Greater Anglia Bombardier Aventras (Class 720): Technical discussion and introduction

[Railperf]

View attachment 84008
While not an update to fault-free running there are some introduction time estimates; the 720s will be entering service in under 4 days on the Southend Victoria branch!

Last i had heard was mid October for Southend...but the dates keep slipping.

 

[43096]

Confirmation that the 10-car sets are not now being built and instead additional 5-car units will be built is on the OJEU website here: https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:453007-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0

Key part is:

Abellio East Anglia Ltd (AEA) entered into an agreement, originally between AEA, CBA Rolling Stock Company No 1 Pty Ltd and Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd on 29 September 2016 for, inter alia, the manufacture and supply of 22 x 10-car electric multiple units (EMUs) and (eighty nine) 89 x 5-car EMUs, and now between AEA, Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd (as Manufacturer of the rolling stock) and Angel Trains Rolling Stock Ltd (as the owner of the rolling stock). Due to the impact of Covid-19, the parties are amending the manufacture and supply agreement.

Abellio East Anglia Ltd (AEA) entered into an agreement, originally between AEA, CBA Rolling Stock Company No 1 Pty Ltd and Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd on 29 September 2016 for, inter alia, the manufacture and supply of 22 x 10-car electric multiple units (EMUs) and eighty nine 89 x 5-car EMUs, and now between AEA, Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd (as Manufacturer of the rolling stock) and Angel Trains Rolling Stock Ltd (as the Owner of the rolling stock). Through the agreement the Manufacturer would manufacture the EMUs, sell them to the Owner, which would then subsequently lease the EMUs to AEA. The parties have considered amending the manufacture and supply agreement to remove the 10-car EMUs, with Bombardier instead providing 133 x 5-car EMUs.

The manufacture and supply agreement and its subsequent amendment do not fall within the scope of the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 (UCR), as AEA is not a utility for the purposes of the UCR. In any case, regulations 88(1)(b) or 88(1)(c) of the UCR would apply. To acquire rolling stock from another manufacturer/owner would oblige AEA to acquire rolling stock which has different technical characteristics which would result in incompatibility and disproportionate technical difficulties in operation and maintenance. This is exacerbated in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic.

 

[Energy]

Confirmation that the 10-car sets are not now being built and instead additional 5-car units will be built is on the OJEU website here: https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:453007-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0

Key part is:

Shortened version of the quote, for each 1 10 car unit they will now receive 2 additional 5 car units instead.

 

[jopsuk]

will this be the first subclass on TOPS with more than 99 units?

 

[py_megapixel]

will this be the first subclass on TOPS with more than 99 units?

Probably so.
Of course, the TOPS system doesn't allow for that, so I imagine it'll be split across 2 subclasses

 

[43096]

will this be the first subclass on TOPS with more than 99 units?

No!

For a start...
Class 47/4 was 47401-47665 (and 801-854)
Class 450 is 450001-127

 

[supervc-10]

So basically the same number of carriages, just now all as 5-car.

Re TOPS- weren't there 250 of the original EWS class 66s?

 

[43096]

So basically the same number of carriages, just now all as 5-car.

Re TOPS- weren't there 250 of the original EWS class 66s?

Yes. The 22 10-car units have become 44 5-cars instead.

And yes.
There are plenty of sub-classes of over 99 locos/units.

 

[jopsuk]

Probably so.
Of course, the TOPS system doesn't allow for that, so I imagine it'll be split across 2 subclasses

the fourth digit (units)/third digit (locos) is not always the same as the sub class number. For instance, with class 317, the units were originally sub classes /1 and /2, but both of those were numbered in the 317 3xx range

 

[Roger B]

Probably so.
Of course, the TOPS system doesn't allow for that, so I imagine it'll be split across 2 subclasses

Plenty of instances of a subclass of more than 100 locos / units (eg cl 156 / 158). More likely that all 720s will be in the same sub-class (I've seen no indication that there are to be any differences within the class). However, if the final 44 (ex 720/1s) do differ from the 720/5s, then that might result in two sub-classes, one of 89 and the other of 44. Time will tell.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that makes a lot of sense - keep it simple. If you want 10-car just double them up. Through gangways aren't important on commuter trains with no catering and largely barriered stations.

 

[jopsuk]

the 10-cars were to meet the original franchise bid's "ambitious" total number of seats into Liverpool Street in the morning rush hour, and to be deployed to diagrams where it was fine for full length sets to either go off to be stabled or run around that long all day.

I guess the operational flexibility now wins out given so many other franchise commitments died even before the current times.

Incidentally it now means all 10-car services will have an official bike capacity of 8, as the 10 car units only had a single area the same size as the five car units

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps they'll also get shut of the pointless, obstructive tip-up seats in the vestibules? We can but hope.

 

[507021]

Perhaps they'll also get shut of the pointless, obstructive tip-up seats in the vestibules? We can but hope.

Bicycles stored in vestibules are far more obstructive than tip up seats.

 

[py_megapixel]

Perhaps they'll also get shut of the pointless, obstructive tip-up seats in the vestibules? We can but hope.

Never been entirely sure of the purpose of those, unless it's a box-ticking exercise to get the seat count to a certain level?

They're awkward to sit in for all but those with the shortest of legs, with everyone else finding that passengers and their bags brush against their legs and feet. Not to mention the draught and, in the days of that really irritating European standard door tone ("beep-boop beep-boop beep-boop" ad-nauseum) the headache!

That said I've used them on occasion, particularly on crowded 175s where the alternative is standing on a very long journey...

 

[F Great Eastern]

I think that makes a lot of sense - keep it simple. If you want 10-car just double them up. Through gangways aren't important on commuter trains with no catering and largely barriered stations.

I think it does as well and it's a rare case of some operational sensibility being applied here.

I would be more comfortable with planning in this area of Abellio going forward. I've had a few dealings with them recently and they seem a little more on it than they were before. There seems to be less operational nativity.

Makes me wonder if they really have seen the light from the past or that the COO of Abellio Rail appointed in January who is very familiar with these parts is using his experience to good effect.

 

[py_megapixel]

Bicycles stored in vestibules are far more obstructive than tip up seats.

True, though there would be fewer bicycles in the vestibules if TOCs cared to provide sufficient accommodation for them elsewhere. For a while TPE had a unit running around with a bike symbol on the door that didn't correspond to a bike space, hopefully that kind of thing was also rectified fairly quickly!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Never been entirely sure of the purpose of those, unless it's a box-ticking exercise to get the seat count to a certain level?

Yes, in this case that is precisely what it is. In terms of pure capacity, you're better without them as 2 people can stand in the space 1 can sit in.

True, though there would be fewer bicycles in the vestibules if TOCs cared to provide sufficient accommodation for them elsewhere. For a while TPE had a unit running around with a bike symbol that didn't correspond to a bike space, hopefully that kind of thing was also rectified fairly quickly!

A pair of these units will have 8 spaces, right? Sounds like plenty.

 

[Class 170101]

Especially as in the peaks it should be zero anyway if current bike restrictions remain.

 

[XAM2175]

in the days of that really irritating European standard door tone

When did those days end?

 

[py_megapixel]

When did those days end?

They haven't - probably should have made that a bit clearer...

 

[norbitonflyer]

It may provide more flexibility, but the extra cabs will make the units more expensive and reduce the total seating capacity.

Other than locomotives, most of the examples quoted above of subclasses with more than 100 members are actually of classes with no subdivisions. However, class 158 is subdivided, the 158/9s (ten members) and the 158/0s (originally 172 but some later converted to class 159). Class 450 was originally a single class of 123 members, but 14 of them were converted to class 450/5 spec, leaving 109 450/0s.

In older times, the SR-design 4EPBs (class 415/1) numbered over 200 (numbers from 5001-5053 and 5101-5281, but not all existed at the same time), the second batch of BR design 2 HAPS (class 414/3) numbered 131 (6043-6173), and Class 421 (4CIG) had two subclasses 7301-7336 and 7337-7438, the latter (Class 421/2) having 102 members. Class 411 (4CEP) was officially subdivided on refurbishment into four subclasses, 411/3, 411/4, 411/5 and 411/6 with, respectively, one, five, 116, and three members, but all numbered in the 15xx and 16xx series.

For completeness, locomotive classes 31/1, 47/0, and 47/4 exceeded 100 members at renumbering in 1974, and several others were subdivided later resulting in subclasses of over 100 (e.g classes 08, 20, 37)

 

[43096]

Class 450 was originally a single class of 123 members, but 14 of them were converted to class 450/5 spec, leaving 109 450/0s.

Not sure where you have got those numbers from! There are 127 Class 450s, of which 28 (450043-070) became Class 450/5.

 

[Domh245]

There are 127 Class 450s, of which 28 (450043-070) became Class 450/5.

Also worth noting that they've all since reverted back to 450/0s

 

[Mikey C]

Having the entire fleet as 5 car units sounds reasonable to me, especially as they're 23m units rather than 20m ones. 2 * 720 is already a saving in cabs over 3 * a standard 4 car 20m train

 

[hwl]

Having the entire fleet as 5 car units sounds reasonable to me, especially as they're 23m units rather than 20m ones. 2 * 720 is already a saving in cabs over 3 * a standard 4 car 20m train

24m rather than 23m

 

[Alfie1014]

Having the entire fleet as 5 car units sounds reasonable to me, especially as they're 23m units rather than 20m ones. 2 * 720 is already a saving in cabs over 3 * a standard 4 car 20m train

I agree it makes more sense to have them all as fives, other than on intensive suburban workings and some exceptions like Thameslink longer fixed formation units can be difficult to accomodate on the existing network. Having to split the 10 cars to fit in Ilford depot for maintenance was always going to cause problems and the routes where 10 cars working all day was going to be limited. And the cost saving of fewer cabs needs to be offset againt the cost of extending (some) platforms and sidings designed for multiples of 4 x 20m and rebuilding of places like Hertford East, Wickford down side.

There's no doubt that the 720 fleet procured for a world of ever increasing peak demand, (that may have gone forever in a post COVID world), may in hindsight look to now not be the best layout for growing the business in the off peak and weekends, where lower seating densities, tables, more luggage room etc...may be more desirable? Time will tell and 35-40 years is a long time in the life of a train.

 

[Mikey C]

I agree it makes more sense to have them all as fives, other than on intensive suburban workings and some exceptions like Thameslink longer fixed formation units can be difficult to accomodate on the existing network. Having to split the 10 cars to fit in Ilford depot for maintenance was always going to cause problems and the routes where 10 cars working all day was going to be limited. And the cost saving of fewer cabs needs to be offset againt the cost of extending (some) platforms and sidings designed for multiples of 4 x 20m and rebuilding of places like Hertford East, Wickford down side.

There's no doubt that the 720 fleet procured for a world of ever increasing peak demand, (that may have gone forever in a post COVID world), may in hindsight look to now not be the best layout for growing the business in the off peak and weekends, where lower seating densities, tables, more luggage room etc...may be more desirable? Time will tell and 35-40 years is a long time in the life of a train.

On the other hand the high number of seats on the 720s may turn out to be a better decision than the lower number of seats on stock like the 700s, making space for standing room which might not be needed now!

 

[greaterangrier]

However almost 20% of the seats will be in doorways, which kind of defeats the purpose of fast dwell times especially knowing that a lot of trains now will be shortened from 8 car to 5 (6 old) car trains. There is also the unspoken rule of 1 group per seat group which means that the change will have a minimal impact

 

[Bald Rick]

However almost 20% of the seats will be in doorways, which kind of defeats the purpose of fast dwell times especially knowing that a lot of trains now will be shortened from 8 car to 5 (6 old) car trains. There is also the unspoken rule of 1 group per seat group which means that the change will have a minimal impact

20%?

And how many busy 8 cars will become 5 (6)?