• 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!

WCML New Rolling Stock Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

BillBlue80

Member
Joined
29 Sep 2019
Messages
23
Location
St Helens
I've read all that before.
Call me a pessimist, but I don't see how 20 years of "Tilt plus TASS" on the WCML can be just airbrushed away.
The WCRM design (on which £8 billion was spent) was to retain the existing 110mph PSR line speed, with any faster stock employing tilt and TASS for ATP as well as controlling tilting).
What has changed to permit 125mph PSR without these features? Is tilt then unnecessary?
I could understand it if there were to be interventions on straight-ish sections (but how do you sign it safely?), but not just to deem it OK to run at the higher speed with no extra work.
So I'd expect the higher speed to be phased in gradually and only over limited sections (compared to EPS).
There are also significant stretches of the WCML, notably over the fells, which are not suitable for 125mph running, even with tilt - eg 80mph over Shap and Beattock.
In the past, I've seen some reference to higher speeds being possible using TPWS+.
Maybe that is the magic ingredient?
It would be nice if Network Rail said something about such an upgrade.

It will definitely be a sub-optimal solution I agree. If HS2 doesn’t come about then I think the need to try and improve speeds on the existing infrastructure would become more apparent. I can’t see 140 mph running being an option on much of the West Coast mainline without tilt.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

BillBlue80

Member
Joined
29 Sep 2019
Messages
23
Location
St Helens
I've read all that before.
Call me a pessimist, but I don't see how 20 years of "Tilt plus TASS" on the WCML can be just airbrushed away.
The WCRM design (on which £8 billion was spent) was to retain the existing 110mph PSR line speed, with any faster stock employing tilt and TASS for ATP as well as controlling tilting).
What has changed to permit 125mph PSR without these features? Is tilt then unnecessary?
I could understand it if there were to be interventions on straight-ish sections (but how do you sign it safely?), but not just to deem it OK to run at the higher speed with no extra work.
So I'd expect the higher speed to be phased in gradually and only over limited sections (compared to EPS).
There are also significant stretches of the WCML, notably over the fells, which are not suitable for 125mph running, even with tilt - eg 80mph over Shap and Beattock.
In the past, I've seen some reference to higher speeds being possible using TPWS+.
Maybe that is the magic ingredient?
It would be nice if Network Rail said something about such an upgrade.

It would definitely be a sub-optimal solution I agree. If HS2 doesn’t come about then I think the need to try and improve speeds on the existing infrastructure would become more apparent. I can’t see 140 mph running being an option on much of the West Coast mainline without tilt. The Pendolino has that capability, obviously signalling issues currently restrict this but with ETCS investment, using some of the money initially ball parked for HS2 it would be feasible.

My feeling is that this is such a relatively small order that should the requirements change over the next few years the 801’s and 802’s could easily be reabsorbed across the network. The uncertainty around HS2 may well be another reason for favouring Hitachi 80x’s, as they know there will be no issue redeploying this stock should they look to increase line speeds and this capacity on the existing infrastructure, which would require tilting stock.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
Is 140mph realistic on a non HS2 WCML anyway - is there the capacity available to increase speed differentials?
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
I'm not the biggest critic of the Hitachi fleets, I find the GWR ones fine apart from the lack of buffet and very slightly too hard seats (but the MK3s were better when in good condition) however when you see what is offered in Germany and Austria for example, it really does seem that we are getting the low budget, lite version of modern intercity trains.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I'm not the biggest critic of the Hitachi fleets, I find the GWR ones fine apart from the lack of buffet and very slightly too hard seats (but the MK3s were better when in good condition) however when you see what is offered in Germany and Austria for example, it really does seem that we are getting the low budget, lite version of modern intercity trains.

This is a fair point - I find the Class 80x has the ambiance of a Class 350, which is a regional unit, not an InterCity one.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I don't think anybody is talking about 140mph.
It needs ETCS and the WCML is way down the list to get it, though Crewe, Warrington, Preston and Carlisle PSBs are approaching end of life.
Tilt is currently needed throughout the WCML for EPS speeds, although there are some nearly straight sections in flat country.
Professionals on here have said that the VHF timetable won't work south of Rugby without tilt.
 

supervc-10

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2012
Messages
702
You should see how twisty things get north of Oxenholme.

I've not been on the WCML north of Preston, so not experienced that. I'm just going off what I'd read on here- apparently there's few locations where 125mph running by non-tilt trains is perfectly doable north of Preston, while the twistier bits have little difference between EPS speeds and regular speeds. I'm sure someone also said that the Pendos only gain a few minutes of time over the TPE 350s north of Preston as it is, much of that being due to the worse acceleration of the Pendos.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
Pendos only gain a few minutes of time over the TPE 350s north of Preston as it is, much of that being due to the worse acceleration of the Pendos

Using that as an excuse to bin tilt just means that you lose the chance to speed things up later with Pendolino replacements that can tilt and accelerate.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I've not been on the WCML north of Preston, so not experienced that. I'm just going off what I'd read on here- apparently there's few locations where 125mph running by non-tilt trains is perfectly doable north of Preston, while the twistier bits have little difference between EPS speeds and regular speeds. I'm sure someone also said that the Pendos only gain a few minutes of time over the TPE 350s north of Preston as it is, much of that being due to the worse acceleration of the Pendos.

I suggest you take a run from Preston to Glasgow to see how much tilt is used.
Much of the route is like the south WCML - 110PS/125EPS - eg Preston-Oxenholme and through the Scottish lowlands.
Only the middle section (Oxenholme-Penrith) has lower EPS differentials, sometimes only 5mph.
350s and seemingly 397s might accelerate a bit faster than 390s, but 390s are no slouches (compared to say 91s on the ECML).
I'd like Roger Ford to pronounce on the feasibility of abandoning tilt on the WCML - he's said nothing on the subject yet.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
I don't think anybody is talking about 140mph.
It needs ETCS and the WCML is way down the list to get it, though Crewe, Warrington, Preston and Carlisle PSBs are approaching end of life.
Tilt is currently needed throughout the WCML for EPS speeds, although there are some nearly straight sections in flat country.
Professionals on here have said that the VHF timetable won't work south of Rugby without tilt.

Has it been confirmed the new stock will run Liverpool services? Does the franchise agreement allow for splitting London-Birmingham-Scotland? It would be a shame as merging the two services has been a success. Running new non tilt stock on Birmingham-Scotland would limit the impact to the south WCML. Non tilt London-Chester/North Wales services would still be a problem.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Do we know who else bid for these other than CAF and Hitachi? I presume Bombardier offered their Bi-mode Aventra as well.

You'd have expected Alstom to bid as they have the legacy fleet and the maintenance depots, which will continue until HS2 is ready at least.
All the majors were vying for the HS2 order, but that seems less attractive now HS2 is likely to be delayed or worse.

Going back about 5 years, there was a time when an optional tranche of Hitachi IEPs was being considered for "WCML South" services (Euston-Northampton).
But that never proceeded to the order stage and was eventually dropped.
We should not forget that every AT300-family order further justifies the DfT decision to stick with the EIP design and original GWR/LNER rollout plan.
It's that which has allowed affordable extension orders by subsequent TOCs.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Has it been confirmed the new stock will run Liverpool services?

Yes.

Does the franchise agreement allow for splitting London-Birmingham-Scotland?

Can't see why they would - merging them has proven a proper money spinner (them being separate was in the Horizon Trains bid, but things have changed since then and I think these services have been more of a runaway success than expected - both for connectivity and as a budget option from London). But I'm not sure what the relevance of London-Brum-Scotland is to these units? If there's some extra I'd see them as more likely to go on Euston-Brum terminators.
 

BillBlue80

Member
Joined
29 Sep 2019
Messages
23
Location
St Helens
Yes.



Can't see why they would - merging them has proven a proper money spinner (them being separate was in the Horizon Trains bid, but things have changed since then and I think these services have been more of a runaway success than expected - both for connectivity and as a budget option from London). But I'm not sure what the relevance of London-Brum-Scotland is to these units? If there's some extra I'd see them as more likely to go on Euston-Brum terminators.

My big issue with the London-Brum-Scotland services is that it has become quicker to change train at Wolverhampton if travelling from Glasgow, Preston, Wigan and Warrington to Birmingham. The southbound Pendolino/Super Voyager is timetabled to spend 13 minutes in Wolverhampton. It wouldn’t be so much of an issue if this wait time occurred at New Street but it significantly impacts journey times for a significant proportion of the passengers onboard who are travelling from the north to Birmingham.

I agree about potentially utilising any spare 5 car EMU’s or even the bi-modes on some of the lightly loaded day time Euston-Brum terminators.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I'm pretty sure the franchise spec was for the current pattern of services, with the option of flexing destinations a little to meet demand.
eg sending a train to Edinburgh instead of Glasgow, or Liverpool instead of Manchester.
FT are proposing an extra hourly Liverpool, which NR has to approve.
The aim of merging the Brum/Scotland was to put more capacity on the Scotland run instead of wasting time turning 390s at Wolverhampton.
I should think FT would want to eliminate Voyagers under the wires first, but it obviously depends on deliveries.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,423
Well it says that Hitachi is reported, not announced officially, to be awarded the contract but his had only come from 2 news sources and the Telegraph one looks to just be taking its info from the City AM one. For now I'm going to take it with a pinch of salt...
 

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,681
I'm not the biggest critic of the Hitachi fleets, I find the GWR ones fine apart from the lack of buffet and very slightly too hard seats (but the MK3s were better when in good condition) however when you see what is offered in Germany and Austria for example, it really does seem that we are getting the low budget, lite version of modern intercity trains.

Was travelling around germany, switzerland and belgium last week (and did spend sometime on an austrian 'railjet' which was the best of the best bunch)and i have to say all intercity trains that i got on beat the 800 series for comfort. Not good....although not many beat a mk3! Seats obviously being the main reason, but claustrophobia (coach profile, narrow, and lack of windows) and lights too bright also an issue.
 

urpert

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2015
Messages
1,164
Location
Essendine or between Étaples and Rang-du-Fliers
Was travelling around germany, switzerland and belgium last week (and did spend sometime on an austrian 'railjet' which was the best of the best bunch)and i have to say all intercity trains that i got on beat the 800 series for comfort. Not good....although not many beat a mk3! Seats obviously being the main reason, but claustrophobia (coach profile, narrow, and lack of windows) and lights too bright also an issue.
Railjets are great (and I’m sure you noticed they have the same Grammer seats as the GWR Mk3 refurbs...)
 

Entertexthere

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2018
Messages
189
Location
WIthin L&Y territory
Bearing in mind that about 94 units are or will be going off lease in the next year or two... wouldn't it be better to use these rather than buying new rolling stock? besides, they do tilt a bit! :D
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
I agree but where else in the UK is there an obvious market for a Bi-mode 397? I can’t see too many other orders, with the exception of replacing the “New” Scotrail HST’s, which it has been suggested have run into a number of problems. The CAF Civity regional trains programme seems likely to the success story with over 200 units already delivered or on order.
While a bi-mode 397 wouldn't have many uses, the 397 is I believe still part of the Civity family. If the changes would also be usable for a 100mph regional bi-mode then that would be very useful. The Transport for Wales fleet could do with bi-mode passive provision for example.

Obviously First have shown they are willing to buy CAF but many suggested it was the availability of delivery slots that was the deciding factor in the TPE ordering the CAF stock instead of a single order for Hitachi 80x. There shouldn’t be an issue now and I would imagine Hitachi would have no issues producing 10 x 801(EMU) and 13 x 802(Bi-mode) for 2022.
What are TPE's maintenance arangements for their 802s and 397s I wonder. If they could share maintainance facilities between West Coast and TPE, then it wouldn't be at all surprising if First/Trenitalia have gone for small fleets of 397s (for the EMUs) and 802s (for the bi-modes) on the WCML.

Do we know who else bid for these other than CAF and Hitachi? I presume Bombardier offered their Bi-mode Aventra as well.
Do we even know if both CAF and Hitachi bid for both the EMUs and the bi-modes? CAF might only have bid for the EMU contract and left the bi-modes for other suppliers to fight over.
 

EE Andy b1

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2013
Messages
1,212
Location
CLC
We don't know anything yet, there has been no official announcement from First Trenitalia as of yet for any new train order or refurbishment program.

I do expect the new trains interior to be very similar to Class 390s refurbished interior.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
We should not forget that every AT300-family order further justifies the DfT decision to stick with the EIP design and original GWR/LNER rollout plan.
It's that which has allowed affordable extension orders by subsequent TOCs.

Something worth repeating.

Remember the days when everyone was complaining about how expensive IET300s were going to be?

But it turned out that the IET300s were competitively priced enough for GWR/ TPE/ HT/ EMR (etc) all to order them - it's just that the DfT's negotiation skills were so poor that the first batch of the IET300s seemed so expensive (albeit with twenty seven and a half years of maintenance/ guarantees over availability etc).

Maybe the "IET300s will be ridiculously expensive" should be filed away along with "we'll need to spend billions of pounds on infrastructure to cope with these 26m carriages" (which doesn't seem to have been much problem for all of these other TOCs ordering them)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It was always going to be that way. DaFT specced a completely new, custom design of train - that cost them a packet. Follow-on orders are cheap. So the more that are built, the better value they get.

As for the 26m thing, aren't the bogie centres and tapering[1] such that they basically fit anywhere a square-ended 23m coach does? They are quite different to square-ended 26.4m UIC coaches in quite a number of ways.

[1] Full advantage of this is taken by putting stuff like non-accessible bogs and bike spaces in the tapered bit so nobody whines about their seat being too narrow.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,423
I actually like the AT300s apart from the seats and the fact so many are 2x5 cars instead of the 9 car units.

I also really like the electronic seat reservations, the dot matrix were a step forward for their time but today they aren't looking great and aren't the easiest to read. I really hope they put the one sin the IETs in the 390 refurbs and the new trains.

Personally I would like more pendolinos as they are great trains in my opinion and looking at the GWR HST refurbs they could be incredible if we get lucky and First decide to spend money on them. It looks like they will as they are spending just over £2 million per train. Hopefully the emus will be more pendolinos.

With the bimodes I would of cours like bimode pendolinos but it depends on what is for offer, a bimode Stadler EC250 would be nice.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,423
Low-floor remains a "killer app", but I don't think Stadler are likely to get this one if they even bid for it.
I wonder who is actually bidding for this? Hitachi we can be certain are especially for the bimodes but I'm not sure how many manufacturers actually care about a small fleet of 10 emus, Alstom will be as they made the pendolinos and maintain them, they will probably like to keep it that way...
 

EE Andy b1

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2013
Messages
1,212
Location
CLC
I wonder who is actually bidding for this?

Hitachi - AT300 Bi-mode & EMU. Big orders.
CAF - Class 397 EMU. Small order.
Bombardier ?
Stadler ?
Alstom ? No orders in UK lately.
Siemens ?

Is there anybody else?

Can't see further than a Hitachi order for First Trenitalia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top