Future Local Branch Line Trains

[TT-ONR-NRN]

To think, ~8 years ago, that people were decrying TfL's replacement of the D Stock

A suitable variant of what? GWR now owns the fast charge technology, a suitable prototype/demonstrator unit and is employing ex-Vivarail staff to boot. Other than Merseyrail, the rollout of battery units has been far too slow. I think (and hope) that GWR is in a really good position to lead the innovation here.

A suitable variation of what ever stock they’re apparently on the brink of ordering, by suitable I mean capable of working Greenford and Marlow without the awkwardnesses of both routes.

 

[MattRat]

To think, ~8 years ago, that people were decrying TfL's replacement of the D Stock

A suitable variant of what? GWR now owns the fast charge technology, a suitable prototype/demonstrator unit and is employing ex-Vivarail staff to boot. Other than Merseyrail, the rollout of battery units has been far too slow. I think (and hope) that GWR is in a really good position to lead the innovation here.

Well if talking about the need for innovation to solve the problem, then the best path for innovation would be getting the likes of GWR and Merseyrail/Stadler to work together to learn from each other.

 

[D365]

A suitable variation of what ever stock they’re apparently on the brink of ordering, by suitable I mean capable of working Greenford and Marlow without the awkwardnesses of both routes.

That’s the problem - now that the mainline is fully electrified with four car electric units, the niche requirements of both routes have (just like on the Marston Vale) resulted in a need for microfleet diesel/battery units. ’Oddball’ lines are never cheap.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s the problem - now that the mainline is fully electrified with four car electric units, the niche requirements of both routes have (just like on the Marston Vale) resulted in a need for microfleet diesel/battery units. ’Oddball’ lines are never cheap.

Would it really be that hard to wire Greenford and use a normal EMU?

Marlow is a right pain with Bourne End platform. I can't really see an electrification option that doesn't involve a tram-train type solution like the TfW ones.

 

[zwk500]

Would it really be that hard to wire Greenford and use a normal EMU?

I can't see Greenford being wired until the Chilterns are, and even then it's a really marginal case.

Marlow is a right pain with Bourne End platform. I can't really see an electrification option that doesn't involve a tram-train type solution like the TfW ones.

The 4 GW Branches (Greenford, Marlow, Henley, Windsor) could all be operated by a fleet of 40m units with Battery/OLE capability. Stadler or CAF would probably be quite happy to adapt a design for that length. That would give you a reasonable critical mass as you could have something like 8-10 units (1 Greenford, 1 Marlow, 2/3 Henley, 2/3 Windsor, 1 Exam, 1-3 spare) to respond to demand. Electrification would then be basically as far as was easy from the main line until either locals got too noisy or you reached a problem bridge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't see Greenford being wired until the Chilterns are, and even then it's a really marginal case.

The 4 GW Branches (Greenford, Marlow, Henley, Windsor) could all be operated by a fleet of 40m units with Battery/OLE capability. Stadler or CAF would probably be quite happy to adapt a design for that length. That would give you a reasonable critical mass as you could have something like 8-10 units (1 Greenford, 1 Marlow, 2/3 Henley, 2/3 Windsor, 1 Exam, 1-3 spare) to respond to demand. Electrification would then be basically as far as was easy from the main line until either locals got too noisy or you reached a problem bridge.

The Class 398 tram-train for TfW would appear to be a direct shoe-in. It's 40m long and runs from 25kV and battery. The only thing you might want to do differently is to have longitudinal seating with grab poles rather than 2+2 because it'll need to be able to take heavy loads at commuter times. A few spare would probably make sense as you are likely to want to double up on Windsor in summer, I don't know about the others.

Stadler being Stadler they might be able to build it a bit wider if the narrow tram body isn't required.

 

[RailWonderer]

GWR will just keep Turbos for as long as they can, I’d guess by the end of the decade GWR get authorised a new order to replace the Sprinters and Turbos and they’ll have a battery tram train solution by then if electrification doesn’t happen.

Purse strings won’t be tight forever but I don’t see a solution coming about now. Continuing on with Turbos for several more years on the Thames Valley branches seems more realistic than a short term solution to more Turbos being needed in the West Country.

 

[zwk500]

GWR will just keep Turbos for as long as they can, I’d guess by the end of the decade GWR get authorised a new order to replace the Sprinters and Turbos and they’ll have a battery tram train solution by then if electrification doesn’t happen.

Purse strings won’t be tight forever but I don’t see a solution coming about now. Continuing on with Turbos for several more years on the TV branches seems more realistic than a short term solution to more Turbos being needed in the West Country.

Is there an ETCS fitment programme for the Turbos?

 

[RobShipway]

GWR will just keep Turbos for as long as they can, I’d guess by the end of the decade GWR get authorised a new order to replace the Sprinters and Turbos and they’ll have a battery tram train solution by then if electrification doesn’t happen.

Purse strings won’t be tight forever but I don’t see a solution coming about now. Continuing on with Turbos for several more years on the Thames Valley branches seems more realistic than a short term solution to more Turbos being needed in the West Country.

Could it not be the case, that the same type of train is used on the Thames valley branches is then also replacing the Sprinters(150 & 158) & Turbo's? That way you would not have microfleets for the Thames branches, that way the engineers would not have to know the ins & outs of more than two types of units. Those being IET and said branch trains that might also be used for Cardiff - Portsmouth services. Like the class 730 units you could have two types. One type for working the branches with 2+3 seating and a /1 type that is 2+2 Express Sprinter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could it not be the case, that the same type of train is used on the Thames valley branches is then also replacing the Sprinters(150 & 158) & Turbo's? That way you would not have microfleets for the Thames branches, that way the engineers would not have to know the ins & outs of more than two types of units. Those being IET and said branch trains that might also be used for Cardiff - Portsmouth services. Like the class 730 units you could have two types. One type for working the branches with 2+3 seating and a /1 type that is 2+2 Express Sprinter.

If the charging mechanism being tested for Greenford is successful, it might well be an option to fit that to the Cornish branch stations and use the same 398-derived units on those, though you may want different seating layouts for the quieter branch lines than for the London ones (though a hybrid layout like the 345 or S8 might work for both, as it did on the Marston Vale and does on Island Line). It would solve the issue of 40m platforms and tight curves on Gunnislake (as it's tram derived it'll be able to deal with the tight curve) and Looe at least.

 

[D365]

Purse strings won’t be tight forever...

You live in optimism

 

[Essex Express]

The best option for all the Thames Valley diesel route would be go down the line of the Class 755 that Greater Anglia ordered for East Anglia they have transformed all the diesel routes. As a replacement or the class 165.

As it has been shown by Slader that will build what is required for a operator. Can they do a Diesel with a 3rd rail option and not have the overhead 25kv option? If this could be done then a order for the North Downs line, Uckfield branch and the Hastings to Ashford route. You could also look at the Diesel route that SWR operate as well down in Southampton. This would then replace the Southern class 171 and SWR class 158
There is nothing stopping a batch of Diesel with 3rd Rail option for the main London Waterloo to Exeter route to replace the class 159 and class 158.

 

[Trainbike46]

The best option for all the Thames Valley diesel route would be go down the line of the Class 755 that Greater Anglia ordered for East Anglia they have transformed all the diesel routes. As a replacement or the class 165.

As it has been shown by Slader that will build what is required for a operator. Can they do a Diesel with a 3rd rail option and not have the overhead 25kv option? If this could be done then a order for the North Downs line, Uckfield branch and the Hastings to Ashford route. You could also look at the Diesel route that SWR operate as well down in Southampton. This would then replace the Southern class 171 and SWR class 158
There is nothing stopping a batch of Diesel with 3rd Rail option for the main London Waterloo to Exeter route to replace the class 159 and class 158.

diesel and/or battery plus 3rd rail, with or without OHLE, is definitely possible for the FLIRTS (and I'm sure other manufacturers could offer a similar product)

though for the southern diesel islands a BEMU would be preferable, and get diesel out entirely. That would leave just southwestern with some diesel units, of the 3 third rail operators

 

[hooverboy]

The best option for all the Thames Valley diesel route would be go down the line of the Class 755 that Greater Anglia ordered for East Anglia they have transformed all the diesel routes. As a replacement or the class 165.

As it has been shown by Slader that will build what is required for a operator. Can they do a Diesel with a 3rd rail option and not have the overhead 25kv option? If this could be done then a order for the North Downs line, Uckfield branch and the Hastings to Ashford route. You could also look at the Diesel route that SWR operate as well down in Southampton. This would then replace the Southern class 171 and SWR class 158
There is nothing stopping a batch of Diesel with 3rd Rail option for the main London Waterloo to Exeter route to replace the class 159 and class 158.

That solution would make a lot of sense,if southern and SWR put in a joint tender for stock of that sort.
I definitely think end gangways would be required though.There's quite a lot of split operation on SWR.I don't see any reason why Stadler could not make a unit like that.
The DfT sanctioning it is a different matter though.

 

[RobShipway]

The best option for all the Thames Valley diesel route would be go down the line of the Class 755 that Greater Anglia ordered for East Anglia they have transformed all the diesel routes. As a replacement or the class 165.

As it has been shown by Slader that will build what is required for a operator. Can they do a Diesel with a 3rd rail option and not have the overhead 25kv option? If this could be done then a order for the North Downs line, Uckfield branch and the Hastings to Ashford route. You could also look at the Diesel route that SWR operate as well down in Southampton. This would then replace the Southern class 171 and SWR class 158
There is nothing stopping a batch of Diesel with 3rd Rail option for the main London Waterloo to Exeter route to replace the class 159 and class 158.

diesel and/or battery plus 3rd rail, with or without OHLE, is definitely possible for the FLIRTS (and I'm sure other manufacturers could offer a similar product)

though for the southern diesel islands a BEMU would be preferable, and get diesel out entirely. That would leave just southwestern with some diesel units, of the 3 third rail operators

That solution would make a lot of sense,if southern and SWR put in a joint tender for stock of that sort.
I definitely think end gangways would be required though.There's quite a lot of split operation on SWR.I don't see any reason why Stadler could not make a unit like that.
The DfT sanctioning it is a different matter though.

I agree with all three comments above, but getting Dft sanctioning is the difficulty. Whilst I agree with the train being BEMU, I think that maybe it should be tri-mode to begin with, but like the class 755 Stadler Flirts, be such that the diesel power units at a later date can be replaced by batteries. It will be interesting to see if the Stadler Flirts can have gangways at each end. If not, then maybe a bi-mode version of CAF Civity Class 195/196/197 could be used?