• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,024
Location
West Wiltshire
Clearly they want to save some money by using 5-car sets on certain services. I don't share the optimism that "most" of them will be 10-car, otherwise they would have bought 10-car units.

What is the proposed ratio of 5car and 10car

Is it going to be like SWR class 701 Aventra fleet with third of units 5car, (only 20% by vehicles) SWR will be 60x10 and 30x5 =750 cars
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
What is the proposed ratio of 5car and 10car

Is it going to be like SWR class 701 Aventra fleet with third of units 5car, (only 20% by vehicles) SWR will be 60x10 and 30x5 =750 cars

All of the units will be 5 car - some will operate in pairs but this proportion is unknown yet
 

DDB

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2011
Messages
472
I don't know if this counts as "new trains" for the purpose of this thread but it looks like the extra class 156s have started to arrive as I saw a slightly rebranded one at Derby this morning.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,161
I don't know if this counts as "new trains" for the purpose of this thread but it looks like the extra class 156s have started to arrive as I saw a slightly rebranded one at Derby this morning.
It’s not an extra as such - it releases two 153s to go to West Mids.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,024
Location
West Wiltshire
All of the units will be 5 car - some will operate in pairs but this proportion is unknown yet

Many thanks, I am guessing they will be gangwayed within set only, which isn't great for mainline use in multiple. Understandable for occasional use in multiple, but not sure it is most sensible (but railway no longer does sensible, just cheap) for regular multiple working. Not easy for train manager to be able to get to all passengers where stations are infrequent. Wonder what the difference in cost is of adding end gangways vs doubling up some staffing for 30 years.
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
There are no examples of 125mph capable gangwayed stock in the UK. The total cost of designing one is likely completely unknown, which is a huge risk.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,263
Will the 2x5 units have 2 guards etc? Ordering trains on the basis of what the leasing company might want to do with them in 20 years time is ridiculous.
AFAICT there’s no evidence whatsoever for it being a leasing company requirement. It might be someone in the forum’s opinion, but it could just as easily be exactly what the TOC wants...
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
Will the 2x5 units have 2 guards etc? Ordering trains on the basis of what the leasing company might want to do with them in 20 years time is ridiculous.

I don't think so, probably 1 guard in the rear set and another member of staff in the front like GWR and XC
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
AFAICT there’s no evidence whatsoever for it being a leasing company requirement. It might be someone in the forum’s opinion, but it could just as easily be exactly what the TOC wants...
All the TOCs that have ordered bi-modes have gone for either an all-5-car or a mix of 5-car and longer units. Having only 10-car units would increase the number of cars, and therefore also the rolling stock leasing and operating costs, by a significant percentage - particularly important for bi-modes which cost more to buy and run than EMUs.

EMR runs quite a few 5+5 or 5+4 coupled 222s today, so I would expect whatever staffing they have on those to continue on the new coupled sets. Even the HSTs have more than one staff member within the train so they are probably assuming no extra staff when a 5+5 replaces a HST or a 7-car.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,024
Location
West Wiltshire
There are no examples of 125mph capable gangwayed stock in the UK. The total cost of designing one is likely completely unknown, which is a huge risk.

Why does it need to be 125mph capable ?
What part of the Midland route is already operating, or planned to be at that speed

Seeing as already have 110mph gangwayed class 350 and 387s, would it be possible to operate at say 115mph or 120mph (assuming it is easier to meet crash standards at intermediate lower speeds than at 125mph, as presumably with every speed increment, needs to be stronger).

So, if possible, would a 115mph fully gangwayed design be better economics, and not really lose much time, and be more practical than a 125mph capable train that has to operate as two coupled short-trains with no connection between units.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
There are no examples of 125mph capable gangwayed stock in the UK. The total cost of designing one is likely completely unknown, which is a huge risk.
Given the tiered requirements in the crash regs 115mph is the fastest sensible for end gangway with several 110mph examples in the UK already.

The substantially worse aerodymanics would increase the power requirements to meet performance criteria and the EMR units will only just meet them as is.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
Why does it need to be 125mph capable ?
What part of the Midland route is already operating, or planned to be at that speed

Seeing as already have 110mph gangwayed class 350 and 387s, would it be possible to operate at say 115mph or 120mph (assuming it is easier to meet crash standards at intermediate lower speeds than at 125mph, as presumably with every speed increment, needs to be stronger).

So, if possible, would a 115mph fully gangwayed design be better economics, and not really lose much time, and be more practical than a 125mph capable train that has to operate as two coupled short-trains with no connection between units.

Because the linespeed is 125mph...

Radlett to St Alban's and Leagrave to Bedford is 125mph, with Leicester to Trent junction 120mph
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,543
Why do they need 2 guards ?

2 x 5 units already have 2 train managers. There is an agreement for it to run with one and a first class host manning the other unit due to disruption though.

Having the train manager stuck in one unit for an hour on Express services is rather inconvenient. For one they undertake the financial transactions so no payments for first class upgrades etc can be taken.

Whenever I've been on a double ICE/TGV etc there have always been multiple train managers.

At the moment all IC services on EMR are rostered 2 TMs for coupled 222s. I believe EMR would like to run the Corby electrics with one train manager and also any multiple working on class 170 routes the same way - I believe the latter is currently being discussed as part of a review of senior conductor T&Cs.

No one has gotten as far as a method of working for 800 series trains yet - trying to keep the existing service running is bad enough.
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,543
Whereas on regional lines in the UK there typically aren't, even with non gangwayed units.

IC lines excepting GWR typically have 2 however (Virgin WC, EMR, Cross Country, Eurostar- not sure on LNER practice as the multi 800s have only just started).
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
Given the tiered requirements in the crash regs 115mph is the fastest sensible for end gangway with several 110mph examples in the UK already.

The substantially worse aerodymanics would increase the power requirements to meet performance criteria and the EMR units will only just meet them as is.
Indeed, the AT300s for the MML are already knee deep in redesign requirements.
 

mullac30

Member
Joined
2 Jul 2017
Messages
128
Indeed, the AT300s for the MML are already knee deep in redesign requirements.
They've actually become so distinct from the standard AT300 that Hitachi have redesignated them AT300 SXRs - which quite appropriately sounds like a name for a "hot" or sporty model like seen in cars
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,812
Location
Plymouth
Think i read they will have redesigned front ends, does anyone know what this will entail? Might it be something radical like a door for inter unit use?
 

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
2,171
They've actually become so distinct from the standard AT300 that Hitachi have redesignated them AT300 SXRs - which quite appropriately sounds like a name for a "hot" or sporty model like seen in cars
The full name "Short, eXtended Range" sounds less sporty though!
 

bnsf734

Member
Joined
15 Oct 2007
Messages
563
Location
Nuneaton
...to "replace" 2 of the 4 153s that are supposedly moving from WMT to TfW...?

156503 is on short term loan/hire from Scotrail, it has released 2x153 which are on short term loan/hire to West Midlands Trains. This is only for a couple of months.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Think i read they will have redesigned front ends, does anyone know what this will entail? Might it be something radical like a door for inter unit use?
Definitely not, according to the published image. I think it means the nose cone will be slightly shorter or reprofiled to suit the shorter vehicle length.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
Will the bi-modes be running before the southern OLE upgrade?
If so it will be a travesty if they run on diesel in and out of St Pancras rather than panning up/down wherever it is that the track speed limit drops to the OLE limit

Maybe the sensible thing to do is raise the photograph a couple miles outside of St Pancras, once the speed drops below 100 and/or then use it in the station to save on having an idling diesel engine. The engines won't be a particularly efficient way to generate a minimal amount of power while sat in the station to keep the lights on, doors opening and loos flushing. Photograph can be retracted just before leaving, or once the train gets up to say 90mph or so.
 

InTheEastMids

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2016
Messages
718
Maybe the sensible thing to do is raise the photograph a couple miles outside of St Pancras, once the speed drops below 100 and/or then use it in the station to save on having an idling diesel engine. The engines won't be a particularly efficient way to generate a minimal amount of power while sat in the station to keep the lights on, doors opening and loos flushing. Photograph can be retracted just before leaving, or once the train gets up to say 90mph or so.

The Control Period 5 plans were more transparent about this and the MML scheme has 2 defined Key Output stages

KO1 was everything required to run 2 tph 12 car electric services to Corby by December 2020

KO1a was everything required to run all other EMR services at up to 125mph from Kettering/Mkt Harborough to London by 2022/3

Hence the new substation at Braybrooke isn't started yet. It's not needed for KO1, but it's due KO1a.

Unless you've heard that KO1a has changed scope or timescale, I don't think there's much value in speculating too much about non-electric running South of Bedford
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
Because the plan is they won’t be running until 2023.

Seeing is believeing and best laid plans and all that

Will the 2x5 units have 2 guards etc? Ordering trains on the basis of what the leasing company might want to do with them in 20 years time is ridiculous.

I don't think so, probably 1 guard in the rear set and another member of staff in the front like GWR and XC

Don't really see why this is needed from a safety point of view. There are currently 12 car trains running around with driver plus guard or only a driver.

Because the linespeed is 125mph...

Radlett to St Alban's and Leagrave to Bedford is 125mph, with Leicester to Trent junction 120mph

Leicester to Trent Jn not an issue as not planned to be wired yet thanks to Failing Grayling.

In the case of the other two sites how many miles is that and how much is the saving running at the speeds over 100mph compared to 100mph maximum noting that electric trains should also be quicker accelartaing compared to diesel ones?
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,543
Seeing is believeing and best laid plans and all that





Don't really see why this is needed from a safety point of view. There are currently 12 car trains running around with driver plus guard or only a driver.



Leicester to Trent Jn not an issue as not planned to be wired yet thanks to Failing Grayling.

In the case of the other two sites how many miles is that and how much is the saving running at the speeds over 100mph compared to 100mph maximum noting that electric trains should also be quicker accelartaing compared to diesel ones?

Unless the improved all week catering offer involves people brewing their own tea and making their own sandwiches then you need at least one guard per train and at least one caterer per unit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top