The cars are longer.
-
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!
Avanti West Coast New Stock - Hitachi chosen
- Thread starter jopsuk
- 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
sprinterguy
Established Member
That seems a bit extreme; the Pendolinos are only half way through their design life and were designed specifically for the West Coast main line. Plus some of their duties will be taken on by High Speed 2, so it makes no sense ordering a whole new West Coast fleet to enter service about five years ahead of HS2 services commencing.
Relative to their carriage length, Pendolinos lose quite a lot of seats to the shop, disabled toilet and driving cab compared to equivalent vehicles in 80x series trains.
Though there's only 1.1 metres difference between the intermediate vehicles, and just 55cm extra length on an 80x driving car compared to a Pendolino one.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,384
To the extent you’re really looking at an 8 car equivalent, and then the 9 car Pendolino wastes effectively another car with its 2 long passenger-free zones and the shop. Plus the first class/standard ratio could be quite different, and the seats thinner. I think it’s easily achieved.
sprinterguy
Established Member
Not really, a 7-car class 801 is only 6.6 metres longer than a hypothetical 7-car Pendolino. All your other points are quite correct though.
dorsetdesiro
Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 581
Hitachi seems to be doing well judging from all the orders they've had from GWR, VTEC, ScotRail, TPE, Hull Trains, EMR and now Avanti WC. Possibly more to be ordered for First's future open access East Coast Trains.
I do like the 800's especially the Azumas more than the GWR IETs. Only if the seating in both classes would be made more comfortable and the buffet coach to be put in the GWR IETs.
As it's FirstGroup, the Avanti WC ones may be more mediocre than LNER's offering like the lack of buffet as with GWR. Possibly because the better "luxurious" offerings would be reserved for the HS2 services.
With FirstGroup selecting Hitachi for GWR, TPE, HT & Avanti WC then I wouldn't be surprised to see a gangwayed, noseless & third rail version of the class 800 be selected, if FirstGroup retains the next SW franchise, for replacing the 442s and 444s. Also possibly third rail versions of 385s to replace the 450s.
I do like the 800's especially the Azumas more than the GWR IETs. Only if the seating in both classes would be made more comfortable and the buffet coach to be put in the GWR IETs.
As it's FirstGroup, the Avanti WC ones may be more mediocre than LNER's offering like the lack of buffet as with GWR. Possibly because the better "luxurious" offerings would be reserved for the HS2 services.
With FirstGroup selecting Hitachi for GWR, TPE, HT & Avanti WC then I wouldn't be surprised to see a gangwayed, noseless & third rail version of the class 800 be selected, if FirstGroup retains the next SW franchise, for replacing the 442s and 444s. Also possibly third rail versions of 385s to replace the 450s.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,384
Oh, I thought Pendos were nominally 23m vehicles. Live and learn...
33Hz
Member
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 513
The press release claims they are a lot more energy efficient, but heavy braking and acceleration does not make for better energy use...
sprinterguy
Established Member
Nominally they are, but in reality that means 24.8 metres for the driving cars with their nose cone, and 23.9 metres for intermediate vehicles.
Hitachi always seemed a shoe in for this order to me, as the only manufacturer with proven 125mph+ electric and bi-mode products.
I'm not sure what Avanti's future policy on catering provision is expected to be, but if the shop isn't being removed from Pendolinos then I'd be surprised to see the Hitachi units not provided with one: The stated seating capacities suggest units fitted with a buffet and kitchen.
Off topic, I'd assume that an end door variant of the Hitachi AT-200 would be more appropriate: Third rail units are never going to get above 100mph, and the replacement for the 444s is years off anyway.
Last edited:
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,384
Really? There’s absolutely no reason to replace the 444/450 for another 15/20 years, even if the 158/9 are replaced. But this has nothing to do with today’s announcement, has it...
pdeaves
Established Member
I may be mistaken but I thought they already had been ordered (if only to the extent of 'we'll have them but don't start construction yet until we're ready').
10.5 tonnes a car less will do a lot for energy efficiency...
Way more expensive than Hitachi AT200 (385) or Aventra (24m Anglia/WMT spec would suit 442 replacement). Just not going to happen. First just ordered from Bombardier when they had the choice at SW. Aventra will be about 5.5 tonnes per car at 24m car length lighter than 800 which really matters where power supply is limited.
fgwrich
Established Member
So, more IETs with Fansia Sophia’s then?..
At least the livery will make them slightly different.
At least the livery will make them slightly different.
RealTrains07
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 1,759
Far too extreme
. Iam not a fan of the 8xx i admit as its looks a downgrade compared to the GWR HST and i wouldnt be surprised if First didn’t have a shop on the avanti 7coach sets let alone 5. TPE sets don’t. At this rate the 8xx sets wont last if they are to be replaced by the Hs2 sets at any rate.
The 8xx sets are better suited to the post HS2 world where more stops will be added to residual WCML services.Far too extreme
At this rate the 8xx sets wont last if they are to be replaced by the Hs2 sets at any rate.
The length makes sense for Liverpool as it ensures lots of platforming flexibility there especially post HS2
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
I'd like to hear from Network Rail about how they plan to reconfigure the WCML for 125mph non-tilt operation.
They've got 2-3 years before the AT300s arrive, or they'll be capped at 110mph.
Voyagers are only fractionally slower than 390s, and with only 1 stop south of Crewe the relative acceleration factor is insignificant when you are cruising at 125mph.
They also look just like today's 802s, with pocket doors etc. Seemingly no upgrade from the other 80x fleets currently in service.
If the new fleet isn't going to operate to Scotland, I would expect them to replace sufficient 390s to take over all the Voyager diagrams north of Crewe.
That means some current 390s (9/11-car) being replaced by AT300s.
I had imagined (eg) the Blackpool services might become 7-car AT300.
sprinterguy
Established Member
As I've stated above the seating capacities described suggest trains with both a kitchen and a shop/buffet. If the Pendolinos aren't losing their shop (Not sure on future catering policy as I noted above) then I'd be astonished to see such a stark differentiation in service provision between the two fleets. TPE have never had fixed catering facilities to begin with so are a very different proposition.Far too extreme
There'll still be a requirement for "classic" WCML services post-HS2, and the bi-mode sets in particular will continue to serve off-wires destinations where HS2 trains cannot go. Shorter 7-car sets might also be a better fit in terms of capacity for certain remaining Classic WCML services on electric routes also served by HS2 services.
Maybe they weren't driving the 800 at full pelt? It was on a diversion after all.
Journeyman
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 6,295
There's a lot of wasted space in Pendolinos. A 390 vehicle is 23m long, a 80x vehicle is 26m.
Railperf
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,941
The 800 was being driven at the posted non EPS limits - it started from Carlisle around 10 minutes late. Of course it would have been nice to have been driven dead on the limit all the way, but never less than 2 -3mph under. You would never make up 1 minute - never mind 4 or 5 mins even if it was driven 2 to 3mph over!
sprinterguy
Established Member
As noted by me above, not exactly: A 390 vehicle is 24.8(driving) or 23.9(intermediate) metres long, while 80x vehicles are 25.35(driving) or 25(intermediate) metres long.
I am surprised by that too. Id guess 12 units will be needed for a half hourly Liverpool service so I maybe all paths suitable for 80Xs but 9 in service on the average day alongside 3 x 9 coach Pendolinos?
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,384
The convention has always been to state the overall length between coupling faces though, so on that basis 80x intermediate vehicles are 26m long.
Alternatively, if you are reducing 80x to disallow the intermediate gangways, then you should reduce 390s by a similar amount?
RealTrains07
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 1,759
Yes but in what capacity though, its going to be very different especially when first take on the LNR services on top
sprinterguy
Established Member
I thought the measurements were comparable for both train types, both being sans corridor connections. Before I checked another source I hadn't realised that the 80x figure I had to hand missed the corridor connections, mind, so apologies if I've committed an error in comparable lengths!
Yes, but it doesn't work like that.
When the 390s were introduced (in the early 00's) the GWML was running 25 year old HSTs and the ECML a mix of 25 year old HSTs and 10-15 year old Class 91 / Mk4s.
The 390s replaced a mix of locos - 86s from the late 1960s, 87s from the early 70s and the 90s from the late 1980s.
Add in there's only so much manufacturing capacity at any one time, so you can't replace every fleet all at once. The 390s are probably due a refresh / refurb, but they've easily got another 15 years life in them which is what they should do.
RailWonderer
Established Member
Is there really a capacity shortage on the Pendolinos like we’re being told? I’ve never had a busy (full and standing) one of all the times I’ve travelled on them. At worst a few people stand.
If someone can suggest some 390s services that were sardine packed I would like to hear you.
Alston offers the Avelia product, surely they could manufacture a version of the Liberty the Acela Express has, but to UK gauges and with tilt?
I don’t understand this desperation to eliminate tilt, and additional calls at Motherwell and all sorts, a slower service - why?
If someone can suggest some 390s services that were sardine packed I would like to hear you.
Alston offers the Avelia product, surely they could manufacture a version of the Liberty the Acela Express has, but to UK gauges and with tilt?
I don’t understand this desperation to eliminate tilt, and additional calls at Motherwell and all sorts, a slower service - why?
Could be track access charges, look at the difference in weight and Route Availability between the tilt and non-tilt Voyagers.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,384
Is desperation really the right word? Or is it economic reality, based on the new stock’s performance capability on the specific parts of the route they’ll operate on. Put another way, their performance through the curves of the Lake District without tilt may be irrelevant if they don’t actually go there...
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Liverpool South Parkway is still problematic.
P1 is 123m, P2 is 137m (P3 is also 137m, P4 only 117m).
Presumably an Avanti 80x 5-car will be 130m. A 7-car will be about 182m.
So there will have to be some new solution at Parkway if the EMUs are to stop there.
A 5-car would fit in P2/3, but the layout/signalling would have to be altered to be able to use P3 (up slow) without a time penalty switching from fast to slow and back.
- Status