Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
Yes. Corby is getting EMUs, looks like 360s.
Fair enough. Maybe they are planning only during the peak then?
Yes. Corby is getting EMUs, looks like 360s.
I suspect the only time a new Hitachi unit ventures to Corby will be if it continues to Manton Jn, Oakham & Melton Mowbray, thence rejoining the MML further north. Again, this currently only occurs in the peaks.Fair enough. Maybe they are planning only during the peak then?
I suspect the only time a new Hitachi unit ventures to Corby will be if it continues to Manton Jn, Oakham & Melton Mowbray, thence rejoining the MML further north. Again, this currently only occurs in the peaks.
One assumes so - there's been no mention of dropping it from the timetable...Aren't they keeping the Oakham and Melton Mowbray service?
One assumes so - there's been no mention of dropping it from the timetable...
- after electrification of the Corby route there will continue to be direct service each way between London and Oakham and Melton Mowbray once each weekday, via Corby
I guess that the difference is that the 345s and 700s are being built to do very specific jobs for routes that they will be stuck on for the next thirty/forty years - and the high frequency "metro" services they operate aren't going to have any joining/splitting - not can I see any need for shorter trains at off-peak times.
I was under the impression from what I read on Abellio's website that they planned to run the new trains as 2 lots of 5 car sets making 10 coaches on most services.
https://www.abellio.com/news/abellio-invests-ps400-million-new-trains-east-midlands-railway
Agreed! - 'Regularly' does not mean 'most'. It could mean daily on one service. Even 'often' would be subject to the same get out clause . It would have been best for them to say, 'mostly' if that is what they mean or otherwise say, 'sometimes' or on '[x]% of services'or something like that."Regularly" does not equal "most". At an extreme they could be planning to double one service per day and that would qualify as "regularly" (I don't think it will be that bad but equally I don't think it'll be most).
Apparently they will be two metres shorter at 24m per coach, with a "slightly modified nose profile" (Make of that what you will!) with four engines per five car set, so more powerful.Will the new trains for East Midlands railway be similar to the Nova 1 trains for TPE? If not, what are the major differences? TIA
What makes you think the Aventra design would have been better than the AT300?
They might even have used the same MTU power pack in the design.
Hitachi has the advantage of an existing bi-mode design and production capability, and supply chain, and that is probably reflected in the price.
Bombardier would have had to set all that up from scratch.
In the past, Bombardier has benefitted many times by having run-on orders for existing EMU designs.
Hitachi is now benefitting in the same way for bi-modes.
The DfT also gets to continue its multi-supplier policy.
This would depend on the layout of each set - I'm assuming the layout will be DPTS-MS-MS-MC-DPTF, but with 2 engines in the 2nd & 4th coaches (rather than 1 in each intermediate vehicle).The other advantage, to the train builder, of going for 5 coach units is that if they do find that someone does need then to be 9 coach units they can always sell then some more coaches at a later date.
Nottingham looks like the poor relation compared to Derby, why not put the Kettering stop from the Nottingham 'fast' service in the the Sheffield semi-fast instead.
I think for St Albans to sheffield it'd be much easier to change at St Pancras.I would agree. As proposed in the schedule plan it could actually need three changes of train say from St Albans to Sheffield, at Luton, Kettering and Leicester.
Didn't they say four engines rather than five? That to me suggests a provision has been made with one of the driving vehicles but not the other (due to taking the place of the transformer and/or disabled toilet).This would depend on the layout of each set - I'm assuming the layout will be DPTS-MS-MS-MC-DPTF, but with 2 engines in the 2nd & 4th coaches (rather than 1 in each intermediate vehicle).
A 9-car set would probably be DPTS-MS-MS-TS-MS-TS-MC-MF-DPTF, like the 800s, 801s and 802s, but probably with 6 engines rather than 5 (as used on the 800/1s, 800/3s and 802/1s).
would a coach wth 2x gensets not be too heavy? I suspect there will be only one pantograph trailer vehicle, perhaps in the middle of the consist with driving motored cars each end: DMS-MS-PTS-MS(or MC)-DMF. We'll just have to wait and see what appears from Newton Aycliffe.This would depend on the layout of each set - I'm assuming the layout will be DPTS-MS-MS-MC-DPTF, but with 2 engines in the 2nd & 4th coaches (rather than 1 in each intermediate vehicle).
A 9-car set would probably be DPTS-MS-MS-TS-MS-TS-MC-MF-DPTF, like the 800s, 801s and 802s, but probably with 6 engines rather than 5 (as used on the 800/1s, 800/3s and 802/1s).
I think for St Albans to sheffield it'd be much easier to change at St Pancras.
I think for St Albans to sheffield it'd be much easier to change at St Pancras.
Which is of course what most people doing that journey already do now - it’s usually quicker too.
Why would they be way more expensive?Aw, I like the HSTs and 222s. I'm extremely annoyed that Abellio have taken over East Midlands, now things are gonna be way more expensive and they're getting rid of the good trains. Damn it
I heard that ticket prices were now increasing.Why would they be way more expensive?
Like they do every year across the whole country regardless of who is in charge!I heard that ticket prices were now increasing.
HST speed differentials are more to do with braking performance than weight.
The CGI artwork still shows a pantograph on the driving vehicle. I'd agree that a single pantograph on an intermediate vehicle would be more sensible, though.would a coach wth 2x gensets not be too heavy? I suspect there will be only one pantograph trailer vehicle, perhaps in the middle of the consist with driving motored cars each end: DMS-MS-PTS-MS(or MC)-DMF. We'll just have to wait and see what appears from Newton Aycliffe.
The trains were getting replaced regardless of who won the franchise, it was part of the Invitation to Tender.Aw, I like the HSTs and 222s. I'm extremely annoyed that Abellio have taken over East Midlands, now things are gonna be way more expensive and they're getting rid of the good trains. Damn it
The CGI artwork still shows a pantograph on the driving vehicle. I'd agree that a single pantograph on an intermediate vehicle would be more sensible, though.
Yeah it depends how much stock you put in a computer generated image - Though to my eyes the driving car does look a little more "compressed" than previous artists impressions of AT-300s for Great Western and Hull Trains. I was more thinking that a single pantograph car wouldn't result in one of the four diesel engines vying for space with a transformer, rather than specific location in the train: I suppose there'd be nothing stopping having a single pan on one of the driving cars, though as you say having two offers increased redundancy.I think the CGI artwork probably shows a standard 80x. A pan on each driving car would provide a bit of redundancy if the rear pan were used and to become damaged, the leading one could be raised. Not that important when you have a diesel back up I know. Not sure why a pan on an intermediate vehicle would be beneficial over the existing position though. Does pan location make a difference?