Alstom and Hitachi now announced as winners of HS2 rolling stock supplier contract

[Doomotron]

No more of a head start than for the AGV or the Velaro. AFAIK the UK is the only country in the world where high speed lines have the same track gauge but a more generous loading gauge.

France?

 

[Roast Veg]

From the third placed bid?
Zefiro was what was bid

Did the Oaris really place second? Scary.

 

[D365]

Much as I love 390s, what an underwhelming open it would be to launch 125mph trains on a 225mph (formerly planned 250mph) railway!

(140mph requires in-cab signalling that they don’t have and even if they did it’s a huge difference from 225mph still)

I dread the thought of Pendolino claustrophobia at 140mph. Let alone the cost of retrofitting ETCS at such an advanced stage of their lifespan.

Long story short; pretty much nil chance of 390s on HS2.

 

[Nym]

I dread the thought of Pendolino claustrophobia at 140mph. Let alone the cost of retrofitting ETCS at such an advanced stage of their lifespan.

Long story short; pretty much nil chance of 390s on HS2.

Given that they're likely to be used on the WCML for some time and certain parts of that are down for ETCS migration, also that there is already an EVC rack and several ETCS components fitted to implement TASS, it won't be that hard to fit ETCS to the Class 390.

 

[D365]

Given that they're likely to be used on the WCML for some time and certain parts of that are down for ETCS migration, also that there is already an EVC rack and several ETCS components fitted to implement TASS, it won't be that hard to fit ETCS to the Class 390.

Ah. I didn’t realise that TASS uses Eurobalises. Still can’t see a retrofit coming in cheap - whether they use Alstom kit or otherwise.

 

[Bald Rick]

I dread the thought of Pendolino claustrophobia at 140mph

What difference does ‘outdoor’ speeed make to claustrophobia? How odd.

Let alone the cost of retrofitting ETCS at such an advanced stage of their lifespan.

They were specified ETCS ready.

 

[Wolfie]

They were specified ETCS ready.

You would hope that anything built new in that timeframe was.

 

[Bald Rick]

You would hope that anything built new in that timeframe was.

To be honest, I think these were the first.

 

[Nym]

You would hope that anything built new in that timeframe was.

A lot built since isn't. Including some very contemporary locomotives.

 

[Wolfie]

To be honest, I think these were the first.

Interesting, TY.

A lot built since isn't. Including some very contemporary locomotives.

That is poor.

 

[Iskra]

Any news on how comfy the seats will be?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Ah. I didn’t realise that TASS uses Eurobalises. Still can’t see a retrofit coming in cheap - whether they use Alstom kit or otherwise.

One other factor: NR is reported to be planning to install ETCS sections on the WCML during the resignalling from Crewe northwards (Warrington, Preston, Carlisle etc) in the next decade.
If that happens, all traffic using the northern WCML will need to be ETCS-fitted.
No doubt that will determine which fleets are converted and which are moved away (or die).
I think that should see the end of Northern's 150s at least.

 

[D365]

One other factor: NR is reported to be planning to install ETCS sections on the WCML during the resignalling from Crewe northwards (Warrington, Preston, Carlisle etc) in the next decade.
If that happens, all traffic using the northern WCML will need to be ETCS-fitted.
No doubt that will determine which fleets are converted and which are moved away (or die).

I'm waiting with interest to see how the 325 fitment goes - they'll be fitted as part of the freight programme!

Apologies for taking us somewhat off-topic!

 

[cjmillsnun]

What will happen with the 390s when the trains for high speed two are built?

They will continue as they are until they need replacing.

 

[hwl]

Did the Oaris really place second? Scary.

Velaro second, hence Siemens going legal...

Was width rather than height the reason?

ICE 3: 3.89 m high, 2.95 m wide

Velaro TR: 4343 mm high, 2924 mm wide

Frecciarossa 1000: 4080 mm high, 2924 mm wide

Look at the cross-section especially floor height to top corner not top middle

Jacobs seem to be acceptable on the continent. I accept there's differing views either side of the channel regarding what is acceptable and what is not.

With an 8x25m configuration 6 cars of powered bogies with traction motors rated like those from Stadler's Flirt could give an installed power rating of 12MW/16,000HP. That would work quite nice

a) How narrow will the coaches need to be to meet UK classic requirements if you have 25m bogie spacing?
(hint 2+1 seating in standard... so epic fail)
b) HS2 puts a big premium on (floor) space efficiency and maximising passenger numbers, to do this you need the doors as close to the end of vehicles a possible and no equipment above floor height (which wastes spaces) - Jacobs bogie arrangements fails on both accounts.

If you have GB+ or GC loading gauge and are going for double deck then Jacobs is potentially interesting else not. It also largely existed for a while to keep Alstom Belfort (politically sensitive to put it mildly) in business building power cars.

 

[richpthomas]

b) HS2 puts a big premium on (floor) space efficiency and maximising passenger numbers, to do this you need the doors as close to the end of vehicles a possible and no equipment above floor height (which wastes spaces) - Jacobs bogie arrangements fails on both accounts.

Why do Jacobs bogies preclude end doors and/or equipment above floor level? [Asked as a complete layperson, not aggressively!]

Sure, I can think of various continental designs with shared bogies that have equipment in the car ends / higher floors over the bogies, but these are mainly low-floor designs (eg. Stadler) or tilting (eg. Talgo). Could a high-floor non-tilting train not have Jacobs bogies *and* end doors?

 

[hwl]

Why do Jacobs bogies preclude end doors and/or equipment above floor level? [Asked as a complete layperson, not aggressively!]

Sure, I can think of various continental designs with shared bogies that have equipment in the car ends / higher floors over the bogies, but these are mainly low-floor designs (eg. Stadler) or tilting (eg. Talgo). Could a high-floor non-tilting train not have Jacobs bogies *and* end doors?

The Jacobs bogie vehicles in TGV family vehicles are typically 18.7m long with Bogie spacing of 18.7m which is slightly longer than the typical conventional bogie spacing in the UK (17.0-17.6m) for 22-26m vehicles. A 25m vehicle with Jacobs bogie vehicle would have to be very narrow to deal with the 25m pivot centers and would be very heavy needing even larger secondary suspension systems than TGV examples.

1) Mounting the bogie at the end of the vehicle requires greater reinforcement of the floor, sides, roof and end of the bodyshell end of the vehicle (especially as some of the floor near the end is cut away for the secondary suspension system) which then makes it hard to have door opening in the bit you are trying to reinforce.
2) you are restricted to very narrow corridor connectors (not greater for trolley service or accessibility
3) Higher speed use of Jacobs bogies leads to higher loads on the suspension systems (primary, secondary, antiroll and yaw), the later 3 then taking up a lot more space.
4) the higher speed secondary suspension systems are very large and protrude above floor level (see Alstom illustration below. note most of the secondary suspension is hidden behind the side skirts not shown in the sketch but are in the photo below 6. the skirts start at the end of the yaw damper mounting points and you can see the weld ripple on the left vehicle)

5) Extending ramps etc are impossible to fit in some locations near bogie mountings, often made worse by Jacobs bogie designs needing larger wheel diameters to improve tractive / braking effort and higher loads with fewer axles)
6) the door end up being away from the ends of the vehicles and you lose lots of useful floor space e.g eurostar.





7. So assuming a standard 18.7m TGV family length (and hence more vehicle ends), the usable floor space remaining for seating is much lower (than non Jacob bogie designs) hence for a just over 200m equivalent HS2 unit and HS2 seat spacing requirements you are going to be circa 65 seats (12%) below the minimum HS2 requirement which would be an automatic bid technical fail.

8. The French LGV Network has spare capacity (paths) in most places or can use double units and split to add capacity, with HS2 most of that is already spoken for, hence the need to focus on maximising usable space and using it efficiently as Japan and China have recently done.

 

[Roast Veg]

Velaro second, hence Siemens going legal...

Ah. I had assumed given their legal claim some time ago that they had departed from the running earlier, leaving it a three horse race. Fair enough!

 

[Goldfish62]

Ah. I had assumed given their legal claim some time ago that they had departed from the running earlier, leaving it a three horse race. Fair enough!

There's a detailed article about the legal challenge in this month's Modern Railways. Somewhat overtaken by events now of course.

 

[hwl]

Ah. I had assumed given their legal claim some time ago that they had departed from the running earlier, leaving it a three horse race. Fair enough!

They came second but with lowest risk profile. The later bit they wanted greater consideration of...

There's a detailed article about the legal challenge in this month's Modern Railways. Somewhat overtaken by events now of course.

I need to find time to actually open it!

 

[RAGNARØKR]

The optimum dimension for seating bays is between 1.85 and 1.95 metres; otherwise the seats end up being cramped, or misaligned. The class 180 has a 1.90 m seating bay dimension. Mark 1 is 1.93 m, Mark 2 is 1.95 m, Mark 3 is 2.1 m. Electrostars etc are 1.8 metres which is a bit on the tight side but OK for the commuter services on which they are mostly used, class 158 has 1.75 which is definitely tight.

Airline style seating results in the loss of the luggage space between seat backs. This then has to be provided somewhere else, so nothing is gained in terms of extra capacity. A Swedish study found that about one-third of passengers prefer the airline configuration. Luggage stacks at the ends of vehicles leave passengers' property vulnerable to theft.

With the honourable exception of the designers of the class 180 (and the BREL International Coach), rolling stock designers have been getting this wrong for the past 50 years.

 

[childwallblues]

Good to see that Crewe is getting the bogie assembley and future maintainence work.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Um, 895 * 2 = 1790. If it is mostly airline seats, then that's going to be pretty close to fully aligned, though the bays muck it up a bit.

That means no luggage spaces between seat backs. According to a Swedish study, preference for facing bays is about 2/3rds. Airline seats are not what are wanted when passengers are travelling in groups of more than two, and not much good if you prefer to face someone you are trying to talk to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That means no luggage spaces between seat backs.

It does, but that space isn't lost and can instead be used for dedicated racks which are better anyway. Also the UK trend is towards good sized overheads rather than the small ones that seemed common on early 2000s units.

According to a Swedish study, preference for facing bays is about 2/3rds. Airline seats are not what are wanted when passengers are travelling in groups of more than two, and not much good if you prefer to face someone you are trying to talk to.

In Sweden perhaps, but British people are perhaps more reserved, and while most people prefer a table to themselves, likely airline seats are preferred if you have to share the table.

 

[Meerkat]

In Sweden perhaps, but British people are perhaps more reserved, and while most people prefer a table to themselves, likely airline seats are preferred if you have to share the table.

That's what I was thinking.
"Would you prefer a table seat"
"oh yes, definitely"
"there will be three other people at the table"
"oh, hang on....."
The worst being if the other three are all friends and are gassing away the whole trip. No actually the worst is if they are three business people having a meeting and ranting extremely dull office gossip.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

It does, but that space isn't lost and can instead be used for dedicated racks which are better anyway. Also the UK trend is towards good sized overheads rather than the small ones that seemed common on early 2000s units.



In Sweden perhaps, but British people are perhaps more reserved, and while most people prefer a table to themselves, likely airline seats are preferred if you have to share the table.

The Swedes are much more reserved than the English. People in Scotland don't seem to be at all reserved. I noticed that once when the train stopped. Yakety-yak all over the carriage.

The dedicated racks are near the doors where owners cannot watched their property. Stuff can and does get stolen. There was a report a few years ago about a suitcase theft, which gave the thief a nasty surprise when it turned out to contain an IRA bomb. Embarrassing when the thief had to go to the police to report it. Overhead racks are a potential hazard. I was sitting next to someone who had a heavy case land on his head when the train hit a bump on the track.

It does, but that space isn't lost and can instead be used for dedicated racks which are better anyway. Also the UK trend is towards good sized overheads rather than the small ones that seemed common on early 2000s units.



In Sweden perhaps, but British people are perhaps more reserved, and while most people prefer a table to themselves, likely airline seats are preferred if you have to share the table.

That's what I was thinking.
"Would you prefer a table seat"
"oh yes, definitely"
"there will be three other people at the table"
"oh, hang on....."
The worst being if the other three are all friends and are gassing away the whole trip. No actually the worst is if they are three business people having a meeting and ranting extremely dull office gossip.

Which also means that the three friends cannot sit together and gas away the whole trip.

What difference does ‘outdoor’ speeed make to claustrophobia? How odd.




They were specified ETCS ready.

Pendolinos induce claustrophobic even when standing at the station. The amount of glazing would be OK for parcels vans, though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The dedicated racks are near the doors where owners cannot watched their property.

Dedicated racks can be placed in various locations, often they are spaced out through the saloon.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Dedicated racks can be placed in various locations, often they are spaced out through the saloon.

They can, but are normally next to the doorways, where they lead to delays as people block the gangways when taking their luggage off the shelves. They also mess up the seating layout. In the case of the 800 series, the main spaces are between the doorways and the vehicle ends, in the part of the vehicle which is too narrow to be used for seating. Some mark 2 stock had a seating bay in the centre removed and replaced by luggage shelves. A further problem with luggage shelves is that the floor space gets used up first, then you have to lift up what can be a heavy case.

BR sorted this problem out over fifty years ago when the XP64 project was developed, following a lot of careful research, including doorway widths, seating ergonomics and other requirements including passengers' luggage. The prototype vehicles had a mixture of bay unidirectional seating, to cater for passengers' preferences (which were also the subject of research). Then the BR engineers sorted out bodyshell design and came up with the fabricated steel bodyshell optimised through FE analysis, which was no mean feat given the state of computing at the time. Then the came up with the BT10 bogie which performs well up to 125 mph. Later on the BR engineers came up with the International train which was a revision of the mark 3 to address the unsatisfactory features of those vehicles, including improvements to the windows and a better bay spacing. Then all the expensively won knowledge was gradually left to moulder on library shelves. Meanwhile, the BR designs gave 50 years of good service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They can, but are normally next to the doorways, where they lead to delays as people block the gangways when taking their luggage off the shelves. They also mess up the seating layout. In the case of the 800 series, the main spaces are between the doorways and the vehicle ends, in the part of the vehicle which is too narrow to be used for seating. Some mark 2 stock had a seating bay in the centre removed and replaced by luggage shelves. A further problem with luggage shelves is that the floor space gets used up first, then you have to lift up what can be a heavy case.

In 80x, they are progressively fitting racks in the door pocket spaces which have no-view and narrow seats which are very undesirable. I would expect all four of those spaces to be taken by luggage racks in all the 80x before too long.

In all other post privatisation UK stock I can think of they are inside the saloon. The 26m vehicles of the 80x do unfortunately cause a disadvantage in creating those narrow areas (though they are fine for toilets and bicycles). 23-24m is really the optimum length for non-articulated UK spec vehicles.

BR sorted this problem out over fifty years ago when the XP64 project was developed, following a lot of careful research, including doorway widths, seating ergonomics and other requirements including passengers' luggage. The prototype vehicles had a mixture of bay unidirectional seating, to cater for passengers' preferences (which were also the subject of research). Then the BR engineers sorted out bodyshell design and came up with the fabricated steel bodyshell optimised through FE analysis, which was no mean feat given the state of computing at the time. Then the came up with the BT10 bogie which performs well up to 125 mph. Later on the BR engineers came up with the International train which was a revision of the mark 3 to address the unsatisfactory features of those vehicles, including improvements to the windows and a better bay spacing. Then all the expensively won knowledge was gradually left to moulder on library shelves. Meanwhile, the BR designs gave 50 years of good service.

The sad thing about XP64 was the failure to adopt the European style folding door with 5km/h door blocking and autocloser. This (the door, not the other two features) was trialled, but was abandoned. Had it stayed into the Mk2 and Mk3 era, considerable lives (and delay minutes) would have been saved.

But back to seating, I have yet to see a better layout than the as-built Class 158, where you have alternation between 2 rows of airline seats (taking up a window width) and a table (taking a window width and both pillars). It's a shame HS2 seemingly won't use this. It is fully aligned and gives a good mix. They seem to have picked a spacing based on airline seats, which means tables will mess it up and so a lot of seats will be unaligned in both classes.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

In 80x, they are progressively fitting racks in the door pocket spaces which have no-view and narrow seats which are very undesirable. I would expect all four of those spaces to be taken by luggage racks in all the 80x before too long.

In all other post privatisation UK stock I can think of they are inside the saloon. The 26m vehicles of the 80x do unfortunately cause a disadvantage in creating those narrow areas (though they are fine for toilets and bicycles). 23-24m is really the optimum length for non-articulated UK spec vehicles.



The sad thing about XP64 was the failure to adopt the European style folding door with 5km/h door blocking and autocloser. This (the door, not the other two features) was trialled, but was abandoned. Had it stayed into the Mk2 and Mk3 era, considerable lives (and delay minutes) would have been saved.

But back to seating, I have yet to see a better layout than the as-built Class 158, where you have alternation between 2 rows of airline seats (taking up a window width) and a table (taking a window width and both pillars). It's a shame HS2 seemingly won't use this. It is fully aligned and gives a good mix. They seem to have picked a spacing based on airline seats, which means tables will mess it up and so a lot of seats will be unaligned in both classes.

Good points, about vehicle length and the use of door pocket spaces. Pocketed sliding doors are not a bad thing as long as the reduced width space inside is used sensibly.

Longer vehicles need to be narrower. The attached spreadsheet file enables you to play with vehicle lengths, bogie spacing, etc. Too much outboard space means a lot of relative movement between vehicles on curves, which puts a strain on the gangways - it was a problem with the mark 3 stock, hence the concertina style gangways on newer stock, which are incredibly expensive. Taking one thing with another, BR probably got it right with the 20 metre vehicles with bogies close to the ends, and close-coupled pullman style gangways. The spaces between vehicles on the 800 series are large. This wastes space and must add to aerodynamic drag.

I understand that there was a problem in getting the XP64 doors to work safely and reliably at the time. The wrap-round doors were problematic. The class 158 have got a lot of things right, including the position of the doorways close to the bogie centres. The bays are a bit tight at 1.75 metres. An 8-bay bodyshell would have worked better. The BREL International had 9 bays in 23 metres. BREL and the Derby Technical Centre had a first rate team in the mid-1980s; they were responsible for the 158, International, Class 90 and 92 and the 225 interiors.

Any news on how comfy the seats will be?

There is no excuse for uncomfortable seats. It is just a matter of getting the profile correct, using the information that was obtained from research in the 1950s. It requires a reasonable depth of cushion and adequate support for the lower back. Even wooden seats can be comfortable if they are correctly profiled.

Velaro second, hence Siemens going legal...


Look at the cross-section especially floor height to top corner not top middle


a) How narrow will the coaches need to be to meet UK classic requirements if you have 25m bogie spacing?
(hint 2+1 seating in standard... so epic fail)
b) HS2 puts a big premium on (floor) space efficiency and maximising passenger numbers, to do this you need the doors as close to the end of vehicles a possible and no equipment above floor height (which wastes spaces) - Jacobs bogie arrangements fails on both accounts.

If you have GB+ or GC loading gauge and are going for double deck then Jacobs is potentially interesting else not. It also largely existed for a while to keep Alstom Belfort (politically sensitive to put it mildly) in business building power cars.

Width of vehicles with different bogie spacing can be worked out using the spreadsheet. It gives 2.3 metres external width at a bogie spacing of 25 metres, assuming 200 metre curvature, according to the gauge formula calculation.