WCML New Rolling Stock Discussion

[NotATrainspott]

Separate fleets doesn't make much sense when there'll be significant overlap in the operations. TPE know that their 397 and 802 fleets will rarely meet one another, so there's not a lot of benefit to them of having one fleet. When both the electric-only and bi-mode fleets will share the most important part of their route there's much more of a case for interoperability - e.g. portion working.

Hitachi maintenance will be easy in Scotland. Elsewhere I'm sure they'll manage, even if it means agreeing a deal with another existing depot operator like what CAF have done. I'd presume any modern and well-equipped depot would be able to handle the vast majority of week-on-week maintenance work if suitably trained up. As I understand it trains are now largely modular, so a lot of depot maintenance might just be swapping components in and out and getting a courier to take them to some industrial estate somewhere for the real maintenance work to be done.

 

[Meerkat]

Why couldn’t Hitachi make them? Don’t they have three factories that could do it?

 

[JonathanH]

Why couldn’t Hitachi make them? Don’t they have three factories that could do it?

They could make them - the perceived problem is that they don't currently have a maintenance base in the North West. However, as we have seen with the construction of the Alstom maintenance facility at Widnes (which seemed to be build fairly quickly), one could probably be constructed before the trains are.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I’m a bit curious on one point. Given these units will be replacing tilting Voyagers, how much of a time penalty is there going to be? Given some of the London - Birmingham -Scotland services are made up of Voyagers (IIRC) that could make quite a difference. If the answer’s not much, then why was so much spent on the upgrade for tilt and tilting stock in the first place.

 

[Energy]

They can't make any more for TPE in time and shortly after the EMR ones will be made, I have doubts whether they can fit in all 23 trains and Avanti won't want 3 types of train when it can have 2. Possibly more pendolino emus and Hitachi could make the bimodes in time.
However considering the size of the fleet, Hitachi will either have to get someone else like Alstom maintain them or build maintanence depots will cost a lot, especially considering the small fleet. So far only Hitachi have maintained the 80Xs.

 

[swt_passenger]

They can't make any more for TPE in time and shortly after the EMR ones will be made, I have doubts whether they can fit in all 23 trains and Avanti won't want 3 types of train when it can have 2. Possibly more pendolino emus and Hitachi could make the bimodes in time.

There won’t be any new Pendolinos, if you mean class 390s. Hitachi will have the capacity. The lack of capacity for TPE units reflects the position as expected over two years ago, not the state we’re in today.

 

[Energy]

There won’t be any new Pendolinos, if you mean class 390s. Hitachi will have the capacity. The lack of capacity for TPE units reflects the position as expected over two years ago, not the state we’re in today.

Hopefully if they go Hitachi they insist on better seats and maybe plug doors. If they go Hitachi would they go for 5 car and couple them together, could be a bit too long.

 

[swt_passenger]

Hopefully if they go Hitachi they insist on better seats and maybe plug doors.

Or just expect more of the same as per every other recent order; then you won’t be disappointed..

 

[Energy]

Is it possible to put more padding into sophias?

 

[mmh]

Hopefully if they go Hitachi they insist on better seats and maybe plug doors. If they go Hitachi would they go for 5 car and couple them together, could be a bit too long.

Why would 5 car be too long? It's what's currently being used. I'd assume they would be 5 car given they'd still need to run them as pairs - 12 car would probably be too long, an perhaps there are stations where 6 car would be too long. Deganwy could take 6, just, but I'm not sure about Flint and the bay platform at Chester, for example.

 

[Energy]

Why would 5 car be too long? It's what's currently being used. I'd assume they would be 5 car given they'd still need to run them as pairs - 12 car would probably be too long, an perhaps there are stations where 6 car would be too long. Deganwy could take 6, just, but I'm not sure about Flint and the bay platform at Chester, for example.

They would be about 26m longer when running in pairs than voyagers running in pairs, I think lots of stations couldn't fit the extra on. They would be fine running by themselves probably as only 14m longer.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Not really an issue when 804s are happening

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why would 5 car be too long? It's what's currently being used. I'd assume they would be 5 car given they'd still need to run them as pairs - 12 car would probably be too long, an perhaps there are stations where 6 car would be too long. Deganwy could take 6, just, but I'm not sure about Flint and the bay platform at Chester, for example.

Flint is 178m/209m.
Chester P1 is 124m (other bays are shorter).

So even a 130m 5-car 80x would not fit in the Chester bays (though the terminators also use P3a).
Plenty of room in the through platforms of course.

 

[krus_aragon]

So even a 130m 5-car 80x would not fit in the Chester bays (though the terminators also use P3a).
Plenty of room in the through platforms of course.

Assuming there's nothing else that wants to use the through platforms in the meantime, that is.

How long a train can you fit in 3a without fouling the crossover for 3b?

 

[mmh]

Flint is 178m/209m.
Chester P1 is 124m (other bays are shorter).

So even a 130m 5-car 80x would not fit in the Chester bays (though the terminators also use P3a).
Plenty of room in the through platforms of course.

That's interesting, thanks a lot for that. Out of curiosity, do you know how long Deganwy's platforms are? I've never known where to look for the lengths - the only reason I said they'd take 6 is the 4xMk2 + DVT + loco set fits with what seems like room for another carriage, but I forgot that the DVT + loco are probably shorter than a carriage, so there may well be 5x23m max too.

So it looks like the sensible thing would just be a straight like for like replacement of the Voyagers. Which means something silly could well be ordered instead of course.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Deganwy is 197m/213m.
The platform lengths are in the Sectional Appendix, which you can find on the Network Rail web site (for LNW North in this case, section NW3017).
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/indus...ators/national-electronic-sectional-appendix/
Scroll down for the latest regional pdfs.

 

[Energy]

Deganwy is 197m/213m.

A single 5 car will fit fine there, you could even fit 7 cars in.

Of course they could just get 24m variants of the AT300.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A single 5 car will fit fine there, you could even fit 7 cars in.

Of course they could just get 24m variants of the AT300.

Or SDO. Which they will definitely have. There is a level crossing at one end, but presumably if it was location based ASDO it could allow the front cab off the platform instead in that direction.

Have they said they will call at Deganwy? Would surprise me. It'd be like stopping Manchester Pendolinos at Heaton Chapel.

 

[390112A]

Most 221 10 car services at Chester are formed by a through service to/from Holyhead or are formed by the coupling on mainly platform 4 of 2 services one that arrives from Holyhead and the other from London this usually has a short turn around for an example look at the 14:35 service to London from Chester

Deganwy is a bit irrelevant as it is a station on the Llandudno branch and I am not aware of any services that go there and not Holyhead

 

[Bletchleyite]

Deganwy is a bit irrelevant as it is a station on the Llandudno branch and I am not aware of any services that go there and not Holyhead

Avanti are going to re-introduce[1] a direct Llandudno service. I would be astonished if it called at Deganwy, though.

[1] VT ran one ages ago for a bit.

 

[390112A]

Avanti are going to re-introduce[1] a direct Llandudno service. I would be astonished if it called at Deganwy, though.

[1] VT ran one ages ago for a bit.

Ah cool yes I agree and more to your point the actual TFW express service to Llandudno has Deganwy as a request stop though I do believe to the ffestiniog service it is a regular call

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah cool yes I agree and more to your point the actual TFW express service to Llandudno has Deganwy as a request stop though I do believe to the ffestiniog service it is a regular call

It's not infrequently-used enough for it only to be served every 3 hours, so the hourly TFW from Manchester does need to call absent anything else. However, for the Avanti to stop there would be rather like them suddenly deciding to stop at some random Manchester suburban station, or Llanfairpwll on the way to Holyhead, or Tring International Parkway and Hauptbahnhof[1], or something.

[1] This might not be quite as stupid an idea as it seems, as it might well capture long distance travel to the North from fairly large swathes of Herts and Bucks away from the M1 and M6, but I doubt it

 

[GrimShady]

Rubbish. The overhead racks on the 80x are the largest I have ever seen on any UK train other than possibly the CAF classes 195/331. The Mk3 ones are small in comparison.

The coach-end ones - well, you can fit those to an 80x too, and LNER are doing.

Not rubbish as you've said LNER are having to modify there's. The overhead racks are fine as long as you can reach them and have the strength to do so. I've witnessed a good many struggling with items that really have no place in an overhead rack.

 

[pt_mad]

Sorry but I still think it's just the seats; if you were more comfortable in your seat I bet you wouldn't have been as cross with the other issues...?

Reservations & PIS will clearly be sorted in time.

Lighting.....well it's just lighting isn't it? I think it's better than the FGW Mk 3 refurb lighting but bulbs can always be changed. I still say they're good units.

Yes the 80x fleet do indeed seem to be tarnished among enthusiasts mainly due to their seats. Which isn't even a permanant part of the design. The first gen MK3 seats weren't as good as the seats in the LNER fleet.

 

[pt_mad]

I’m a bit curious on one point. Given these units will be replacing tilting Voyagers, how much of a time penalty is there going to be? Given some of the London - Birmingham -Scotland services are made up of Voyagers (IIRC) that could make quite a difference. If the answer’s not much, then why was so much spent on the upgrade for tilt and tilting stock in the first place.

I've wondered the same. As far as I understood though the Scottish service will be entirely class 390 once the new fleet is in full service, with new EMUs being confined to shorter distance routes?

As for Chester and North Wales routes, Well, here's a thought. If another stop was to be interested into a current North Wales voyager diagram, say a stop before Crewe, and given they already stop at Milton Keynes. Well then the acceleration in theory becomes ever more beneficial.
So how would Holyhead doing say Milton Keynes, X other, Crewe, all main stations Holyhead fair against a current double 221 with a split at Chester?
Bearing in mind also that three of the North Wales late afternoon double 221 departures from Euston do indeed have another stop en route at Nuneaton.
I should imagine it'd still be comparable?

 

[krus_aragon]

As for Chester and North Wales routes, Well, here's a thought. If another stop was to be interested into a current North Wales voyager diagram, say a stop before Crewe, and given they already stop at Milton Keynes. Well then the acceleration in theory becomes ever more beneficial.
So how would Holyhead doing say Milton Keynes, X other, Crewe, all main stations Holyhead fair against a current double 221 with a split at Chester?
Bearing in mind also that three of the North Wales late afternoon double 221 departures from Euston do indeed have another stop en route at Nuneaton.
I should imagine it'd still be comparable?

Interesting thinking. It would also reflect the fact that the post-Voyager fleet will presumably continue operating North Wales services to/from Euston after HS2 opens, and it's anticipated that the top speed of the WCML (south) will be reduced to 110mph to increase capacity for local services.

 

[pt_mad]

Interesting thinking. It would also reflect the fact that the post-Voyager fleet will presumably continue operating North Wales services to/from Euston after HS2 opens, and it's anticipated that the top speed of the WCML (south) will be reduced to 110mph to increase capacity for local services.

Also to note 221s don't quite tilt to the same degree that 390s do.

By the time an 80x had stopped at most of the north Wales stations I couldn't imagine the lack of tilt up to Crewe would make that much difference to an arrival time at Holyhead.

Ok some will say it might be slower to Crewe but the ones with two stops in will it be that much slower?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Also to note 221s don't quite tilt to the same degree that 390s do.
By the time an 80x had stopped at most of the north Wales stations I couldn't imagine the lack of tilt up to Crewe would make that much difference to an arrival time at Holyhead.
Ok some will say it might be slower to Crewe but the ones with two stops in will it be that much slower?

I'm not sure an 802 can perform off the wires as well as a Voyager.
I've not been following how they are managing southwest of Bristol or north of Edinburgh (where 22x operate currently), but there were concerns about acceleration.
I've also been on a 397 now, supposedly a candidate for Voyager replacement under the wires, and it doesn't seem to improve journey times compared to a 350.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

I'm not sure an 802 can perform off the wires as well as a Voyager.
I've not been following how they are managing southwest of Bristol or north of Edinburgh (where 22x operate currently), but there were concerns about acceleration.
I've also been on a 397 now, supposedly a candidate for Voyager replacement under the wires, and it doesn't seem to improve journey times compared to a 350.

How the current units perform is largely irrelevant considering the 804s are being built to match 222 timings.

 

[Energy]

How the current units perform is largely irrelevant considering the 804s are being built to match 222 timings.

This is the WCML, the 804s are for EMR where the 222s are which is why they are being built to match 222 timings...