West Midlands Trains New EMUs Discussion

[London Trains]

The Class Number has not been confirmed, but here is the new chat! Only 3 years left anyway!
What do you think the class will be called?

Info:

• 2020 - 36 3 Carriage Units for X City Line.
• 2020/21 - 29 5 Carriage Units for London Suburban Services.
• 2020/21 - 16 5 Carriage Units for Long Distance Routes.

What will the features be on these trains?
2x2 Seating? 2x1 First Class?

And which 350s will these units replace? The 350/1s or /2s? I know they replace the old 323s, which is good!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 350/2s are going, all other 350s to remain and the /4s to join LM from TPE.

I would expect the suburban (Tring stoppers I guess) units to have 3+2 seating in the same layout as the East Anglia units. If there are dedicated long-distance ones I would expect 2+2. I hope for 2+1 in 1st as I will use it more if they do

X City I would expect to be like Crossrail units i.e. 3 doors and mostly longitudinal seating.

 

[ChrisHogan]

X City I would expect to be like Crossrail units i.e. 3 doors and mostly longitudinal seating.

No I don't think that is likely. The key output from the WMT franchise is more seats, not more services. I don't know the current 323 diagrams but I believe 22 are deployed in the peaks. Removing the NS-International shuttle (1) and a couple (?) on Walsall-NS-Wolves gives 19 units or 5,396 seats currently on XCity.

If the Aventras have a "metro" layout similar to the 172/3s (2+2 seating, no tables and a circulating space around the doors), they will have about 188 seats per unit. Thirty diagrams (15 pairs?) from 34 (not 36) units in each peak would give just 5,640 seats. My guess is that TfWM would be looking for nearer 200 seats per unit in order to get the increased seating capacity required in the ITT. Remember that although there is a lot of very short distance traffic, there are significant flows from further afield such as Redditch and Lichfield into Birmingham and I doubt whether longitudinal seating would be acceptable for these journeys.

 

[AM9]

'Metro' seating is lontitudinal seating, - maybe with some 2+2 conventional seats. Fully 2+2 seating is outer suburban, usually without tables. Sometimes 2+3 seating is provided where the emphasis is to provide maximum numbers of seats, (at the expense of standing room).
It looks like in the future, full tables will only be provided with 2+2 seating on trains intended for cross-country and regional services.

 

[ChrisHogan]

'Metro' seating is longitudinal seating, - maybe with some 2+2 conventional seats. Fully 2+2 seating is outer suburban, usually without tables. Sometimes 2+3 seating is provided where the emphasis is to provide maximum numbers of seats, (at the expense of standing room).
It looks like in the future, full tables will only be provided with 2+2 seating on trains intended for cross-country and regional services.

I've seen the layout of the 172/2 and 172/3s referred to as metro. I think it may be in the LM DA Franchise Agreement. Birmingham doesn't have to follow London's nomenclature.

 

[AM9]

I've seen the layout of the 172/2 and 172/3s referred to as metro. I think it may be in the LM DA Franchise Agreement. Birmingham doesn't have to follow London's nomenclature.

But as traffic increases it will have to follow best practice (as in handling maximum passenger numbers on limited infrastructure). They need to decide between:

providing enough seats for off-peak passengers and enough additional space for the full peak load to be accommodated
or
giving some passengers seats with a few standing and a lot unable to board​

Outer suburban rail is the growth market when private road transport is being squeezed. Issues like tables are well below the priorities of actually allowing passengers to board the trains that they have bought tickets for. Call them what you like but metro implies short duration journeys within urban areas. That will require longtitudinal seating and tables aren't relevant there. The 172/3s were a quick buy to serve the GOBlin which during their short use have seen the traffic levels transformed from moderate to overloaded. The existing train layout is no longer suitable for the line in the future even if it is electric and twice as many cars.
If the West Midlands has a real growing demand for peak rail transport, any new rolling stock will designed to cope with that growth for the next 25+ years.

 

[philthetube]

The 350/2s are going, all other 350s to remain and the /4s to join LM from TPE.

I would expect the suburban (Tring stoppers I guess) units to have 3+2 seating in the same layout as the East Anglia units. If there are dedicated long-distance ones I would expect 2+2. I hope for 2+1 in 1st as I will use it more if they do

X City I would expect to be like Crossrail units i.e. 3 doors and mostly longitudinal seating.

London midland do not seem to take into account seating while currently allocating stock so I cant see any point in having two seating patterns.

 

[the sniper]

But as traffic increases it will have to follow best practice (as in handling maximum passenger numbers on limited infrastructure). They need to decide between:

providing enough seats for off-peak passengers and enough additional space for the full peak load to be accommodated
or
giving some passengers seats with a few standing and a lot unable to board​

Outer suburban rail is the growth market when private road transport is being squeezed. Issues like tables are well below the priorities of actually allowing passengers to board the trains that they have bought tickets for. Call them what you like but metro implies short duration journeys within urban areas. That will require longtitudinal seating and tables aren't relevant there. The 172/3s were a quick buy to serve the GOBlin which during their short use have seen the traffic levels transformed from moderate to overloaded. The existing train layout is no longer suitable for the line in the future even if it is electric and twice as many cars.
If the West Midlands has a real growing demand for peak rail transport, any new rolling stock will designed to cope with that growth for the next 25+ years.

As I said in the other thread, I think even predominantly, let alone entirely longitudinal seating would be very negatively received by passengers. I think you're looking at this from a London-centric perspective. The West Mids just doesn't experience that level of usage or overcrowding. Crowding problems on the Cross City in particular are largely to do with the majority of services being formed of three carriages. Double set 323s are rarely overly crowded, particularly for long periods of time. In the evening peak now the vast majority of passengers on a 323 double set get a seat for the entirety of their journey. Entirely going to longitudinal seating would be taking away seats from people who get a seat now, making them stand, in order to create extra space for more people to stand in future... I appreciate that comfort isn't a consideration on the railway of the future, but that'll be a hard sell!

 

[AM9]

As I said in the other thread, I think even predominantly, let alone entirely longitudinal seating would be very negatively received by passengers. I think you're looking at this from a London-centric perspective. The West Mids just doesn't experience that level of usage or overcrowding. Crowding problems on the Cross City in particular are largely to do with the majority of services being formed of three carriages. Double set 323s are rarely overly crowded, particularly for long periods of time. In the evening peak now the vast majority of passengers on a 323 double set get a seat for the entirety of their journey. Entirely going to longitudinal seating would be taking away seats from people who get a seat now, making them stand, in order to create extra space for more people to stand in future... I appreciate that comfort isn't a consideration on the railway of the future, but that'll be a hard sell!

So no growth expected in the next 20 years - or worse, no planning for growth. I suppose that could be a valid strategy as we're leaving the EU.

 

[whhistle]

So because we're leaving the EU, you think our country isn't going to grow in terms of railway travel?
Why people think leaving the EU is anything to worry about I don't know. The FACT is, we can't predict what will happen so can't realistically plan for all eventualities and can't predict even the "most likely" because we don't know what the most likely will look like.
However, I have enjoyed HSBC's announcement of a threat to move their banking operations to Brussels but have later and more recently decided to unvail a new green HQ in the UK. Tail. Legs. No further questions.

 

[InTheEastMids]

So because we're leaving the EU, you think our country isn't going to grow in terms of railway travel?
Why people think leaving the EU is anything to worry about I don't know. The FACT is, we can't predict what will happen so can't realistically plan for all eventualities and can't predict even the "most likely" because we don't know what the most likely will look like.
However, I have enjoyed HSBC's announcement of a threat to move their banking operations to Brussels but have later and more recently decided to unvail a new green HQ in the UK. Tail. Legs. No further questions.

Err... OK

Fact is, use of transportation is dependent on economic activity, so whatever damage Brexit does will be reflected in demand for rail in the short/medium term.

However the long term uncertainty (eg demographics, technological) can be planned for, but just isn't often done very well, and if you had that kind of foresight, you wouldn't be planning rail, you'd be down at Ladbrokes.

Finally, you're confusing HSBC's HQ for it's UK *retail* banking HQ with its global HQ and investment Banking activities. However, whether that's through ignorance or confirmation bias to your political views I really can't say

 

[AM9]

So because we're leaving the EU, you think our country isn't going to grow in terms of railway travel?
Why people think leaving the EU is anything to worry about I don't know. The FACT is, we can't predict what will happen so can't realistically plan for all eventualities and can't predict even the "most likely" because we don't know what the most likely will look like.
However, I have enjoyed HSBC's announcement of a threat to move their banking operations to Brussels but have later and more recently decided to unvail a new green HQ in the UK. Tail. Legs. No further questions.

We have had a decade of inaction in rail investment which seemed like a good idea at the time but have been paying a very expensive catch-up game ever since. Fortunately, those responsible for London and it's environs' transport needs have recognised that growth is inevitable even with the many warnings of another recession if the continues to make a mess of negotiations to exit a major market. Still, if those who plan for the West Midlands have a planning horizon measured in far shorter units of time, maybe they know more than everybody else. They don't need experts!

 

[sprinterguy]

But as traffic increases it will have to follow best practice (as in handling maximum passenger numbers on limited infrastructure).

Blimey, have we really arrived at a point in time where making everyone stand is considered "best practice"? Murky beer in the pubs, no seats on the trains, and both considered a good thing within the right circles - I don't understand how they do things in that there London, but I sincerely hope that the madness that resides there doesn't spread to saner places.

For what it's worth, I do actually understand the point that you're getting at, but can't we just assume that passengers want a seat to sit in and work from there? Very few of the Cross City trains are crush loaded as 6-car sets, with a fleet of 36 (34?) trains there still seems plenty of scope to order more units to form more 6-car trains before ripping out all the seats needs to be considered.

 

[whhistle]

Fact is, use of transportation is dependent on economic activity, so whatever damage Brexit does will be reflected in demand for rail in the short/medium term.

Fact?
I've watched and studied a great number of facts where the railway brought economic success, not the ther way round. Build it and it will most likely get used. Perhaps not so much these days though.
Although interesting that you used the term "whatever damage Brexit does"... why didn't you say "whatever success Brexit brings"? Because you have already made your bed that we're doomed as a country. And it's that sort of attitude that will doom us...

 

[387star]

will the union be kept happy

 

[AM9]

Blimey, have we really arrived at a point in time where making everyone stand is considered "best practice"? Murky beer in the pubs, no seats on the trains, and both considered a good thing within the right circles - I don't understand how they do things in that there London, but I sincerely hope that the madness that resides there doesn't spread to saner places.

It's not 'London', its the south-east, - where (most) mainline commuters live. The commuters (sometimes grudgingly) generally realistically accept that the cost of providing guaranteed seats for every person who travels when the infrastructure is stretched to the limit of its capacity would be prohibitive and an unfair burden of national public funds so they just get on with it as part of their work-life balance. Not all An upside of that is the tendency for off-peak provision to be generous eneough to encourage leisure journeys on the trains and that has certainly worked well reducing the time wasting and environmental damage aspects of non-essential private vehicle road travel.

For what it's worth, I do actually understand the point that you're getting at, but can't we just assume that passengers want a seat to sit in and work from there? Very few of the Cross City trains are crush loaded as 6-car sets, with a fleet of 36 (34?) trains there still seems plenty of scope to order more units to form more 6-car trains before ripping out all the seats needs to be considered.

I'm sure that most passengers want just that but as the demand for rail travel into cities will almost certainly risewithin the lifetime of rolling stock currently being ordered, even metropolitan centres such as the West Midlands will run out of options to just add more trains and seats whatever the UK economy is likely to do. Of course many in the south-east have a don't care attitude about what happens 'north of Watford Gap' but looking at the UK as a whole, I think that development of public transport across the country is in everybody's interest. However, the railway is run as a buggin's turn pseudo-privatised system where profit motives and limited capital seems to dictate that commuters, being the cause of the system's saturation must of necessity take a hit with their personal comforts. The commercial marketing attitude is that the captive customer does that anyway.
So all those tasked with delivering services that provide the capacity eventually have little option to do at least in some part what has been done in the South-east.

 

[sprinterguy]

Although interesting that you used the term "whatever damage Brexit does"... why didn't you say "whatever success Brexit brings"? Because you have already made your bed that we're doomed as a country. And it's that sort of attitude that will doom us...

If the Brexit process can be undone by individual personal sentiment then we're in a far weaker position than I dared fear.

Though "a stiff upper lip and England shall prevail" seems to be as much strategy as some of those who voted leave have been able to provide.

 

[sprinterguy]

It's not 'London', its the south-east, - where (most) mainline commuters live. The commuters (sometimes grudgingly) generally realistically accept that the cost of providing guaranteed seats for every person who travels when the infrastructure is stretched to the limit of its capacity would be prohibitive and an unfair burden of national public funds so they just get on with it as part of their work-life balance. Not all An upside of that is the tendency for off-peak provision to be generous eneough to encourage leisure journeys on the trains and that has certainly worked well reducing the time wasting and environmental damage aspects of non-essential private vehicle road travel.

Apologies, it's all the same to me. It's only fairly recently that I've established the difference between Brighton and Bournemouth after visiting one or the other, so untangling London from Kent is as of yet a step too far for me.

The rest of the country is not the South East, though, and the infrastructure is not yet at capacity, so there's still plenty of opportunity, on a line with ten minute frequencies, for demand to be spread across more trains running at full length before seated capacity need be drastically reduced (I can appreciate the benefits of a "Metro" style 2-2 layout over a cram 'em in 3-2 one, though, in terms of standing room while maintaining seating off peak).

You've hit the nail on the head in the second half of your post, though, with the nature of rail privatisation: We're at the whim of the company, the company want to make money, the passenger ("customer") comes last in that equation and hence, we'll probably have to stand.

 

[Bletchleyite]

London midland do not seem to take into account seating while currently allocating stock so I cant see any point in having two seating patterns.

Abellio of course aren’t LM.