Bornin1980s
Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2017
- Messages
- 501
Is it clear if these new units would be bi/tri-mode, or all electric?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
29 new trains for Transpennine Express ?
- Thread starter Snow1964
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
TPE isn't going to be a fully electrified network any time soon.
When will Manchester to York be completed? When it is the Liverpool to Newcastle route will be all-electric and you can cascade the 802s onto the south route.
2032 was talked about at one stage https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ranspennine-services-tru.238926/#post-5914541 but is an actual date even known? https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ation-updates-cp6.88054/page-241#post-6483792
Liverpool to Newcastle is only an 8-hour cycle. Even if that was all electric, plus perhaps a Manchester to York service, that doesn't account for 29 units.
Trainbike46
Established Member
While that is true, BEMUs may be considered for this order
Are they ever?
Snow1964
Established Member
There is update on the new May upcoming procurement spreadsheet
By the way, who are DfT passenger services ?
now showing as estimated contract date Jan 2026 with duration 144 months
www.gov.uk
| Procurement of new rolling stock to support TRU and the longer-term decarbonisation of the network..Fleet size of 29units, with an option to procure up to 55 units in total. The additional units reflect an ask from DfT Passenger Services, a separate business case will be undertaken should there be a requirement to procure additional units above the 29 |
By the way, who are DfT passenger services ?
now showing as estimated contract date Jan 2026 with duration 144 months
Future commercial contracts for DfT and partners
Listing of upcoming Department for Transport (DfT) and associated bodies commercial contracts – known as the commercial pipeline – for which bidders may apply.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
The docs in the links above suggest 174-330 carriages, which would equate to 6-car trains (29x6=174 and 55x6=330). That is plenty of capacity for trans pennine services today, but will it be enough in the 2030s after TRU has been completed and there have been platform extensions to 200m?
Greybeard33
Established Member
A 6-car variant of the Class 755/756 Stadler FLIRT would only be about 110m long including the power pack, so not enough capacity even today!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Stadler can do non-articulated traditional vehicles, they did for the Scandinavian sleeper FLIRTs. Realistically, though, if they did bid they'd just bid a higher number of vehicles on the basis that they are shorter.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
I’d be surprised if each vehicle was less than 20m, or that total capacity was less than an 802. If we are talking about a more standard carriage length of 23-25m say, then it’s more likely it would be a train of 140m-150m.
stevieinselby
Member
A 12-car class 745 is 236.6m, which gives an average vehicle length of 19.7m.
Greybeard33
Established Member
The spreadsheet linked above specifies a multi-mode fleet. The only tri-mode currently in production for the GB loading gauge is the Stadler Class 756. This is an articulated unit and additional intermediate cars are only about 15m long, hence my estimate that a 6-car variant would be about 30m longer than the 80m 4-car.
As @Bletchleyite has said, Stadler might offer a FLIRT derivative with conventional bogies and longer carriages. Also Hitachi could offer a tri-mode 80x derivative with 26m carriages and a mix of GUs and battery rafts.
Snow1964
Established Member
The DfT letter says the 29 units will be upto 195m
suggests it is going to be roughly same length as a class 807 (which from memory is about 183m)
Speed43125
Member
CAF have committed to making a tri-mode as well, albeit end-doored for LNER, and one would image will enter production shortly.
Given that Stadler is the only one who have produced a tri-mode unit (that is currently not yet in proper service) and with CAFs not yet having started production for LNER, is a tri-mode unit a realistic option for the TPE fleet? I feel like at most you could reasonably get by on a bi-mode unit without the need the need for batteries. Plus it doesn't exclude other manufacturers who don't yet offer tri-mode units.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
If a 745/756 type unit is put forward, with a power car and assuming it does not count as part of the vehicle total, I suspect we have to assume longer vehicles. Whatever the outcome, it should be at least 400 seats.
It does, but then it also states 174 to 330 vehicles, for 29 units up to a total of 55. 174 vehicles forming 29 units and 330 vehicles forming 55 units both make 6 vehicles per unit. Maybe a 6-car 80X? That would be a 156m train with about 425 seats.
Why would a tri-mode unit be realistic for LNER and not TPE? LNER is taking the risk and TPE would be following in its footsteps.
Just because tri-modes haven't been properly proven on the network yet, but then I also do understand that if we went in with that attitude we'd never make any progress at all. Truth be told though, I also don't see much of a point in adding batteries to a multi-mode unit because bi-modes by themselves already work just fine in having a pantograph to get power when under the wires, or a diesel generator when off the grid. The chances of both of these failing and necessitating the need for an on-board battery is so low that, in my opinion, it's not even worth considering the time and headache of increasing the cost and moving parts by adding a battery. I also just don't understand the current obsession with treating the technology as some kind of panacea, but I digress.
Trainbike46
Established Member
A few points:
Firstly, getting trimodes after 2 other operators have already ordered them, especially if ordering an evolution of one of the two existing designs, means most issues should be ironed out ahead of time, so it should be easier for TPE than it was for TfW or LNER. If you can only order things that have been in service for a significant amount of time you can't ever improve on rolling stock design
Secondly, you misunderstand the point of a trimode. The battery isn't just a backup in case the diesel engine fails as your post implies. Having the batteries brings a range of advantages over a bimode, inlcuding:
- No need to have diesel engines idling in unwired stations to provide hotel power, improving station ambiance due to less noise and cleaner air
- Faster accelleration as, unlike most bimodes, you are not limited to the diesel engines peak capacity for accellerating, due to fast discharging batteries
- Allows for regenerative braking on unwired sections, increasing fuel efficiency
- Depending on battery size, it won't even need the diesel engine for shorter unwired sections, further reducing diesel use
A better question might be, does TPE really need the diesel engine, or would a BEMU serve their needs?
If a battery can actually provide the same range as a bi-mode unit then I would agree with replacing the diesel generators with one. But ideally they would still just be a stop-gap for a long-term plan to electrify the TPE route between Manchester and York. I consider it a matter of great regret that we didn't extend the third rail electrification of the Merseyrail network for Headbolt Lane. If battery technology can replace diesel for bi-modes though then tri-modes will simply became a short-term fad since there won't be much need for diesel generators. But back to the present, if TPE's new fleet will be tri-mode then I would guess CAF would be the selected bidder given their current relationship with TPE and the 397 fleet, and also because it's cheaper than Stadler.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
Would it be possible, or likely, that if the CAF tri-modes units are procured that the units have double doors at thirds rather than single end doors?
I think the core of the network is better suited to the faster and easier passenger flow of the 185 trains than the 802s.
I think the core of the network is better suited to the faster and easier passenger flow of the 185 trains than the 802s.
Snow1964
Established Member
Possible, yes
How likely depends on if they are seen as inter-city / long distance / limited stop
But more realistically they are for regional / semi-fast services with some busy interchange stations, so doors at end not the best option.
There are no plans to electrify York to Scarborough or Northallerton to Saltburn so a multi-mode train is required. Diesel still has the best range off the juice but including battery power will enable a reduction in the usage of it. Think hybrid cars when off the juice.
I suppose a reduction of diesel when not under the wires is a good thing. Personally if it was up to me I'd only opt for normal bi-mode units to reduce cost and maintenance with a long-term goal of electrification, but with the reality as is, I will accept that tri-mode has it's own benefits maybe even for the medium-term. Assuming trains are built to last 30 years the new units will be going well into the 2050s which is a long enough time for new developments to take place. That is assuming the tri-mode stock if built by CAF won't be falling apart from all the cracks.
Also if battery technology and range improves over time then there could be an opportunity to remove the diesel engines altogether.I suppose a reduction of diesel when not under the wires is a good thing. Personally if it was up to me I'd only opt for normal bi-mode units to reduce cost and maintenance with a long-term goal of electrification, but with the reality as is, I will accept that tri-mode has it's own benefits maybe even for the medium-term. Assuming trains are built to last 30 years the new units will be going well into the 2050s which is a long enough time for new developments to take place. That is assuming the tri-mode stock if built by CAF won't be falling apart from all the cracks.
A solution to the cracking issue has been solved long ago. That line is beginning to become a bit tiresome to be honest.
Snow1964
Established Member
The first is about 40 miles (or 80 miles round trip), second bit less. Generally seem to be hearing of 50 mile comfortable range on battery, perhaps 70 miles on paper.
There are two ways to do things, add diesel generators to the trains and that is lot of them for fleet of 29, (maybe nearer 50 trains if options exercised). Of course if you add 3 per train, got lots to maintain for next 40 years, which is big expense.
Or you consider putting up wires in the terminus, perhaps half mile of route if include stabling sidings nearby to charge the batteries. Not talking fully charge, but enough to boost the range whilst it is at or close to the terminus.
Now does a short bit of selective electrification seem a better bet than buying good part of 100 diesel-generators and maintaining them for next 30-40 years. Suggests it would be cheaper to save the cost and pay Network Rail to electrify the termini
Last edited:
YorkRailFan
On Moderation
Could be done with a charging station at Scarborough.
Stadler and CAF are both achieving well over 80 miles overseas, Stadler offering 150km (93 miles) and CAF 220 km (136 miles).
That’s all well and good but putting wires up at the terminal stations isn’t in the plans so tri-mode is the option which is being taken.
More realistically and like I said in my previous post, if battery range is improved in the duration of the trains existence (highly likely) then the ICE element can be replaced with further batteries.
Snow1964
Established Member
Just out of interest what is the cost of including 3 or 4 diesel generator sets per train, x 29 trains, and maintaining them for 35 years and running a diesel fuelling system for similar period.
Just wondered if the plans are based on economics or nobody even considered the lifetime cost of adding diesels
The reason I ask is GWR have trains running with diesel-generators isolated because no one seems to stomach cost of extra replacement ones (more strictly, the maintenance contract is weak to save money). Sort of feels lessons haven't been learnt if they want to repeat adding diesel-generator sets, without costing how to maintain them
Last edited: