And the Thameslink winner is...

[WestCoast]

Naturally you were saying these things when the DMU fleet in the north was updated in the 80s and 90s with new Sprinters?

And how about the electrification in the Leeds area which resulted in the Cl333s?

At that time in the south you had:

Cl 117 DMUs in use on GW Mainline
Slam door stock on the southern most of which dated from the 1960s
Thumpers on the southern (which dated from the 1950s)

And whilst you're looking, take a look at the Met - the A60 / A62s are only now being withdrawn after nearly 50 years service.

The Piccadilly line is using 1973 stock - nearly 40 years old.

Far older than anything seen in the North.

Weak arguments...and I notice you only mention Sprinters.

I am sorry, but all those "old" stock that you mention in the South East were/are a lot more suited to their designated roles than low-quality Pacers are. Age is irrelevant. They were a initially a cheap fix for struggling branchlines and are now running key suburban routes (and in some cases, longer distance up to 2h15 journeys) in the South West, South Wales and the North.

London wormed its way out of pacers on the GOBLIN line too - obviously not good enough for that route, despite far longer and busier routes being operated by the class elsewhere. I used to hear Silverlink Spinters on the GOBLIN being referred to as "dismal" and "ancient". I just laughed.

As for the contract, I am glad that Siemens have won. Bombardier fans don't worry - I think Crossrail is looking rather more certain in their direction now.

 

[Skimble19]

With the talk of what FGW passengers will think going "down" from Turbos to 319s, it strikes me that that cascade isn't confirmed. Are the 365s leaving TL? If so could they go to GW (seems to be about the same number of carriages - given there'll still be unelectrified branches still an increase).

If refurbished turbo's wouldn't be that much worse than a Turbo, and if modern features such as plugs and air-con were fitted passengers would probably actually think they were better.. as for the 365s, last I heard they are staying on the GN.

That's a rare view, most people weren't fans of the 317s from a design prospective when they first debuted, personally when FCC refurbished their 317s they ought to have taken a leaf out of WAGN's book and refurbished/renumbered them as 317/6s and start running them as 12 cars.

Then rather then having the ex LM 321s head to FCC, they ought to have gone to NXEA and let FCC have a number of 317/6s to balance the books.

That would have been a very sensible idea indeed ajax. I've always thought it a daft move FCC getting 321's rather than sending them all to NXEA and then sending some of their 317's over to FCC instead.. as for the "refresh" of the 317's, yes, something along the lines of a 317/6 would have been a lot better, but sadly more expensive.

By my reckoning, most FCC units will be released. The 86 319's, and the 23 377's are the most obvious units that become available, but also as Thameslink will swallow up most services on the GN side, and the Cambridge and Kings Lynn fasts are going over to IEP, that's most GN units released, with the exception of the 313's. Personally what I would do, is send the 365's to FGW, and move the 321's to NXEA, with FCC keeping the 317's as I'm sure there may one or two peak time extras starting at/going to Kings Cross. There could be say 10 in use a day, two 12 car formations, and 2 8 car formations, and 2 spare. The 319's by now not having to go to FGW, could all go up North, which could kickstart a rolling programme of electrification.

Thameslink won't be taking over as many services on the GN as you seem to think.. there's only so many services that can be diverted over to Thameslink an hour before causing a problem for the services that are already going through the core! 377's won't be available, they'll be returning to Southern so that's them out the picture. The units on the GN most likely to leave will be as you said the 321's to NXEA and I'd assume also the 317's to NXEA, leaving FCC with a standard fleet of 40 (41 if 526 ever returns) 365's to continue running all remaining GN only services with, as well as hopefully being able to increase those remaining GN services to 8/12 car only.

From looking at that picture, may I propose the nickname "Draculas" for these?

They look fine apart from the buffer area design which, quite frankly, immediately brought "fangs" to mind...

I see what you mean! Draculas it is..!

 

[IanXC]

By my reckoning, most FCC units will be released. The 86 319's, and the 23 377's are the most obvious units that become available, but also as Thameslink will swallow up most services on the GN side, and the Cambridge and Kings Lynn fasts are going over to IEP, that's most GN units released, with the exception of the 313's. Personally what I would do, is send the 365's to FGW, and move the 321's to NXEA, with FCC keeping the 317's as I'm sure there may one or two peak time extras starting at/going to Kings Cross. There could be say 10 in use a day, two 12 car formations, and 2 8 car formations, and 2 spare. The 319's by now not having to go to FGW, could all go up North, which could kickstart a rolling programme of electrification.

Thats pretty much what I was thinking. Time to ponder further routes to electrify and use up the rest of the 86 319s! Although I fear that Skimble19 might be right on this, I dont know enough about the service levels to have any idea if the GN services would be included to bring the core frequency to 24tph.

+1 for Draculas! Lets hope they don't end up having their fangs removed before delivery!

 

[b0b]

Under the knitting, when you get a service non-stop from St Pancras to St Albans, they are complete and utter monsters, they have got to have the loudest traction motors on any EMU, and on the MML where its 100+, and the traction motors are screaming, it feels like you're going about 125. Like b0b said, give them a chance, they really are great units.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d4LplxNiXg

fast forward to 3:49. utter electric bliss

I never used them that much on the AC - lived in Bedford and chose the Valenta every time. It was a while ago now obviously. I can't imagine a finer combination to bash than valenta HST, or the motor car of a 319 on the same line. great times. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woaqJxkLfAA

I also was fascinated by the power change at Farringdon.

 

[All Line Rover]

185's are very good units from personal experience, being used for lengthy journeys isnt a fault with the unit itself.

The Standard Class seats on 185's are terrible in my opinion. The only time I travelled in Standard Class was between Manchester and York. I was getting really fed up after Leeds! The main problem is with the tables - there are LOADS of them, and one of the table's legs is right in front of where you want to put your own legs. It drove me mad! First Class is extremely good on 185's - there is such a big difference!

I think 377's are very good - at least when you get carriages with 2+2 seating (which are in the majority). Their design suits the routes they operate on, there are plenty of carriages, there are plenty of seats, the seats are very comfortable, the seats have armrests, and there are a decent amount of tables (but not too many), and the table legs don't obstruct your legroom.

I hope that Siemens will stick with 2+2 seating. 3+2 seating would be a really stupid idea. These trains are likely to be very full during rush hour (no matter how many carriages they have), and having 3+2 seating with a very narrow gangway would mean that people can't exit the train! A slight design flaw there! Less seats and more standing room (ie. more open space) is appropriate for these trains, since most journey times will be fairly short.

 

[87015]

I hope that Siemens will stick with 2+2 seating. 3+2 seating would be a really stupid idea. These trains are likely to be very full during rush hour (no matter how many carriages they have), and having 3+2 seating with a very narrow gangway would mean that people can't exit the train! A slight design flaw there! Less seats and more standing room (ie. more open space) is appropriate for these trains, since most journey times will be fairly short.

I'm not sure that most journeys on Thameslink are that short - few people seem to do just cross-London leaps as the Northern Line is quicker, chepaer and more frequent. That might change a bit when they've finished digging it up but you need the seats to get the people into London more so than just across it. A 12 car 2+2 seated unit would probably only have about the same seated capacity as a 8 car 319, which are already F+S and thats without mentioning the other services they will be replacing. A 377 style mixture of 2+2 and 3+2 might be the best idea IMO.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not sure that most journeys on Thameslink are that short - few people seem to do just cross-London leaps as the Northern Line is quicker, chepaer and more frequent.

The longest you would likely do on Thameslink is 1hr10. While you may not like to do 1hr10 in 'commuter' conditions it is something that people up and down the country have to put up with on a daily basis.

 

[j0hn0]

I think 377's are very good - at least when you get carriages with 2+2 seating (which are in the majority). Their design suits the routes they operate on, there are plenty of carriages, there are plenty of seats, the seats are very comfortable, the seats have armrests, and there are a decent amount of tables (but not too many), and the table legs don't obstruct your legroom.

I find it interesting that you say 185s are more comfortable than 377s. I actually think it is the other way around.

See my earlier post as to why I hate 377s.

I also like the 319s, a very underrated unit IMO, barrelling along the fast lines to st albans really is the noisiest train journey ever. But very eventful

 

[Wyvern]

have to say I agree, I actually chose to drive into sheffield every day instead of using the pacers, I am amazed they are allowed to be called trains, they don't even have bogies!

I travelled from Beverley to Doncaster on a 142 last Saturday. It didn't seem too bad to me. Mind you it didnt half hit Goole swing bridge with a crash.

 

[All Line Rover]

The longest you would likely do on Thameslink is 1hr10. While you may not like to do 1hr10 in 'commuter' conditions it is something that people up and down the country have to put up with on a daily basis.

The point is, if you are doing a 1h 10m journey, will be joining at one of the outer stations. Therefore you will get a seat, and 2+2 seating would mean that it is a comfortable one.

When you get closer to central London and the train starts filling up, there will be sufficient space for people to stand and move about, and people will be able to exit the train easily.

I don't like trains with 2+2 and 3+2 seating, as you're always annoyed when you get the 3+2 carriage! When will TOC's (and the DfT) understand - PEOPLE DON'T LIKE 3+2 SEATING!!! You can't just do a straw poll, such as "would you prefer 5 seats in a row or 4 seats in a row?" I know what the answer will be to that one! You've got to show people the two different designs - such as two mock up carriages. Show them how cramped the seats with 3+2 seating are - especially the middle one - and how narrow it makes the vestibule. People can then make an informed choice on which they prefer - 2+2!

 

[northwichcat]

I travelled from Beverley to Doncaster on a 142 last Saturday. It didn't seem too bad to me. Mind you it didnt half hit Goole swing bridge with a crash.

The ride quality of Pacers depends vastly on the route they are being used on. They are terrible on sharp bends, viaducts and where the gradient changes constantly.

From my experience of Pacers they seem to be more suited to the lines east of the Pennines than west, but as I've not been on every line in Yorkshire I don't overall how true that is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't like trains with 2+2 and 3+2 seating, as you're always annoyed when you get the 3+2 carriage! When will TOC's (and the DfT) understand - PEOPLE DON'T LIKE 3+2 SEATING!!! You can't just do a straw poll, such as "would you prefer 5 seats in a row or 4 seats in a row?" I know what the answer will be to that one! You've got to show people the two different designs - such as two mock up carriages. Show them how cramped the seats with 3+2 seating are - especially the middle one - and how narrow it makes the vestibule. People can then make an informed choice on which they prefer - 2+2!

You only need to look at a lot of doubled up Northern services for passenger preferences:

142+150 = the 150 fills up first
142+156 = the 156 fills up first
150+156 = the 156 fills up first

However, some people prefer to be sitting in cramped conditions to standing, so in an ideal world we would replace 2 carriages trains with 3+2 seating with 3 carriage trains with 2+2 seating.

 

[WatcherZero]

I don't like trains with 2+2 and 3+2 seating, as you're always annoyed when you get the 3+2 carriage! When will TOC's (and the DfT) understand - PEOPLE DON'T LIKE 3+2 SEATING!!! You can't just do a straw poll, such as "would you prefer 5 seats in a row or 4 seats in a row?" I know what the answer will be to that one! You've got to show people the two different designs - such as two mock up carriages. Show them how cramped the seats with 3+2 seating are - especially the middle one - and how narrow it makes the vestibule. People can then make an informed choice on which they prefer - 2+2!

Sadly you ask the general public and what they want is more seats not more standing room, even if the seats are really uncomfortable they look at a news story about new longer and more comfortable trains and yell out 'Whys their fewer seats than before?' and demand the higher capacity units back even if their older. Nothing to stop longer distance services having 2+2 in first class and 3+2 in standard, those doing the daily commute appreciate the seats while those travelling further or on a one off journey are willing to pay for the extra comfort.

 

[jon0844]

Better than a Pacer certainly, but quite a step down from the Turbos for the Thames Valley! I'm sure that they will be welcomed for the extra capacity on peak services, but even with a refurb they won't be great internally (though at least they're be quieter). They also just look very dated outside, very brutalist.

The front of a 319 is probably a little nicer than a 317, but none of the trains from that era are great from the outside. But, on the inside, they're pretty sold and dependable (speaking more for the 317s and 321s) and the refreshed 319s with 2+2 seating are bright, open and comfortable - in my opinion.

If done well, there's no reason why the inside couldn't be of a quality to match an EC or FGW HST. It would only be cost preventing a really good job being done.

The important thing will be reliability and I think they are all very reliable, and very fast, and as long as you're not sitting under the pantograph or hearing the transformers buzzing, it's pretty quiet too (but, yes, the doors will knock as faster trains pass).

If the refurb is good, and they add aircon, improve the toilets, update the internal doors, add PIS etc - many passengers will see them as brand new trains, and I'd hope they'd be as dependable. In fact, given some of the problems with brand new trains, they may actually be better than an all-new fleet! As we shall no doubt find out in the next 8-9 years.

 

[LexyBoy]

The Thameslink stock specification currently states that it is to have 2+2 seating with a large gangway and plenty of standing space.

See page 13 of the DfT's spec.

Trains will be longer and more frequent, so there will still be more seats available than currently.

 

[talltim]

Don't trains running on Thameslink need end doors (not necessarily corridor connections) or was that only a requirement of the older tunnels?

 

[LexyBoy]

The front of a 319 is probably a little nicer than a 317, but none of the trains from that era are great from the outside. But, on the inside, they're pretty sold and dependable (speaking more for the 317s and 321s) and the refreshed 319s with 2+2 seating are bright, open and comfortable - in my opinion.

If done well, there's no reason why the inside couldn't be of a quality to match an EC or FGW HST. It would only be cost preventing a really good job being done.

I've not been in a refurbished 319 to my knowledge, but I found they felt a bit flimsy when I used them – the doors would rattle and bang about when trains passed (and this was on the relatively slow Sutton loop) and the interiors were draughty. Perhaps this will be addressed, but I would expect the refurb to be more basic – i.e. replacing the seating and trim. I don’t think the inside will ever match that of a proper IC train like EC’s (why should it?) but I’m sure it’ll be fine for the job in hand.

The main thing is of course the extra capacity they will supply, as well as improved reliability and performance compared to Turbos.

 

[jon0844]

(377/5) Maybe its a FCC thing but I really am not impressed with them. Desiros are waaay better, even with 3+2 seating as they are softer to touch and have more padding, still criminally narrow though

The interior is to Southern's requirements (in fact, the only FCC stuff is the journey planner and the vinyl livery) and I don't like that for many reasons, mostly the horrid colour scheme! The 2+2 seating coaches are obviously far nicer, but the trains are pretty good after that.

With a different interior design, they'd probably be fine. To be honest, the interior mock-ups on that Siemens video for the Desiro City don't look good either (obviously the final design won't look like that though). For all but the enthusiast, the interior of the train makes the difference and if you go on a NXEA 379 you can see how it can be done very well.

 

[starrymarkb]

Don't trains running on Thameslink need end doors (not necessarily corridor connections) or was that only a requirement of the older tunnels?

Only while the Moorgate line was open as the tunnels on the branch were single track bores, the rest of thameslink is double track tunnel wide enough for a side evacuation.

 

[talltim]

Only while the Moorgate line was open as the tunnels on the branch were single track bores, the rest of thameslink is double track tunnel wide enough for a side evacuation.

Thanks

 

[jon0844]

Trains will be longer and more frequent, so there will still be more seats available than currently.

I regularly see a not insignificant number of commuters who, for whatever reason, like to stand - perhaps to have their own bit of space, or perhaps even because they've been sitting down all day!

Thus, a nice open train with 2+2 seating that gives people a comfortable seat when they can sit, and room to move when they can't, sounds better. I wonder if the feature where the train transmits info to tell people where there is more room will be included in the TL spec? And if anyone takes any notice of it?!

 

[mr_jrt]

Only while the Moorgate line was open as the tunnels on the branch were single track bores, the rest of thameslink is double track tunnel wide enough for a side evacuation.

You sure about that? There are a few tunnels on the ECML at least that are single-bore, and the new tunnels between the ECML and MML are single-bore for a fair bit due to the grade seperation.

 

[jon0844]

I've not been in a refurbished 319 to my knowledge, but I found they felt a bit flimsy when I used them – the doors would rattle and bang about when trains passed (and this was on the relatively slow Sutton loop) and the interiors were draughty. Perhaps this will be addressed, but I would expect the refurb to be more basic – i.e. replacing the seating and trim. I don’t think the inside will ever match that of a proper IC train like EC’s (why should it?) but I’m sure it’ll be fine for the job in hand.

The doors are an issue, however I am sure they could be modified (and I've often wondered why they aren't now) to add some material to absorb the impact when they move and deaden the sound a little.

I didn't mean to suggest the interior would look like an IC train, but using decent materials and seats, as well as improved lighting, you'd still get something that could (and should) look no different to a new train. After all, after the windows and doors, it's just one big metal tube awaiting fixtures and fittings!

 

[starrymarkb]

You sure about that? There are a few tunnels on the ECML at least that are single-bore, and the new tunnels between the ECML and MML are single-bore for a fair bit due to the grade seperation.

Not a problem if there is room access the sides of the train, the new tunnels have walkways.

The Tunnels near Dover had the track slewed off centre so that Javelins could be evacuated from the side.

 

[swt_passenger]

You sure about that? There are a few tunnels on the ECML at least that are single-bore, and the new tunnels between the ECML and MML are single-bore for a fair bit due to the grade seperation.

The exact shape of the bore is critical to this - most single track tunnels on the mainline have no equivalent restriction, although there was work done recently on the Shakespeare tunnels near Dover to allow 395s to use them.

It is a fact though that the end door requirement for Thameslink was only on the closed section down to Moorgate, and the requirement is no longer relevant.

The new tunnel connections between the MML and ECML will have emergency walkways, because that was the current specification when they were built.

[crossed with post above]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I hope that Siemens will stick with 2+2 seating. 3+2 seating would be a really stupid idea.

The ITT for the stock (the train technical specification) explicitly banned 3+2 seating.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...A 12 car 2+2 seated unit would probably only have about the same seated capacity as a 8 car 319, which are already F+S and thats without mentioning the other services they will be replacing. A 377 style mixture of 2+2 and 3+2 might be the best idea IMO.

As said ^^, 3+2 was not allowed. The required capacities for the three variants of trains were published as follows:

'Outer' 240m train 638S 48F
'Outer' 160m train 398S 48F
'Inner' 160m train 460S

Standard capacity works out to an average of about 58 per carriage, which is easily achieved in a 20m 2+2 layout, given the reduced number of cabs overall and the inclusion of only one area of DDA facilities in the centre of each unit.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The exact shape of the bore is critical to this - most single track tunnels on the mainline have no equivalent restriction, although there was work done recently on the Shakespeare tunnels near Dover to allow 395s to use them.

It is a fact though that the end door requirement for Thameslink was only on the closed section down to Moorgate, and the requirement is no longer relevant.

Out of interest, does the Mersey Loop single tunnel require an end door in the rolling stock? If it does, I would have thought 319s would be needed there to replace the 507/508s on the Wirral Line.

 

[northwichcat]

Out of interest, does the Mersey Loop single tunnel require an end door in the rolling stock? If it does, I would have thought 319s would be needed there to replace the 507/508s on the Wirral Line.

The whole point of the 25 year Merseyrail franchise was for the operator to invest their own money in to new stock and see return on investment. If you let them have cascaded stock that might last until the end of the franchise then you defeat the whole point of the franchise and we'll probably never see train operators investing in new stock - ever!

 

[ukrob]

Out of interest, does the Mersey Loop single tunnel require an end door in the rolling stock? If it does, I would have thought 319s would be needed there to replace the 507/508s on the Wirral Line.

Yes, they do, but why would you do that with the 319s? To start with they are too long for doubled up services.

There is a tender out for the 507 and 508 fleet replacement anyhow.

 

[tbtc]

Thameslink won't be taking over as many services on the GN as you seem to think.. there's only so many services that can be diverted over to Thameslink an hour before causing a problem for the services that are already going through the core!

At the moment the service through the core is

• 4x Bedford - Brighton
• 4x Luton/ St Albans - Wimbedon/Sutton
• 2x Kentish Town - Sevenoaks

= 10/ hour.

If the core frequency goes up to 24/ hour then there's a lot of space for GN services

• 2x Peterborough semi fast
• 2x Cambridge semi fast

...would be the natural fit. The Moorgate 313s are a fairly stand-alone service anyway, and the Cambridge "fasts" (inc Kings Lynn) are going to IEP.

This FCC won't need its 317/ 319/ 321/ 365s. Unless I'm missing something?

 

[northwichcat]

This FCC won't need its 317/ 319/ 321/ 365s. Unless I'm missing something?

In that case the 365s are an interesting unallocated set of units. The carriages are 20m length and 2.81m wide so wouldn't appear to be restricted to certain routes.

If the 319s and 365s are used on newly electrified routes then the 317s and 321s could replace at least some of the older EMUs still in existence.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes, they do, but why would you do that with the 319s? To start with they are too long for doubled up services.

There is a tender out for the 507 and 508 fleet replacement anyhow.

If you read it the tender is only to provide a cost comparison for the option of life extension or replacement, theres no actual commitment to an order.