPE as it is until wires appear and let people carry on trying to wedge themselves into inadequate Class 185s for another seven or eight years. That would go down well in the North.

At least the Class 185 units offer first class accommodation which my wife found useful on lengthy return journeys from Manchester to Durham, when for a period of six years, on a bi-monthly basis, she chaired a committee.

Not much "wedging" is usually noticed in the first class accommodation.

 

[northwichcat]

You could run TransPennine with cascaded HST sets, running under a derogation to avoid power door fitment, if you really want to avoid buying bi-mode AT300 type units.

Can HSTs with slam doors run to the same timings as trains like 180s, Voyagers and 222s? If not then it might affect plans for extra services both for TPE and other operators like Northern and VTEC.

Hire in some train despatch assistants who either stay at stations or ride on the train, their role would be helping the guard out with closing doors, helping passengers on and off with luggage, directing people to empty carriages, dealing with SDO stuff etc.

As a rough estimate 3 members of staff per service earning £23,000 per year on 28 sets would cost you almost £2 million per annum extra in staffing costs just to cover the peak and shoulder peak on weekdays only. Then there's the cost of loco-hauled using more diesel and having higher track access charges to consider. No wonder First didn't go for that option!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Can HSTs with slam doors run to the same timings as trains like 180s, Voyagers and 222s? If not then it might affect plans for extra services both for TPE and other operators like Northern and VTEC.

It depends on the length of the HST set in question, 2+4 or 2+5 will come close to a Voyager, 2+9 certainly won't, but then a 2+8 or 2+9 is a far better use of limited paths.

Prior to electrification, additional loops and platforms can (and in some cases will) be installed anyway, to mitigate against the lower performance of a longer HST set. What's being installed, changed and upgraded is being done with the expectation of faster multiple units, not slower HST sets, if you were to add HST sets into the plans, they could be accommodated.

 

[sprinterguy]

Can HSTs with slam doors run to the same timings as trains like 180s, Voyagers and 222s?

Virgin shortened their sets to 2+5 formation in order to match Voyager timings. Scotrail would seem to be thinking along similar lines in order to better the current 170 timings (not noted for their quick acceleration, granted) with their shortened HST sets.

 

[northwichcat]

ATW aren't able to get 4 car loco-hauled workings with 125mph capable locos to work to 175 timings - the 67 hauled workings are quite a bit slower, so are the 43s a lot faster off the mark?

but then a 2+8 or 2+9 is a far better use of limited paths.

But how easy would it be to split one and send two sections to two different destinations?