Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
Fair enough. Maybe they are planning only during the peak then?
-
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
Fair enough. Maybe they are planning only during the peak then?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
59CosG95
Established Member
I suspect the only time a new Hitachi unit ventures to Corby will be if it continues to Manton Jn, Oakham & Melton Mowbray, thence rejoining the MML further north. Again, this currently only occurs in the peaks.
Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
Aren't they keeping the Oakham and Melton Mowbray service?
59CosG95
Established Member
One assumes so - there's been no mention of dropping it from the timetable...
Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
I believe it was a franchise commitment to keep it. It is shown on the DfT Map of EM Franchise
http://maps.dft.gov.uk/east-midlands-rail-franchise/
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 6,850
Surely that was an operational choice. After all the commuter trains running on similar lines and services to the Thameslink ones south of the river will operate with varying lengths depending on the time of day, and the previous 319s and 377s on the Thameslink routes weren't fixed length units either
"Regularly" does not equal "most". At an extreme they could be planning to double one service per day and that would qualify as "regularly" (I don't think it will be that bad but equally I don't think it'll be most).
Laketop
Member
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 41
With the current formations that run, has it been determined that there will be enough trains for when the HSTs are withdrawn with suitable capacity, and later after the Hitachi trains are introduced and the 222s are withdrawn from the franchise?
modernrail
Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,053
Agreed! - 'Regularly' does not mean 'most'. It could mean daily on one service. Even 'often' would be subject to the same get out clause . It would have been best for them to say, 'mostly' if that is what they mean or otherwise say, 'sometimes' or on '[x]% of services'or something like that.
As it is they have left it in marketing babble speak which is pretty pointless but to be expected.
Kneedown
Established Member
Apparently they will be two metres shorter at 24m per coach, with a "slightly modified nose profile" (Make of that what you will!) with four engines per five car set, so more powerful.
Maybe for another thread but I wonder if we'll see an IET variant on the WCML
I hope my post didn't suggest that I beleived the Aventra would have been better a better choice, because that wasn't my intention
I hope my post didn't suggest that I beleived the Aventra would have been better a better choice, because that wasn't my intention
59CosG95
Established Member
This would depend on the layout of each set - I'm assuming the layout will be DPTS-MS-MS-MC-DPTF, but with 2 engines in the 2nd & 4th coaches (rather than 1 in each intermediate vehicle).
A 9-car set would probably be DPTS-MS-MS-TS-MS-TS-MC-MF-DPTF, like the 800s, 801s and 802s, but probably with 6 engines rather than 5 (as used on the 800/1s, 800/3s and 802/1s).
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,937
I would agree. As proposed in the schedule plan it could actually need three changes of train say from St Albans to Sheffield, at Luton, Kettering and Leicester.
samuelmorris
Established Member
I think for St Albans to sheffield it'd be much easier to change at St Pancras.
samuelmorris
Established Member
Didn't they say four engines rather than five? That to me suggests a provision has been made with one of the driving vehicles but not the other (due to taking the place of the transformer and/or disabled toilet).
would a coach wth 2x gensets not be too heavy? I suspect there will be only one pantograph trailer vehicle, perhaps in the middle of the consist with driving motored cars each end: DMS-MS-PTS-MS(or MC)-DMF. We'll just have to wait and see what appears from Newton Aycliffe.
Which is of course what most people doing that journey already do now - it’s usually quicker too.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,937
But I assume you have to have a ticket marked via St Pancras which probably costs more.
samuelmorris
Established Member
Why would they be way more expensive?Aw, I like the HSTs and 222s. I'm extremely annoyed that Abellio have taken over East Midlands, now things are gonna be way more expensive and they're getting rid of the good trains. Damn it
I heard that ticket prices were now increasing.
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,691
Like they do every year across the whole country regardless of who is in charge!
grumpyoldman01
Member
I'm surprised by that.
I recall being told by a BR engineer many years ago that DMUs were determined as being suitable for SP speeds by taking account of factors such as weight, un-sprung/sprung mass, etc, and more recently an Adtranz engineer involved with the development of the Turbostar design told me of some of the problems the company had had in getting 170s approved for SP speeds, and it was far more complicated that just braking performance.
I know Terry Miller used the ability of the original HST concept to be able to brake from 125mph in the same distance as a loco-hauled train took to brake from 100mph, but I guess I automatically assumed that what I was told by engineers about determining which DMUs would be suitable for SP speeds would automatically carry-over to other enhanced speed classifications, and I'm pretty sure that I've seen in print that the reason why 185s can't use HST, SP. MU, or DMU enhanced speeds is primarily because of their weight.
I presume, therefore, that as no 8XX series trains (or class 395 EMUs) are listed in the enhanced permissive speed table in the Sectional Appendix, all have poor braking characteristics; as it another example of a DfT "c**k-up" in issuing a spec which limits the performance of new trains on existing infrastructure, or are they all non-compliant designs?
grumpyoldman01
Member
Awarding the contract for the bi-modes to Hitachi instead of Bombardier was front page news in today's 'Derby Telegraph'; report on line at: https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/business/derbys-bombardier-misses-out-big-3153355
Another article at:https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/jobs/shocked-union-fears-derby-job-3154989; anyone know anything about the claim by the Unite official that Bombardier "had the best price, technical solution, and best package overall"? Any foundation for this claim?
Another article at:https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/jobs/shocked-union-fears-derby-job-3154989; anyone know anything about the claim by the Unite official that Bombardier "had the best price, technical solution, and best package overall"? Any foundation for this claim?
sprinterguy
Established Member
The CGI artwork still shows a pantograph on the driving vehicle. I'd agree that a single pantograph on an intermediate vehicle would be more sensible, though.
The trains were getting replaced regardless of who won the franchise, it was part of the Invitation to Tender.Aw, I like the HSTs and 222s. I'm extremely annoyed that Abellio have taken over East Midlands, now things are gonna be way more expensive and they're getting rid of the good trains. Damn it
Kneedown
Established Member
I think the CGI artwork probably shows a standard 80x. A pan on each driving car would provide a bit of redundancy if the rear pan were used and to become damaged, the leading one could be raised. Not that important when you have a diesel back up I know. Not sure why a pan on an intermediate vehicle would be beneficial over the existing position though. Does pan location make a difference?
sprinterguy
Established Member
Yeah it depends how much stock you put in a computer generated image - Though to my eyes the driving car does look a little more "compressed" than previous artists impressions of AT-300s for Great Western and Hull Trains. I was more thinking that a single pantograph car wouldn't result in one of the four diesel engines vying for space with a transformer, rather than specific location in the train: I suppose there'd be nothing stopping having a single pan on one of the driving cars, though as you say having two offers increased redundancy.
Last edited:
- Status