Future of Class 315

[D365]

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.

I meant the Greater Anglia franchise area, specifically the West Anglia routes, which at the time were operated by National Express.

A 377/7 could work, as an additional part of commissioning - I guess Southern might be willing to do such if relevant to their order. Although, you did say not too long ago that the 116+140 is effectively dead in the water.

 

[Class377/5]

I meant the Greater Anglia franchise area, specifically the West Anglia routes, which at the time were operated by National Express.

A 377/7 could work, as an additional part of commissioning - I guess Southern might be willing to do such if relevant to their order. Although, you did say not too long ago that the 116+140 is effectively dead in the water.

Ah I see what you mean, GA weren't in favor as they were required to lose a 379 for an entire week during the tests.

I said I don't think its gonna happen as its all gone quiet and the Thameslink deals been signed now. Its my opinion nothing else as Bombardier won't be able to deliver units until around the same time as Siemens.

 

[Chris125]

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.

Neither manufacturer could offer the same design without updating the bodyshell, but as far as I can tell it was Siemens who decided to redesign it completely whereas Bombardier simply modified it; both have since produced hybrids combining the new bodyshell with technology from the previous design.

I don't see why Siemens couldn't have chosen the same approach as Bombardier if they had wished, but given the shortcomings of the design there's an obvious advantage both commercially and competitively in coming up with a new and superior replacement.

Chris

 

[Class377/5]

Neither manufacturer could offer the same design without updating the bodyshell, but as far as I can tell it was Siemens who decided to redesign it completely whereas Bombardier simply modified it; both have since produced hybrids combining the new bodyshell with technology from the previous design.

I don't see why Siemens couldn't have chosen the same approach as Bombardier if they had wished, but given the shortcomings of the design there's an obvious advantage both commercially and competitively in coming up with a new and superior replacement.

Chris

Is the Electrostar body shell actually out dated as there's never been anything (that I've seen) that's actually said that.

Maybe that's why Siemens won Thameslink deal as they actually offered the superior project, perhaps because it was a next generation Desiro train rather than an updated design like the Adventra was.

 

[Chris125]

Is the Electrostar body shell actually out dated as there's never been anything (that I've seen) that's actually said that.

Maybe that's why Siemens won Thameslink deal as they actually offered the superior project, perhaps because it was a next generation Desiro train rather than an updated design like the Adventra was.

I don't know if it's 'out dated', but aside from the cab and associated styling there's a clear progression of the same basic design from the Networker through the various Electrostar designs and even onto the Aventra - Siemens surely could have adopted the same approach, adapting the same basic design, but have instead gone for a whole new bodyshell and this may well have given them an advantage.

Chris

 

[Nym]

I don't know if it's 'out dated', but aside from the cab and associated styling there's a clear progression of the same basic design from the Networker through the various Electrostar designs and even onto the Aventra - Siemens surely could have adopted the same approach, adapting the same basic design, but have instead gone for a whole new bodyshell and this may well have given them an advantage.

Chris

Not only a new bodyshell, but they have moved their EMU design quite close to the old fassioned way of LHCS, having a set of 'standard' cars that can be formed up as required with minimal intervention.

I'm not familiar with the exact nature of this, but I beleive it is something akin to having three, or perhaps four types of car.

Driving Motor with Cab
Driving Motor no Cab
Pantograph, Transformer and Compressor Trailer
Trailer

 

[starrymarkb]

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.

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

It's ok for follow on's from existing operators, officially new fleets are supposed to comply with the new rules (mostly around impact protection to the drivers cab)

And yes they do...

Eurodesiro...
Old cab

New compliant design

Talent
Old design

New Design

 

[Class377/5]

I don't know if it's 'out dated', but aside from the cab and associated styling there's a clear progression of the same basic design from the Networker through the various Electrostar designs and even onto the Aventra - Siemens surely could have adopted the same approach, adapting the same basic design, but have instead gone for a whole new bodyshell and this may well have given them an advantage.

Chris

Then again with the initial work on the Electrostar being done under BR, its an old design. Siemens seems to have seen the Thameslink deal as enough reason to change their design and spend a fair bit where Bombardier has been happy to work on the old BR design.

Not only a new bodyshell, but they have moved their EMU design quite close to the old fassioned way of LHCS, having a set of 'standard' cars that can be formed up as required with minimal intervention.

I'm not familiar with the exact nature of this, but I beleive it is something akin to having three, or perhaps four types of car.

Driving Motor with Cab
Driving Motor no Cab
Pantograph, Transformer and Compressor Trailer
Trailer

Where as Siemens have the single car concept (used on the Desiro City design) where you either have motor car or a trailer car depending on your needs for the unit. You can bolt a cab onto either, tho I'm not sure you can put the pan on a motor car.

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect Roger Ford's comments about "power hungry lardbutts" may have hit home at Siemens and been another reason to go for a new and lighter bodyshell design instead of just tweaking what went before.

As for Adtranz/Bombardier, there is little similarity between the Electrostar and the Networker except for the bogies and a cosmetically similar front end on the early builds of 168s. Networkers are welded aluminium bodyshells but the Star family went for bodies bolted up from separate sides, roofs etc. The Electrostar also introduced a new traction package with IGBTs instead of GTOs. These designs may have been under development while BR was still running trains, but they were not "developed under BR" as BREL was privatised well before that.

 

[Nym]

Where as Siemens have the single car concept (used on the Desiro City design) where you either have motor car or a trailer car depending on your needs for the unit. You can bolt a cab onto either, tho I'm not sure you can put the pan on a motor car.

You can't...

Panto = Transformer = No Space... (Usually)

 

[D365]

Where as Siemens have the single car concept (used on the Desiro City design) where you either have motor car or a trailer car depending on your needs for the unit. You can bolt a cab onto either, tho I'm not sure you can put the pan on a motor car.

You can't...

Panto = Transformer = No Space... (Usually)

The combined weight of such a carriage unit is also a prohibiting factor.

Also remember that the Bombardier/Flexx Eco bogie stems from a BR freight wagon design IIRC.

 

[Class172]

It's ok for follow on's from existing operators, officially new fleets are supposed to comply with the new rules (mostly around impact protection to the drivers cab)

And yes they do...

Eurodesiro...
...New compliant design

Sorry to quote the picture again but that is one of the ugliest trains I have ever seen; at least we don't have anything like that yet.

 

[edwin_m]

Also remember that the Bombardier/Flexx Eco bogie stems from a BR freight wagon design IIRC.

Sort of, but the ancestry was via the Advanced Suburban Bogie which was designed by BR Research for the second generation Networkers, that never got built. As well as lower weight and reduce track forces, this was stated to be narrow enough that the underfloor fairings could continue over the bogie, improving appearance and aerodynamics.

 

[tbtc]

The 313 with Southern are expected to go over to GN services as they require an extra five units daily with the KO2 timetable. Also the 365 are not expect to be released as they whole fleet is still needed post KO2, its the 321, 317 and 319 that are going spare.

The 377/6 & /7 will stay as they are needed for 10 car metro services and Southern don't have enough 377/3's to achieve that. Likewise the 2tph 8 car Croydon - Milton Keynes requires the 377/5 fleet

Is the Southern "116 + 140" plan officially dead?

 

[Class377/5]

Is the Southern "116 + 140" plan officially dead?

I've not seen anything official but given the timeframe that the units need to be built in (ie now) its unlikely they will arrive that long before the class 700's do.

With Bombardier Electrostar/Adventra line busy this year with the 377/6, the 377/7 will be finish early in 2014 with production moving straight over to the 378 5th carriage meaning it won't be free until early 2015. That would mean the Southern order deliveries would start to be late 2015/early 2016 at best, same time the first 700 will roll into passenger service.

Siemens are busy on the 700 order as they'd like only offer a Desiro City design. Hitachi aren't ready to build in the UK yet and both bidders won't be able to offer compatibility with the existing Southern fleet.

However thinking about it, if the units went straight to GW and never touched Thameslink they could be used there instead as they'd be around in time for the GW first stage electrification.

 

[tbtc]

I've not seen anything official but given the timeframe that the units need to be built in (ie now) its unlikely they will arrive that long before the class 700's do.

With Bombardier Electrostar/Adventra line busy this year with the 377/6, the 377/7 will be finish early in 2014 with production moving straight over to the 378 5th carriage meaning it won't be free until early 2015. That would mean the Southern order deliveries would start to be late 2015/early 2016 at best, same 5ime the first 700 will roll into passenger service.

However thinking about it, if the units went straight to GW and never touched Thameslink they could be used there instead as they'd be around in time for the GW first stage electrification.

That's a shame - when I wrote my initial post I was hoping that the «250 new coaches for Southern would be used as a way of starting a cascade to other parts of the country (i.e. it may not be just 315s and 319s that leave London)

 

[Class377/5]

That's a shame - when I wrote my initial post I was hoping that the «250 new coaches for Southern would be used as a way of starting a cascade to other parts of the country (i.e. it may not be just 315s and 319s that leave London)

All they were for was to release the 319's prior to the 700's arriving to ensure the NW/GW got the EMU's required.

However not it appears its not just those two after the 319's. The initial spilt for the 319 fleet was x37 to the NW, x37 for GW & x22 for the Wimbledon Loop. So there will be some units going 'spare' and Southeastern is one of the TOCs looking for new rolling stock.

 

[tbtc]

I suppose that the Wimbledon loop "staying" with the Thameslink core could be seen as good news for the areas outside London that'll need new/extra EMUs in a few years time then?

(I'm against retaining the service for operational reasons, but if it means more 319s to cascade then... hypocrisy, I know!)

 

[Class377/5]

I suppose that the Wimbledon loop "staying" with the Thameslink core could be seen as good news for the areas outside London that'll need new/extra EMUs in a few years time then?

(I'm against retaining the service for operational reasons, but if it means more 319s to cascade then... hypocrisy, I know!)

That remains to be seen, especially as SET is looking t them ith some of its drivers already trained on them.

However some aren't happy at second hand units. I've seen on one forum someone get very angry at the idea of the north getting LO 'old' 172's!

 

[tbtc]

I've seen on one forum someone get very angry at the idea of the north getting LO 'old' 172's!

I can't see the displaced 172s from LO going "north".

Chiltern or London Midland maybe, Southern as a guess (since they seem to need capacity on the two diesel lines that they have), but I don't see them coming north of Birmingham.

Then again, different people think the "north" starts at different places

 

[Class377/5]

I can't see the displaced 172s from LO going "north".

Chiltern or London Midland maybe, Southern as a guess (since they seem to need capacity on the two diesel lines that they have), but I don't see them coming north of Birmingham.

Then again, different people think the "north" starts at different places

Very true. The north was used by this person who got very upset over the idea of a 172 coming to replace his 14x/15x train which I just couldn't understand.

Chiltern or LM seem the most logical places especially as they both use the 172 already.

 

[Class172]

If 172s were going to LM I think they would have to be fitted with new gangwayed cabs.

 

[tbtc]

Very true. The north was used by this person who got very upset over the idea of a 172 coming to replace his 14x/15x train which I just couldn't understand.

Chiltern or LM seem the most logical places especially as they both use the 172 already.

I'd love modern DMUs on my local lines, but I really can't see much benefit in dropping a tiny number of 172s into the big Northern pool of Pacers/ Sprinters (other than the tokenism of saying that we have a handful of modern DMUs, as if this covers over all of the cracks!).

Much better to keep like with like (maybe that'll mean freeing up some LM 170s or Chiltern 165s for elsewhere which can create a mini cascade).

If 172s were going to LM I think they would have to be fitted with new gangwayed cabs.

Why not reconfigure them so that you have a four coach 172 made up of:

• Ex-LO coach with full cab
• LM coach with gangway cab
• LM coach with gangway cab
• Ex-LO coach with full cab

 

[sprinterguy]

If 172s were going to LM I think they would have to be fitted with new gangwayed cabs.

Or just use them alongside and/or in place of the LM 170 fleet. There's already one peak time diagram for a 170/6+153 in the evening on the Snow Hill lines, and a pair of 172s, even non-gangwayed ones, in their place would offer faster loading times (than the 153) and faster acceleration on the Snow Hill lines and free up the 170/6 for use strengthening Hereford or Shrewsbury services.

Or alternately they could be used directly for strengthening Hereford or Shrewsbury services, working with 170s. No particular need to go to the extra effort of fitting new cabs.

 

[Class172]

Why not reconfigure them so that you have a four coach 172 made up of:

• Ex-LO coach with full cab
• LM coach with gangway cab
• LM coach with gangway cab
• Ex-LO coach with full cab

I quite like that idea. You could treat the fleet as being 3 or 4 coach trains which then gives extra capacity, with the gangwayed cabs semi-permanently coupled so in the case of a fault, you can continue to work a 2 car unit.

 

[Nym]

I quite like that idea. You could treat the fleet as being 3 or 4 coach trains which then gives extra capacity, with the gangwayed cabs semi-permanently coupled so in the case of a fault, you can continue to work a 2 car unit.

You mean having the gangwayed cabs autocoupled? a'la LUL?

Such as:

(Cab) LO 172 - SPC - LM 172 (Cab) - BSI - (Cab) LM 172 - SPC - LO 172 (Cab)?

Provided you had an equal amount in each direction and they can come back as such of an evening, I can see it as a good way of having a higher availability 4 car fleet, that you can even knock to 2 car off peak, provided you get the cabs the right way round...

 

[Class172]

You mean having the gangwayed cabs autocoupled? a'la LUL?

Don't know what autocoupling is, but what I mean is treating the trains as 4 car units in normal service, only being split up for emergency cases etc. They could be renumbered 172/4 perhaps?

EDIT: just seen your edited post; yes that's what I mean. If all of LO's 172s went to LM you could end up with 4 172/2s, 15 172/3s and 8 172/4s.

Units can certainly be turned around at Worcester and I'd thought also via the lines near Tyseley.

 

[Nym]

Don't know what autocoupling is, but what I mean is treating the trains as 4 car units in normal service, only being split up for emergency cases etc. They could be renumbered 172/4 perhaps?

EDIT: just seen your edited post; yes that's what I mean. If all of LO's 172s went to LM you could end up with 4 172/2s, 15 172/3s and 8 172/4s.

Units can certainly be turned around at Worcester and I'd thought also via the lines near Tyseley.

I'd have it as 16 2 car units, with a gangway on one end and not the other, in service these would always be coupled gangway to gangway...

Auto-Coupler in a semi perminant way btw...

As apposed to an SPC that needs a pit to remove, one could use the BSIs to re-form in a depot to take units in/out for exam etc, and also potentially form a 6 or 7 car unit by sandwiching a 2 or 3 car in the middle, or a 5 car unit with a 172/3 and 172/4, provided the gangway is at the right end.

 

[Class172]

I presume then you'd leave the remaining 4 units with gangways each end then, or have I got my numbers wrong.

 

[Nym]

I presume then you'd leave the remaining 4 units with gangways each end then, or have I got my numbers wrong.

Yes, I would have the LM fleet as:

Class 172/2: 4 Units (2 car) gangways each end
Class 172/3: 15 Units (3 car) gangways each end
Class 172/4: 16 Units (2 car) gangway at one end only (trying to keep them equally at each end, you can aparently turn near tyldsley)

Each Class 172/4 would be formed of one car from a Class 172/2 and one car from a Class 172/0.

These could be formed with eachother to form a four car (twin unit) non-gangwayed train, or with any other combination of units to give a fleet able to do:

2 Car:
Gangways Each End (172/2)
Gangway One End (172/4)

3 Car:
Gangways Each End (172/3)

4 Car:
Gangways Each End (172/2, 172/2)
Gangway One End (172/2, 172/4)
No Gangways (172/4, 172/4) (gangways in)

5 Car
Gangways Each End (172/3, 172/2)
Gangway One End (172/3, 172/4)

And onwards through 6, 7, 8 and 9 car trains

But yes, I would keep the BSI couplers on the gangway cab ends, so re-forming is much easyer and the fleet is more flexible, perfectly good cab eating into passenger space, why not use it for it's intended purpouse?