Bombardier AVENTRA relaunched

[Kneedown]

A driver is not the staff member that is normally referred to when they talk about "one staff member".
Drivers are normally engaged in driving the train.

I wasn't aware that Guards are capable of running down the side of the 'cess at 100mph and then jumping into the train while it is still moving. But maybe they just don't like to talk about being the fastest runners in the world.

Of course, silly me. Drivers never have to exit the cab to fault find and remedy defects do they? It can all be done with thought control from the driving seat!
As regards the Guard, again, not an issue. They can simply change from one unit to the other at intermediate stops to carry out revenue duties, or if not practicable have an RPI in the front. In case of emergency the pass-comm on modern units provides instant communication with the Driver who can stop in the most appropriate place.
It worked perfectly well when we used to work multiple 170's, and still does on XC.

As to leaking and letting draughts in, if it doesn't inconvenience the passengers (and I have never known this to be an inconvenience in the passenger saloon?) does it really matter?
Drivers can be issued with GoreTex coats and suchlike if it is really such a problem.

Does it matter indeed that the person who needs to maintain a high level of concentration at all times should be in reasonable comfort and free from as many distractions as possible, and a pool of water approaching your bag, as well as icy blasts are the biggest distractions going! It's also commonplace for the water pool to go under the cab door into the vestibule, creating a slip hazard for passengers.
We already have good coats, but it's not good practice to keep them on for the entirety of a 2-3hour journey.
Reminds me of the MP who advised pensioners to "Put on a jumper" to save on heating bills. And i thought I had some Victorian ideas!

And visibility is not the issue it once was, especially with cab signalling rollout starting rather soon, which will make signal sighting issues rather moot.

Incorrect. Visibility will ALWAYS be a big issue as long as we have people and largish creatures who decide to walk or drive across the track without looking.
ERTMS, that will shortly start to be rolled out, is available in several different levels, not all of which eliminate lineside signals completely. Only the busiest, highest speed lines are likely to be completely signal free.

 

[asylumxl]

Whether or not the extra additions reduce the visibility, it's safe to say the visibility will be within regulation. I seem to remember you should be able to see 10m infront at rail level and 5m on each side with a full width cab.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

125mph EMUs for TPE? For their Newcastle services

It seems that 125mph EMUs could potentially be deployed on quite a few routes, TPE as you mention plus the Thames Valley services and semi-fast stopping services a long the MML to Corby and Leicester perhaps?

 

[HSTEd]

Of course, silly me. Drivers never have to exit the cab to fault find and remedy defects do they? It can all be done with thought control from the driving seat!

This operation seems to be rather rare, and would not in any way be influenced by the presence or absence of gangways sp it is rather moot.

As regards the Guard, again, not an issue. They can simply change from one unit to the other at intermediate stops to carry out revenue duties, or if not practicable have an RPI in the front.

Not really, I can think of numerous routes where large numbers of passengers are only travelling one stop (Grantham-Nottingham and Manchester-Sheffield come immediately to mind) which makes 'changing units at intermediate stops' impractical at best.

And as to an RPI..... you seem to be very generous with other people's money... who pays for this extra staff member, are you willing to take the pay cut required to pay this additional staff member's wages (and if not, who will?) ?

In case of emergency the pass-comm on modern units provides instant communication with the Driver who can stop in the most appropriate place.
It worked perfectly well when we used to work multiple 170's, and still does on XC.

I don't really see how this matters either way? Since the PASSCOM is used so rarely that again it has no impact on the day to day operation of the train.

Does it matter indeed that the person who needs to maintain a high level of concentration at all times should be in reasonable comfort and free from as many distractions as possible, and a pool of water approaching your bag, as well as icy blasts are the biggest distractions going!

I thought that was why train drivers were paid so much? To be able to maintain concentration even in the presence of so many distractions?
As to a pool of water approaching your bag.... perhaps a bag hook might be in order?

And since they are evidently capable of maintaining concentration in these conditions (which is obvious due to the absence of accidents caused by drivers distracted by 'icy blast').

It's also commonplace for the water pool to go under the cab door into the vestibule, creating a slip hazard for passengers.

I have indeed seen this once, but the puddle only really affected the end seating bays, it will hardly stretching down half the carriage or anything like that.

Reminds me of the MP who advised pensioners to "Put on a jumper" to save on heating bills. And i thought I had some Victorian ideas!

The difference being here that pensioners are not paid rather large sums of money to deal with these conditions.

Incorrect. Visibility will ALWAYS be a big issue as long as we have people and largish creatures who decide to walk or drive across the track without looking.

In many cases if you are coming around a bend tight enough for the gangway to significantly reduce your view of an object on the track you have already hit it, gangways make little difference.

Additionally technologies to improve off-side view will be becoming available (since we now have cameras everywhere else, why not have on on the far side of the gangway? - perhaps even linking up to a HMD).
Gangway sealing technologies have also apparently advanced quite far since the days of the 150 where it appeared to simply be a door.

ERTMS, that will shortly start to be rolled out, is available in several different levels, not all of which eliminate lineside signals completely. Only the busiest, highest speed lines are likely to be completely signal free.

Indeed, but it appears unlikely that Network Rail will plump for the supposed benefits of ERTMS Level 1 when it has the downsides it does in terms of reduced signal capacity.

1LS might go somewhere but frankly I doubt it, leaving us with the remaining types (Regional, 2 and the vapourware 3) which all remove trackside signal infrastructure.

 

[route:oxford]

I thought that was why train drivers were paid so much? To be able to maintain concentration even in the presence of so many distractions?
As to a pool of water approaching your bag.... perhaps a bag hook might be in order?

And since they are evidently capable of maintaining concentration in these conditions (which is obvious due to the absence of accidents caused by drivers distracted by 'icy blast').

I have indeed seen this once, but the puddle only really affected the end seating bays, it will hardly stretching down half the carriage or anything like that.

The difference being here that pensioners are not paid rather large sums of money to deal with these conditions.

Utter nonsense.

The design should be fit for purpose from new and regular maintenance keep it as new.

There should be no wind or water ingress.

 

[jon0844]

The design will also feature remote diagnostics and troubleshooting, identifying potential tehnical problems before they manifest

That will stop the trains ever leaving the factory!

 

[IanXC]

Having read the article I think the gangways comment refers to fully open 'London Overground style' gangways between vehicles in the same unit. That's certainly what the images show, and I've not seen anything to suggest a 125 capable unit will meet crashworthieness standards with a gangway for multiple working.

 

[TheWalrus]

What are the linespeeds like on North and South Cotswolds lines? I am wondering if it'd make sense to have them on London-Cheltenham/Worcester running battery powered after Oxford/Swindon.

Also in regards to potential availability in just 18 months, this could really be the next short term solution to capacity issues, maybe only on DMUs under the wires routes for now as I guess most wires wont be up by then.

I think it will be a more sensible alternative to IEP for many routes.

 

[Kneedown]

This operation seems to be rather rare, and would not in any way be influenced by the presence or absence of gangways sp it is rather moot.

Not a rare operation at all. It's a common occurrence for a Driver to have to leave the cab to remedy a fault or investigate something, but you are correct, presence or lack of gangways are irrelevant for this procedure, hence a reason we don't need them.

Not really, I can think of numerous routes where large numbers of passengers are only travelling one stop (Grantham-Nottingham and Manchester-Sheffield come immediately to mind) which makes 'changing units at intermediate stops' impractical at best.

Manchester - Sheffield normally has a stop at Stockport on our services, but i digress. I repeat, we managed perfectly well with multiple 170's before, and plenty of TOC's manage to this day with multiple non-gangwayed sets. The increase in gates and barriers at stations further reduces opportunities for fare evasion.

And as to an RPI..... you seem to be very generous with other people's money... who pays for this extra staff member, are you willing to take the pay cut required to pay this additional staff member's wages (and if not, who will?) ?

Now we're getting to it... "Where is the money coming from!"
I'd say it comes from cost saving elsewhere, money saved in not having to service and repair gangway doors, savings from less maintenance due to water ingress, savings from greater use of EMU's as opposed to DMU's. It could even be cost neutral as a new role for staff who have become medically restricted from undertaking safety critical duties. There are endless possibilities that don't have to hurt the fare paying passenger.

I don't really see how this matters either way? Since the PASSCOM is used so rarely that again it has no impact on the day to day operation of the train.

If you don't count the tiny fingers that like pressing buttons, or mistake it for the toilet flush, but again, we digress.

I thought that was why train drivers were paid so much? To be able to maintain concentration even in the presence of so many distractions?
As to a pool of water approaching your bag.... perhaps a bag hook might be in order?

And since they are evidently capable of maintaining concentration in these conditions (which is obvious due to the absence of accidents caused by drivers distracted by 'icy blast').

Again, i think we are getting to the bottom of things now..... What a Driver is paid is not relevant to the conditions he or she has to work in. My colleagues on the London side who don't have to deal with gangway doors are paid the same. Are you suggesting they should be on less? (They even get several more leave days a year, so are actually paid more!)
That aside, incidents do occur due to cab distraction. SPAD's, Overruns, TPWS activations, AWS/DSD late to cancel's. It is both our's and the Company's responsibility to minimise the risk of distraction to the Driver, and providing a reasonable working environment is minimising risk. If someone worked in an office with a leaking roof do you consider it suitable for then to be told to keep a raincoat and wellies on all day?
Like the idea of a bag hook though, unfortunately i know of no units anywhere with them fitted.

I have indeed seen this once, but the puddle only really affected the end seating bays, it will hardly stretching down half the carriage or anything like that.

So those sat in the aforementioned end seating bay can happily put up with it? (not to mention the elderly lady who slips on the puddle when leaving/joining the train!)

The difference being here that pensioners are not paid rather large sums of money to deal with these conditions.

Bloomin train drivers.... paid far too much for just sittin around pulling a lever all day.

In many cases if you are coming around a bend tight enough for the gangway to significantly reduce your view of an object on the track you have already hit it, gangways make little difference.

As a Driver of 25+ years experience, i can categorically say you are mistaken. Visibility is everything and i do not believe you are in a position to say what visibility will or will not prevent. No matter how late something is seen, a blast on the horn when seen MAY just be enough to make someone look up and jolt them back to reality, preventing a tragedy.

Additionally technologies to improve off-side view will be becoming available (since we now have cameras everywhere else, why not have on on the far side of the gangway? - perhaps even linking up to a HMD).
Gangway sealing technologies have also apparently advanced quite far since the days of the 150 where it appeared to simply be a door.

And who, exactly, is going to be paying for all this expensive new technology to be fitted?
Shouldn't a Driver have his eyes firmly on the route ahead and not on an....HMD?... (TV monitor?)

Indeed, but it appears unlikely that Network Rail will plump for the supposed benefits of ERTMS Level 1 when it has the downsides it does in terms of reduced signal capacity.

1LS might go somewhere but frankly I doubt it, leaving us with the remaining types (Regional, 2 and the vapourware 3) which all remove trackside signal infrastructure.

Will still be many, many years before it's rolled out nationwide. If a new build of DMU's was authorised tomorrow they'd be life expired before the whole country was kitted out with ERTMS.

 

[The Ham]

Like the idea of a bag hook though, unfortunately i know of no units anywhere with them fitted.

Maybe the new Aventra would be an ideal platform to try out such a revolutionary idea on, I do hope that someone from Bombardier is keeping an eye out for such forward thinking ideas.

In all serious though, if it is a good idea is there not some form of procedure for putting forward suggestions within the TOC's?

 

[Rhydgaled]

I seriously doubt (and the ATOC research seems to agree) there would be another order for DMU's that short, they believed there would be demand for something like 200-300 new units but they would be high speed Voyager analogues for cross country style routes. The Turbostars should suffice for cascading to lines that are impactical to electrify long after Pacers/Sprinters are gone.

Turbostars are not a suitable replacment for the greater sprinters (classes 153-159). And short units in multiple can be very useful.

125mph EMUs for TPE? For their Newcastle services

I'm less concerned about 125 vs 100mph top speed than I am about suburban units like 185s and 350s being used on TPE and the like in the long term.

I wouldn't say they are popular.
A Driver can easily access the whole train without gangways. We just walk down the cess to the rear unit. Gangways are more trouble than they're worth

...

i'd hate to see it spoiled by having a huge, useless rectangular lump of metal and rubber stuck on the cab front as an afterthought.

Gangways on the front are not useless. Allowing passengers, catering and revenue protection staff to walk the full length of a train formed of multiple units can be VERY useful. The portion working on Cambrian and Liverpool-Norwich services for example is aided by allowing passengers to move to the correct portion if necessary between stations. Portion working should not be undertaken with non-gangwayed units in my opinion.

As regards the Guard, again, not an issue. They can simply change from one unit to the other at intermediate stops to carry out revenue duties

What about passengers on a portion-worked train or catering trolleys? Need extended dwell times to allow for that.

It worked perfectly well when we used to work multiple 170's, and still does on XC.

Works yes, perfectly well no. Things would be ALOT smoother if passengers could walk between units while they are moving.

 

[43074]

I'm less concerned about 125 vs 100mph top speed than I am about suburban units like 185s and 350s being used on TPE and the like in the long term.

I think 170s, 185s and 350s are right for TPE, because of the nature of the operation: when you're connecting up to four cities on a route, with journey times between cities no more than an hour apart maximum then 1/3 and 2/3 gangways are ideal and necessary to speed up dwell times at already busy stations. The 158s coped fine, but the 185s are better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Gangways on the front are not useless. Allowing passengers, catering and revenue protection staff to walk the full length of a train formed of multiple units can be VERY useful. The portion working on Cambrian and Liverpool-Norwich services for example is aided by allowing passengers to move to the correct portion if necessary between stations. Portion working should not be undertaken with non-gangwayed units in my opinion..

There's no reason why staff etc. can't swap between units at stations if necessary. Most non-gangway units which operate in multiple have 2 members of staff on board, often revenue protection and a train manager from what I've seen on EMT/XC.

 

[Class377/5]

The first test of the Aventra traction package this week was a success. 379006 had been used on the WCML and testing went well with a few hiccups initially but told it was sorted out in the end.

Next week sees 12 car 110mph testing with 377/2's....

 

[Rhydgaled]

I think 170s, 185s and 350s are right for TPE, because of the nature of the operation: when you're connecting up to four cities on a route, with journey times between cities no more than an hour apart maximum then 1/3 and 2/3 gangways are ideal and necessary to speed up dwell times at already busy stations. The 158s coped fine, but the 185s are better.

I disagree. Even half an hour apart is enough in my opinion that decent seating should be provided. Wide suburban doors partway along the carriages impacts furnishable space and hence costs seats, legroom or tables, or a combination.

There's no reason why staff etc. can't swap between units at stations if necessary.

Indeed, but there are clear benifits of trains where the staff can swap between units while the train is moving.

 

[Kettledrum]

I think 170s, 185s and 350s are right for TPE, because of the nature of the operation: when you're connecting up to four cities on a route, with journey times between cities no more than an hour apart maximum then 1/3 and 2/3 gangways are ideal and necessary to speed up dwell times at already busy stations. The 158s coped fine, but the 185s are better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


There's no reason why staff etc. can't swap between units at stations if necessary. Most non-gangway units which operate in multiple have 2 members of staff on board, often revenue protection and a train manager from what I've seen on EMT/XC.

I've seen these work really well and really badly.

EMT seem to operate sets as pairs to make best use of the paths out of St Pancras and to enable the units to de-couple to serve different destinations. Different sets of staff in the 2 units, lots of seats and capacity, so it works well - although occasionally there have been delays when the sets have been de-coupled and the trains have been delayed in re-starting by a software fault?

My XC experience has not been good. 2 units arrive at the station joined up, but the crew announce that the second unit is locked out of use so all the passengers cram uncomfortably on to the first unit, whilst all the seats in the second unit remain out of use. I recall we were told this was due to staff shortages but it's very annoying as a passenger.

 

[Kneedown]

Things would be ALOT smoother if passengers could walk between units while they are moving.

But they don't, as demonstrated by the regular occurrence of a pair of 158's leaving Liverpool with an almost empty front set, and a full and standing rear set. Our Conductors regularly inform people that "There are plenty of seats in the front two coaches", only to be met with blank looks from people determined to stay put. From my experience, the vast majority of people don't like to walk the length of the train, preferring instead to ensconce themselves close to where they boarded, especially when travelling with luggage or pushchairs.

.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

- although occasionally there have been delays when the sets have been de-coupled and the trains have been delayed in re-starting by a software fault?

Not just on the London side of the operation, all over EMT and a good few other TOC's i imagine. Modern couplers are notoriously unreliable, often needing two or three attempts to couple successfully. Electrical contacts get dirty, rubber air pipe seals pop out, couplers end up misaligned. Even when coupled successfully, electrical contacts often lose continuity on bends or passing through junctions resulting in a full brake application and sudden stop.
All frequently cause delays to services.

My personal belief is that coupling/uncoupling units en-route is a troublesome procedure that causes much delay and disruption to journeys, and shouldn't take place and that all trains should be a sufficient length. Of course, there are those who say a few carriages will be very lightly used during off peak times and therefore uneconomic, but it's also uneconomic having trains sat around all day waiting for the evening rush hour. Just my opinion though.
That's the problem with MU's, you need to keep them working all day to get your investment back. With LHCS you can add or take a few off depending on demand, and it's less of a financial hit to have a few spares in sidings.

 

[jopsuk]

Class 365s seem to have intermittent problems with coupling- which can be an issue, as a lot of the Kings Lynn trains split/join at Cambridge. As I understand it, this is down to a combination of power supply and platform lengths- I know there are 8-car trains to and from Ely, but anything longer than 4-car has to skip Waterbeach. Not sure what length trains Littleport, Downham Market and Watlington can handle. Splitting is the only sensible way of handling the heavy load south of Cambridge and the light load north of Cambridge.

From what I've read, I'm not so sure that (other than forecasted demand) there was much "on the fly" adding or subtracting carriages from services in the LCHS days?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....There's no reason why staff etc. can't swap between units at stations if necessary. Most non-gangway units which operate in multiple have 2 members of staff on board, often revenue protection and a train manager from what I've seen on EMT/XC.

Staff maybe, but there are limits in some parts of the country (Northern, for example, have one guard on most of their trains and make use of non-gangway 142s, 144s and 150/1s on 4, 5 and sometimes 6 car trains, the guard cannot leave the rear unit).

The problem isn't just staff though. On my last visit to Oxfordshire I used a train from Didcot to Oxford which was formed of two 166 units. At Oxford the train was to split with one unit going into the sidings and the other going onward in service, this is a regular move from what I can tell.

On this particular day there had been a lightning strike in Slough and my train was the first to run through for nearly an hour and a half. The train was understandably quite full, but the main problem was that people had boarded the train where they could, rather than trying to bundle onto the 'right portion'. The driver, on approach to Oxford, announced that the front portion would go onward.

Sure enough people tried to make their way forward to 'the front three coaches' whilst the train was still in motion, but found an impasse when they reached the front of the fourth coach, the drivers cab with no corridor connection to the next coach. At Oxford, the train doors opened and people started piling out, but unlike those who wanted to get off at Oxford, those who wanted to stay on were seemingly unaware of the problem of moving through the train and continued to try to walk through it until the front set of doors on the fourth coach, where they saw a minor problem with their plan. As far as I could tell, not one decided to leave the train further down and walk along it to the front portion, presumably they thought the train would go without them.

But they don't, as demonstrated by the regular occurrence of a pair of 158's leaving Liverpool with an almost empty front set, and a full and standing rear set. Our Conductors regularly inform people that "There are plenty of seats in the front two coaches", only to be met with blank looks from people determined to stay put. From my experience, the vast majority of people don't like to walk the length of the train, preferring instead to ensconce themselves close to where they boarded, especially when travelling with luggage or pushchairs....

That is quite true, people don't like to move, this is not just the case on trains that are nearly empty a couple of carriages further along, but also where people are struggling to get on and there is ample space in the aisle.

....My personal belief is that coupling/uncoupling units en-route is a troublesome procedure that causes much delay and disruption to journeys, and shouldn't take place and that all trains should be a sufficient length....

In some cases it is simply not possible to run two trains to the two places, aside from the potential for more staff and trains required. The Brighton Mainline has portion working on the London Victoria-Brighton/Littlehampton trains because there simply isn't room to run the two trains separately, I'm sure the same could be said for the TPE services that used to split/join at Preston.

....Of course, there are those who say a few carriages will be very lightly used during off peak times and therefore uneconomic, but it's also uneconomic having trains sat around all day waiting for the evening rush hour. Just my opinion though....

Trains running around empty all day use fuel (be it diesel or electricity) and might need extra staff/maintenance. Trains, that would otherwise be running around empty, sat idle in a depot do not and can be worked on if necessary. It's not a question of things being 'uneconomic', it's a question of them being 'as economic as possible'.

....That's the problem with MU's, you need to keep them working all day to get your investment back. With LHCS you can add or take a few off depending on demand, and it's less of a financial hit to have a few spares in sidings.

Actually I'd say the effective use of coaches or units, in regard to investment, cost and profit, is largely the same (you don't want ten coaches running around when five will do, but you also don't want to spend more money splitting them up if you don't have to), it's just the value of that investment/cost/profit that might differ.

Splitting coaches takes time though, it's not as simple as uncoupling a pair of units, then you have the paths to get locomotives (for onward workings or shunting) in place to couple to them and move them as required (even at terminus stations), and during this time no other train can use the platform. This is one reason why BR was moving to using multiple units and fixed formation trains towards the end, rather than traditional loco-hauled services.

....From what I've read, I'm not so sure that (other than forecasted demand) there was much "on the fly" adding or subtracting carriages from services in the LCHS days?

Today's railways have one thing that BR didn't....rules on train lengths at 'short' platforms.

 

[Class377/5]

This thread is coming up with some interesting points that I will admit I've not thought of before.

Will add this to the debate, units at around in the day aren't ways but light maintenance can be carried out which could have money by lower the work load on nights which comes at far greater a costs in both money and productivity.

 

[Rhydgaled]

But they don't, as demonstrated by the regular occurrence of a pair of 158's leaving Liverpool with an almost empty front set, and a full and standing rear set. Our Conductors regularly inform people that "There are plenty of seats in the front two coaches", only to be met with blank looks from people determined to stay put.

So, everyone gets on the unit nearest the enterance to the platform. Isn't it better to allow those standing who are and willing to walk through the train to find a seat to do so?

Also:

On my last visit to Oxfordshire I used a train from Didcot to Oxford which was formed of two 166 units. At Oxford the train was to split with one unit going into the sidings and the other going onward in service, this is a regular move from what I can tell.

On this particular day there had been a lightning strike in Slough and my train was the first to run through for nearly an hour and a half. The train was understandably quite full, but the main problem was that people had boarded the train where they could, rather than trying to bundle onto the 'right portion'. The driver, on approach to Oxford, announced that the front portion would go onward.

Sure enough people tried to make their way forward to 'the front three coaches' whilst the train was still in motion, but found an impasse when they reached the front of the fourth coach, the drivers cab with no corridor connection to the next coach.

This is the main reason why I think portion working with non-gangwayed units is a bad idea. As in the quote from Kneedown above, passengers will board the train at the nearest set of doors, particularly if departure time is close and they aren't sure they'll make it to their correct portion in time. Then with a double 166 or Voyager for example the passengers are stuck in the portion they boarded and the dwell time at the split point for all units has to be sufficient to get everyone in the wrong portion out onto the platform and back onto another. Might as well provide a connecting service instead of a split in such a suituation in my opinion.

 

[Kneedown]

Also:
This is the main reason why I think portion working with non-gangwayed units is a bad idea. As in the quote from Kneedown above, passengers will board the train at the nearest set of doors, particularly if departure time is close and they aren't sure they'll make it to their correct portion in time. Then with a double 166 or Voyager for example the passengers are stuck in the portion they boarded and the dwell time at the split point for all units has to be sufficient to get everyone in the wrong portion out onto the platform and back onto another. Might as well provide a connecting service instead of a split in such a suituation in my opinion.

They don't though, as demonstrated by the many who had ample time enroute to make their way to the Norwich portion of the train, but stay put until Nottingham and make the walk along the platform.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This thread is coming up with some interesting points that I will admit I've not thought of before.

Will add this to the debate, units at around in the day aren't ways but light maintenance can be carried out which could have money by lower the work load on nights which comes at far greater a costs in both money and productivity.

Maintenence is constant and the fitters are always on the go, day and night. A "B" exam is a 2 day process.
Having units spare off peak doesn't mean they'll get extra maintenence.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't get this objection by certain people to trains with vestibules at one and two thirds along the coach. Many services are full and standing for some part of their journey at some part of the day, and having a large vestibule makes this more comfortable for those both seated and standing. Dwell times are also much less than for stock with end doors, and on something like a Turbostar with plug doors there isn't a problem with draught or door rattle. There will be fewer seats on the train, but these would probably only be occupied for a small proportion of the time and can to some extent be replaced by tip-ups for use when the vestibule is not crowded.

Fine to have doors at vehicle ends on trains that are truly long distance and rarely have standing passengers - though these day I'm not sure there are many of those left! But for services like Transpennine and the XC 170s out of Birmingham the large vestibules are necessary for the commuter peaks.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I don't get this objection by certain people to trains with vestibules at one and two thirds along the coach. Many services are full and standing for some part of their journey at some part of the day, and having a large vestibule makes this more comfortable for those both seated and standing. Dwell times are also much less than for stock with end doors, and on something like a Turbostar with plug doors there isn't a problem with draught or door rattle. There will be fewer seats on the train

You contradict yourself slightly, if somebody has to stand when they would have got a seat on a proper regional express unit it is not more comfortable for them. I don't see how it makes things any more comfortable for those sitting down, especially if legroom is compromised to allow the suburban door layout. I accept the point about dwell times, but on a limited stop service there are less dwells to worry about.

The solution to all the above is to run longer trains, not ask passengers to stand for half an hour or more.

But for services like Transpennine and the XC 170s out of Birmingham the large vestibules are necessary for the commuter peaks.

Don't XC also run Voyagers out of Birmingham in the peaks? Again, the solution is longer trains not suburbanising long distance rolling stock.

 

[jopsuk]

Turbostars get configured with vestibule doors for 1st class. At a loss of a small amount of space, surely these could be fitted to all vestibules?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Turbostars get configured with vestibule doors for 1st class. At a loss of a small amount of space, surely these could be fitted to all vestibules?

Yes, but that wouldn't resolve the key issue of the suburban door layout impacing on furinshable space. The doors on Turbostars, 165s, 166s and 185s are too wide and in the wrong place for regional express services like Cardiff-Portsmouth or TPE.

 

[Class377/5]

Maintenence is constant and the fitters are always on the go, day and night. A "B" exam is a 2 day process.
Having units spare off peak doesn't mean they'll get extra maintenence.

It helps if you read what I put. I never claimed all maintenance would be done in the peaks but some can be. Preventative for example. This isn't extra maintenance but required current maintenance whet rather than doing most of it at night which is more expensive you shift things around.

I'm fully aware you can't always do this but as units are expected to work harder and hard you have to move the bigger stuff to nights and smaller to inert peak of possible.

 

[Kneedown]

It helps if you read what I put. I never claimed all maintenance would be done in the peaks but some can be. Preventative for example. This isn't extra maintenance but required current maintenance whet rather than doing most of it at night which is more expensive you shift things around.

I'm fully aware you can't always do this but as units are expected to work harder and hard you have to move the bigger stuff to nights and smaller to inert peak of possible.

I did read what you put. The point i'm trying to make is that maintenence staff are busy during the day as well, doing the lengthy B & C exams, and they don't always have the time or parts to remedy all faults then. To carry out extra or preventitive maintenence would mean taking on more staff and maybe expanding facilities at depots. When a train currently develops a serious fault that requires attention before a return to traffic, it's a logistical nightmare trying to get a slot for it to be repaired. Any savings made from carrying out work in the day as opposed to at night would be lost to the necessity of having more staff and expanded facilities.
I hear what you are saying and in an ideal world all faults would be remedied straight away with pro active maintenence minimising faults, but it doesn't quite work out like that and the fitters are constantly playing catch up.

 

[edwin_m]

You contradict yourself slightly, if somebody has to stand when they would have got a seat on a proper regional express unit it is not more comfortable for them. I don't see how it makes things any more comfortable for those sitting down, especially if legroom is compromised to allow the suburban door layout. I accept the point about dwell times, but on a limited stop service there are less dwells to worry about.

The solution to all the above is to run longer trains, not ask passengers to stand for half an hour or more.

Don't XC also run Voyagers out of Birmingham in the peaks? Again, the solution is longer trains not suburbanising long distance rolling stock.

Assuming seat pitch (and therefore legroom) are similar, a layout with large vestibules reduces seats by maybe eight or twelve per coach. However it allows several times that number to stand in the vestibules in relative comfort. This may fit well with certain long distance journeys where the number of long distance passengers is less than the number of seats but where the train coincides with a commuter peak it is flooded with large numbers of shorter-distance commuters.

Having people standing down the aisle is not particularly comfortable for the standees or the seated passengers. A couple of weeks back I had to ask a standing passenger to remove his rucksack because he had very nearly bashed me and two other seated passengers in the face. It also compromises dwell times particularly at stations where many passengers alight and many others board.

In an ideal world we'd have longer trains, but for operational and financial reasons there will still be long-distance trains that have short-distance peak crowding for the foreseeable future. It is in any case not sensible for a long train to leave (for example) Birmingham for Stansted in the evening peak which would have seats available east of say Nuneaton and be mostly fresh air east of Leicester. Subject to capacity a separate commuter service could be run, but unless a premium fare was imposed and enforced it's quite likely that many of the commuters would stick with the faster and more comfortable long distance train.

 

[Chris125]

Interesting article on the 'new' AVENTRA in The Rail Engineer, which appears to confirm that they've had to improve the design to compete with the Desiro City.

An exciting new Aventra

“Although we had the new design, which we had called Aventra, we took the time after we heard we hadn’t won Thameslink to ask ourselves whether there were customer needs that we weren’t meeting"

“We also looked at what we do well. We have engineers who have been designing UK trains and building them for years. And that’s something we feel is extremely unique because maybe somebody else might assemble some trains in the UK, but what they don’t have is the blank sheet of paper, sketching it out, the brains of it is all here."

Chris

 

[WatcherZero]

Having a dedicated static test rig is a good idea, hopefully help iron out bugs before delivery and testing :P

Seems a lot of trains nowadays work fine at delivery but develop software isssues with their electrical systems in the first few months and years (I imagine signal degradation and wear and tear producing results the software isnt programmed to handle come into play) so long term testing may allow these issues to emerge in the lab rather than in the field.