transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,018
I don't think anybody claimed that it did. But it would allow electrification to progress without having to tackle the difficult bridges and tunnels.
-
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!
New trains for East Midlands Franchise
- Thread starter supervc-10
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
mallard
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 1,304
NR already did a bunch of bridge renewals along the MML before modernisation was cancelled, despite Mr. Grayling's claims that no money was wasted...
ExRes
Established Member
As I've no doubt that things have changed in the last few years, is anyone aware of the current safety critical staffing requirements for 3x360s? will EMR be required to have one per unit, as we did when 170s were in use, or are those days gone?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I don't know, but in their present location they have one member of staff per train don't they?
There isn't one. It's a TOC and union agreement that doesn't exist for class 360s in the East Midlands. They currently operate either DOO-P with just a driver or with one guard per train regardless of how many units it is formed of. How that is managed in the East Mids is up to the TOC and the unions to work out between them.
I'd be surprised to see 3 guards on a 12 car.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I would expect one guard. There is a possibility they may be required to stay in the rearmost unit in case of a split, but not every TOC even does that.
It's nothing to do with a split and everything to do with pass com activations being reset in a timely manner and staff availability should there be an incident or accident.
The only time the guard is required to ride in the rear set in case of a potential split is when the Emergency Bypass Switch has been operated which may mean a divided train requires manual intervention to be brought to a stand.
Not sure where this came from originally.
I've read the rumours here and elsewhere but there's only 4 of them spare.
I'm more than happy to be wrong but I don't see the point in bringing them in, all the new training that will be required, for such a short amount of time. Especially after you've just trained everyone on the short HSTs anyway.
May as well crack on with the new stock and keep all the HSTs past their validity date as they are due to be replaced soon.
samuelmorris
Established Member
I agree with that, unless there is a shortage of stock. The 180s are about as un-ideal as it gets but they are nonetheless 125mph diesel stock imminently going spare. If anything it makes much more sense to bolster the HST fleet with ex-LNER units. I don't believe they're already spoken for.
RealTrains07
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 1,761
I would only expect 1 guard per unit unless their was going to be a split, like on LNR desiro units that run in 8 cars. You tend to always have 1 guard in each unit on birmingham services then splitting at brum with each unit having 1 guard each afterwards?
They are specifically stated as coming in Abellio's presentation - it's a fact not a rumour.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,302
Obviously it has been forgotten on here that both the EMT and LNER HST fleets are not PRM compliant.
samuelmorris
Established Member
But the HSTs aren't going to be replaced or upgraded by the deadline so a derogation is needed regardless. To that end I don't really see what difference it makes to hire in more of the same...
londonmidland
Established Member
One major difference between a 350 and a 360 is that there is no walkway between the units on the latter.
So I don’t think you can really compare how operations are done on WMT/LNWR with the way 350s are run when in 8 or 12 car formations.
So I don’t think you can really compare how operations are done on WMT/LNWR with the way 350s are run when in 8 or 12 car formations.
samuelmorris
Established Member
Their existing mode of operation on GA is probably the best template for it. Is that likely to cause issues?
I got the impression that the thinking behind bringing in the LNER HSTs is that they're closer to being compliant than the EMT examples. So it'll be easier to get the derogation for a fleet that's closer to what's required. But that's only an impression!
They are currently DOO only aren’t they? Or do they sometimes have guards?
samuelmorris
Established Member
Guards north / east of Colchester I believe.
Correct.
RealTrains07
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 1,761
Why? Having no gangway is not gonna stop EMR running split service on a 360?
samuelmorris
Established Member
No but given the guard can't move from unit to unit with the train outside a station it may change the guards' operations compared to gangwayed stock. Their operation on EMR is subject to the guards accepting the same mode of operation on GA. I don't wish to sound pessimistic but that's not something that should be assumed as guaranteed.
Malcolmffc
Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2017
- Messages
- 300
Sounds like an excellent argument for DOO
Not having DOO CCTV in the cab is a big positive in this regard, the units are not fit for 'look back' so the only option for DOO-P would be several despatchers at every station, especially given the curvature of Kettering and Wellingborough with one despatcher giving a bat/flag through the cab window.
Before that though.We are not having a DOO debate on this thread. Any further posts trying to take us in that direction will be deleted.
mushroomchow
Member
Couple of issues to flag with 80X's if Abellio go for them, though the second would be applicable to any unit introduced, bi-mode or electric:
For that reason, it concerns me that there's talk of wholesale fleet replacement including the Meridians, rather than targetting the HSTs at first and seeing how their replacements perform before jumping the gun and potentially reversing the positives of the new timetable.
- Well-documented acceleration issues away from the wires - they'd have to match a Meridian on the new more intensive timetable, which has superior performance to a HST (something like 0.75m/s/s compared to 0.55m/s/s IIRC - GWR's variants don't even match the latter), or passengers would have to see increased journey times to cope. Bombardier have claimed their variant will acheive this, but it remains to be seen whether that is true in practice.
- The wires south of Bedford require upgrades to operate above their current speed limit (I forget if it's 100 or 110mph max, but it dates back to the Bedpan upgrade days when 125mph operation anywhere on the MML was a pipedream and 319s were the benchmark for wire calibration on what is in effect a closed system). Network Rail would have to really pull their finger out in order to deliver this in time for their introduction. In theory that shouldn't be an issue thanks to the superior performance of an IEP on electric power, but given they're almost exclusively direct south of Bedford anyway, any time gains from acceleration are going to be minimal and lost in those (admittedly limited) stretches where they cannot operate at the 125mph allowed of diesel-powered MML trains.
For that reason, it concerns me that there's talk of wholesale fleet replacement including the Meridians, rather than targetting the HSTs at first and seeing how their replacements perform before jumping the gun and potentially reversing the positives of the new timetable.
samuelmorris
Established Member
I'm not sure how they'd deal with the latter but I reckon the former would be adequately solved by running 7-car (or longer still if they'd fit) formations with every intermediate vehicle powered, rather than leaving gaps like the 9-car 800/802s. 5 GUs for a 7-car set (or 6 for an 8) in the full continuous 940hp guise should be enough.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I wonder whether the first batch of new stock should go on the semi-fasts, with the Meridians thus displaced replacing the HSTs. The acceleration of the new trains on electric power would count for more on a stopping run to offset possible slower running south of Bedford, and would be quicker overall once Bedford and Wellingborough stops were switched to the Corby trians. The Nottingham fast trains would be a bit quicker using Meridians instead of HSTs, so there is some benefit for most people on the route. By the time a further batch of new trains replaced the Meridians, the OLE south of Bedford could have been improved.
The problem with this however is that the demand for a Nottingham fast is often more than a 5-car unit, and a 10-car would be a bit excessive as well as needing extra staff. I haven't worked the numbers but there may be scope to do a reshuffle to get more 7-car units and scrap some end cars.
RealTrains07
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 1,761
If EMR did that, those units would presumably be kept long term rather than cascaded cause if 7 car 222s are cascaded by EMR it might be problematic for other operators
I would imagine they'd replace the HSTs first, then Meridians.
I also suspect it'll be a Meridian that sees the launch livery.
I've also though it is a shame they aren't electrifying more yet. Could be done up to just before Leicester and then again just north of Leicester and replace diesel engines with batteries for the quarter of a mile stretch of Leicester.
But then I suppose with all the changes coming in that area, seems no point I guess.
- Status