New trains for East Midlands Franchise

[edwin_m]

I agree the whole plan is a bad idea but a reversal at this stage is wishful thinking. At least one manufacturer has designed a train that both the DfT and Abellio are happy with. A 9 coach, 7 x 940hp engined, 800 variant would be able to keep Meridian timings but with less padding. Thats the sort of fudge that the government does a lot.

There may be plenty of padding in XC Voyager timings but in my experience there isn't much on the MML. Or at least there wasn't at the time the promise about matching timings was made - there is much more now in the current kludged timetable.

 

[hooverboy]

Someone a couple of pages back suggested a Bi-mode version of the 395 for MML services. The problem there being 20m cars which probably can't fit an emissions-compliant diesel engine with enough grunt for 125mph between the bogies and under the floor. Realistically you'd have to go with fewer, larger engines above the solebar... and then you're eating into your useable passenger space. So if there's no reason to limit yourself to 20m carriages (as there is on the SouthEastern), why would you?

If they produced a 23m version they could probably get away with it, but you would still be stuck with 5/10 car formations which clearly are not sufficient capacity.(certainly 5 car meridians are not either during peak or off peak)

from a ToC perspective it is economic madness to run a 12 car unit at less than 50% capacity for 50% of the time ...the sweet spot is ideally to run around 75-80% at all times.This gives a little wiggle room for cancellations/special events and so on.
In an ideal world it would be 100% of course..but if you run over and people constantly cant get seats then it's bad press.

the 6/12 20m option gives about an extra 10-15% in seating.Also no issues with short form platforms like wellingborough or curvy ones like wellingborough/bedford, or long forming that will still fit in st p ...hence why I suggested it.

longer units will likely run into gauging issues...and I think st p platforms at present will only take 11*23m without overhanging the signals

under the wires a 395 can accelerate up to 1.4m/s/s..which is far faster than 22x..so timings to kettering/corby will not be a problem.

there are a few tweaks that could be made to increase space for bigger engines.
(could a techie tell my what material is used in the rectifiers..by using gallium nitride you'll reduce the power dissipated in the component by 60% over silicon ,so smaller heatsink and cooling mechanism required).
I think there are now commercial rectifiers of this type which can handle 2000 amps at 2kv or higher breakdown voltage,which is what would be needed...assuming 750v/1500a required for maximum drive.

..by far the best engine solution would actually be gas turbine..absolutely no problem getting the required power in the required space /weight constraints,but it is unlikely to happen.

 

[hwl]

If they produced a 23m version they could probably get away with it, but you would still be stuck with 5/10 car formations which clearly are not sufficient capacity.(certainly 5 car meridians are not either during peak or off peak)

from a ToC perspective it is economic madness to run a 12 car unit at less than 50% capacity for 50% of the time ...the sweet spot is ideally to run around 75-80% at all times.This gives a little wiggle room for cancellations/special events and so on.
In an ideal world it would be 100% of course..but if you run over and people constantly cant get seats then it's bad press.

the 6/12 20m option gives about an extra 10-15% in seating.Also no issues with short form platforms like wellingborough or curvy ones like wellingborough/bedford, or long forming that will still fit in st p ...hence why I suggested it.

longer units will likely run it gauging issues...and I think st p platforms at present will only take 11*23m without overhanging the signals

under the wires a 395 can accelerate up to 1.4m/s/s..which is far faster than 22x..so timings to kettering/corby will not be a problem.

there are a few tweaks that could be made to increase space for bigger engines.
(could a techie tell my what material is used in the rectifiers..by using gallium nitride you'll reduce the power dissipated in the component by 60% over silicon ,so smaller heatsink and cooling mechanism required)

Why 23m? it has so many problems... things have changed...
Bombardier have got things right by moving towards 24m for EMUs where possible (Anglia, LNR /West Midlands, C2C) a 10 car train is the same length as 12x 20m that so many of the stations are built to cope with (240m) and 5car the same length as 6x 20m.
The max train length per EVC* for ETCS is 5 car hence multiple of 5 or less are good for units else you end up adding an extra EVC at lots of extra cost.
Cabs with all the electronics these day also cost a fortune save not much change from £0.25m a pair so reducing the number of cabs reduces build and hence leasing costs.
Going with 24m cars over 20m on a 240m unit reduces the number of bogies by 4 so a ~16tonne saving if assuming unpowered. Swap to inside frame bogies** on the remaining 20x bogies and that is another 30+tonnes removed so you require 2 fewer traction motors and so on...
(Repeat for other equipment than can be reduced with reducing car numbers and the weight saving is big you end up saving 4 traction motors and a set of traction electronics) Traditionally each set of (3 phase) AC traction electronics had either 2 or 4 sets of individual motor control circuitry Bombardier now have 4 or 6 per box reducing weight (and cost) further.) Each traction motor control box now typically control the motors on 2 cars.

Hence long fixed length units can actually be surprisingly cheap to run these days. There was a brilliant comment (I haven't been able to find it again) on the Cl 700 thread about fixed length unit costs with real cost reduction with increasing train length. It can make a lot of sense especially when you factor in Driver costs for ETCS movements.

*EVC = European Vital Computer
**Only Bombardier have the design and patents to do this effectively. Siemens have to fit tread brakes on motored axles to use inside frame bogies and Hitachi only use inside frame bogie on unpowered.

Hence for a 125mph Bi-mode unit (no tread brakes!) Bombardier have a significant advantage as they can get to 240m with something weighing a minimum of 18tonnes* less than Hitachi or Siemens. (*or 2 engine rafts)

 

[supervc-10]

The other big advantage of longer cars is that there is more space usable for seating, as less is taken up with vestibules and gangways, which on crowded trains is a big plus. The same applies to having fixed length long units eliminating intermediate cabs (as @hwl rightly points out that also saves a lot of cash!). The 700s were built to move as many people as possible- needed on crowded London commuter routes. With population growth and the need to shift away from cars, that logic is starting to need to be applied to other routes too.

 

[The Ham]

The other big advantage of longer cars is that there is more space usable for seating, as less is taken up with vestibules and gangways, which on crowded trains is a big plus. The same applies to having fixed length long units eliminating intermediate cabs (as @hwl rightly points out that also saves a lot of cash!). The 700s were built to move as many people as possible- needed on crowded London commuter routes. With population growth and the need to shift away from cars, that logic is starting to need to be applied to other routes too.

Indeed, there was a lot of fear that the 80x would have cramped seating due to having ~90 seats per coach Vs the ~76 seats per coach of the Mark 3 coaches, as it's only 3m longer. Yet that's not the case.

 

[supervc-10]

I've not been on an 80x yet, but given the seating it wouldn't surprise me if they were like the 'slimline' seats the airlines are all installing now too.

 

[swt_passenger]

Indeed, there was a lot of fear that the 80x would have cramped seating due to having ~90 seats per coach Vs the ~76 seats per coach of the Mark 3 coaches, as it's only 3m longer. Yet that's not the case.

The supposed fear of cramped seating was probably completely illogical given that the extra length was all in the saloon area between bulkheads, and 3m easily allows for 12 seats. I remember comparing the HST/Mk 3 and IEP cabin lengths off technical drawings and as a percentage increase in length it easily allowed for the higher capacity. The post about it is probably in the class 800 thread somewhere...

 

[grumpyoldman01]

Unless the standstill period is extended, we should soon have more detailed information about Abellio's plans for the East Midlands; I'm looking forward very much to seeing these, as I'm having great difficulty in reconciling what we've been told thus far (by DfT, Abellio, the rail minister, and in the railway industry press) with the requirements of the ITT.

In recent awards, it's been suggested that the successful bidders have gone for substantial or complete fleet replacement strategies as they would have scored better under the tender evaluation criteria used by the DfT; however, for the East Midlands the DfT has specifically said (in clause 5.9.1 of the ITT) that - except where stated otherwise in the ITT - it will not differentiate in its scoring between new and refurbished trains. The only new trains specified are bi-modes for intercity services (clause 5.9.4); moreover, it states categorically that they must be capable of operating 222 timed trains "with no detriment to intermediate and end-to-end journey times". It is clear that the DfT was aware that no such train existed at the time the ITT was issued, as (in clause 5.9.5 a)) it states that at least one train meeting the specification and being capable of being used for track testing and as a demonstrator must be available by 31 December 2021.

Elsewhere, compatability with existing technical and operational constraints of the infrastructure is emphasised; this must be important to the DfT as it is mentioned in both clauses 5.9.3 a) and 5 9 15 a) iii). Presumably, this means that the 8XX series bi-modes would be non-compliant as they are unable to use enhanced speeds for HSTs on the MML; however, bidders are given an option to propose "further infrastructure enhancement schemes that the bidder commits to fund and deliver", so this may give them an opportunity to offer new trains from Hitachi. But can HST enhanced speeds be "upgraded" for either MU or general use so that 8XX series trains can use them, even if Abellio are prepared to fund the necessary infrastructure works required?

Bidders were restricted as to what vehicles could be included in their fleet proposals for the new franchise; except for the mandated new MML bi-modes, other trains comprised in bidder's fleet plans had to be either already operated by EMT, be new build, be off-lease, be coming off-lease, or be the subject of a swap between the new EMR franchise and another TOC. Therefore, an exchange with XC with Meridians being swapped for 170s would be compliant with the ITT, but one with TPE whereby Meridians were swapped for 185s wouldn't be (because of non-compliance with infrastructure operational constraints). I believe the infrastructure operational constraint also affects using 175s; aren't there some SP restrictions in the East Midlands Railway operational area?

The Railway Gazette website reported that there will be a complete regional fleet replacement; this was also implied by the rail minister during the House of Commons debate after the preferred bidder for the franchise was announced, and although Hansard records that he frequently used "new" to describe the proposed EMR regional fleet, the general consensus on this forum seems to be that he meant new to the franchise. This is a very reasonable assumption - if brand-new trains were actually being procured for regional services, the DfT would have shouted about this very loudly when the successful franchise bidder was announced.

If it wasn't for the Railway Gazette report and the rail minister using "new" to describe the regional fleet, the line-by-line improvements planned for the new franchise and described on the DfT website could have been met by keeping the EMT class 158 fleet, refurbishing them and using them instead of class 153s and 156s, and bringing in 170s going off-lease in the West Midlands for the Norwich - Nottingham - Derby service; all trains would then have been quicker than those they replaced, be airconditioned, be more modern, etc. But - taking the infrastructure operating constraint into account - aren't there only Turbostars which could be brought in from elsewhere if both the Railway Gazette complete fleet replacement report and the general interpretation of the minister's use of "new" are correct?

All of the Hitachi trains operating in the UK are heavy, and therefore - unless there are relaxations on MML HST enhanced speeds - 8XX series trains seem out of the picture; so far as I am aware, the only British-gauged bi-mode currently on offer is Bombardier's Aventra, and with their experience from Voyagers/Meridians they can probably build this to meet HST enhanced speed requirements. Are there any others likely to be offerred?

But how the reports published thus far about the regional fleet renewal proposals and the requirements of the ITT will be reconciled is going to be interesting to see; let's hope the standstill period is soon over, and we learn how much is fact and how much spin.

 

[cactustwirly]

Unless the standstill period is extended, we should soon have more detailed information about Abellio's plans for the East Midlands; I'm looking forward very much to seeing these, as I'm having great difficulty in reconciling what we've been told thus far (by DfT, Abellio, the rail minister, and in the railway industry press) with the requirements of the ITT.

In recent awards, it's been suggested that the successful bidders have gone for substantial or complete fleet replacement strategies as they would have scored better under the tender evaluation criteria used by the DfT; however, for the East Midlands the DfT has specifically said (in clause 5.9.1 of the ITT) that - except where stated otherwise in the ITT - it will not differentiate in its scoring between new and refurbished trains. The only new trains specified are bi-modes for intercity services (clause 5.9.4); moreover, it states categorically that they must be capable of operating 222 timed trains "with no detriment to intermediate and end-to-end journey times". It is clear that the DfT was aware that no such train existed at the time the ITT was issued, as (in clause 5.9.5 a)) it states that at least one train meeting the specification and being capable of being used for track testing and as a demonstrator must be available by 31 December 2021.

Elsewhere, compatability with existing technical and operational constraints of the infrastructure is emphasised; this must be important to the DfT as it is mentioned in both clauses 5.9.3 a) and 5 9 15 a) iii). Presumably, this means that the 8XX series bi-modes would be non-compliant as they are unable to use enhanced speeds for HSTs on the MML; however, bidders are given an option to propose "further infrastructure enhancement schemes that the bidder commits to fund and deliver", so this may give them an opportunity to offer new trains from Hitachi. But can HST enhanced speeds be "upgraded" for either MU or general use so that 8XX series trains can use them, even if Abellio are prepared to fund the necessary infrastructure works required?

Bidders were restricted as to what vehicles could be included in their fleet proposals for the new franchise; except for the mandated new MML bi-modes, other trains comprised in bidder's fleet plans had to be either already operated by EMT, be new build, be off-lease, be coming off-lease, or be the subject of a swap between the new EMR franchise and another TOC. Therefore, an exchange with XC with Meridians being swapped for 170s would be compliant with the ITT, but one with TPE whereby Meridians were swapped for 185s wouldn't be (because of non-compliance with infrastructure operational constraints). I believe the infrastructure operational constraint also affects using 175s; aren't there some SP restrictions in the East Midlands Railway operational area?

The Railway Gazette website reported that there will be a complete regional fleet replacement; this was also implied by the rail minister during the House of Commons debate after the preferred bidder for the franchise was announced, and although Hansard records that he frequently used "new" to describe the proposed EMR regional fleet, the general consensus on this forum seems to be that he meant new to the franchise. This is a very reasonable assumption - if brand-new trains were actually being procured for regional services, the DfT would have shouted about this very loudly when the successful franchise bidder was announced.

If it wasn't for the Railway Gazette report and the rail minister using "new" to describe the regional fleet, the line-by-line improvements planned for the new franchise and described on the DfT website could have been met by keeping the EMT class 158 fleet, refurbishing them and using them instead of class 153s and 156s, and bringing in 170s going off-lease in the West Midlands for the Norwich - Nottingham - Derby service; all trains would then have been quicker than those they replaced, be airconditioned, be more modern, etc. But - taking the infrastructure operating constraint into account - aren't there only Turbostars which could be brought in from elsewhere if both the Railway Gazette complete fleet replacement report and the general interpretation of the minister's use of "new" are correct?

All of the Hitachi trains operating in the UK are heavy, and therefore - unless there are relaxations on MML HST enhanced speeds - 8XX series trains seem out of the picture; so far as I am aware, the only British-gauged bi-mode currently on offer is Bombardier's Aventra, and with their experience from Voyagers/Meridians they can probably build this to meet HST enhanced speed requirements. Are there any others likely to be offerred?

But how the reports published thus far about the regional fleet renewal proposals and the requirements of the ITT will be reconciled is going to be interesting to see; let's hope the standstill period is soon over, and we learn how much is fact and how much spin.

Don't forget there's Stadler, CAF and Siemens as well, I'm hoping that Abellio don't go for Bombardier, as their 222s are terribly designed, and the build quality coud be much improved, the Hitachi 80xs have a really good design, but really poor build quality

 

[Aictos]

Don't forget there's Stadler, CAF and Siemens as well, I'm hoping that Abellio don't go for Bombardier, as their 222s are terribly designed, and the build quality coud be much improved, the Hitachi 80xs have a really good design, but really poor build quality

I disagree that the Class 222 is badly designed as feedback was taken onboard by Bombardier about their Class 220/221 fleets and as such was designed to move more components under the floor to free up space in the body shell giving the end user aka you a more spacious interior compared to the Voyagers.

The HSTs can’t run forever no matter what some on here seem to be praying for and as to the seats, they might have been okay in the 1970s but not in the 21st Century as standards are higher and more stricter.

If you really want a poorly designed train then look to Italy and the V250 product from AnsaldoBreda S.p.A specifically as the customer in this instance Dutch Railways refused to accept any more deliveries of the fleet and sent the whole lot back.

If THAT isn’t a poorly designed train then I don’t know what is!

 

[hwl]

Don't forget there's Stadler, CAF and Siemens as well, I'm hoping that Abellio don't go for Bombardier, as their 222s are terribly designed, and the build quality could be much improved, the Hitachi 80xs have a really good design, but really poor build quality

The 222 was a design from before Bombardier bought Derby a build in a now closed Belgian factory / a Yorkshire wagon factory.
The Aventra Bi-mode will be based on the Anglia/ LNR Aventra. And will be very light especially as regards unsprung mass.

 

[cactustwirly]

I disagree that the Class 222 is badly designed as feedback was taken onboard by Bombardier about their Class 220/221 fleets and as such was designed to move more components under the floor to free up space in the body shell giving the end user aka you a more spacious interior compared to the Voyagers.

The HSTs can’t run forever no matter what some on here seem to be praying for and as to the seats, they might have been okay in the 1970s but not in the 21st Century as standards are higher and more stricter.

If you really want a poorly designed train then look to Italy and the V250 product from AnsaldoBreda S.p.A specifically as the customer in this instance Dutch Railways refused to accept any more deliveries of the fleet and sent the whole lot back.

If THAT isn’t a poorly designed train then I don’t know what is!

They're better than 220/1s, but still poor, barely enough room in the overhead racks for bags, and a very poor seating capacity.
But compared to a 180, there's no competition (very well designed, just very poorly built)

 

[43074]

Bidders were restricted as to what vehicles could be included in their fleet proposals for the new franchise; except for the mandated new MML bi-modes, other trains comprised in bidder's fleet plans had to be either already operated by EMT, be new build, be off-lease, be coming off-lease, or be the subject of a swap between the new EMR franchise and another TOC. Therefore, an exchange with XC with Meridians being swapped for 170s would be compliant with the ITT, but one with TPE whereby Meridians were swapped for 185s wouldn't be (because of non-compliance with infrastructure operational constraints). I believe the infrastructure operational constraint also affects using 175s; aren't there some SP restrictions in the East Midlands Railway operational area?

The Railway Gazette website reported that there will be a complete regional fleet replacement; this was also implied by the rail minister during the House of Commons debate after the preferred bidder for the franchise was announced, and although Hansard records that he frequently used "new" to describe the proposed EMR regional fleet, the general consensus on this forum seems to be that he meant new to the franchise. This is a very reasonable assumption - if brand-new trains were actually being procured for regional services, the DfT would have shouted about this very loudly when the successful franchise bidder was announced.

If it wasn't for the Railway Gazette report and the rail minister using "new" to describe the regional fleet, the line-by-line improvements planned for the new franchise and described on the DfT website could have been met by keeping the EMT class 158 fleet, refurbishing them and using them instead of class 153s and 156s, and bringing in 170s going off-lease in the West Midlands for the Norwich - Nottingham - Derby service; all trains would then have been quicker than those they replaced, be airconditioned, be more modern, etc. But - taking the infrastructure operating constraint into account - aren't there only Turbostars which could be brought in from elsewhere if both the Railway Gazette complete fleet replacement report and the general interpretation of the minister's use of "new" are correct?

Based on multiple sources both on a personal basis and different users on forums/social media sites saying the same thing, there seems to be a consensus emerging that the "new" long term fleet is essentially the West Midlands Railway '170' fleet, which is available from December 2020, and the Southern '171' fleet, the lease of which currently expires with end of the GTR franchise in September 2021 so (on paper) they are off lease from this date. In total, this would give EMR 29x2-car, 11x3-car (including the units currently subleased from Southern to Scotrail) and 8x4-car 17x units, which is more than enough to replace all current 15x units and provide a substantial capacity increase to boot. It is also looking like the 21x360s from GA will be the long term plan for the Corby service, which from a numbers point of view works perfectly as 18 units would be required to operate 6 12-car cycles during the peaks. This is what I would bet on at the moment, but sadly we're still lacking official confirmation!

The short term will prove more interesting, particularly with the 4x180s and Liverpool to Nottingham transferring 'early' in the franchise...

 

[grumpyoldman01]

Don't forget there's Stadler, CAF and Siemens as well, I'm hoping that Abellio don't go for Bombardier, as their 222s are terribly designed, and the build quality coud be much improved, the Hitachi 80xs have a really good design, but really poor build quality

I'm not sure comparing the proposed Bombardier Aventra with a 222 is valid.

The base for the 222 is the Super Voyager, designed and built in Brugge to a Virgin spec for a tilting train; the 220 is a non-tilting version of the same train, and for various reasons uses the same steel shell. Bombardier then tendered a modified version of the 220 for Midland Mainline, this becoming the 222.

So the bi-mode Aventra will start from a different base; it will be a non-tilting train in concept, and therefore a different profile; for body profile/construction method, it will probably draw more from the intercity train designed by Adtranz but never built - I think it was named the Citystar - and have aluminium rather than a steel bodyshell. However, the bogies/traction arrangement MIGHT be like the 220/221/222 family, with underframe mounted traction motors driving through driveshafts to the inner axles.

I'm not familiar with the CAF and Siemens bi-mode proposals, and presume a Stadler offer would be similar in concept to the 755; but with platform constraints at St Pancras in particular, is a Stadler product a sensible option for the MML?

 

[LowLevel]

Based on multiple sources both on a personal basis and different users on forums/social media sites saying the same thing, there seems to be a consensus emerging that the "new" long term fleet is essentially the West Midlands Railway '170' fleet, which is available from December 2020, and the Southern '171' fleet, the lease of which currently expires with end of the GTR franchise in September 2021 so (on paper) they are off lease from this date. In total, this would give EMR 29x2-car, 11x3-car (including the units currently subleased from Southern to Scotrail) and 8x4-car 17x units, which is more than enough to replace all current 15x units and provide a substantial capacity increase to boot. It is also looking like the 21x360s from GA will be the long term plan for the Corby service, which from a numbers point of view works perfectly as 18 units would be required to operate 6 12-car cycles during the peaks. This is what I would bet on at the moment, but sadly we're still lacking official confirmation!

The short term will prove more interesting, particularly with the 4x180s and Liverpool to Nottingham transferring 'early' in the franchise...

Regarding the local fleet I believe you're on the money, or as close as anyone can tell at the minute.

 

[JonathanH]

...the Southern '171' fleet, the lease of which currently expires with end of the GTR franchise in September 2021 so (on paper) they are off lease from this date.

What is proposed to backfill the 171s with Southern? Is this some kind of punt on battery powered 377s?

 

[43096]

The 222 was a design from before Bombardier bought Derby a build in a now closed Belgian factory / a Yorkshire wagon factory.

Class 222 was built by Bombardier in Bruges, a site that is very definitely not closed as it is currently building M7 stock for Belgian railways.

 

[43074]

What is proposed to backfill the 171s with Southern? Is this some kind of punt on battery powered 377s?

I don't think anyone knows that yet, but as far as Porterbrook is concerned it won't be their problem because on paper the lease expires with the end of the GTR franchise so they will be happy with the guaranteed work for their trains until 2027, as it stands it isn't GTR's problem for obvious reasons, so it's over to DfT/the next franchisee to find a solution... more than a few shades of when the TPE 170s moved to Chiltern a few years ago though.

 

[hwl]

I don't think anyone knows that yet, but as far as Porterbrook is concerned it won't be their problem because on paper the lease expires with the end of the GTR franchise so they will be happy with the guaranteed work for their trains until 2027, as it stands it isn't GTR's problem for obvious reasons, so it's over to DfT/the next franchisee to find a solution... more than a few shades of when the TPE 170s moved to Chiltern a few years ago though.

The ex Scotrail 171s are Eversholt...

 

[Along the bay]

What is proposed to backfill the 171s with Southern? Is this some kind of punt on battery powered 377s?

Or hydrogen powered knowing this goverment.

 

[urpert]

Or hydrogen powered knowing this goverment.

Didn’t someone on here mention a rumour of battery powered 376s for Uckfield?

 

[hwl]

So the bi-mode Aventra will start from a different base; it will be a non-tilting train in concept, and therefore a different profile; for body profile/construction method, it will probably draw more from the intercity train designed by Adtranz but never built - I think it was named the Citystar - and have aluminium rather than a steel bodyshell. However, the bogies/traction arrangement MIGHT be like the 220/221/222 family, with underframe mounted traction motors driving through driveshafts to the inner axles.

Or just use the Aventra bodyshell and bolt a standard MTU engine / alternator /fuel tank /cooling raft underneath. No real need to change anything from the current Aventra concept or dredge random designs form the past up.
Underframe mounted traction motors don't help as regards finding space for equipment especially rafts underneath.

 

[Japan0913]

I disagree that the Class 222 is badly designed as feedback was taken onboard by Bombardier about their Class 220/221 fleets and as such was designed to move more components under the floor to free up space in the body shell giving the end user aka you a more spacious interior compared to the Voyagers.

The HSTs can’t run forever no matter what some on here seem to be praying for and as to the seats, they might have been okay in the 1970s but not in the 21st Century as standards are higher and more stricter.

If you really want a poorly designed train then look to Italy and the V250 product from AnsaldoBreda S.p.A specifically as the customer in this instance Dutch Railways refused to accept any more deliveries of the fleet and sent the whole lot back.

If THAT isn’t a poorly designed train then I don’t know what is!

Currently, "Hitachi italy" has been busy in orders and production of a large amount of double-decker vehicles.
Hitachi UK aycliffe plans plant expansion.In addition, from a previous.
Therefore,Production in Italy as long as the incredibly orders do not overlap, I think that there is no.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

Based on multiple sources both on a personal basis and different users on forums/social media sites saying the same thing, there seems to be a consensus emerging that the "new" long term fleet is essentially the West Midlands Railway '170' fleet, which is available from December 2020, and the Southern '171' fleet, the lease of which currently expires with end of the GTR franchise in September 2021 so (on paper) they are off lease from this date. In total, this would give EMR 29x2-car, 11x3-car (including the units currently subleased from Southern to Scotrail) and 8x4-car 17x units, which is more than enough to replace all current 15x units and provide a substantial capacity increase to boot. It is also looking like the 21x360s from GA will be the long term plan for the Corby service, which from a numbers point of view works perfectly as 18 units would be required to operate 6 12-car cycles during the peaks. This is what I would bet on at the moment, but sadly we're still lacking official confirmation!

The short term will prove more interesting, particularly with the 4x180s and Liverpool to Nottingham transferring 'early' in the franchise...

I too have noted that there is an expressed view that the new EMR franchise will have a regional fleet comprised from the West Midlands class 170s and the Southern 171s.

As I see it, the class 170s aren't a problem, but I do not have the same confidence regarding the class 171s; they were on lease at the time the ITT was issued, and therefore fall within the requirements of clause 5.9.38 b) ii) in particular. In simple terms, if Abellio want to use the Southern class 171 when their lease expires, they must have shown to the DfT in their bid that Southern can replace them by the end of the current lease with other trains to at least the same standard. So if there are "rumours" within the rail industry that the class 171s will move to the East Midlands, are there any rumours as to what will replace them?

Also, why class 360s instead of 379s?

The Corby electrics will provide a fast service between London and Luton Airport, and as the 379s were built specifically for Stansted services, they are already fitted out with airport transfers in mind; moreover, Ketering and Wellingborough have enjoyed inter-city standard trains to/from London for as long as I can remember (which means back to the days of Mk Is hauled by 'Peaks' painted green and having D prefix numbers!), so there will probably be uproar if passengers from these stations are forced to use trains with 3+2 seating and, as you know, 379s already have 2+2 in standard and 2+1 in first. Consequently, it will be easier for the new franchisee to "sell" 379s as suitable replacements for HSTs and Meridians - same standard as before, just with doors in a different place!

And 379s have a lower variable usage charge per mile than the 360s (but I don't know how leasing costs compare).

 

[cactustwirly]

The PKP Intercity Flirts look very nice, so if Abellio plan a variant of this, I'll be happy

 

[43074]

...So if there are "rumours" within the rail industry that the class 171s will move to the East Midlands, are there any rumours as to what will replace them

No, but clause 5.9.38 b) ii. suggests they are a compliant solution because there is time to find a solution (2 and a half years before September 2021) rather than because an obvious solution already exists. That said, "solutions" such as Class 769s, battery 377s and similar are out there and could probably be implemented in time for them to come off lease.

Also, why class 360s instead of 379s?

With regards the 360s - AIUI the 379s have higher leasing costs, which was a factor in Abellio choosing to replace the 379s with the FLIRTs in the first place, so one would assume Abellio considered the 360s a better fit in terms of fleet size and leasing costs.

 

[RealTrains07]

Don't forget there's Stadler, CAF and Siemens as well, I'm hoping that Abellio don't go for Bombardier, as their 222s are terribly designed, and the build quality coud be much improved, the Hitachi 80xs have a really good design, but really poor build quality

All new trains being bought in look like they are poorly built, its nothing new. The aventras and CAF units look like their made from cheap plastic tbh.
Hopefully siemens will be a good enough option and a change from money being poured into CAF and bombardiers mouths

 

[JonathanH]

With regards the 360s - AIUI the 379s have higher leasing costs, which was a factor in Abellio choosing to replace the 379s with the FLIRTs in the first place, so one would assume Abellio considered the 360s a better fit in terms of fleet size and leasing costs.

It is also totally possible to refit the interior of units - just because they have 3+2 seating and one toilet doesn't mean they always will. A shame they aren't going for units with through interconnecting gangways though but again that isn't different from running two 222s (or 80xs) together.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

Regarding the use of class 171s, if this is indeed Abellio's plan, they will already have gone through a lengthy process with the DfT.

Firstly, as early in the tendering process as possible, Abellio would have submitted a question to the DfT in accordance with clause 5.9.37 of the ITT:

"Where Bidders are contemplating inward cascades of fleets from other Franchises, they are invited to set out their proposals to the Department, via a BCQ, as early as possible in the Bidding process. The Department will consider any such proposals against the impact on the donor franchise, and may provide a view as to whether the Department is likely to have concerns if the Bidder includes this rolling stock in their proposed Train Fleet. Any such view would be provisional and without prejudice to the Department’s evaluation of the Bid once submitted. Such a view would not be communicated to other Bidders, as this may reveal one Bidder’s rolling stock strategy to the other Bidders, but it is open to any Bidder to approach the Department on this issue"

If the DfT has responded positively to Abellio's question about the use of class 171s, in accordance with clause 5.9.38 b) ii), the tender must show the following:

"Will not be demonstrably surplus to the requirements of that operator, but the Bidder can demonstrate that it will be feasible for that operator to secure alternative rolling stock in sufficient time to enable that operator to maintain the operation of its train services to at least current standards. Alternative rolling stock must be capable of delivering comparable or better operational performance characteristics, and of achieving comparable or better levels of passenger satisfaction. For these purposes the Bidder must demonstrate that it has allowed an appropriate lead time for any modifications that may be needed to the alternative rolling stock to enable it to meet the stated operational and quality requirements, for the training of drivers, and a reasonable contingency margin"

Therefore, it does seem that the fact that the 171s come off-lease with Southern at a time suitable for Abellio to use them in the East Midlands is only part of the story, and even if the owning ROSCO is happy for them to move, it can't be done without the DfT's agreement and suitable replacement trains will have to be available for service on Southern.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

It is also totally possible to refit the interior of units - just because they have 3+2 seating and one toilet doesn't mean they always will. A shame they aren't going for units with through interconnecting gangways though but again that isn't different from running two 222s (or 80xs) together.

I appreciate it's "easy" to change the seating layout, but although seats as individual units are relatively cheap amongst the many items bought for trains, the number of them required increases the cost considerably and it's bound to have in impact upon the leasing cost.

But if the leasing cost is considerably lower - even after refurbishment/re-seating - then going for a 360 instead of a 379 is a no-brainer; thanks to 43074 for than information.