New trains for East Midlands Franchise

Roavin · 1 Aug 2019

sprinterguy said:
The trains were getting replaced regardless of who won the franchise, it was part of the Invitation to Tender.

Aren't they just getting replaced with Sprinters? I certainly wouldn't see that as an upgrade...

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger · 1 Aug 2019

Kneedown said:
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?

Yes, location is relevant to maintaining correct wire contact. At high speeds you want the pans on two trains running in multiple to be a certain minimum distance apart. If you only had one pan you’d need it in the middle of each unit, to maintain separation whichever way round the units were.

sprinterguy · 1 Aug 2019

Roavin said:
Aren't they just getting replaced with Sprinters? I certainly wouldn't see that as an upgrade...

The inter-city fleet certainly isn't, as is being discussed here.

Based on images of the new livery that have been released, the Sprinter fleet is being replaced by Turbostars, most likely from West Midlands Trains.

superalbs said:
The artist's impression also features the revised front, so I would presume that it is the updated version.

I had a feeling it did. There seem to be enough detail differences between the released image and existing AT-300s for it to seem like a fairly accurate rendition of what the finished product will look like.

edwin_m · 1 Aug 2019

grumpyoldman01 said:
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?

SP differentials are based on weight because at higher speeds a lighter train will do less damage to track and structures. However I believe HST differentials are based on braking - the better braking from 125mph also means better braking from lower speeds. If something as heavy as a 22x unit is allowed to use HST differentials (as they are) then I'm not sure why 80x should have a problem with them. Perhaps it's just that nobody has yet tried to do the paperwork.

sprinterguy said:
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.

Someone confirmed further back that 80x units have a 25kV bus line, so the pantograph doesn't necessarily have to be on the same coach as the transformer. There can be a pan each end even if one end has a diesel engine instead of a trainsformer. I believe this is so the first and last ones can be raised on a coupled pair of units, reducing the disruption to the pickup on the second pan caused by the first one setting up vibrations in the wire. With a pan in the middle coach of a five-car unit, bearing in mind it has to be above a bogie, the minimum pan separation for coupled units would be a bit more than four coaches. This may not be enough for 125mph operation even after the OLE south of Bedford is improved.

sprinterguy · 1 Aug 2019

edwin_m said:
Someone confirmed further back that 80x units have a 25kV bus line, so the pantograph doesn't necessarily have to be on the same coach as the transformer. I believe the reason for each end is so the first and last ones can be raised on a coupled pair of units, reducing the disruption to the pickup on the second pan caused by the first one setting up vibrations in the wire.

Very good point, for some reason it hadn't occurred to me that the transformer could be on a different vehicle to the pantograph!

hexagon789 · 1 Aug 2019

edwin_m said:
SP differentials are based on weight because at higher speeds a lighter train will do less damage to track and structures. However I believe HST differentials are based on braking - the better braking from 125mph also means better braking from lower speeds. If something as heavy as a 22x unit is allowed to use HST differentials (as they are) then I'm not sure why 80x should have a problem with them. Perhaps it's just that nobody has yet tried to do the paperwork.

80x brake better than HSTs anyway, full EP control and a full service braking rate of 10%g against 9%g for an HST. Fairly certain the 80x are cleared to use HST speeds on GWR routes, so I'd imagine that the new trains for EMR will as well.

Otherwise they won't be able to exceed 110 on the MML for a start.

Roavin · 1 Aug 2019

sprinterguy said:
The inter-city fleet certainly isn't. Based on images of the new livery that have been released, the Sprinter fleet is being replaced by Turbostars, most likely from West Midlands Trains.

Ah, I see

ChrisC · 1 Aug 2019

sprinterguy said:
The inter-city fleet certainly isn't. Based on images of the new livery that have been released, the Sprinter fleet is being replaced by Turbostars, most likely from West Midlands Trains.

Are these Turbostars from the West Midlands the 170’s that used to run in the East Midlands in the days of Central Trains? If that’s the case we are just getting our old trains back that we lost 12 years ago. I don’t suppose Abellio will tell the people of the East Midlands that fact. We will be told we are getting new trains. Trains coming back to the East Midlands after 12 years hard work on Birmingham commuter routes. Couldn’t the West Midlands keep them and the East Midlands have the new trains?

sprinterguy · 1 Aug 2019

ChrisC said:
Are these Turbostars from the West Midlands the 170’s that used to run in the East Midlands in the days of Central Trains? If that’s the case we are just getting our old trains back that we lost 12 years ago. I don’t suppose Abellio will tell the people of the East Midlands that fact. We will be told we are getting new trains. Trains coming back to the East Midlands after 12 years hard work on Birmingham commuter routes. Couldn’t the West Midlands keep them and the East Midlands have the new trains?

Yes, they would indeed be the former Central Trains units. The franchising merry-go-round goes ever on... :lol:

West Midlands Trains already have new trains on order to replace the 170s, hence them being up for grabs and probably being taken on by the East Midlands franchise.

59CosG95 · 1 Aug 2019

sprinterguy said:
Yes, they would indeed be the former Central Trains units. The franchising merry-go-round goes ever on...

West Midland Trains already have new trains on order to replace the 170s, hence them being up for grabs and probably being taken on by the East Midlands franchise.

To add to that, the new 196s ordered for the Snow Hill Lines are better suited to that route (corridor connections, and a mix of 2-car and 4-car units), so the 172s will be cascaded to Shrewsbury/Worcester/Hereford services from New Street, and the 170s can then go to pastures new. The 153s? Scrap, almost certainly.

hexagon789 · 1 Aug 2019

ChrisC said:
Are these Turbostars from the West Midlands the 170’s that used to run in the East Midlands in the days of Central Trains? If that’s the case we are just getting our old trains back that we lost 12 years ago. I don’t suppose Abellio will tell the people of the East Midlands that fact. We will be told we are getting new trains. Trains coming back to the East Midlands after 12 years hard work on Birmingham commuter routes. Couldn’t the West Midlands keep them and the East Midlands have the new trains?

Yes, they are the ex-Central Trains ones - at least they ones they themselves ordered. The ex-MML ones which went to CT are I believe now with XC.

grumpyoldman01 · 1 Aug 2019

edwin_m said:
SP differentials are based on weight because at higher speeds a lighter train will do less damage to track and structures. However I believe HST differentials are based on braking - the better braking from 125mph also means better braking from lower speeds. If something as heavy as a 22x unit is allowed to use HST differentials (as they are) then I'm not sure why 80x should have a problem with them. Perhaps it's just that nobody has yet tried to do the paperwork.

Thanks for that info.

As you state, all class 22X units are listed as being able to take advantage of HST speeds, but 395s - which by experience seem to have rapid deceleration - are not; and then we have the 185s, banned from all enhanced speeds! As only some of the DMU classes listed as being able to take advantage of SP restrictions can take advantage of HST speeds, I'm further confused (which might be due to age!!!) especially as - again from experience of riding on them - the 90mph capable class 166s seem to decelerate quicker than class 91s/MkIVs and similarly to class 158/9s, but aren't listed for HST enhanced speeds whereas all of the latter are!

Lets hope it is just a paperwork issue as is suggested; if it isn't, there'll be a significant slowing down of MML long distance services.

grumpyoldman01 · 1 Aug 2019

hexagon789 said:
80x brake better than HSTs anyway, full EP control and a full service braking rate of 10%g against 9%g for an HST. Fairly certain the 80x are cleared to use HST speeds on GWR routes, so I'd imagine that the new trains for EMR will as well.

Otherwise they won't be able to exceed 110 on the MML for a start.

Haven't looked at the relevant Sectional Appendix recently, but on the last time I did look there were quite a lot of enhanced speeds for MUs on the GWR main line, but I only found one just for HST (on the Reading flyover); as 8XXs aren't specifically excluded from using MU enhanced speeds (like 185s are), their introduction on routes from Paddington shouldn't therefore have caused any problems.

Are there any precedents for permitting trains to use enhanced speeds for which they are not generally approved at certain locations? There are quite a lot of SP enhanced speeds in East Anglia, but the Flirts are not currently listed in the Sectional Appendices as being able to use them.

hexagon789 · 1 Aug 2019

grumpyoldman01 said:
Are there any precedents for permitting trains to use enhanced speeds for which they are not generally approved at certain locations? There are quite a lot of SP enhanced speeds in East Anglia, but the Flirts are not currently listed in the Sectional Appendices as being able to use them.

I would imagine the new EMR trains will be able to use at least MU and HST like HSTs, the braking will be there and I don't see axle-loading being told high somehow.

edwin_m · 1 Aug 2019

grumpyoldman01 said:
Thanks for that info.

As you state, all class 22X units are listed as being able to take advantage of HST speeds, but 395s - which by experience seem to have rapid deceleration - are not; and then we have the 185s, banned from all enhanced speeds! As only some of the DMU classes listed as being able to take advantage of SP restrictions can take advantage of HST speeds, I'm further confused (which might be due to age!!!) especially as - again from experience of riding on them - the 90mph capable class 166s seem to decelerate quicker than class 91s/MkIVs and similarly to class 158/9s, but aren't listed for HST enhanced speeds whereas all of the latter are!

Lets hope it is just a paperwork issue as is suggested; if it isn't, there'll be a significant slowing down of MML long distance services.

This is because the rules are based not just on the capabilities of the trains, but also on whether and how their operators have tried to improve journey times. Such approvals are not automatic but require the requestor to prepare a great deal of paperwork to demonstrate that there are no safety or other issues. There are also limits on the number of differential speeds that can be allowed on one section, to avoid driver confusion from a plethora of signs, and even if these don't apply then the operator would have to pay Network Rail for extra signs. So there's an incentive to get your train approved for whatever differential speeds exist on your operating network even if they don't quite suit what you would like or the resulting patchwork of permissions doesn't make much sense.

Given the lack of HST differential speeds on their network, SouthEastern has not attempted to do this for the 395s - I don't know this network at all but guessing there may be MU or EMU differentials instead. Most of the operating network of the 165 and 166 was enhanced for use by HSTs back in the 70s but the resulting speed improvements were permitted for all traction capable of achieving them, so as you mention there are almost no HST differentials (is the speed for general traction on the Reading one more than 90mph anyway?) and therefore no point in getting that clearance. Further north things are a bit different, with for example HST differentials coming into use soon after they started running north of Edinburgh. When 158s started using the same routes I imagine ScotRail (part of BR at the time) realised that the braking etc was within the parameters for HST differentials and allowed them to run accordingly. On non-HST routes Regional Railways developed the Sprinter differential specifically for lightweight trains, though I think they also specified better braking for speeds above 75mph (only 158s at the time) to allow easy upgrading to 90.

hexagon789 · 1 Aug 2019

edwin_m said:
This is because the rules are based not just on the capabilities of the trains, but also on whether and how their operators have tried to improve journey times. Such approvals are not automatic but require the requestor to prepare a great deal of paperwork to demonstrate that there are no safety or other issues. There are also limits on the number of differential speeds that can be allowed on one section, to avoid driver confusion from a plethora of signs, and even if these don't apply then the operator would have to pay Network Rail for extra signs. So there's an incentive to get your train approved for whatever differential speeds exist on your operating network even if they don't quite suit what you would like or the resulting patchwork of permissions doesn't make much sense.

Given the lack of HST differential speeds on their network, SouthEastern has not attempted to do this for the 395s - I don't know this network at all but guessing there may be MU or EMU differentials instead. Most of the operating network of the 165 and 166 was enhanced for use by HSTs back in the 70s but the resulting speed improvements were permitted for all traction capable of achieving them, so as you mention there are almost no HST differentials (is the speed for general traction on the Reading one more than 90mph anyway?) and therefore no point in getting that clearance. Further north things are a bit different, with for example HST differentials coming into use soon after they started running north of Edinburgh. When 158s started using the same routes I imagine ScotRail (part of BR at the time) realised that the braking etc was within the parameters for HST differentials and allowed them to run accordingly. On non-HST routes Regional Railways developed the Sprinter differential specifically for lightweight trains, though I think they also specified better braking for speeds above 75mph (only 158s at the time) to allow easy upgrading to 90.

I don't think 158s were allowed to use HST differentials until fairly recently, about 2013 ir something. What they could use was SP speeds and in Scotland SP speeds were allowed to be used by 170s when they were introduced.

Jozhua · 1 Aug 2019

Honestly as much as I'm a bit apprehensive about the new IC fleet, the new local fleet will probably benefit me just as much, although I use the IC trains more than I used to...

The 100mph should be good for the Matlock-Newark routes time on the MML, although the stops are quite close together. Anyone know what the acceleration is like on the 170s in comparison to 156's?

hexagon789 · 1 Aug 2019

Jozhua said:
Honestly as much as I'm a bit apprehensive about the new IC fleet, the new local fleet will probably benefit me just as much, although I use the IC trains more than I used to...

The 100mph should be good for the Matlock-Newark routes time on the MML, although the stops are quite close together. Anyone know what the acceleration is like on the 170s in comparison to 156's?

170s are generally rubbish on stopping services, as for comparing 156s to 170s acceleration-wise, a 170 is on average 10 seconds quicker to 60mph.

londonmidland · 1 Aug 2019

From what I’ve heard 170’s do not go well with stop-start services and low lines speeds due to their slow acceleration. I also heard it is not good for the engines with the constant stop-start nature and low speeds?

They’re much more suited for limited stop on fast regional lines, such as Derby/Nottingham to Norwich.

hexagon789 · 1 Aug 2019

londonmidland said:
From what I’ve heard 170’s do not go well with stop-start services and low lines speeds due to their slow acceleration. I also heard it is not good for the engines with the constant stop-start nature and low speeds?

They’re much more suited for limited stop on fast regional lines, such as Derby/Nottingham to Norwich.

At less than 70mph a 170 is still on the Torque convertor, so probably burns more fuel.

tomuk · 1 Aug 2019

Compared to a 158 170s can be a bit sluggish. They are heavier, geared for 100mph rather than 90mph, have a higher ancillary load due to working aircon and only an extra 70/50hp over a 158.

What is needed is for the ROSCOs to go ahead with the engine/hybrid upgrade:

https://www.porterbrook.co.uk/news/...-project-in-the-uk-with-mtu-hybrid-powerpacks

hooverboy · 1 Aug 2019

hexagon789 said:
170s are generally rubbish on stopping services, as for comparing 156s to 170s acceleration-wise, a 170 is on average 10 seconds quicker to 60mph.

I thought it was the other way around.

15x are usually pretty quick off the blocks.
17x are better for cruising.

on a rural line,if there are limited stops then a 170 will be ok, but for stop-start every 5 minutes the sprinter still has the edge.

hooverboy · 1 Aug 2019

tomuk said:
Compared to a 158 170s can be a bit sluggish. They are heavier, geared for 100mph rather than 90mph, have a higher ancillary load due to working aircon and only an extra 70/50hp over a 158.

What is needed is for the ROSCOs to go ahead with the engine/hybrid upgrade:

https://www.porterbrook.co.uk/news/...-project-in-the-uk-with-mtu-hybrid-powerpacks

158's/159's are actually very good bits of kit, apart from the overhead luggage area(or lack of)
90mph is all you really need for a mostly regional semi-rural unit.
I think 159's are wasted on SWR. they should be providing better backup for country routes, while SWR get something with a bit more grunt(100mph mainline use) in maybe 2*5 car format.
*hence one of my prior suggestions of using 180's but not being thrashed as hard as they presently are!)
..a dozen sets like that will free up 30 or so 159's to work the more neglected parts of the country.

75mph is too slow to cope with a bit of mainline action,which most diagrams will incur.

I can see the hybrid thing taking off on a lot of these routes.you get the "extended range" factor that a pure battery unit can't provide(yet)

Roavin · 1 Aug 2019

hooverboy said:
75mph is too slow to cope with a bit of mainline action,which most diagrams will incur.

Most of the DMUs I've used with a top speed of 75 mph are crap for other reasons aswell (no air con, uncomfortable, old and antiquated, not enough upgrades)

hooverboy · 1 Aug 2019

Roavin said:
Most of the DMUs I've used with a top speed of 75 mph are crap for other reasons aswell (no air con, uncomfortable, old and antiquated, not enough upgrades)

depends where you go, and what the route is.

no aircon with opening windows is sometimes preferable to aircon packed up and in a sealed box with no ventilation.
the old 153s and pacers to give them their due, have served lines and provided community transport to places that would otherwise have been cut off from society at large.
they might not have all the bells and whistles but they have served a purpose and done it pretty well in their lifetimes.

what's needed now is actually more of the same,but upgraded and brought into the 21st century!!
not might be a popular opinion, but I think there is a niche in the market for a no-frills but adequate and reasonably fast+reliable multiple unit of some kind.
modern age says aircon is a must, decent ride+ suspension also a must,wifi preferable,and must be robust enough not to throw a hissy fit at dodgy software like modern trains do.

not d trains- too slow
not civity's/flirts- too expensive
not aventra's, software nightmare.

..from the existing fleet...only 158/159/16x and 172's are in the right kind of ball park.

hexagon789 · 1 Aug 2019

hooverboy said:
I thought it was the other way around.

15x are usually pretty quick off the blocks.
17x are better for cruising.

on a rural line,if there are limited stops then a 170 will be ok, but for stop-start every 5 minutes the sprinter still has the edge.

So did I, but the figures suggest otherwise surprisingly. They do take for ever to make top speed though and are slugs pulling away.

Jozhua · 1 Aug 2019

With the 80X's seeming to dominate intercity routes, we could probably do with some new local trains, although those choices seem to be more fragmented, probably for a number of reasons.
The only reason Northern is having brand new trains is to get rid of Pacers and pay dividends for terrible timetables and under-investment. Maybe in 10 years once the majority of Sprinters face their reckoning then a true alternative will arise, seems like there are over 500 trainsets, so probably around 1000 carriages. Definitely worth rolling stock manufacturers investigating potential replacement designs.

Can't find many images of the West Midlands 170's but would I be right in thinking the interiors have been more recently refurbed than those on XC? I find the Cross Country seats very low and close together, giving you very little options on where to put your legs! Also a bit worn out, which would be expected considering how hard they are worked! Never really had a bad experience on one though, so I look forward to seeing them around.
At least they'll be quieter, smoother and (hopefully) air-conditioned.

Class 170101 · 1 Aug 2019

hooverboy said:
I thought it was the other way around.

15x are usually pretty quick off the blocks.
17x are better for cruising.

on a rural line,if there are limited stops then a 170 will be ok, but for stop-start every 5 minutes the sprinter still has the edge.

In my experience it feels that way too. 158s quicker off the blocks whilst 170s reach the top end. I would be interested how the opposite was shown to be the case.

Jozhua · 1 Aug 2019

Class 170101 said:
In my experience it feels that way too. 158s quicker off the blocks whilst 170s reach the top end. I would be interested how the opposite was shown to be the case.

158's may be quicker off the blocks, but remember, the 170's will be mostly replacing 153's and 156's...

Class 170101 · 1 Aug 2019

Jozhua said:
158's may be quicker off the blocks, but remember, the 170's will be mostly replacing 153's and 156's...

I think its been noted above EMT are getting more Class 156s. (from GA apparently)

New trains for East Midlands Franchise

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member