East Anglia Rail Franchise; New Stock?

[rick_suffolk]

The through Lowestoft idea was introduced and then quietly dropped, so I don't think that will happen. I think the new trains to replace the 90 + Mk 3 will have to be pretty high spec, otherwise there'll be complaints that Norwich services are being downgraded from IC standards. Scotrail 170s would do nicely - some new units to chase!!

When you say the idea is dropped on what basis do you say that? I thought it was part of the tender spec?

 

[Class 170101]

Interesting that you say that about 360's tripping the electrics on the Southend Vic line. Back in 2002 I was told by a Station Manager mate of mine that the 360's were going to be cleared for the Braintree and Southminster branches to replicate the 312's duties. Maybe the DfT's savage act of cutting the order from 24 to 21 put paid to that.

Don't know about Southminster but the Braintree branch sees one 360 operate per day.

 

[TheEdge]

When you say the idea is dropped on what basis do you say that? I thought it was part of the tender spec?

So did I. Infact without checking I'm 90% sure it was in the spec.

 

[Dave1987]

By high performance I mean more of the same like the Desiro with a possible 110mph top speed.

My idea was based on the precedent set by BR in the late 80's when they massively improved timings by removing non-90mph stock from the GEML. As paths are short, I can only see a uniform, faster fleet increasing capacity, along with replacing the IC sets with 12 car units.

Interesting that you say that about 360's tripping the electrics on the Southend Vic line. Back in 2002 I was told by a Station Manager mate of mine that the 360's were going to be cleared for the Braintree and Southminster branches to replicate the 312's duties. Maybe the DfT's savage act of cutting the order from 24 to 21 put paid to that.

In my experience of driving both 321's and 360's a good 321 is very quick if not quite as fast as a 360. The problem is is that the motors on the 321's are not reliable but it remains to be seen how reliable they will be with new AC motors. If the linespeed was definitely going to be raised to 110mph then I would agree that you would need a new fleet of 110mph capable units. But that as has said a few times is unlikely to happen. I think the best we can hope for is full 100mph all the way from London to Chelmsford unlike the 90 and 85 limits we have now.

The 360's were banned from Stowmarket for a while because they draw so much current and the OHLE around Stowmarket needed to be upgraded to stop it tripping out. I believe the same is case with the Southend branch.

TBH just introducing a new fleet of high accelerating EMU isn't going to generate much capacity. You still will have the tremendous bottleneck at Shenfield, all the level crossing with the associated caveats that go with them. Still have one of the busiest stations on the network on a narrow viaduct on a bend!

And I can envisage riots if the Norwich-London sets are not intercity spec.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't know about Southminster but the Braintree branch sees one 360 operate per day.

Yes but 360's are restricted to 40 mph down the Braintree branch.

 

[Wivenswold]

Thanks as always, Dave.

 

[WestCountry]

When you say the idea is dropped on what basis do you say that? I thought it was part of the tender spec?

I read that as referring to its actual introduction, and subsequent withdrawal, several years ago.

Running short, sluggish DMU sets into Liverpool Street didn't work then, and it's hard to see why it should now. Unless the DfT are hoping for yet more 5-car AT300 bi-modes as part of the mainline order? hock:

What are non-Sprinter speeds like on the East Suffolk? :?

 

[dk1]

I read that as referring to its actual introduction, and subsequent withdrawal, several years ago.

Running short, sluggish DMU sets into Liverpool Street didn't work then, and it's hard to see why it should now. Unless the DfT are hoping for yet more 5-car AT300 bi-modes as part of the mainline order? hock:

What are non-Sprinter speeds like on the East Suffolk? :?

The line speed is basically 55mph throughout with many restrictions for level crossings etc. Non-passenger trains are limited to 20mph with a 40mph dispensation for Nuclear Flask traffic.

 

[Panupreset]

Couldn't the stock procured for the GWR that can't run there because the putting up of wires is years behind run on GEML instead until new stock is brought for GEML and the wires are up on the other side of town?

 

[TheEdge]

220s on the East Suffolk. Maybe with some limitations on rear carriage use!

 

[Sleepy]

After all the Scotrail surplus 170 stock moves to AGA the short hauled set will work the 4 East Suffolk through trips with a DBSO !!!

 

[grumblingalong]

220s on the East Suffolk. Maybe with some limitations on rear carriage use!

While the enthusiast in me says yes good idea, the guard in me has nightmares of explaining SDO to the people of East Suffolk.

 

[TheEdge]

While the enthusiast in me says yes good idea, the guard in me has nightmares of explaining SDO to the people of East Suffolk.

I have difficulty explaining the concept of doors to some people on the East Suffolk!

 

[grumblingalong]

I have difficulty explaining the concept of doors to some people on the East Suffolk!

How hard is it to find the button on the small end of a scud? Seemingly impossible. :roll:

 

[306024]

After all the Scotrail surplus 170 stock moves to AGA the short hauled set will work the 4 East Suffolk through trips with a DBSO !!!

Make it up to load 9 and reinstate the 07.22 Lowestoft to Liverpool St and 16.50 return, which used to be diagrammed for a class 37

 

[306024]

Couldn't the stock procured for the GWR that can't run there because the putting up of wires is years behind run on GEML instead until new stock is brought for GEML and the wires are up on the other side of town?

A most novel, not to say courageous suggestion

 

[Sleepy]

Make it up to load 9 and reinstate the 07.22 Lowestoft to Liverpool St and 16.50 return, which used to be diagrammed for a class 37

Sounds good !! (but no stops after the Ips tunnel of course)

 

[158722]

I posted this somewhat extensive text over on wnxx, admittedly under a different context, but as debate has passed on the future of 153s, it seems somewhat pertinent here. Note the disclaimer that we don't yet have a clear view of what is to happen at Northern, so there be some misinterpretation of the various 'suggestions' as to what will happen there.

We know that the new Northern franchise should be Pacer-free by the end of 2018, if all goes to plan (let's call it 2019 to be safe-ish) with deliveries of new stock, electrification and 15x/170 cascades from elsewhere. GWR should also be free of its small fleet of 8 during 2017, which leaves just the 30 units in Wales.

Comment has been made about the possibility of all the 143s and 144s being made PRM compliant and drifting to Wales eliminate the 142s, which we know can't/won't be made PRM proof, but scant comment has been made about the future of the 153s (and 155s, which are assumed to be staying at Northern). Piecing together what we know or suspect from Northern's possible plans and other confirmed/suspected moves, would the solution of 3-car PRM compliant 153 - 155/3s for the sake of discussion - be a more politically acceptable and more economic solution to removing the last Pacers from traffic? I know there has been serious concerns about the longevity of the 153s and economic sense of PRM-proofing them (principally the super bog), but surely the case for 3-car sets with only 1 super bog must be looked at? With inside cabs and existing toilets to be removed/dismantled/space used for luggage/tip-up seats etc, a 3-car set of around 70m and seating of 210 pax is a pretty much a spot-on replacement for the 62m long pairs of 142/143s on the Valleys, seating around 200? Surely 'selling' the idea of upgraded 155/3s to Welsh users to replace the Pacers as a 'temporary' fix until electrification eventually happens by 2025 (?) will more acceptable than either ePacers or D78s?

Logic goes something along of the the following... Just some thoughts...

Current situation:
Angel AT (30 units) – ATW x5, GWR x9, NOR x10, EMT x6
Porterbrook PB (40 units) - ATW x3, GWR x5, NOR x8, EMT x11, AGA x5, LM x8 + NOR 14x 155 vehicles (7 units)

2016: Changes planned (* not known if PB or AT units are involved in these moves yet)
• 1x PB* unit NOR to EMT (Barton service)
• 6x AT* units GWR to LM (vice 3x 150/1 to NOR)
giving...
AT – ATW x5, GWR x3, NOR x10, EMT x6, LM x6
PB - ATW x3, GWR x5, NOR x7, EMT x12, LM x8, AGA x5

2017/18: Changes Planned/Possible
• 10x AT units & 7x PB units at NOR displaced by new units/15x cascades, to ATW
• 3x AT units & 5x PB units at GWR displaced by 15x/16x cascades, to ATW
• 6x AT units LM displaced by Chase line electrification, to ATW
giving...
AT – ATW x24, EMT x6
PB - ATW x15, EMT x12, LM x8, AGA x5
Permits formation of 8x AT 155/3 & 5x PB 155/3 for Wales – 13x 155/3 replace 26x 142/143

2018/19: Changes Possible
• 5x PB units at AGA displaced by 5x 156 ex-ScotRail, to EMT
• 8x PB units at LM displaced by 8x 172 ex-LOROL/Goblin electrification, to EMT
AT – ATW x24, EMT x6
PB - ATW x15, EMT x12, LM x8, AGA x5
Remaining 6x AT units at EMT displaced to Wales, permitting formation of another 2x AT 155/3 to replace remaining 4x 142/143
Leaves 25x 153 at EMT and 14x 155 vehicles (all PB) at Northern to be combined into 13x PB 155/3 for either EMT or NOR, with exchanges of 156s to balance.

Final result:
10x AT 155/3 & 5x PB 155/3 for Wales giving 15x 70m/210 pax units to replace 15x 62m/204 pax 142/143 pairings.
13x PB 155/3 for either EMT or NOR

 

[pemma]

None of the Northern announcements had indicated additional carriages will be received before 2017 and the GWR 150/1s and 153s don't start becoming off-lease until 2017.

 

[158722]

None of the Northern announcements had indicated additional carriages will be received before 2017 and the GWR 150/1s and 153s don't start becoming off-lease until 2017.

Hence my use of 'planned/possible' - as has been pointed out, there is much to be confirmed about the Northern franchise and I was only trying to piece together some sort of coherent set of notes, based on what has been announced and a good few 'informed' comments on here and elsewhere.

Getting back to Anglia, don't forget that the Chase line wiring will free up 2x 170/6s and 2x 170/5 & 153 combos. I've not noted any indication of whether these will be retained or not.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Couldn't the stock procured for the GWR that can't run there because the putting up of wires is years behind run on GEML instead until new stock is brought for GEML and the wires are up on the other side of town?

Good luck with the stock being in gauge!

 

[AJM580]

When you say the idea is dropped on what basis do you say that? I thought it was part of the tender spec?

The service was dropped originally in 2010, mainly to free up paths south of Ipswich.

 

[306024]

The service was dropped originally in 2010, mainly to free up paths south of Ipswich.

Not to free up paths but to be able to provide trains of appropriate length.

Pre 2010 there were 6 trains per hour. 2 Norwich, and 1 Clacton, Braintree, Harwich Town and Peterborough / Lowestoft.

Post 2010 Harwich Town was replaced by Colchester Town, and Peterborough / Lowestoft replaced by an Ipswich EMU.

Therefore all trains (except Norwich) could be 4, 8 or 12 cars, as opposed to being stuck with 4 car Harwich or 3 car Peterborough / Lowestoft trains, both of which were hopelessly overcrowded on certain workings south of Chelmsford.

 

[TheEdge]

Well, the obvious question then. With the growth of passenger numbers what will be the new case.

Length is automatically limited by the East Suffolk where most (Lowestoft, Beccles and Woodbridge excepted) cannot hold more than 3. Could a Bury service double up and run as a 6 car? Could Ipswich be run as a strict set down only station in the up and pick up only in the down? Non stop running after Ipswich surely is a given.

 

[306024]

Well, the obvious question then. With the growth of passenger numbers what will be the new case.

Length is automatically limited by the East Suffolk where most (Lowestoft, Beccles and Woodbridge excepted) cannot hold more than 3. Could a Bury service double up and run as a 6 car? Could Ipswich be run as a strict set down only station in the up and pick up only in the down? Non stop running after Ipswich surely is a given.

Who knows. The ITT was for a limited number of through services to / from Lowestoft. I guess Selective Door Operation would be needed on the East Suffolk Line to provide a train of sensible length south of Ipswich. Pathing wise perhaps these Lowestoft services are presumed to take a freight path, with the freight going via Ely (a bold assumption). As for the type of train, no doubt we're in for a surprise

 

[dk1]

Who knows. The ITT was for a limited number of through services to / from Lowestoft. I guess Selective Door Operation would be needed on the East Suffolk Line to provide a train of sensible length south of Ipswich. Pathing wise perhaps these Lowestoft services are presumed to take a freight path, with the freight going via Ely (a bold assumption). As for the type of train, no doubt we're in for a surprise

SDO is not neccesarily the problem on the ESL. 3-car 170s already allow the guard to de-select for 2-car platforms. Some stations run the risk of trains stopping over level/barrow crossings if more than this length so infrastructure upgrades will play a part.

 

[rick_suffolk]

The service was dropped originally in 2010, mainly to free up paths south of Ipswich.

Yes i know that but doesnt change the fact that the latest franchise spec includes reinstatement of some through trains.

 

[Class 170101]

Not to free up paths but to be able to provide trains of appropriate length.

Pre 2010 there were 6 trains per hour. 2 Norwich, and 1 Clacton, Braintree, Harwich Town and Peterborough / Lowestoft.

Post 2010 Harwich Town was replaced by Colchester Town, and Peterborough / Lowestoft replaced by an Ipswich EMU.

Therefore all trains (except Norwich) could be 4, 8 or 12 cars, as opposed to being stuck with 4 car Harwich or 3 car Peterborough / Lowestoft trains, both of which were hopelessly overcrowded on certain workings south of Chelmsford.

Nevermind south of Chelmsford some were overcrowded after Colchester. Harwich services could have been made longer with portion working but of course that brings its own problems.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who knows. The ITT was for a limited number of through services to / from Lowestoft. I guess Selective Door Operation would be needed on the East Suffolk Line to provide a train of sensible length south of Ipswich. Pathing wise perhaps these Lowestoft services are presumed to take a freight path, with the freight going via Ely (a bold assumption). As for the type of train, no doubt we're in for a surprise

Or perhaps a peak working when freight doesn't run. Again perhaps portion working north of Ipswich.

 

[CockneySparrow]

I think it's pretty much a given that the intercity sets will be replaced by EMU's. As long as they are full length 10 car trains I don't think anyone could argue against that and that alone will be a pretty big order. So I can see the 321's carrying on with this 'Renatus' refurbishment for a little while yet. I believe the key decision will be regarding the extra service per hour to Norwich making it 3 tph Norwich - London and vice versa. Considering the Southend services are going up to 4 tph where are the paths coming from? The only way of feasibly doing it is to extend the London - Ipswich services to Norwich. Certainly interesting times ahead on GEML come June and beyond.

Why not use the old ECML stock

 

[43074]

Why not use the old ECML stock

Because it'll be close to 30 years old by 2019 - when the first sets become available - and would be political suicide given the pressure for new trains from the region.

Having said that, the DfT didn't specify against the use of the Mk4s, or indeed the current Mk3s, the only stipulation was that all stock for the franchise should be to a high standard, whether new or refurbished.

 

[hwl]

Because it'll be close to 30 years old by 2019 - when the first sets become available - and would be political suicide given the pressure for new trains from the region.

Having said that, the DfT didn't specify against the use of the Mk4s, or indeed the current Mk3s, the only stipulation was that all stock for the franchise should be to a high standard, whether new or refurbished.

The Mk4s are all having another refurb at the moment which should probably qualify as high quality in 2019.

How many MPs would actually lose their seats if there weren't new trains?