Future of Class 315

[Rhydgaled]

Carelessly? Seriously?

There's almost a thousand miles of electrification being done over the rest of the decade, and you're complaining about them not finding time to wire up a ~fifty mile stretch from Newport to Cheltenham that would only free up one train an hour?

Given the time factor, I would understand if it is a line too far for CP5. However, while it would only free one DMU per hour by itself, it would provide an electrified diversionary route (assuming Swindon - Cheltenham would be done too, it wouldn't make sense without it). Also, and part of the reason for my use of the word 'carelessly', leaving it unwired would create a 'diesel-island' of sorts if the Wales (and borders) franchise continues to operate it. While there'd still be diesel trains into Cardiff (from Manchester), these (hopefully) will be regional express trains rather than outer-suburban stock (which Wales doesn't actually have any of at present). Since the Manchester workings are largely Chester-based 175s the only other possible need for a DMU facility at Canton is 158s on Cardiff - Portsmouth and perhaps Cardiff - S.W.Wales if through services are maintained.

Assuming the CP5 work is all completed by the end of CP5 I really think electrification plans for early in CP6 should be prepared sharpish. For example Hull seems like a logical extension of TPE wiring when time allows, but will be seeing brand new DMUs (IEP) by then if DaFT get their way. If we knew when lines like Hull and Swindon - Cheltenham - Newport would be electrified rolling stock procurement could be conducted more sensibly.

 

[Eagle]

Of course that's assuming that Cheltenham to Cardiff stays with Wales and Borders. It would fit equally well in the GW or even XC franchise. (We already know that the Maesteg end of it will be chopped off and added to the Ebbw Vale route post-electrification.)

 

[Rhydgaled]

Of course that's assuming that Cheltenham to Cardiff stays with Wales and Borders. It would fit equally well in the GW or even XC franchise.

Hence my alternative suggestion of 166s/165s on post 48.

 

[Eagle]

Assuming of course that the Turbos make it out west. It could equally well go over to 158s, being as it shares mileage at y each end with FGW 158-operated routes.

 

[455driver]

Well I'm gonna stand up for the 315s, even if they did replace the best commuter train ever designed

What, the 302s?

Yes I know what you mean!

 

[tbtc]

Given the time factor, I would understand if it is a line too far for CP5. However, while it would only free one DMU per hour by itself, it would provide an electrified diversionary route (assuming Swindon - Cheltenham would be done too, it wouldn't make sense without it). Also, and part of the reason for my use of the word 'carelessly', leaving it unwired would create a 'diesel-island' of sorts if the Wales (and borders) franchise continues to operate it. While there'd still be diesel trains into Cardiff (from Manchester), these (hopefully) will be regional express trains rather than outer-suburban stock (which Wales doesn't actually have any of at present). Since the Manchester workings are largely Chester-based 175s the only other possible need for a DMU facility at Canton is 158s on Cardiff - Portsmouth and perhaps Cardiff - S.W.Wales if through services are maintained.

Assuming the CP5 work is all completed by the end of CP5 I really think electrification plans for early in CP6 should be prepared sharpish. For example Hull seems like a logical extension of TPE wiring when time allows, but will be seeing brand new DMUs (IEP) by then if DaFT get their way. If we knew when lines like Hull and Swindon - Cheltenham - Newport would be electrified rolling stock procurement could be conducted more sensibly.

...but Swindon to Cheltenham isn't being electrified either.

And I really don't buy into the "wiring diversionary routes" argument when (a) there are so many important routes not wired and (b) we're going to have bi-more IEP to allow London - Cardiff trains to run via the Gloucester route.

Given your desire to be rid of "diesel islands"*, why the obsession with running DMUs under the wires from Cardiff to Port Talbot (and on via the Swansea District Line)?

(* - not that this would be much of an "island")

 

[Class172]

...but Swindon to Cheltenham isn't being electrified either.

And I really don't buy into the "wiring diversionary routes" argument when (a) there are so many important routes not wired and (b) we're going to have bi-more IEP to allow London - Cardiff trains to run via the Gloucester route.

Personally, I only see the use of wiring diversionary routes being beneficial when a) the diversion isn't that long; b) it offers the opportunity for other services to go electric that wouldn't warrant electrification on their own. As a local example, say they announce XC Bromsgrove-Bristol electrification in CP6, a good diversionary route to also to would be from Abbottswood Jct-Worcester-Droitwich-Stoke Works Jct, since is not too long (unlike the Gloucester diversion mentioned) and could allow the Cross-city Bromsgrove terminators to be extended to Worcester.

 

[A0]

The class 323's would be able to work as single units on a lot of off peak Valley lines services for a while until patronage rapidly increases as a result of the sparks effects and the reduction in journey times.

The suggestion of sending the Merthyr Tydfil - Cardiff services via the city line will reduce the journey times on that service to just 47 minutes compared to 60-63 minutes currently which there is little doubt will get commuters using the trains.

Of course if it is decided to send the class 323's to south wales then Northern and London Midland will require new emu's to replace them.

Yes - absolutely right.

From LM's perspective more Desiros would standardise the EMU fleet quite nicely and may make scheduling in the West Mids a bit easier. It's not unheard of for 323s to turn up at Northampton, nor 350s to turn up at Walsall. A standard EMU would simplify matters.

For Northern - either new builds or cascades from somewhere else - 317s or 321s if the GE lines were to get more new stock or new build either Desiros or Bombardier units.

 

[Class172]

Isn't there the problem that many Cross-city platforms can only fit 6 23m coaches, so wouldn't be able to handle a doubled 350?

 

[Class377/5]

Isn't there the problem that many Cross-city platforms can only fit 6 23m coaches, so wouldn't be able to handle a doubled 350?

6 car 323 is 138m
8 car 350 is 160m

Different is 22m or just over a car, easy enough to have one set of doors either end of the train locked put. Its what LO are going to do on the ELL with the 5 car 378.

 

[transmanche]

Isn't there the problem that many Cross-city platforms can only fit 6 23m coaches, so wouldn't be able to handle a doubled 350?

Don't 350s have 20m coaches, so a double unit would only have one coach 'overhanging'? Would that be a problem with proper SDO?

I don't know that line, so don't know if things like level crossings/junction fouling would preclude this.

 

[Nym]

Depends on the type of SDO used, if it is door by door or f/r door lockout (as on A Stock and 1995TS) then it could work nicely if properly implimented. the problem is fat harnessing and if a 350/1 or /2 turns up you're back to UDS...

 

[Class377/5]

Depends on the type of SDO used, if it is door by door or f/r door lockout (as on A Stock and 1995TS) then it could work nicely if properly implimented. the problem is fat harnessing and if a 350/1 or /2 turns up you're back to UDS...

The 450 now have or are getting SDO like the Electrostar. Surely won't be too hard to do that for the almost identical 350 fleet.

 

[Nym]

Didn't say it would be hard to install, just said you'd end up with fat looms, there may well be spare train wires available and/or a SIL-3 certified data link that can actuate individual doors from the TMS / TCMS...

Would be intresting to see how they're installing the SDO, and if this can be tapered down to individual doors, then using modified 350s on the X City line with platform extentions where possible would be very nice indeed, and a welcome increase in capacity. Would also be quite handy on GM Electrified routes...

 

[anthony263]

Isnt there an issue on the cross-city line with some stations being close to junctions which restricts the length of trains?.

The class 323's would be great for the Cardiff valleys and in particular for those services which use the SWML such as services to Maesteg and Ebbw Vale where the linspeed is close to 90mph which the class 323's top speed. The class 323's also accelerate much faster compared to the class 315's as well as being better units

 

[Nym]

Isnt there an issue on the cross-city line with some stations being close to junctions which restricts the length of trains?.

The class 323's would be great for the Cardiff valleys and in particular for those services which use the SWML such as services to Maesteg and Ebbw Vale where the linspeed is close to 90mph which the class 323's top speed. The class 323's also accelerate much faster compared to the class 315's as well as being better units

But again, 3 car Desiro City units will accelarate with similar if not better performance levels than a 323, same kind of power to weight ratio...

 

[RobShipway]

But again, 3 car Desiro City units will accelarate with similar if not better performance levels than a 323, same kind of power to weight ratio...

Are Desiro City Units compatible with Class 350 units?

 

[D365]

Are Desiro City Units compatible with Class 350 units?

The Thameslink build is barely off the ground! Obviously those units will not be coupling in service; not sure what they will be able to connect to. Compatibility with 'traditional' Desiros might be an idea for the SWT 100 carriage order or any LM builds as you suggest.

 

[Chris125]

Don't 350s have 20m coaches, so a double unit would only have one coach 'overhanging'? Would that be a problem with proper SDO?

As the 20m 350 design is no longer available it wouldn't be a problem for a new fleet, which could use the 23m bodyshell already produced for the Class 380.

While the latter is not compatible with the previous design (at the very least due to the location of the electrical connections box) this might be possible to address if need be, though it could be simpler and cheaper just to continue operating a Cross City fleet independently.

Chris

 

[transmanche]

As the 20m 350 design is no longer available it

I thought they were in the middle of building some right now...

 

[D365]

As the 20m 350 design is no longer available it wouldn't be a problem for a new fleet, which could use the 23m bodyshell already produced for the Class 380.

While the latter is not compatible with the previous design (at the very least due to the location of the electrical connections box) which may be possible to address if need be, it may be simpler and cheaper to continue operating a Cross City fleet independently.

Desiro City bodyshell is (will be) different to that of the 380, a 'transitional type' if you like. For a start, Thameslink 700 sports a different cab without gangways and reverts to 20m carriage length.

If Cross-City stock is to be continued with separately operated rolling stock, then why replace the 323 fleet? Why not just get brand new trains for Wales? Although, I guess there is reason enough to justify this method...

I thought they were in the middle of building some [350/3-4] right now...

True but that is supposed to be the last of it.

 

[455driver]

As the 20m 350 design is no longer available

Which is a stupid state of affairs, just because they have managed to make a better design doesnt mean there is anything wrong with the old one. I am not saying lets go back to slammers but the 350/450 design is still perfectly safe so should be allowed to be built.

Its the same with engine design, after a unit is put into service, the goal posts are moved so no more coaches can be built with that engine (to lengthen the sets in service or even build more sets) because they are no longer compliant with some airy fairy legislation, I agree with looking after the environment but in the scheme of things we are a piddly little island and if we went back to using ridiculously polluting engines in everything it would make bugger all difference to the world. Now if America, China and Asia etc did their bit fair enough but it seems that we are deliberately being made to spend more money on new designs which to me are not really needed.

Does any other Country comply with this stupid legislation or is it just us again!

 

[Chris125]

Which is a stupid state of affairs, just because they have managed to make a better design doesnt mean there is anything wrong with the old one. I am not saying lets go back to slammers but the 350/450 design is still perfectly safe so should be allowed to be built.

Improving safety and efficiency through new designs and the latest technology is a good thing in my opinion, but that's not the point here.

Siemens may well have been able to adapt the Desiro design as Bombardier did with the Electrostar, but it was conservative and out of date with the current emphasis on minimising weight and track damage, so they took the decision to design an entirely new platform.

This arguably helped win them the Thameslink order while reducing operating costs and it's impact on the permanent way, but a hybrid of the two designs is possible if so desired as shown with the 380.

Chris

 

[455driver]

My point is that, if SWT wanted to order some new 450s to compliment the existing fleet it wouldnt be allowed. They would have to buy* the new improved design which would require a different maintenance regime and spares to the existing fleet. It is just making things more difficult than it needs to be.

* I know they are all leased but you know what I mean.

 

[Chris125]

Regarding your argument about engine design, there's a lot more to 'pollution' than climate change - as well as local and regional environmental issues like acid rain it's also a major public health issue, especially for those living in urban areas and near busy roads.

Of course manufacturers should be forced to design and produce increasingly cleaner and more efficient engines, the knock-on benefits of which reach around the world. For the record Europe is not alone in this, California for example is known for it's urban smogs and tough emissions regulations to help combat them, and which have been adopted by various other states.

My point is that, if SWT wanted to order some new 450s to compliment the existing fleet it wouldnt be allowed. They would have to buy* the new improved design which would require a different maintenance regime and spares to the existing fleet. It is just making things more difficult than it needs to be.

If the Desiro City didn't offer any great advantages I'd agree, it would be a similar situation to Bombardier trying to force the entire 379 design on Southern instead of a 377 with the updated bodyshell - however the advantages of the Desiro City over the lifetime of the rolling stock should easily outweigh the drawbacks, though as I pointed out before the 380 shows a hybrid design using the newer bodyshell is possible.

Chris

 

[Rhydgaled]

...but Swindon to Cheltenham isn't being electrified either.

I know. When I said 'carelessly' I carelessly ommited the fact that I was refering to both Swindon to Cheltenham and Cheltenham to Severn Tunnel Junc. Swindon-Cheltenham I think makes more sense than Cheltenham-Severn Tunnel Junc., but they make even more sense together.

And I really don't buy into the "wiring diversionary routes" argument when (a) there are so many important routes not wired and (b) we're going to have bi-more IEP to allow London - Cardiff trains to run via the Gloucester route.

I agree that there are a load of important routes, but I feel that having bi-modes under wires to Swindon for the comparatively short leg to Cheltenham is a bit silly. It only makes sense as a stop gap, but these diesel engines are surely far too expensive to be thrown away arround mid-CP6, so it's no stop-gap.

Personally, I only see the use of wiring diversionary routes being beneficial when a) the diversion isn't that long; b) it offers the opportunity for other services to go electric that wouldn't warrant electrification on their own.

Swindon - Cheltenham - Severn Tunnel Junc. meets your 'b' criteria in my opinion. It allows the Cardiff - Cheltenham service to go electric when otherwise it wouldn't. It also allows Paddington - Cheltenham services to go electric.

Given your desire to be rid of "diesel islands"*, why the obsession with running DMUs under the wires from Cardiff to Port Talbot (and on via the Swansea District Line)?

(* - not that this would be much of an "island")

Unless stoppers are introduced on the southern end of the marches line, the Cheltenham - Cardiff stoppers would be a 'diesel island' if they remain worked by Wales & Borders as that TOC has no outer-suburban stock (and no further need for inner suburban DMUs in south Wales after electrification). The diesel part of South Wales (west of Swansea) isn't quite an island thanks to the HOWL, and the SDL service I propose is a way of maintaining through services to Cardiff while allowing the services through Swansea to be split into seperate electric and diesel services.

Depends on the type of SDO used, if it is door by door or f/r door lockout (as on A Stock and 1995TS) then it could work nicely if properly implimented. the problem is fat harnessing and if a 350/1 or /2 turns up you're back to UDS...

What's UDS?

The class 323's would be great for the Cardiff valleys and in particular for those services which use the SWML such as services to Maesteg and Ebbw Vale where the linspeed is close to 90mph which the class 323's top speed.

Doesn't the SWML have 100mph stretches?

Didn't say it would be hard to install, just said you'd end up with fat looms, there may well be spare train wires available and/or a SIL-3 certified data link that can actuate individual doors from the TMS / TCMS...

SIL-3? A colleauge of mine once told me that railways are SIL-4, is this correct?

if America, China and Asia etc did their bit fair enough but it seems that we are deliberately being made to spend more money on new designs which to me are not really needed.

Does any other Country comply with this stupid legislation or is it just us again!

It's not just us. Or is it not even us?

Perhaps we have legislation like this to make us look like we are trying to tackle the climate change problem, and perhaps other countries have similar legislation. However, are these policies actually making a blind bit of difference considering that 'investment' is still being ploughed into bypasses and other road capacity enhancment schemes which surely encourage modal shift in the wrong direction? Nobody really seems to have lifted a finger to do anything to reduce air travel either, the promissed 'Moratorium' on airport expansion in the south east seems to have been swept aside with a new study underway into possible airport growth.

My point is that, if SWT wanted to order some new 450s to compliment the existing fleet it wouldnt be allowed. They would have to buy* the new improved design which would require a different maintenance regime and spares to the existing fleet. It is just making things more difficult than it needs to be.

* I know they are all leased but you know what I mean.

Didn't Southern get the improved Electrostar with the upgrades found in the 379 but in a form fully compatable with their existing 377s? I don't think only building upgraded versions is necessarily a problem provided compatability can be provided to ease fleet expansions.

 

[transmanche]

What's UDS?

Unit de-select? I.e. locking out all the doors on one unit, when you don't have proper SDO.

 

[Class377/5]

The Thameslink build is barely off the ground! Obviously those units will not be coupling in service; not sure what they will be able to connect to. Compatibility with 'traditional' Desiros might be an idea for the SWT 100 carriage order or any LM builds as you suggest.

They might not be designed to couple in service but they are designed to couple.

The Desiro City can have gangways like the 350 and I'm sure they can adjust the software to work with a 350. Especially as LM has looked at getting some. The version SWT trains could get are expected to work in some fashion with the 450's.

If the Desiro City didn't offer any great advantages I'd agree, it would be a similar situation to Bombardier trying to force the entire 379 design on Southern instead of a 377 with the updated bodyshell - however the advantages of the Desiro City over the lifetime of the rolling stock should easily outweigh the drawbacks, though as I pointed out before the 380 shows a hybrid design using the newer bodyshell is possible.

Chris

The different is that Siemens didn't choose not to offer the Desiro UK design any more, it was rules over design, where as Bombardier choose not to off the 377 to Southern but the more expensive 379 design.

Ironically it was the Siemens design that was able to step up to 110mph with Bombardier yet to test a 379 at 110mph (recent tests were cancelled).

 

[D365]

They might not be designed to couple in service but they are designed to couple.

The Desiro City can have gangways like the 350 and I'm sure they can adjust the software to work with a 350. Especially as LM has looked at getting some. The version SWT trains could get are expected to work in some fashion with the 450s.

About coupling, that's what I meant, just didn't explain it in a comprehensible manner! You've summed it up.

It would be very useful to design a method of compatibility with 'legacy' Desiro trains. Although, there is still the cost issue of a different train requiring different training, maintenance etc.

The different is that Siemens didn't choose not to offer the Desiro UK design any more, it was rules over design, where as Bombardier choose not to off the 377 to Southern but the more expensive 379 design.

Ironically it was the Siemens design that was able to step up to 110mph with Bombardier yet to test a 379 at 110mph (recent tests were cancelled).

Didn't Bombardier offer some sort of concession to the GA franchise so that they would take the costlier as a prototype of sorts for Aventra? IIRC GA were being awkward about loaning units for 110mph testing - I don't think they want any more buttons falling off!

 

[Class377/5]

About coupling, that's what I meant, just didn't explain it in a comprehensible manner! You've summed it up.

It would be very useful to design a method of compatibility with 'legacy' Desiro trains. Although, there is still the cost issue of a different train requiring different training, maintenance etc.

I'm sure Siemens will ensure that they are backwards compatible.

As for the maintance, it depends as Siemens generally (with the exception of the 380 and no the possible future 5 car order from Siemens) maintain the stock for the TOC so its so much of an issue.

Didn't Bombardier offer some sort of concession to the GA franchise so that they would take the costlier as a prototype of sorts for Aventra? IIRC GA were being awkward about loaning units for 110mph testing - I don't think they want any more buttons falling off!

If they did it would have been NX as they ordered 30x Electrostar models. GA came later. GA have stated they weren't lending any units for the 110mph trials but then it was never confirmed to be a 379. A 377/7 could do the testing if Bombardier wanted to and seeing as the tender is/was for 110mph dual voltage units.

Not sure if the Desiro City would be ok for 110mph running, if Siemens even bother with the Southern tender. Especially now they've dropped out of Crossrail to concentrate on Thameslink.