New trains for East Midlands Franchise

hooverboy · 16 Apr 2019

Class 170101 said:
Given a May 2020 start date for new trains on the MML I am going for Class 180s.

Class 180s would gain you time on the ECML but would overall lengthen journey times between Norwich and Nottingham due to the many Sprinter Differentials overall.

maybe, for the purposes of uniformity, EMT will swap the 180's for 159's.That would give a fleet of 158/159/17x,and a couple of 150/2 or 156 to replace 153 for regionals/rurals.EMT terrain is not particularly taxing.
180's would be a waste. not reliable enough and not efficient enough for a fast run, not economic enough to run as a regional.

I would still expect bi mode as the staple express fleet, corby's included.Everything as far as kettering powered under the wires.
6 car bi mode 395 would be my ideal option.

corby sets need to be 1 carriage larger than present...the 4 car set is a sodding nightmare ,and 5 car set in peak is still tripping over bodies in the doorways(not acceptable really), but not large enough to waste money on track access charges. In peak,they are crush-loaded, out of peak they are dead.(an extra stop at st albans would probably cure that..and 395 acceleration is very good indeed, so no pathing problems)

no point at all in running a 12 car emu with 10-15 % loading ,75% of the time.
class 180 is only the same capacity as present....which is not quite enough.

180's down to weymouth/dorset is do-able!
159's on regional sets in EMT where maximum linespeed is 100mph+,also do-able.still would cause less hassle on ECML than a 156 does!

RailUK Forums

urpert · 16 Apr 2019

hooverboy said:
I would still expect bi mode as the staple express fleet, corby's included.Everything as far as kettering powered under the wires.
6 car bi mode 395 would be my ideal option

They could even tack on a few for Hastings High Speed :-P

43096 · 16 Apr 2019

hooverboy said:
maybe, for the purposes of uniformity, EMT will swap the 180's for 159's.That would give a fleet of 158/159/17x,and a couple of 150/2 or 156 to replace 153 for regionals/rurals.EMT terrain is not particularly taxing.
180's would be a waste. not reliable enough and not efficient enough for a fast run, not economic enough to run as a regional.

I would still expect bi mode as the staple express fleet, corby's included.Everything as far as kettering powered under the wires.
6 car bi mode 395 would be my ideal option.

corby sets need to be 1 carriage larger than present, but not large enough to waste money on track access charges,because out of peak they are dead.(an extra stop at st albans would probably cure that..and 395 acceleration is very good indeed, so no pathing problems)

no point at all in running a 12 car emu with 10-15 % loading ,75% of the time.
class 180 is only the same capacity as present....which is not quite enough.

Which bit of replacing the entire fleet (not with new for the regional fleet) are you struggling with?

Why do people feel the need to make up fleet strategies that fly completely opposite to what has just just been announced.

hooverboy · 16 Apr 2019

43096 said:
Which bit of replacing the entire fleet (not with new for the regional fleet) are you struggling with?

Why do people feel the need to make up fleet strategies that fly completely opposite to what has just just been announced.

replacing the entire fleet with what??

i think the same mantra was tried on northern rail of late,and it turned out that they really meant a cascade.shiny new gadgets on fast/dense lines and nodding donkeys replaced by some not-so-nodding stuff of similar vintage.
still means a fairly sizeable bump in capacity if done well.

I very much doubt that ToC's really want to spend a serious amount of money(ie £1.5m + per carriage) on routes that won't pay their way.
a bonus add on some extra seats at minimal running cost however will earn plenty of brownie points,as will improved comfort/punctuality/reliability for the rank and file hardcore commuter lines that pay the bills.

wouldn't dispute that in the next x years that the Rosco's need to start looking at sprinter replacements,and there are certainly areas for improvement...but that is for the next decade......what we have is going to run and run because the powers that be have ordained that they want diesel phased out by 2040..I would say that this generation of diesel powered motive power will be the last....we could still have LNG and such as a stop gap.

...so not much development in that field.....apart from maybe modular engines of various guises hooked up to electric traction

Class 170101 · 16 Apr 2019

hooverboy said:
maybe, for the purposes of uniformity, EMT will swap the 180's for 159's.That would give a fleet of 158/159/17x,and a couple of 150/2 or 156 to replace 153 for regionals/rurals.EMT terrain is not particularly taxing.
180's would be a waste. not reliable enough and not efficient enough for a fast run, not economic enough to run as a regional.

I would still expect bi mode as the staple express fleet, corby's included.Everything as far as kettering powered under the wires.
6 car bi mode 395 would be my ideal option.

corby sets need to be 1 carriage larger than present...the 4 car set is a sodding nightmare ,and 5 car set in peak is still tripping over bodies in the doorways(not acceptable really), but not large enough to waste money on track access charges. In peak,they are crush-loaded, out of peak they are dead.(an extra stop at st albans would probably cure that..and 395 acceleration is very good indeed, so no pathing problems)

no point at all in running a 12 car emu with 10-15 % loading ,75% of the time.
class 180 is only the same capacity as present....which is not quite enough.

180's down to weymouth/dorset is do-able!
159's on regional sets in EMT where maximum linespeed is 100mph+,also do-able.still would cause less hassle on ECML than a 156 does!

The Class 180s would be an interim measure until the Bi-modes arrive, thats 3 sets from four in service. Class 222s serving Corby would become EMUs. So there is three sets (according to some on this board. Would that get rid of the HSTs on the MML?

hwl · 16 Apr 2019

Class 170101 said:
The Class 180s would be an interim measure until the Bi-modes arrive, thats 3 sets from four in service. Class 222s serving Corby would become EMUs. So there is three sets (according to some on this board. Would that get rid of the HSTs on the MML?

No just some.
The DfT statement said "begin to" replace...

Bletchleyite · 16 Apr 2019

Class 180s for SWR would be ridiculous. A massive waste of platform space with the pointy nose, and no gangways despite near enough always working in multiple. SWR don't need to replace them, but if they did a gangwayed CAF Civity 100mph bi-mode would be the way to go, not a grossly unreliable 125mph DMU. Unusually I wouldn't even advocate Stadler as the power modules use platform space.

hooverboy · 16 Apr 2019

Class 170101 said:
The Class 180s would be an interim measure until the Bi-modes arrive, thats 3 sets from four in service. Class 222s serving Corby would become EMUs. So there is three sets (according to some on this board. Would that get rid of the HSTs on the MML?

perhaps.......I think MML has about 5 sets of 8 car HST. 10 sets 180 would cover that.

it would be a temporary stop gap for sure, but would have the bonus of actually running in short form rather than being cancelled.

hooverboy · 16 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Class 180s for SWR would be ridiculous. A massive waste of platform space with the pointy nose, and no gangways despite near enough always working in multiple. SWR don't need to replace them, but if they did a gangwayed CAF Civity 100mph bi-mode would be the way to go, not a grossly unreliable 125mph DMU. Unusually I wouldn't even advocate Stadler as the power modules use platform space.

it's a bit of a finger-pointing exercide I know!
no chance the 180's would be running at 125mph!

I'm just wondering how useful 90mph sets of 159's would be on SWT...you could gain a bit of time with a 100mph set of 180's.
not going to get their legs stretched on EMT lines,while 159's would get a bit of work.

the 180's might be a bit more reliable with a steady 100mph working.

Bletchleyite · 16 Apr 2019

hooverboy said:
it's a bit of a finger-pointing exercide I know!
no chance the 180's would be running at 125mph!

I'm just wondering how useful 90mph sets of 159's would be on SWT...you could gain a bit of time with a 100mph set of 180's.
not going to get their legs stretched on EMT lines,while 159's would get a bit of work.

Capacity is key, not journey times.

ainsworth74 · 16 Apr 2019

hooverboy said:
I think MML has about 5 sets of 8 car HST.

Not quite. It's fourteen or fifteen sets of HSTs (including the six-car and eight-car).

cactustwirly · 16 Apr 2019

hooverboy said:
perhaps.......I think MML has about 5 sets of 8 car HST. 10 sets 180 would cover that.

it would be a temporary stop gap for sure, but would have the bonus of actually running in short form rather than being cancelled.

Nope 9 sets, plus 3 6 car sets

LowLevel · 16 Apr 2019

43096 said:
Which bit of replacing the entire fleet (not with new for the regional fleet) are you struggling with?

Why do people feel the need to make up fleet strategies that fly completely opposite to what has just just been announced.

I have also been struggling with the crayonista types banging on about 'I think this should/will happen' without reading any source material. Best tip - if the post looks to be going that way totally ignore it and stick to the gen :oops:

Kneedown · 16 Apr 2019

hooverboy said:
EMT terrain is not particularly taxing.

Clearly you don't know the terrain very well. It's reasonably flat East of Nottingham, but on the Robin Hood, Matlock and Crewe lines it gets very hilly indeed!

hwl · 16 Apr 2019

hooverboy said:
it's a bit of a finger-pointing exercide I know!
no chance the 180's would be running at 125mph!

I'm just wondering how useful 90mph sets of 159's would be on SWT...you could gain a bit of time with a 100mph set of 180's.
not going to get their legs stretched on EMT lines,while 159's would get a bit of work.

the 180's might be a bit more reliable with a steady 100mph working.

The 159s are the most reliable diesel stock in the UK.
SWR have a fleet of 120cars of 158/159s in upto 10car formations that split and join on route and the services are mix of fast followed by stopping and v/v. They could also do with few more 158s to add capacity.

Just how would 180s fit in with that?

DanDaDriver · 16 Apr 2019

Kneedown said:
Clearly you don't know the terrain very well. It's reasonably flat East of Nottingham, but on the Robin Hood, Matlock and Crewe lines it gets very hilly indeed!

The London route is deceptively taxing even for Meridians.

For example Desborough bank, Sharnrook and then a relentless climb pretty much from Bedford to Leagrave.

Not to mention the twists and curves. There’s that many changes of speed you need the acceleration more than anything.

You don’t have to worry about exceeding too many of the PSR’s with an HST.

hwl · 16 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Capacity is key, not journey times.

Exactly - anything with 90mph+ capability is a capacity decrease vs a 10car 159+158 combo. What is really needed is more 158s to increase the length of the 6/8/9 car ones.

Grimsby town · 16 Apr 2019

I've heard that the regional fleet will be made up of 171s and 170s. 360s on Corby is also another thing I heard rumoured. The fleet will definitely not include 153s, 158s or 156s.

anamyd · 16 Apr 2019

Grimsby town said:
I've heard that the regional fleet will be made up of 171s and 170s. 360s on Corby is also another thing I heard rumoured. The fleet will definitely not include 153s, 158s or 156s.

I'm guessing the 171s will have their Dellner couplers swapped back to BSIs and will become 170s...?

edwin_m · 16 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Capacity is key, not journey times.

Journey times are pretty critical for the MML. It's slower than the ECML and the WCML - London to Sheffield takes longer than to York or Warrington. So there's the risk of affluent business customers railheading onto those routes. It also has more direct motorway competition than most ECML/WCML destinations. But the route has probably been pushed as far as it can in terms of linespeed, unless someone offers a tilting train, so it's important to minimise intermediate stops on the principal trains between London, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield.

anamyd said:
I'm guessing the 171s will have their Dellner couplers swapped back to BSIs and will become 170s...?

If this is the sum total of the regional fleet then it would probably be better to fit the 170s with Dellners.

What do Southern have to say about this idea?

hwl · 16 Apr 2019

anamyd said:
I'm guessing the 171s will have their Dellner couplers swapped back to BSIs and will become 170s...?

Or 170 get Dellners fitted so the entire future EM fleet can couple in emergency?

The 171 are actually with 2 ROSCOs so not necessarily that straight forward.

Qwerty133 · 16 Apr 2019

I suspect for largely political reasons the preferred option on Turbostar front would be to have them labelled as 171s whatever couplers they have (as this would hide the fact that they were bringing back the previous trains).

anamyd · 17 Apr 2019

Qwerty133 said:
I suspect for largely political reasons the preferred option on Turbostar front would be to have them labelled as 171s whatever couplers they have (as this would hide the fact that they were bringing back the previous trains).

I believe 168 (except /0), 170 and 171 are all basically "170s", and any with Dellner couplers rather than BSI have to be 171s, and any that go to Chiltern have to be 168s (some of the 171s are former 170s and other 171s were 171s from new, and some other former 170s went to Chiltern and became 168s) - I'm not sure using the "wrong" classification would be allowed, and would be confusing!

4-SUB 4732 · 17 Apr 2019

Chiltern stuff, from memory, uses Tightlock (in the most part) so anything that goes there gets a Tightlock.

Southern use the Dellner, so anything that goes there (amazingly) gets a Dellner.

BSI is mostly used on the original Sprinter family but from recollection TPE 170s were Dellner much the same as 185s are.

grumpyoldman01 · 17 Apr 2019

4-SUB 4732 said:
Chiltern stuff, from memory, uses Tightlock (in the most part) so anything that goes there gets a Tightlock.

Southern use the Dellner, so anything that goes there (amazingly) gets a Dellner.

BSI is mostly used on the original Sprinter family but from recollection TPE 170s were Dellner much the same as 185s are.

With the exception of class 171s, all Turbostars - including class 172s - have BSI couplers; none have been fitted with Tightlocks.

The class 171s have basically the same coupler as other Turbostars, but with a Dellner head; this can be changed to a BSI one, and BSI heads can also be changed to Dellner supplied ones, when necessary.

My understanding is that class 185s have a coupler (or is it height?) unique to the British network, and consequently they can only work in multiple within class; and from memory, TPE Turbostars retained their BSI couplers when working for that operator.

If EMR are to have a regional fleet in which all vehicles can multiple with each other, only Turbostars match that requirement, as described in the DfT line-by-line improvements; it is academic as to whether they be 170s or 171s, as all that is required is a common coupler head. Moreover, all Turbostars can operate at HST, SP, DMU, and MU enhanced speeds, and could therefore go anywhere on the network over which they would operate using such enhanced speeds where in place.

Going a bit off-topic, are any infrastructure changes planned for Greater Anglia routes over which the bi-mode FLIRTS will operate, or will they be added to the list of DMUs able to capitalise upon HST/SP enhanced speeds?

krus_aragon · 17 Apr 2019

Re: TfW fleet going off-lease

anamyd said:
There's a reason the 175s are going first and the 158s are being withdrawn slightly later.

I think that reason is ERTMS, as opposed to 175 reliability.

If the 158s were withdrawn first, you'd need to introduce the (more complex) ERTMS subfleet of the new CAF units first. Done the other way around, the conventional CAF units will already be in service when the ERTMS ones are introduced, and will be properly shaken down / fitters will be accustomed to them. So the usual snag list will be spread out over two periods, instead of front-loaded on the first subfleet.

Roast Veg · 17 Apr 2019

hwl said:
Or 170 get Dellners fitted so the entire future EM fleet can couple in emergency?

Not all dellners are even mechanically compatible. A 222 could not rescue a stranded 171, as the coupler heights are different.

TT-ONR-NRN · 17 Apr 2019

NoMorePacers said:
The 158s won't be scrapped. I can say that at least.

Well if East Midlands Railway do want to get rid of them, they would be ideal for GWR to displace the ageing fleet of seventeen 150/2 units.
This allows a uniform fleet of newer, more comfortable 158s on all routes in the West (alongside Castles) as well as providing eight additional units that strengthen and add flexibility to the fleet.

hwl · 17 Apr 2019

Roast Veg said:
Not all dellners are even mechanically compatible. A 222 could not rescue a stranded 171, as the coupler heights are different.

The RSSB edict is that all new stock should have Dellners at the same height as the 171s (and virtually everything else apart from 220, 221, 222 and 390) hence the new build bi-mode fleet should be able to mechanically couple with 171s.

cactustwirly · 17 Apr 2019

Roast Veg said:
Not all dellners are even mechanically compatible. A 222 could not rescue a stranded 171, as the coupler heights are different.

Exactly, and the chance of an emergency is very slim, so not worth the hassle of changing couplers.

I believe the 180s have Scharfenburg couplers

New trains for East Midlands Franchise

On Moderation

RailUK Forums

Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member