New CAF and Bombardier stock for West Midlands Trains

[Chester1]

Hang on, wasn't the story that the CAF bid for Northern stock was competitively priced due to CAF wanting to avoid lay-offs at Zaragoza? If that was indeed the case then building Northern's 195s at Newport would seem unlikely.

I thought that sitation applied to the Mark V carriages for TPE but you might be right. They should have enough work for both sites after winning more orders. The factory is due to open next autumn but there is no announcement on what will be built there. Its possible CAF haven't decided yet.

 

[47802]

I thought that sitation applied to the Mark V carriages for TPE but you might be right. They should have enough work for both sites after winning more orders. The factory is due to open next autumn but there is no announcement on what will be built there. Its possible CAF haven't decided yet.

I think not much unless they get a really big order such as the new Tube Train order which suspect is the main reason for it

 

[12guard4]

Doesn't the new franchise want to aim to run most services through New St as through services through which could potentially mean that some WCML fleet is used for this?

A 350 wouldn't be suitable for Rugeley work.

 

[northwichcat]

I would be very unusual for stock from two different manufacturers to be able to work together. That has unfortunately been the case since privitisation. The 172s asre fitted with BSI coupler like other Sprinters but the new CAF stock would likely have dellners like Northerns 195s https://www.pressreader.com/uk/rail-uk/20170719/282316795091445

Indeed and as Abellio are only acquiring a small number of DMUs it would probably be very pricey to design to a different coupling system to the one Northern are getting.

 

[northwichcat]

I thought that sitation applied to the Mark V carriages for TPE but you might be right. They should have enough work for both sites after winning more orders. The factory is due to open next autumn but there is no announcement on what will be built there. Its possible CAF haven't decided yet.

I thought the lack of work at Zaragoza was reportedly the reason why brand new 195s will only cost 'slightly more' for Northern to lease than modified old underground stock.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Indeed and as Abellio are only acquiring a small number of DMUs it would probably be very pricey to design to a different coupling system to the one Northern are getting.

It should not be rocket science to put a different coupling on, Derby managed it with the Turbostars.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed and as Abellio are only acquiring a small number of DMUs it would probably be very pricey to design to a different coupling system to the one Northern are getting.

Trains are modular. I expect it would be no more difficult nor expensive than ordering your car with alloy wheels rather than steel.

I would expect them not to bother about it, though, particularly if the CAF units will operate the Snow Hill lines with the 172s operating the New St lines with little or no crossover.

 

[sd0733]

It should not be rocket science to put a different coupling on, Derby managed it with the Turbostars.

Other Turbostars and Electrostar have been converted to Dellner couplings over time so maybe the 172s can follow suit. All other BSI fitted stock will be leaving the franchise so seems the more logical route to update the 172s than fit obsolete couplings to the new units.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Other Turbostars and Electrostar have been converted to Dellner couplings over time so maybe the 172s can follow suit. All other BSI fitted stock will be leaving the franchise so seems the more logical route to update the 172s than fit obsolete couplings to the new units.

Good point, I do hope there is uniformity in the DMU fleet which ever way.

 

[northwichcat]

Trains are modular. I expect it would be no more difficult nor expensive than ordering your car with alloy wheels rather than steel.

Weren't both Chiltern and Southern oohing and aahing over whether or not to change couplers on the cascaded 170s they acquired due to the costs involved?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Weren't both Chiltern and Southern oohing and aahing over whether or not to change couplers on the cascaded 170s they acquired due to the costs involved?

Of course there are costs involved in *changing* them, you have to buy the new ones and have the labour to fit them. Fitting a different type on initial build would be much less expensive an undertaking.

 

[tomuk]

Firstly the CAF units are for the New Street services to Shrewsbury and Hereford , plus the longer Worcester/Straford runs on the Snow Hill lines. The 172s will stay on the Snow Hill lines and run the majority of services.

Regarding couplings it isn't just down to the mechanical coupler ie Dellner/BSI it is also the electrical wiring and how the systems in both units interact. This designs are proprietary to the builder. Derby has been building units with the same coupling system since 1984.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Firstly the CAF units are for the New Street services to Shrewsbury and Hereford , plus the longer Worcester/Straford runs on the Snow Hill lines. The 172s will stay on the Snow Hill lines and run the majority of services.

Regarding couplings it isn't just down to the mechanical coupler ie Dellner/BSI it is also the electrical wiring and how the systems in both units interact. This designs are proprietary to the builder. Derby has been building units with the same coupling system since 1984.

So with both types of unit working Snow Hill jobs it's vital they can couple.

 

[ChrisHogan]

Is there a source for the CAF units working to Hereford and Shrewsbury rather than the Snow Hill lines quoted in the DfT/TfWM announcements? If the CAF units work the Worcesters and Stratfords then roughly two-thirds of the trains on the Snow Hill lines will be CAFs (the off-peak Stratfords largely terminate at Stourbridge Junction). Neither the augmented 172 fleet (less those on the Coventry 'locals') nor the CAF units will have enough vehicles to resource the Snow Hill line services on their own (to the exclusion of the other).

 

[D365]

So with both types of unit working Snow Hill jobs it's vital they can couple.

Bit of a pity that Bombardier is no longer producing Turbostars then.

 

[Class172]

Is there a source for the CAF units working to Hereford and Shrewsbury rather than the Snow Hill lines quoted in the DfT/TfWM announcements?

I too would like to see a source - I had requested this earlier in the thread but it appeared to be ignored.

If the CAF units work the Worcesters and Stratfords then roughly two-thirds of the trains on the Snow Hill lines will be CAFs (the off-peak Stratfords largely terminate at Stourbridge Junction). Neither the augmented 172 fleet (less those on the Coventry 'locals') nor the CAF units will have enough vehicles to resource the Snow Hill line services on their own (to the exclusion of the other).

Clearly it is not timetabled as such currently, but I suppose one could allow the CAF DMUs to run Worcester-Stratford to reduce to number running on the Snow Hill Lines. This would mean all the shorter services could be 172 operated - isn't there an aspiration to semi-segregate the Snow Hill services so services like the Worcester terminators can run semi-fast to an extent (I can't remember how it ties in with the proposed Rowley Regis terminator I've read about) - I expect you know more than me about this.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

I too would like to see a source - I had requested this earlier in the thread but it appeared to be ignored.

Clearly it is not timetabled as such currently, but I suppose one could allow the CAF DMUs to run Worcester-Stratford to reduce to number running on the Snow Hill Lines. This would mean all the shorter services could be 172 operated - isn't there an aspiration to semi-segregate the Snow Hill services so services like the Worcester terminators can run semi-fast to an extent (I can't remember how it ties in with the proposed Rowley Regis terminator I've read about) - I expect you know more than me about this.

Just remember this non compatibility between the 172s and the new build DMUs has been started on here by someone with no detailed knowledge of the Snow Hill/Worcester operations. I see no reason why the new build will not be specified to work in harmony with the existing fleet.

 

[ChrisHogan]

The proposed second turnback at Rowley Regis that TfWM has in its HS2 plan was ignored by the DfT in the ITT. (There is already a signalled turnback there but it doesn't have a main aspect signal only a PLS, so trains have to run ecs to Langley Green). The idea of turning back 50% of the services at Rowley Regis (as proposed in the recent Worcestershire County Council consultation) is, in my view, a non-runner as only one of the three remaining services could run fast to Kidderminster and beyond and it would require peak-hour services to be lengthened to up to 10 cars. (The other two would have to run all-stations Rowley Regis to Kidderminster to comply with the TSR).

I think we can assume that the basic peak and daytime off-peak Snow Hill service will remain as it is now. (Subject to seeing what was finally agreed in the new WMT FA when the DfT publishes it).

As SLUG says, it would be stupid not to have intercompatibility between the 172s and the CAF units.

 

[Class172]

Just remember this non compatibility between the 172s and the new build DMUs has been started on here by someone with no detailed knowledge of the Snow Hill/Worcester operations. I see no reason why the new build will not be specified to work in harmony with the existing fleet.

As SLUG says, it would be stupid not to have intercompatibility between the 172s and the CAF units.

I agree entirely with both of you. Given the intensity of service on the line, it would be illogical not to have compatibility between classes. The reduction in flexibility would be a major issue on its own.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

The proposed second turnback at Rowley Regis that TfWM has in its HS2 plan was ignored by the DfT in the ITT. (There is already a signalled turnback there but it doesn't have a main aspect signal only a PLS, so trains have to run ecs to Langley Green). The idea of turning back 50% of the services at Rowley Regis (as proposed in the recent Worcestershire County Council consultation) is, in my view, a non-runner as only one of the three remaining services could run fast to Kidderminster and beyond and it would require peak-hour services to be lengthened to up to 10 cars. (The other two would have to run all-stations Rowley Regis to Kidderminster to comply with the TSR).

I think we can assume that the basic peak and daytime off-peak Snow Hill service will remain as it is now. (Subject to seeing what was finally agreed in the new WMT FA when the DfT publishes it).

As SLUG says, it would be stupid not to have intercompatibility between the 172s and the CAF units.

Chris whilst choosing to promote SLUG in my signature I speak for myself on the internet so please do not call me SLUG! It would indeed be a gross act of incompetence if the CAF stuff can not work in multiple with the 172s. As for that Rowley turnback idea it's not for this thread so it's a good job publishable words fail me!

 

[ChrisHogan]

Good, we can, for once, agree on something !!!

 

[tomuk]

CAF will produce 80 diesel carriages made up of 12 x 2 car trains and 14 x 4 car trains which will provide dedicated services for journeys to the towns and cities around Birmingham.

Skip to 2:30

 

[the sniper]

It would indeed be a gross act of incompetence if the CAF stuff can not work in multiple with the 172s.

Stranger things have happened... this is the railway we're talking about!

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Stranger things have happened... this is the railway we're talking about!

Yes I worked in the industry for 38 years, I've seen good and I've seen stupid!

 

[tomuk]

So with both types of unit working Snow Hill jobs it's vital they can couple.

Stranger things have happened... this is the railway we're talking about!

As I have said before since privatisation no units manufactured by different manufacturers can couple and be used in passenger service. (Some can to clear the line e.g. Pendolinos and Voyagers).

As Northern have also ordered CAF DMUs - Class 195 - and they will have Dellners while all Northern's other DMUs are BSI it is virtually certain that the CAFs for WMTrains will have Dellners.

Oh and here is the artist impression of the CAF units spot the Dellner coupler.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is it possible that at a future time West Midlands Trains might order a second lot of Aventras, enough to replace all of their Desiros?

 

[F Great Eastern]

Is it possible that at a future time West Midlands Trains might order a second lot of Aventras, enough to replace all of their Desiros?

Quite possible, even if WMT don't really need them Bombardier might need the order to keep a few people in jobs and I'm sure relevant people would oblige....

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I agree entirely with both of you. Given the intensity of service on the line, it would be illogical not to have compatibility between classes. The reduction in flexibility would be a major issue on its own.

Why? It doesn't seem to bother ATW or Northern to have a mixed fleet.
The industry-wide Dellner is surely the way forward?

I also hoped we had seen the last of gangway ends with the full-cab designs for Northern, TPE, GA, Merseyrail and SWR.
But here we are back to uglification and poor driver sighting.

 

[Photohunter71]

That looks strikingly like a less raked back 380.

 

[Photohunter71]

That looks strikingly like a less raked back class 380.