Greater Anglia Rolling Stock Updates

[samuelmorris]

The one thing I didn't mention is the number of 755s running into London, but I don't think it matters much since as far as I'm aware the only commitment is 4tpd to Lowestoft, which isn't going to remove any of the current timetable obligations, it may release one unit at best.

The 745 order for StanEx made sense at first - 30 4-car 379s makes 10 12-car sets, replaced with 10 12-car 745s, but the thing is, the 379s work to Cambridge and Kings Lynn as well. If the 745s are isolated to StanEx in absolute on West Anglia, then that only raises the workload of the 720 fleet further, as they're standing in for 379s as well as 317s.
The 745 order for Norwich makes no sense to me at all - I get they can meet a better fleet availability so they may not need all 15 sets to run 2tph to Norwich, but even trimming 5 mins off the current diagrams (I think any more than that is optimistic with so few stops on the route), you're looking at an absolute minimum of 9 diagrams to run the service. I suspect in practice it'll probably be all 10. Fair enough, you can use 720s to run the extra stopping service to Norwich, controversial though it may be, but why on earth not at least order sufficiently many units to replace the LHCS like for like?

89 5-car units is not some number plucked from thin air (or at least, seems unlikely), so someone has clearly calculated this figure. Nonetheless, it still seems a bit short to me. I'd love to know how they worked it out. As far as I'm aware, nobody has mentioned any option on growing the order size, though of course I see no reason why it couldn't happen in practice given how many other units will be produced on the Aventra platform in the next 5 years.

 

[samuelmorris]

Why do you keep maintaining that 5 car 720 units replacing 8 car 321/360 reduces capacity when they have more seats?
How do get your figure of 100 less standees on a 5 car 730 than an 8 car 321/360, when you have only 4 less vestibules.
How many 8 car diagrams on GA are classed as PIXC? And how many of those are outside the peaks?
GA have already said that every diagram in the peak hours will be 10 Car and not a mixture of 12 and 8 as now.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand you keep maintaining it's a capacity problem running 5 car 720's when for the overwhelming number of services they will have more capacity than the services they replace.

Fewer cab ends and wider vestibules only make so much difference. A 5-car 720 is 40m shorter than two of the existing units. Those efficiency savings don't get you 40 metres worth of capacity, nowhere near it.

I don't think off-peak needs to be an issue necessarily, there are ways to work around that (though the likelihood is they'll try 5-car units where they can until they find out where it doesn't work), I'm just not seeing how they can deliver the number of peak services currently running, all in 10-car format, with the number of units they have ordered.

 

[F Great Eastern]

How do get your figure of 100 less standees on a 5 car 730 than an 8 car 321/360.When you have only 4 less vestibules. How many 8 car diagrams on GA are classed as PIXC? And how many of those are outside the peaks?

An 8 car EMU is 160m whilst a 5 car EMU is 120m which means that the new unit is 25% shorter than the one it is replacing which obviously has implications on the amount of people that can stand on any one train as there is less train.

I don't know what trains you are taking but you seem to believe that people only stand in vestibules. I can assure you that it is simply not the case and on Saturday I was on a train with standing throughout every carriage on the train and I have been on several in the last few weeks that were exactly the same.

16 seats at best and the removal of cabs is not going to make up for the standing room that is lost by moving to a train 40m shorter and the fact there is going to be less standing room around the vestibules as the seats immediately after them are going to be 3+2 rather than 2+2 as present.

GA have already said that every diagram in the peak hours will be 10 Car and not a mixture of 12 and 8 as now.

They simply do not have the numbers for every 8 car to become a 10 car as Samuel has outlined unless they start to really reduce turn-around times and spare availability to the bare minimum which would have obvious knock on effects on the chances of a train being delayed and short formations.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand you keep maintaining it's a capacity problem running 5 car 720's when for the overwhelming number of services they will have more capacity than the services they replace.

Because what is happening with this move to 5 car EMUs is that services that don't need extra capacity (4 car EMUs) are getting it whilst they reducing it on trains that need it (8 Car EMUs).

 

[F Great Eastern]

The 745 order for Norwich makes no sense to me at all - I get they can meet a better fleet availability so they may not need all 15 sets to run 2tph to Norwich, but even trimming 5 mins off the current diagrams (I think any more than that is optimistic with so few stops on the route), you're looking at an absolute minimum of 9 diagrams to run the service. I suspect in practice it'll probably be all 10. Fair enough, you can use 720s to run the extra stopping service to Norwich, controversial though it may be, but why on earth not at least order sufficiently many units to replace the LHCS like for like?

I suspect the reason that we have an issue with numbers of the Norwich fleet and also with the EMUs all comes down to cost, essentially we appear to have got a full fleet replacement on the cards but some corners have been cut so it's a build that is the minimum required since otherwise it would have had a negative effect on the bid price and obviously the alternative of keeping some existing stock on would not allow them to use the whole total fleet replacement marketing line which they are flogging to death.

89 5-car units is not some number plucked from thin air (or at least, seems unlikely), so someone has clearly calculated this figure. Nonetheless, it still seems a bit short to me. I'd love to know how they worked it out. As far as I'm aware, nobody has mentioned any option on growing the order size, though of course I see no reason why it couldn't happen in practice given how many other units will be produced on the Aventra platform in the next 5 years.

Of course, the question is if it does become apparent more units are needed due to service reliability/capacity issues
a) can they be delivered in a way which keeps the bid viable?
b) will there be an interim solution put in place?

If the answer to a) is NO, then it could be a long 5 years between 2020-2025 because Abellio got their sums and orders wrong which unfortunately was always going to be a risk when you're replacing an entire fleet with a less flexible one.

 

[dk1]

The 745 order for Norwich makes no sense to me at all - I get they can meet a better fleet availability so they may not need all 15 sets to run 2tph to Norwich, but even trimming 5 mins off the current diagrams (I think any more than that is optimistic with so few stops on the route), you're looking at an absolute minimum of 9 diagrams to run the service. I suspect in practice it'll probably be all 10. Fair enough, you can use 720s to run the extra stopping service to Norwich, controversial though it may be, but why on earth not at least order sufficiently many units to replace the LHCS like for like

I'm not sure where you are getting 15 from. There are only 10 sets ordered for Norwich Intercity services & 9 will be required in traffic to maintain the 2tph service. The other slower hourly train will be formed of 720s as you say but along with occasional Stansted units to cycle them to Crown Point for two weekly heavy maintenance.

 

[samuelmorris]

15 comes from, to my knowledge, the number of loco-hauled sets currently in service - this is the point I'm making, they're effectively replacing 15 with 10.

 

[dk1]

15 comes from, to my knowledge, the number of loco-hauled sets currently in service - this is the point I'm making, they're effectively replacing 15 with 10.

Think there's only 12 now. 10 to work the half hourly service plus the 06:22/18:10 set which does Orient Way all day. The twelfth set is always on maintenance at Crown Point. Are you confusing it with 15 class 90s?

 

[samuelmorris]

I suppose I must have been - with both 15 90s and 15 DVTs I assumed it was 15 sets. Looking at the numbers again even 130 MK3s almost makes 15 sets. If there's only 12 does that not mean there are 22 spare MK3s lying around? Yet they still routinely had short forms?

 

[dk1]

I suppose I must have been - with both 15 90s and 15 DVTs I assumed it was 15 sets. Looking at the numbers again even 130 MK3s almost makes 15 sets. If there's only 12 does that not mean there are 22 spare MK3s lying around? Yet they still routinely had short forms?

123 got refurbished in total so guess others where sent off lease. Short form has become far less common lately. One of the catering vehicles keeps having power issues so was knocked out. Not nice having to live without bean to cup coffee these days.

I've said for a long time that with some smart timetabling & an average 1h45m journey time that we could save a set & still have an ample 30min turnaround time each end by leaving Norwich at 15 & 45 past each hour. This is what I think will happen with the new fleet.

 

[Alfie1014]

I suppose I must have been - with both 15 90s and 15 DVTs I assumed it was 15 sets. Looking at the numbers again even 130 MK3s almost makes 15 sets. If there's only 12 does that not mean there are 22 spare MK3s lying around? Yet they still routinely had short forms?

No, whilst there are 15 locos the number of diagrammed sets is only 11, with one only booked to do the 06:22/18:10 as mentioned above. That said I still believe that 20 Stadler long distance sets rather than the two small fleets of 10 would have been much better to manage and operate on a day to day basis.

The reality is that until we see the detail of the proposed timetables we can but speculate. My sources tell me that delivery of the bid timetable and fleet plans is a challenge to say the least, stabling is going to be a big issue even with the new Cattawade depot, expect lots of ECS workings!

I would hope however that there will be a consultation on the detail (as has been done with other franchises) in the near future, next year? I've also done some back of the envolope diagramming and am not so pessimistic as some on here, though I've had to make some heroic assumptions. Also GA may be 'saved' by the downturn in London commuting if the economy slows as the Govt is predicting now, though this is a double edged sword as revenue is bouind to fall also. In short until we see much more detail we can't really be sure.

 

[F Great Eastern]

I would hope however that there will be a consultation on the detail (as has been done with other franchises) in the near future, next year? I've also done some back of the envolope diagramming and am not so pessimistic as some on here, though I've had to make some heroic assumptions. Also GA may be 'saved' by the downturn in London commuting if the economy slows as the Govt is predicting now, though this is a double edged sword as revenue is bouind to fall also. In short until we see much more detail we can't really be sure.

I had a look at the numbers again and honestly I can't see how they are going to manage to avoid cutting almost all the 8 car EMUs to 5 cars when the new trains come in unless they start turning around units much quicker and that's not going to work unless they add additional calls to the Intercity Flirts to Stratford.

I honestly can see an issue where trains are going to run fast from Colchester to LST with a fairly decent amount of space but the 25% shortened EMU's are going to be overloaded with passengers, some of them already struggle now and it will only get worse with a shorter train. Calling more flirts at Stratford will make use of the spare and increased capacity on the FLIRTS whilst reducing the passenger numbers on the EMUs which have had their capacity reduced.

 

[jopsuk]

Speaking to the new fleet delivery team and other senior GA people today they're absolutely clear that there is no 1st class on the 720s.

Something I'm not convinced has been well thought through is that both the 720/1 and 720/5 will have an official bike capacity of 4. so a 10 car formed of 1 720/1 will have half the cycle capacity of a 10 car formed of 2 720/5.

Bike storage area will be between a vestibule and a standard loo along the side with the loo. two bikes against the tip up seats along there, secured with a nifty bit to hold the pedal axle plus retractable straps. Two more bikes leaning against those, just with straps. Other side will be 2 seats airline.

 

[jamesontheroad]

Here are some pics of the seating demonstration at Norwich station this morning, taken a few minutes ago. There is no consultative element to this, they are not recording feedback. There are some VR headsets to have a look around the train, but I didn't have time to try these out.

The staff on stand don't know fleet names or numbers, they referred to the ones on the left of the first pic as being for the [Norwich to] London route and the ones on the right for everything else.

 

[jopsuk]

Oops. The ones on the left are the standard class seats from all Stadler stock (which has finished the design process), on the right that seating unit is out of the Bombardier mock up. 720 design is not locked yet, but is getting close- impression I have is that things such as seats are definitely locked in now.

 

[chubs]

From pictures alone they both look good. The Stadler ones are a huge improvement on the MK3 ones.

Obviously the proof is in sitting in them for over an hour and how the look and feel after a few years of heavy use but impressed so far.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd be concerned at how thick-backed those Stadler ones are, which may reduce legroom. Much thicker than the Grammer IC3000 originally proposed at the start, and more like the original Class 158 seat. The cushion looks well shaped though.

(Those of us with big legs can't put them straight forward into that "hole").

The Bombardier seat looks as good as a 3+2 seat ever will.

 

[F Great Eastern]

You have to remember the seats in the Stadler stock are very high density by design and marketed as such by their manufacturer using the niche/hole in the back for your knees to fit more people in, but as has been pointed out, a hole for knees is not substitute for actual proper leg-room.

The Stadler seat itself doesn't look bad, but it all depends on leg-room, no point having a higher backed more comfortable seat (which is where the MK3s fall down for tall people) if any benefit to such is lost by squeezing them in.

Bombardier seats look like a typical 3+2 seat to be honest, doesn't look much different from the 360s seats now although of course proof will be in the pudding when you've sat on one.

Still would have preferred the Grammar seating though, having been on 2 FGW HSTS in the last week you really notice that despite popular belief they are "crammed in" there is plenty of leg-room even for tall people like me!

 

[AS43]

Apologies if this has already been posted,but the VR tour is available online...

https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/newtrains/360tour

 

[Bletchleyite]

Still would have preferred the Grammar seating though, having been on 2 FGW HSTS in the last week you really notice that despite popular belief they are "crammed in" there is plenty of leg-room even for tall people like me!

The Grammer IC3000 is a very well designed seat, in my view most probably the best Standard class seat the UK rail system has ever seen (and I agree re its application on the GWR HST and other applications that actually reduce the pitch slightly but still give you more space). Its First Class version used by DB and PKP is also very good.

Unfortunately, good design comes at a price.

 

[F Great Eastern]

The Grammer IC3000 is a very well designed seat, in my view most probably the best Standard class seat the UK rail system has ever seen (and I agree re its application on the GWR HST and other applications that actually reduce the pitch slightly but still give you more space). Its First Class version used by DB and PKP is also very good.

It's also the standard seat used in the Railjet trains operated in Czech Republic and Austria. For me when I was in Poland I honestly found the FLIRTS there as better standard than the Pendolinos and certainly better standard than the horrible PESA DARTS which were the most claustrophobic train I've ever been on with horrible Kiel comfortline seats with the very high flap for a table.

You would never think that they reduce the seat pitch because I'm 6ft2 and I can comfortably sit in a FGW seat without my legs coming near touching the seat in front, which I cannot say for an awful lot of stock. I can also lay back with my head against the seat whereas on the GA MK3s my head is above the top of the seat.

Unfortunately, good design comes at a price.

Indeed but they were in the original plans, the fact they were discounted in favour of what is marketed as a cheaper and more high density seat suggests that there may not be an awful lot of breathing room factored into the Abellio bid.

 

[AlexNL]

I like the seat moquette.

 

[Trainfan344]

5 stops between Ipswich and Norwich? http://prntscr.com/hbonfg

 

[F Great Eastern]

Has anybody noticed that the seats in the virtual tour appear to be thinner backed than the ones that were actually being demoed at stations? Or is it just me?

Also there's a serious design fault in First Class in the interior, I'm curious if anyone else can see it straight away.

A little hint - it's not about what you can see, rather quite the opposite.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I like the seat moquette.

I do too, I hope we get it on "wmtrains" rather than some garish green that is more likely. Indeed, I like the whole Abellio interior colour/material scheme - understated and classy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's also the standard seat used in the Railjet trains operated in Czech Republic and Austria. For me when I was in Poland I honestly found the FLIRTS there as better standard than the Pendolinos

I am a big Stadler fan, but if the GA units are anywhere *near* as good as those Polish ones we are getting a very good product indeed. Shame we couldn't also have had some for WCML Crewe services, that'd switch me from VT for good.

The PESA DART is cheap rubbish, I agree. A very poor attempt to make their own version of the FLIRT.

You would never think that they reduce the seat pitch because I'm 6ft2 and I can comfortably sit in a FGW seat without my legs coming near touching the seat in front, which I cannot say for an awful lot of stock. I can also lay back with my head against the seat whereas on the GA MK3s my head is above the top of the seat.

It is a particularly good seat for tall people. On local services the "ironing board" is too (the upgraded version Abellio are using looks similar and I again hope for these on the WCML) - thin back = more legroom, set relatively high, high headrest (on which the fake leather looks seriously classy without the downside of having leather to actually sit on). TBH, I'd welcome an exact replica of the GA Aventras for the ones replacing the 350/2s, though maybe lose the silly tip-up seats in favour of bigger standbacks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apologies if this has already been posted,but the VR tour is available online...

https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/newtrains/360tour

Just had a quick go. Looks really quite good to me. I see the point about 1st window alignment, though it'd be difficult to get it spot on because the Stadler vehicle structure is based around a Standard Class not a 1st bay size, originating as they do as regional trains.

 

[F Great Eastern]

It is a particularly good seat for tall people. On local services the "ironing board" is too (the upgraded version Abellio are using looks similar and I again hope for these on the WCML) - thin back = more legroom, set relatively high, high headrest (on which the fake leather looks seriously classy without the downside of having leather to actually sit on). TBH, I'd welcome an exact replica of the GA Aventras for the ones replacing the 350/2s, though maybe lose the silly tip-up seats in favour of bigger standbacks.

I agree with what you are saying - but bear in mind the whole USP of the seat used on the FLIRTS is that it vastly reduces actual leg-room in favour for the hole/niche in the back of the seat which allows vastly more seats in a carriage, I don't think they're using that seat to improve leg-room because it's lean, more so because it enables them to cram extra seats in and for a tall person a niche is nowhere near as good as actual space between two seats

I hope they are not having the seats configured like below otherwise they will be unusable for tall people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have a look at the 360 degree tour linked above, it will show you exactly what is proposed, it doesn't look bad to me.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Just had a quick go. Looks really quite good to me. I see the point about 1st window alignment, though it'd be difficult to get it spot on because the Stadler vehicle structure is based around a Standard Class not a 1st bay size, originating as they do as regional trains.

There's still something else you didn't spot on the FLIRT.

Further clue. It can be seen from the vestibule in First Class but cannot from the seating area which is a severe usability issue for a certain group of people.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Have a look at the 360 degree tour linked above, it will show you exactly what is proposed, it doesn't look bad to me.

The problem is that you can't move around or get a view enough of a airline seat from the side on properly to judge the spacing properly, a problem which has existed in every single photo we've had of the FLIRTS, almost like they're trying to avoid showing such a shot.