That is a factor certainly - though it only applies to on-board staff, who are not the whole story.The point is 1 four car train per hour needs half the staff of 2 two car trains. Yet we are always told that staff costs are a huge part of the cost of running the railway
Same argument applies though; 62/64 seats in a Mk1 or 2 TSO versus 74/76 in a 156 carriage.
Pretty much. In most cases if you fill a 3-car set hourly you'll also near fill a 3-car set half hourly. I suspect going from half hourly to every 15 minutes might not be quite as much of a jump, though, so perhaps you'd need to go 2-car at 4tph (giving you 8 coaches per hour - but you might want one more unit so you can make a couple of busy trains 4-car because even if you have high frequency the one that arrives at the city at about 0845 and leaves it at about 1745 is going to be heaving).
The difference is that the lead times and service lives of busses is a lot shorter, so it was relatively easy and cheap to increase capacity once demand was proved. This doesn’t work on the railway. They did learn the lesson with busses but the failure was in not realising it doesn’t transfer easily to rail
A lot of the shorter long distance stock was ordered in the late 1990s, which was when passenger numbers were a lot lower. Since then, the railways have found ways of making shorter stock accommodate the rising passenger usage by utilising more airline style seating, sans tables and removing buffets and replacing them with an at-seat service or microbuffets like the 444s have.Growing up in the 90s, I wasn’t aware of any major TOCS, particularly long haul, using ‘short stock’ - think 5 car services with LNER, or reduction from 7 MK3s to 4 DEMU with the 22x family. I understand under ‘Operation Princess’ that Virgin chose shorter stock because services would be running more frequently, which soon turned out to be a faff in itself.
Where did this idea arise from initially? Had it been done elsewhere in the U.K. before Virgin? Was it something that TOCs in mainland Europe were doing?
Why, when making a 3 car, do they have 3 motor vehicles? Surely there would be a cost saving in having 2 motor coaches with slightly bigger engines, and having a simple trailer coach to make the 3 car set. or does the adhesion argument trump that? Or is making/maintaining a 3 car set with identical bogies cheaper?
Are the arguments the same for diesel and electric trains?
I don't believe that's true. From what I've been told, the pantograph is the only shared equipment on that coach (and if needed that pantograph could be fitted to one of the driving coaches, which would be the case if the unit were built with only 2 coaches). The equipment on the roof of that coach is solely stuff like AC for that specific coach.then a single coach with all the subsidiary bits of kit on.
I don't believe that's true. From what I've been told, the pantograph is the only shared equipment on that coach (and if needed that pantograph could be fitted to one of the driving coaches, which would be the case if the unit were built with only 2 coaches). The equipment on the roof of that coach is solely stuff like AC for that specific coach.
The only unusual bit for a modern EMU is the 2 transformers - Stadler may well have gone down this route as it would make the transformers smaller and the cooling arrangements easier (Bombardier & Siemens have gone for bigger with more complex cooling).From what I've been told, baring in mind I sign and drive them...
Coaches A and D have each have a transformer, power converter and driven bogies. Coach C has the main and auxiliary compressors, main reservoir, CET and toilet equipment. Coach C also has a pantograph. 755/3s only have one pantograph on coach C. Coach B on a 755/4 also has a second pantograph so a 755/4 has two pans. However yes, they do have their own HVAC for each vehicle.
I have never been on an Azuma, but I would imagine it has far less table seats and more airline seats than what it replaced.
I have never been on an Azuma, but I would imagine it has far less table seats and more airline seats than what it replaced.
They actually have more table bays than the HSTs and 225s at present; though the HSTs had far more table bays when introduced.
Tables do seem rather to be making a comeback, presumably because business people now generally travel Standard and still want to get their laptop out. The most extreme example of this is TPE's new stock which is almost all tables.
I'd have thought an airline seat (with enough room that is) might be more conducive to doing work than a table with potentially 3 other persons who might be a bit distracting for whatever reason.
The problem is that there's usually not enough space to open a laptop properly, even if you put it on your knee. Almost all work these days requires some form of IT device - just reading paperwork on paper is nowhere near as common as it was.
I find you can reasonably use a laptop in a "priority" seat, but two rows of these take up the same amount of space as a table bay, and tables are popular for other reasons too.
The only unusual bit for a modern EMU is the 2 transformers - Stadler may well have gone down this route as it would make the transformers smaller and the cooling arrangements easier (Bombardier & Siemens have gone for bigger with more complex cooling).
Thanks for the info, sounds like the UK Flirts may be getting a different layout (wrt compressors/reservoirs) in that case. I wonder if they're able to produce a 2-car Flirt for UK loading gauge in that case?From what I've been told, baring in mind I sign and drive them...
Coaches A and D have each have a transformer, power converter and driven bogies. Coach C has the main and auxiliary compressors, main reservoir, CET and toilet equipment. Coach C also has a pantograph. 755/3s only have one pantograph on coach C. Coach B on a 755/4 also has a second pantograph so a 755/4 has two pans. However yes, they do have their own HVAC for each vehicle.
It's purportedly a traction related design decision. Transformers above the motor-bogies helps increase weight on the powered axles and hence increases adhesion, or at least that's what everyone's been saying since the first FLIRT's appeared.The only unusual bit for a modern EMU is the 2 transformers - Stadler may well have gone down this route as it would make the transformers smaller and the cooling arrangements easier (Bombardier & Siemens have gone for bigger with more complex cooling).
Thanks for the info, sounds like the UK Flirts may be getting a different layout (wrt compressors/reservoirs) in that case. I wonder if they're able to produce a 2-car Flirt for UK loading gauge in that case?