CAF rolling stock confirmed for Arriva

[northwichcat]

Around then they believed that no new DMUs would be needed within CP5 based on forecast needs, because the (about to be announced) electrification plans allowed for a national cascade of DMUs sufficient to maintain the necessary fleet size, but they did not say that none would ever be needed, there was a need shown for new build beyond the period.

It is the political decision to go against DfT advice and replace Northern's Pacers that accounts for most (if not all) of the DMU section of the CAF MU order.

Well the no new DMUs in CP5 was based on TPE and MML electrification being completed to the original schedule and it did partly depend whether actual passenger growth and the predicted level of growth matched. A new order of self powered trains in CP6 or later was specifically mentioned with the idea they would be ordered for regional routes but later cascaded down to rural lines which will never be electrified and also would have a poor business case for new rolling stock.

It was one civil servant who said replacement of the Northern Pacers didn't provide a good business case but even he admitted he hadn't taken in to account whether newer trains would attract more passengers. He also hadn't allowed for the cost of bringing up Pacers to post-2019 standards, so his argument was weak and it wasn't surprising Mr McLoughlin overruled him.

 

[WillPS]

Aren't all the Sprinter series getting (expensive!) DDA mods? Surely the ROSCOs will want 10-15 years more service out of them as a result?

 

[edwin_m]

Some interesting thoughts here on future requirements for DMUs.

The fact that CAF are producing DMUs and EMUs in the same order probably means that there is a lot of commonality in the design and therefore it may be easier to convert one to the other at a later date than it would be with something like a Turbostar.

Alternatively, there may well be a full lifetime ahead of them in diesel form.

Nobody in 2011 was saying we would never need to buy DMUs again. Instead the view was that the electrification programme would release DMUs fast enough to allow the oldest ones to be withdrawn and cater for passenger growth on the non-electrified lines. However some new DMUs would still be needed, probably some time in the 2020s when further life extension of some Sprinter classes became impractical.

With delays to electrification a gap has opened up between the number of DMUs needed and the number available, so new ones must be ordered. Depending on the relative progress of electrification and service improvements, they may simply lead to fewer Sprinter replacements being needed in ten years time or even to some Sprinters being withdrawn earlier.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Except for continuing the trend for "evil eye" style headlamp clusters, I would say these are very good looking units.

 

[northwichcat]

Aren't all the Sprinter series getting (expensive!) DDA mods? Surely the ROSCOs will want 10-15 years more service out of them as a result?

It's not been confirmed that the 153s will get modifications. It sounds like at least 2 or 3 operators will off-load all their 153s before 2019. While it's been proposed LM will take on more 153s to be able to release their 150s I wonder if that's temporary and they'll drop out of the franchise once the LO 172s are freed up.

 

[fgwrich]

Without going back through all the pages, the confirmed order is as this (from Eversholt Rail):

The order is made up of 31 x 3-car and 12 x 4-car Electric Multiple Units (EMUs) and 25 x 2-car and 30 x 3-car Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs), with all vehicles scheduled to enter service by December 2018.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From informed comments in other threads/other journals it looks as if the latest crash regulations for newly constructed rolling stock have to keep the driver behind the crumple zone in the nose so he/she is further back from the nose and less exposed. As a consequence it is very difficult to design a nose that, on the one hand, meets the collision regulations and on the other hand includes a gangway while also giving the driver good sight lines.

Erm, what about the Scottish Desiros?

If there is demand for it, it will be designed. A way will be found.

But that aside, I think Northern were stupid to order 2 car sets. The DMUs should have been 3s and 4s. There are plenty of 2 car DMUs of other types for branch line services, which are the only place 2 car DMUs have any role in 2016.

 

[deltic08]

That's the one of the perspective interiors for the train

As usual, passenger coming first. Seats aligned with window. I think not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If I had my way of course there would be an arm of the railway building trains to a handful of standard template designs.
One DMU family, one normal EMU family and one high speed family.

I would support you in that.

 

[47802]

As usual, passenger coming first. Seats aligned with window. I think not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I would support you in that.

Well wont getting that interior anyway it clearly being 1st class by UK standards, I doubt there will be any 1st on Northern Connect Services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As usual, passenger coming first. Seats aligned with window. I think not.

Not having any semblance of window alignment in First Class is unacceptable.

 

[Haydn1971]

Erm, what about the Scottish Desiros? If there is demand for it, it will be designed. A way will be found.

Absolutely - Buy enough and someone will tool up for it, the ROSCO may well be in a position to semi-guarantee CAF further orders through early dialogue with its TOC's who will be bidding on East Anglia, South Western and London Midland - all existing franchises have small numbers of pre 90's DMU's that will be life expired within the next franchise without spending big sums of money - which the ROSCO may not wish to do.

But that aside, I think Northern were stupid to order 2 car sets. The DMUs should have been 3s and 4s. There are plenty of 2 car DMUs of other types for branch line services, which are the only place 2 car DMUs have any role in 2016.

Again, I'd wager that the ROSCO has pushed this looking ahead into potential uses in the mid 2020's onwards, for rural lines that just won't need anything more than 2-3 car units. The next Northern Franchise will feed into the infill electrification following on from trans-pennine, midland mainline, hull line etc and will be looking into the future where electrification may be spreading to the Hope Valley, Calder Valley, Harrogate, Lincoln lines etc... In preparation for the step change of services in the north around HS2 Phase 2.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again, I'd wager that the ROSCO has pushed this looking ahead into potential uses in the mid 2020's onwards, for rural lines that just won't need anything more than 2-3 car units.

Quite possibly, though in that case they should be gangwayed. Not having gangways between units that are planned from day one to work in multiple all the time is a step back 100 years.

 

[gazthomas]

Except for continuing the trend for "evil eye" style headlamp clusters, I would say these are very good looking units.

Look like a good development of those in Northern Ireland. I rate the 3000/4000 series units.

 

[Haydn1971]

Quite possibly, though in that case they should be gangwayed. Not having gangways between units that are planned from day one to work in multiple all the time is a step back 100 years.

I'd agree with that - hopefully they will be

 

[deltic08]

I have always been intrigued by the gangway solution adopted by the Danish ABB IC3 sets, versions of which have also been exported to Begium, Spain and Israel. The entire front end of the train uses a rubber (and presumably pressurised?) diaphragm around the front fascia. The entire fascia, including driver's control panel, opens like a door when two or more units are paired together.

So ugly. Best put a paper bag over it. Not very aerodynamic either.

 

[jon0844]

So ugly. Best put a paper bag over it. Not very aerodynamic either.

Indeed, and everyone jokes about them. However, despite the huge steps up (not very friendly for those with luggage and means those with a wheelchair or buggy can only board in specific places) they're very comfortable on board.

In that regard, I think they're probably well liked by users. I've been on one when the front was 'opened'. It's quite clever.

 

[87015]

DMU & EMU versions multi up as well. Quality trains, far better than anything equivalent over here.

 

[fgwrich]

Look like a good development of those in Northern Ireland. I rate the 3000/4000 series units.

Indeed so do I! I'm actually rather glad that CAF finally will have a foothold in the UK market at last, having used the 332 and C3 / C4K Fleets for a few years now. Very well built, very spacious units. In fact, I think they must have some of the tallest interiors of any modern unit - No useless Bombardier style overhead luggage racks in the CAF units.

 

[Brian Aylott]

" with all vehicles scheduled to enter service by December 2018"

Don't believe everything you read
Brian

 

[Peter Sarf]

As electrification creeps along, during the lifetime of these new DMUs some of them will be moved away from the routes they were designed for. I can see the CAF units being cascaded to other routes within the North as routes such as the CLC and Calder Valley get wired. The S&C being one, with the Penistone being another. Eventually even these routes will probably get wired as once we get close to 100% electrification the awkwardness of having a few isolated diesel islands will become more of a drain on resources.

I agree but how much longer will the diesel islands on Southern last ?.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The long term rolling stock strategy identified a need for new self powered trains as some lines will likely never be electrified. The suggestion was the new trains would be ordered for regional routes but would be suitable to cascade down to rural lines in the future. What CAF is going to deliver seems to meet that description with the mockups showing wide middle doors and the order being for 2 and 3 car trains which can be doubled up, opposed to longer formations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


There's been reports CAF have production sites with no future work and without agreeing new orders it would be a choice of mass redundancies and shutting down and selling off sites or asking the Spanish government for help. Consequently they've been able to offer reduced price trains built to a fast time scale.

The worry with that is that is if CAF think they are not going to be around long enough for a repeat order they will not worry about quality. There might be a disillusioned workforce involved - although that is just as typical in the UK.

On the subject of 2 car units. If a number of these are to run around in pairs then why not make them as 4-car units. They could be converted to 2-car units later when their sphere of operation moves to more rural lines. All it takes is a modular design so that a coach end can be replaced with a cab - or am I being over simplistic ?. I am thinking of how the 1-car 153s were made by converting 2-car 155s.

On the subject of NOX - is this not a bit of a red herring. Surely any railway train, whether "clean" or not, is better than the several road vehicles it potentially replaces ?. Mind you I spent a fair amount of my formative years hanging around the East end of New Street - I wonder how much damage that did to my health ?. Then again I now live near the A23 Purley Way and the air there is filthy !.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I agree but how much longer will the diesel islands on Southern last ?.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The worry with that is that is if CAF think they are not going to be around long enough for a repeat order they will not worry about quality. There might be a disillusioned workforce involved - although that is just as typical in the UK.

Bad trains are normally bad because the design is bad and quality control is bad, not just because the staff are disillusioned. Disillusioned workers aren't going to install wiring the wrong way if it's designed well in the first place, as then it would be difficult to install it wrong anyway.

On the subject of 2 car units. If a number of these are to run around in pairs then why not make them as 4-car units. They could be converted to 2-car units later when their sphere of operation moves to more rural lines. All it takes is a modular design so that a coach end can be replaced with a cab - or am I being over simplistic ?. I am thinking of how the 1-car 153s were made by converting 2-car 155s.

I believe there's going to be a strong market for relatively small rural trains, as the best way to improve rural lines is to increase frequency rather than increasing train lengths. Only with a higher frequency (and reduced journey times) will these lines become more popular to the point where you can justify longer trains. This could also mean less portion working, so the need for inter-vehicle gangways would be reduced. The 2043 Scotland Route Study has 1tph to Crianlarich comprising 8tpd to Oban and 8tpd to Fort William. Those figures don't fit with the portion working system used today with trains splitting at Crianlarich.

On the subject of NOX - is this not a bit of a red herring. Surely any railway train, whether "clean" or not, is better than the several road vehicles it potentially replaces ?. Mind you I spent a fair amount of my formative years hanging around the East end of New Street - I wonder how much damage that did to my health ?. Then again I now live near the A23 Purley Way and the air there is filthy !.

If stations are going to be busier and busier and even more likely to be covered over with over-site development, then having diesel fumes floating around isn't going to do anyone any good. Yes, theoretically it's still better to have lots of people using one train emitting a lot of NOx than a larger number of individual vehicles each emitting a small amount, but that doesn't then mean the train gets a free pass to emit as much as it can. That's a major problem in most city centres at the moment as buses, for all the good they do, emit enough NOx in city centres to cause big problems for air quality.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Any mention of ECTS/ERTMS compatibility?

 

[Peter Sarf]

.....
I believe there's going to be a strong market for relatively small rural trains, as the best way to improve rural lines is to increase frequency rather than increasing train lengths. Only with a higher frequency (and reduced journey times) will these lines become more popular to the point where you can justify longer trains. This could also mean less portion working, so the need for inter-vehicle gangways would be reduced. The 2043 Scotland Route Study has 1tph to Crianlarich comprising 8tpd to Oban and 8tpd to Fort William. Those figures don't fit with the portion working system used today with trains splitting at Crianlarich.
....

I was thinking of the initial use for which they were ordered and that some posters were suggesting they should be 4-car units. I was suggesting that, if a modular design was used, they could be converted later on to 2-car units WHEN the suburban routes they are to be used on got electrified.

 

[coppercapped]

Erm, what about the Scottish Desiros?

If there is demand for it, it will be designed. A way will be found.

Erm... as I wrote in Post 117:

The Siemens Class 380s have a nose with a gangway but, if I understand correctly, they were built under a previous version of the collision regulations.

There is a difference in being able to design something that meets a set of specifications and requirements and being able to build the thing economically. If you need some special pillars made of a machined titanium casting with ceramic carbon fibre inserts and Gorilla Glass collision pillars in order to get an acceptable field of view, then you are likely to get a front end with one large windscreen and no gangway.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I am afraid that the unthinkable might happen - namely that the much expected completion of electrification for most of the UK will not happen. History has a habit of repeating itself and the reasons are already re-appearing !. So these CAF DMUs might never find themselves on rural lines which will either get closed or plod on with really tired units.

 

[HSTEd]

There is a difference in being able to design something that meets a set of specifications and requirements and being able to build the thing economically. If you need some special pillars made of a machined titanium casting with ceramic carbon fibre inserts and Gorilla Glass collision pillars in order to get an acceptable field of view, then you are likely to get a front end with one large windscreen and no gangway.

Even if you spent an extra hundred thousand pounds per end on these gangwayed cabs the cost on a three car unit is not going to be a large fraction of the units cost which could easily reach £5m.

 

[Mikey C]

I agree but how much longer will the diesel islands on Southern last ?.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The worry with that is that is if CAF think they are not going to be around long enough for a repeat order they will not worry about quality. There might be a disillusioned workforce involved - although that is just as typical in the UK.

On the subject of 2 car units. If a number of these are to run around in pairs then why not make them as 4-car units. They could be converted to 2-car units later when their sphere of operation moves to more rural lines. All it takes is a modular design so that a coach end can be replaced with a cab - or am I being over simplistic ?. I am thinking of how the 1-car 153s were made by converting 2-car 155s.

On the subject of NOX - is this not a bit of a red herring. Surely any railway train, whether "clean" or not, is better than the several road vehicles it potentially replaces ?. Mind you I spent a fair amount of my formative years hanging around the East end of New Street - I wonder how much damage that did to my health ?. Then again I now live near the A23 Purley Way and the air there is filthy !.

It's about specific black spots though. New Street station couldn't be worse really, an enclosed underground station with limited ventilation, with diesels chugging away, sometimes on tickover. I wouldn't in a million years walk though the Rotherhithe Tunnel due to the horrible air I'd breath in, but as a passenger at New Street I don't have much choice!

 

[edwin_m]

Any mention of ECTS/ERTMS compatibility?

Probably goes without saying that they will have at least provision to install the equipment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The worry with that is that is if CAF think they are not going to be around long enough for a repeat order they will not worry about quality. There might be a disillusioned workforce involved - although that is just as typical in the UK.

However CAF are also building EMUs in the same order, which will probably share many components. Whatever may happen to the DMU market there will still be demand for electrics, where Siemens illustrates how a new supplier can break in if they do things right.

 

[furnessvale]

On the subject of NOX - is this not a bit of a red herring. Surely any railway train, whether "clean" or not, is better than the several road vehicles it potentially replaces ?.

Sadly, the emissions of each form of transport seem to be looked at in isolation.

The road haulage industry is fighting to reduce emissions by 10% by 2020 and feeling pleased with itself that it may achieve this.

Meanwhile, freight transferred from road to rail has a 66% reduction at a stroke.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I am afraid that the unthinkable might happen - namely that the much expected completion of electrification for most of the UK will not happen. History has a habit of repeating itself and the reasons are already re-appearing !. So these CAF DMUs might never find themselves on rural lines which will either get closed or plod on with really tired units.

No. The reasons why there was the volte-face back in 2009 still apply today. It will get more and more difficult (read: expensive) to meet internal combustion emissions standards across all modes of transport, and it's more than clear that the only way to stay ahead is to electrify. Car manufacturers know that it won't be possible to meet average fleet fuel consumption and emissions standards using only internal combustion alone, so they're moving towards plug-in hybrids and wholly electric vehicles. Similarly, train manufacturers are going to have to start including similar sorts of hybrid systems, all of which will involve increased cost and mass compared to a simpler solution.

At the same time, the sorts of lines which were thought to not justify electrification not long ago are going to need it to run longer and more frequent services. Yes, if you're just running a two 2-car DMUs on a line each way each hour, then the expense of electrification is somewhat unreasonable. Since almost all job creation in this country is now done in city centres, the need to get people from suburban areas and orbital towns into the cities each day is just going to increase and the heavy lifting here will need done by rail services. If your 4 carriages an hour service has to become 8 carriages an hour or more, the upfront cost of electrification starts to be quite a bit more justifiable, as whether you like it or not the cost and weight (track wear) differentials between electric and a self-powered trains are going to increase in future. When you include all of the lines in this country to which this applies, you end up realising that it's actually the vast majority of lines in this country, leaving only a handful like the Settle & Carlisle and the West Highland. The network effect of electrification then improves the business case for these lines even if they haven't seen similar increases in passenger demand, as you don't want to have to continue buying an ever-smaller fleet of ever more expensive self-powered trains in future.