Avanti West Coast New Stock - Hitachi chosen

[gordonthemoron]

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.

Presumably you haven't travelled on peak services between Milton Keynes and Euston, Birmingham and Coventry & Manchester and Stoke?

 

[pdeaves]

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 am sure they could. No doubt had the chance to bid but (if they did) the Hitachi bid gave a better/cheaper/more compliant/(insert assessing criteria) product.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I am sure they could. No doubt had the chance to bid but (if they did) the Hitachi bid gave a better/cheaper/more compliant/(insert assessing criteria) product.

Virgin might have been more likely to go with Alstom, as they had the long-term relationship since the Pendolino design phase.
First Group had gone with Hitachi for GWR, TPE, HT and probably the ECML open access service (OK, they had initially to go with the IEP by DfT decree).
So no surprise at all they went with Hitachi where they have repeat orders and gives a low-risk roll-out.
But an order for 135 vehicles is not huge in the wider picture, with almost 600 Pendolino vehicles staying on.
There's just the question of suitability without tilt to play out.
There's no doubt the 390s fit the current WCML speed profile like a glove.
Alstom will be back in full competition for the HS2 rolling stock, but so will several other hungry manufacturers.
They do have some new business with the maintenance of the AT300s, shared with Hitachi.

 

[RealTrains07]

Virgin might have been more likely to go with Alstom, as they had the long-term relationship since the Pendolino design phase.
First Group had gone with Hitachi for GWR, TPE, HT and probably the ECML open access service (OK, they had initially to go with the IEP by DfT decree).
So no surprise at all they went with Hitachi where they have repeat orders and gives a low-risk roll-out.
But an order for 135 vehicles is not huge in the wider picture, with almost 600 Pendolino vehicles staying on.
There's just the question of suitability without tilt to play out.
There's no doubt the 390s fit the current WCML speed profile like a glove.
Alstom will be back in full competition for the HS2 rolling stock, but so will several other hungry manufacturers.
They do have some new business with the maintenance of the AT300s, shared with Hitachi.

First will be using class 8xx for East Coast open access

 

[Goldfish62]

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.

ASDO?

 

[greatvoyager]

I assume that they are going to be with no tilt, as when HS2 happens speed won't be as important?

 

[xc170]

So IEP's on the North Wales Coast line in a couple of years then, within 5 years there won't be much of the network not covered by a variant of the IEP!

 

[FFFC 57]

TPE are going to run 125 non-tilt on the WCML already are they not? Or certainly rumours of such.

The acceleration of these 800 units is staggering, so I don't think it'll be a performance issue.

Remember though the 390's were down tuned many years ago for passenger comfort, they originally did 0-100 in 100 seconds, but people struggled to get themselves sorted out during the fast acceleration.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

People who know about these things say that RSSB will not contemplate more than 3 signed speed levels on the WCML.
Currently they are PS/EPS-221/EPS-390 for the permanent speed limit (mostly 110), a higher EPS speed for 221s, and the highest EPS for 390s, respectively (usually 125).
The 221-specific speed limits, due to their lower level of tilt, are fairly rare, perhaps at a dozen locations overall and differing by 5-10 mph from the 390 speed.
Mostly, 221s have the same 125mph speed limit as 390s, eg through the steep reverse curves at Whitmore or around Rugeley.

If tilting Voyagers are removed from the WCML, there will be no need for the lower EPS restriction, so that level might be used instead for a higher speed limit for suitable stock, such as 397 or 80x.
But I doubt this can happen without a full survey of the WCML and appropriate 125mph non-tilt limits defined and signed.
That won't happen overnight, and there will still be significant stretches where 110mph remains the limit.
Even now, there are 110mph blanket restrictions (eg Warrington-Wigan).
I think there are also TASS implications, which might be linked to signal sighting at higher speeds (above 110mph).
Presumably the AT300s will not be equipped with TASS.
Any route changes involving track, OHLE or signalling modifications will take time and money - even re-signing is not free.
If this is all rubbish I'm sure somebody will say.

 

[Bald Rick]

People who know about these things say that RSSB will not contemplate more than 3 signed speed levels on the WCML.
Currently they are PS/EPS-221/EPS-390 for the permanent speed limit (mostly 110), a higher EPS speed for 221s, and the highest EPS for 390s, respectively (usually 125).
The 221-specific speed limits, due to their lower level of tilt, are fairly rare, perhaps at a dozen locations overall and differing by 5-10 mph from the 390 speed.
Mostly, 221s have the same 125mph speed limit as 390s, eg through the steep reverse curves at Whitmore or around Rugeley.

If tilting Voyagers are removed from the WCML, there will be no need for the lower EPS restriction, so that level might be used instead for a higher speed limit for suitable stock, such as 397 or 80x.
But I doubt this can happen without a full survey of the WCML and appropriate 125mph non-tilt limits defined and signed.
That won't happen overnight, and there will still be significant stretches where 110mph remains the limit.
Even now, there are 110mph blanket restrictions (eg Warrington-Wigan).
I think there are also TASS implications, which might be linked to signal sighting at higher speeds (above 110mph).
Presumably the AT300s will not be equipped with TASS.
Any route changes involving track, OHLE or signalling modifications will take time and money - even re-signing is not free.
If this is all rubbish I'm sure somebody will say.

It is indeed correct that 3 different speeds are the maximum that can be signed at any one location. Whilst I have no idea what is proposed, I did have a lot to do with the line speed profile on the WCML last time around. The only difference between these new trains and the pendolinos, as far as linespeed profile is concerned, is tilt (or lack thereof), power draw, axle load, and the kinematic envelope. It’s reasonable to assume the latter three will not be an issue in terms of linespeed. TASS doesn’t come into it.

Therefore my educated guess is that all the track design geometry data will be reviewed. Where tilt is currently required to meet the current EPS linespeed, there will be calculations and risk assessments done to show what a new ‘non-tilt’ linespeed could be. This may or may not include allowance for exceptional values of cant deficiency (which, if applied, will make the ride ‘interesting’).

The big issue for the timetable is south of Rugby. From memory there are a handful of locations where tilt is essential: Bushey curve, Berkhamsted curve, Linslade curves, Wolverton, Weedon and Rugby itself. Between them these might cost a non tilt service 3 minutes or so, which may be partly offset by better acceleration, and any stops at Watford, MK or Rugby where the nearby curves won’t be ‘felt’. I think it is very unlikely that any track realignment work will happen - if it was easy to do it would have been done during the upgrade.

Rugby - Warrington it’s Atherstone, Colwich, Stafford and Norton Bridge, which between them might cost 2 minutes. There’s little of concern between Rugby and Stafford via Birmingham.

North of Lancaster it gets more tricky, as tilt is needed a lot to maintain the EPS profile.

Therefore I would guess the new units to be on Birmingham & Liverpool services (in addition to the N Wales and Salop services), which with better acceleration and a revised linespeed profile will minimise the time loss south of Rugby to around 2 minutes.

I’d also be surprised if they go north of Preston regularly. Tilt is important there, as is (increasingly) capacity.

 

[Chester1]

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.

Surely the solution is just SDO of 7 coach units? I think South Parkway services will be hourly so its services can always be allocated a 80X.

I think your post about speeds is correct but I don't think its a major problem. There will be 2 or more to plan and make the necessary changes to replace the speeds for tilting Voyagers with 80X.

 

[Darandio]

Regarding non-tilt, this is a very informative piece from Gareth Dennis.

https://medium.com/@garethdennis/is...ight-for-britains-tilting-trains-b6ebb496433c

TransPennine Express’s new trains are missing one key feature that is indispensable for other 125mph trains on the West Coast Mainline. GARETH DENNIS looks at the future of tilting trains.

A version of this article also appeared in Issue 886 (28 August 2019) of RAIL magazine.

Since 2002, tilting trains have enabled 125mph running on the curvaceous West Coast Mainline. By leaning further into curves to counteract outwards acceleration (more on the science later), these trains can reach speeds that conventional trains travelling on the line cannot.

Or at least that was the case until a few months ago.

You might not have noticed, but the first of TransPennine Express’s new Class 397 and Class 802 trains have been running up and down the West Coast Mainline (WCML) north of Preston at speeds of up to 125mph without any tilting capability at all.

Click above link for more....

 

[The Bear]

their performance through the curves of the Lake District without tilt may be irrelevant if they don’t actually go there...

Agreed but tilt is fairly irrelevant anyway, particularly since they were passed for 110mph the 350s have shown that over the Cumbrian section of the WCML, the section where most would think tilt would give you the greatest advantage - it doesn't......
The time difference Lancaster to Carlisle between a class350 at PS and class390 running at EPS speed is only around a couple of mins.
That gap may get closed even further with the 397s even better acceleration.


Also on the back of that I understand that TPE have gained clearance for the class397s to exceed 110mph on around four stretches of the northern WCML. How it's signed on the lineside I don't know at present.

 

[Energy]

https://medium.com/@garethdennis/is...ight-for-britains-tilting-trains-b6ebb496433c

I disagree with the bottom bit, non-tilt 125mph will probably not come south of preston because the southern parts are bendy.

 

[Bald Rick]

Agreed but tilt is fairly irrelevant anyway, particularly since they were passed for 110mph the 350s have shown that over the Cumbrian section of the WCML, the section where most would think tilt would give you the greatest advantage - it doesn't......
The time difference Lancaster to Carlisle between a class350 at PS and class390 running at EPS speed is only around a couple of mins.
That gap may get closed even further with the 397s even better acceleration.

It’s pretty difficult to do a direct comparison between a 350 and 390 north of Lancaster as the dwell times and train lengths are different. The latter does make quite a difference when linespeeds change frequently, which they do north of Lancaster.

 

[S-Bahn]

It's pretty obvious they would go for an 80x IET, just like everyone else has.

Bit surprised they didn't opt for a 9-car and future proof against increased passenger numbers.

If the Voyagers can then go to the Cross-Country franchise (along with some Meridians when EMT get their 804's) then the Intercity services might be better placed to keep up with demand.

 

[221101 Voyager]

It's pretty obvious they would go for an 80x IET, just like everyone else has.

Bit surprised they didn't opt for a 9-car and future proof against increased passenger numbers.

If the Voyagers can then go to the Cross-Country franchise (along with some Meridians when EMT get their 804's) then the Intercity services might be better placed to keep up with demand.

Completely agree with all of this, I was also wondering why the EMU sets were not at least 8-9 car, for additional capacity in the future.
I bet in about 5-10 years they might need to order extra coaches to keep up with demand, HS2 should provide some relief to the WCML, but if fares for HS2 services are extortionate (which they probably will be) HS2 may not be all that well used. I think the bi modes are about the right length though.

 

[221101 Voyager]

I also hope that the 80x seats will not be the sophias, judging by these quotes, us WCML users could be lucky and get something more comfortable. Fingers crossed!

“Managing Director at First Rail, Steve Montogomery said: “We look forward to beginning our Avanti West Coast services on Sunday 8 December, and these new trains will help us really improve travel for passengers with more services, more seats, a better journey experience, enhanced catering and added comfort.””

“Managing Director at Trenitalia UK, Ernesto Sicilia added: “We are pleased to announce this new fleet which highlights our commitment to innovation and desire to constantly improve our services. We are delighted to provide more efficient and modern trains which are sustainable and environmentally friendly, reducing CO2 emissions by 61%, including new comfortable seats for an improved customer experience.””

 

[S-Bahn]

CI think the bi modes are about the right length though.

Quite right - and more seats, more legroom and more spacious than a Voyager.
I also found I could work from my laptop in a standard class GWR airline seat, so the 80x stock is likely to encourage more business travellers.

 

[Bald Rick]

Completely agree with all of this, I was also wondering why the EMU sets were not at least 8-9 car, for additional capacity in the future.
I bet in about 5-10 years they might need to order extra coaches to keep up with demand, HS2 should provide some relief to the WCML, but if fares for HS2 services are extortionate (which they probably will be) HS2 may not be all that well used. I think the bi modes are about the right length though.

I know this isn’t an HS2 thread, but HS2 services will be very well used!

 

[irish_rail]

It's pretty obvious they would go for an 80x IET, just like everyone else has.

Bit surprised they didn't opt for a 9-car and future proof against increased passenger numbers.

If the Voyagers can then go to the Cross-Country franchise (along with some Meridians when EMT get their 804's) then the Intercity services might be better placed to keep up with demand.

Xc don't want more voyagers, they are completely useless through Dawlish, indeed they are trying to get extra HSTs , extra voyagers wouldn't be alot of help. The sooner xc get 80x the better

 

[Bald Rick]

Xc don't want more voyagers, they are completely useless through Dawlish, indeed they are trying to get extra HSTs , extra voyagers wouldn't be alot of help. The sooner xc get 80x the better

Slight exaggeration there. What percentage of XC trains west of Exeter, formed of Voyagers, have been cancelled in the last 5 years specifically because of the sea spray issues? If it’s more than 1% I’ll be amazed. Now whilst not ideal I wouldn’t brand them ‘completely useless’ because of that.

 

[221101 Voyager]

The network is going to be overrun with 80x units being pretty much everywhere!
It makes things a little boring for those who like a bit of variety!
I quite like the 80x apart from the terrible seats! If the WCML units get good seats I will be a fan of them.

 

[swt_passenger]

Completely agree with all of this, I was also wondering why the EMU sets were not at least 8-9 car, for additional capacity in the future.
I bet in about 5-10 years they might need to order extra coaches to keep up with demand, HS2 should provide some relief to the WCML, but if fares for HS2 services are extortionate (which they probably will be) HS2 may not be all that well used. I think the bi modes are about the right length though.

Evidence for “Extortionate fares on HS2”? People have been suggesting this in the forums for years, without any supporting evidence whatsoever...

 

[greatvoyager]

Slight exaggeration there. What percentage of XC trains west of Exeter, formed of Voyagers, have been cancelled in the last 5 years specifically because of the sea spray issues? If it’s more than 1% I’ll be amazed. Now whilst not ideal I wouldn’t brand them ‘completely useless’ because of that.

It's not many, I live on that route. I think the fact that when the sea spray gets bad, it has such a big impact that it gets exaggerated. Also, why would XC try and get more HSTs, when they are non compliant with the accessibility standards, also considering how long it has taken to make Mark 3 carriages get to this standard?
On the topic of the 80x, the acceleration is probably going to cover up for any lower top speed.

 

[RealTrains07]

The network is going to be overrun with 80x units being pretty much everywhere!
It makes things a little boring for those who like a bit of variety!

Completely agree, its a shame mark 5 397s were not considered

 

[TRAX]

I wonder if some of those AT300s will again be built in Pistoia, in which case this would make political sense, Pistoia being in Italy and Trenitalia.....

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I wonder if some of those AT300s will again be built in Pistoia, in which case this would make political sense, Pistoia being in Italy and Trenitalia.....

I know it’s pretty obvious especially with it being Hitachi and First, and with the picture, but has it been confirmed they’re to be AT300s yet? No chance of a new design I’m guessing.

 

[class26]

Evidence for “Extortionate fares on HS2”? People have been suggesting this in the forums for years, without any supporting evidence whatsoever...

It`s probably going to be the opposite in reality.
Those that say fares will be high look at the construction costs, see a big number and draw their own conclusions.
The fact that the trains on HS2 will be high capacity means that yield management will determine fares as no operator will want to be carting fresh air around so fares will be set at a level that fills the trains.

 

[The Ham]

Evidence for “Extortionate fares on HS2”? People have been suggesting this in the forums for years, without any supporting evidence whatsoever...

One argument for ticket prices being lower is that you'll not need much of a change in the number of coaches to run the services compared to the current situation. However you will be able to transport a lot more people.

To explain this I'll use the example of Manchester. It currently has 9 or 11 coach trains running 3 services an hour. I'll follow the broadly 40/60 split in favour of the 11 coach units.

The current journey time is 2:08, so with an average of 42 minute turn around at each end that's 17 units needed to do 3 round trips per hour. A round trip in the time taken before a can then run the next comparable service (i.e. it can run a 10:00 service from any given station and then be back at the same station to run the 15:40).

I understaff that you'd need spare units to cover maintenance and the like. However this is just to show a very crude level of the number of coaches needed, if anything creating a more accurate answer would result in the difference being even greater.

That means that you need 173 coaches to run the Manchester services.

Now after HS2 is built the number of coaches per train increases to 16, however the journey time falls to 1:08, and so with an average of 42 minute turn around time at each end you'll need 11 units to run a 3tph frequency. This then equates to 176 coaches.

As such on a like for like basis you need 3 now coaches across your fleet for HS2 compared to the existing. However if the turn around time is shorter that benefits HS2 services more than the existing services. Also given that you can carry ~1,500 extra passengers an hour the extra 1.7% in rolling stock costs is hardly going to matter.

The other thing to bear in mind is that your staff costs to run the services fall as a driver can drive more services in any shift than they could before. Not only that but if you are able to carry more people per train the cost per ticket of that driver fails as the cost is split between more people on any given service as well as being split over more services.

If we assume that a driver currently does 1.5 round trips a shift when it's 5:40 for round trip (8 hours between clocking on and shift end) caring an average load of 50% per train with capacity for 489 passengers that's 367 passengers who share the cost of the driver.

However if we look at a HS2 service the same driver can do 2 round trips (7.5 hours between clocking on and shift end).

If we assume an average load of 25% per train with a capacity of 1,100 then that's 550 passengers who share the cost of the driver.

If the total cost of drivers (including their managers, training, uniform, pension contributions, employer's NI, etc. is £200,000 per year and a driver drivers for 150 days a year (to allow for training, sickness, holiday, etc.) then this results in the cost per ticket for travel each way falling from £3.67 to £2.42

Of course if drivers work longer days (which I'm fairly sure that they do), all that would mean is that the cost per ticket would also fall, however the cost would fall faster for the HS2 tickets. As such all that would do is improve the answer for HS2.

Likewise I've assumed an average of 42 minute turn around at each end, if this were to be reduced then it would benefit HS2 more than the existing services.