GWR fleet procurement

[Towers]

I've read on another forum Hitachi have proposed a 4 carriage unit with diesel engines under two carriages and battery packs under the other two .

So probably something similar body wise to the class 385s.

Hitachi

 

[anthony263]

Hitachi

Dft officials may consider it but Hitachi got their work cut out i suspect trying to persuade them.

I think GWR would prefer flirts

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It would mean GWR would have a pretty much entirely Hitachi fleet, which would be very convenient for maintenance purposes, but that's the Churchward new fleet procurement, and this discussion is for existing stock.

I think GWR would prefer flirts

Is that based on a source you've seen that indicates a preference, or that the FLIRT is closer to the specification, or just based on your own opinion that FLIRTS are better?

 

[anthony263]

It would mean GWR would have a pretty much entirely Hitachi fleet, which would be very convenient for maintenance purposes, but that's the Churchward new fleet procurement, and this discussion is for existing stock.


Is that based on a source you've seen that indicates a preference, or that the FLIRT is closer to the specification, or just based on your own opinion that FLIRTS are better?

Can I say all of them lol

Anyway so far we got proof the flirts work plus they have level boarding which is a bonus

 

[Energy]

I've read on another forum Hitachi have proposed a 4 carriage unit with diesel engines under two carriages and battery packs under the other two .

So probably something similar body wise to the class 385s.

Going by the 385s and 800s I'd expect something like this

Please note: very unofficial and based on speculative discussion. Take with a heavy grain of salt.

Engines would need to be on the driving vehicles or Hitachi would be severely underpowered on a 3-car unit. Though I'd be concerned about how much power Hitachi can get underneath, the MTU 1800 engines (used on the 195s etc.) are max 523hp which isn't a lot split between 2 cars. 769s had about that much power and they perform as well as a class 150, I'd expect GWR to want something a bit better.

While a battery is a useful addition I'm doubtful it would make up for the lack of diesel power. Hybrid systems which use the battery as a boost for acceleration could work but they'd need somewhere to recharge, either a long distance of coasting to use the diesel generators (Cornish Mainline isn't known for being flat), using the diesel generators/shore supplies at the terminus (former is very loud, latter is doable if inconvenient) or a big enough battery to last the day (needs a shore supply to recharge wherever the unit is stabled).

Hitachi could fit the bigger engines on the 800/802s but they'd end up with the high floors of the 800/802s intermediate cars which isn't ideal. I'd be very surprised if Hitachi has squeezed in multiple engines (the 230s managed that but struggle to cool them) or got them roof-mounted.

Stadler have a proven low floor platform with enough space for generators. Alstom (from Bombardier) and Siemens have inside frame motored bogeys, which are about 2-2.5 ton per bogey lighter than Hitachi's outside frame powered bogeys. Aside from UK manufacturing I can't see Hitachi's advantages.

 

[fgwrich]

It would mean GWR would have a pretty much entirely Hitachi fleet, which would be very convenient for maintenance purposes, but that's the Churchward new fleet procurement, and this discussion is for existing stock.

Only if they are anywhere near Bristol or Swansea though. And given Hitachi's current poor performance and availability offered by its 80X fleet, it's hard to see why First or the DfT would want to order anything else from them. Part of this mess GW is in at the moment is because of the declining 80X availability while prematurely retiring the HSTs in the West and stretching the already stretched 80X fleet to cover for those (and given the number of 80X services in the west last week that ended up being operated by 150s, 165s and HSTs, it clearly isn't working).

 

[Meerkat]

Only if they are anywhere near Bristol or Swansea though. And given Hitachi's current poor performance and availability offered by its 80X fleet, it's hard to see why First or the DfT would want to order anything else from them. Part of this mess GW is in at the moment is because of the declining 80X availability while prematurely retiring the HSTs in the West and stretching the already stretched 80X fleet to cover for those (and given the number of 80X services in the west last week that ended up being operated by 150s, 165s and HSTs, it clearly isn't working).

Do public procurement rules let you ignore a bidder because they have been crap in the past?

 

[anthony263]

Do public procurement rules let you ignore a bidder because they have been crap in the past?

I think that's the problem. Gwr need to replace the br dmus and apart from stadler abd possibly CAF i don't think anyone else has a design they could possibly offer unless Alstom and Siemens are working on something behind the scenes

 

[43096]

Stadler have a proven low floor platform with enough space for generators. Alstom (from Bombardier) and Siemens have inside frame motored bogeys, which are about 2-2.5 ton per bogey lighter than Hitachi's outside frame powered bogeys. Aside from UK manufacturing I can't see Hitachi's advantages.

I assume you mean “bogies”!

 

[Helvellyn]

This seems to be veering into a project Churchward parallel thread.

If this is about GWR getting extra stock ASAp two options seem to exist:

DMUs for the West Fleet allowing a shuffle. Class 175s are available and I suspect GWR could get favourable rates (versus the units sitting in storage or being scrapped).

EMUs for Thames suburban services allowing 387s to be used on some longer distance services to free up 80x units to do more stuff in the West. Personally less likely but I wonder if GWR would look at the twenty Class 321 Renatus units? They certainly wouldn't be seen as a downgrade but if this was an option would GWR use Class 387s as is or look to fit better First Class seating?

 

[stuu]

Do public procurement rules let you ignore a bidder because they have been crap in the past?

Sort of, tenders often have a requirement to prove successful delivery of past projects, which isn't quite the same thing. It's a bit tricky though as companies can claim to be under new ownership or management, and can and do sue if disqualified

 

[Towers]

This seems to be veering into a project Churchward parallel thread.

If this is about GWR getting extra stock ASAp two options seem to exist:

DMUs for the West Fleet allowing a shuffle. Class 175s are available and I suspect GWR could get favourable rates (versus the units sitting in storage or being scrapped).

EMUs for Thames suburban services allowing 387s to be used on some longer distance services to free up 80x units to do more stuff in the West. Personally less likely but I wonder if GWR would look at the twenty Class 321 Renatus units? They certainly wouldn't be seen as a downgrade but if this was an option would GWR use Class 387s as is or look to fit better First Class seating?

Are the cabs on 321s similarly tight to those on 319s/769s? Aslef are getting very choosy regarding the size and spec of the cabs on anything ‘new’ to a fleet, and 321s would come well and truly under this heading at GWR. 769s were a difficult mission in this regard, with suggestions that the final agreement included exemptions for drivers above a certain height etc; not insurmountable I’m sure but certainly a consideration. Aside from that, Reading depot obviously had some level of competence on MK3 based EMUs from their brief flirtation with the 769s, and prior to that they maintained the diesel equivalent in 150001/2 for a while, plus the wider long standing 150 knowledge elsewhere within the business of course, so a fleet of MK3 based units isn’t a terrible idea.

Sort of, tenders often have a requirement to prove successful delivery of past projects, which isn't quite the same thing. It's a bit tricky though as companies can claim to be under new ownership or management, and can and do sue if disqualified

I wonder if any industrial action at the Hitachi depots, if it happens, could ‘help’ here?

 

[43096]

EMUs for Thames suburban services allowing 387s to be used on some longer distance services to free up 80x units to do more stuff in the West. Personally less likely but I wonder if GWR would look at the twenty Class 321 Renatus units? They certainly wouldn't be seen as a downgrade but if this was an option would GWR use Class 387s as is or look to fit better First Class seating?

There’s 30 Renatus units. With all GWR 387 turns running main line to at least Dolphin Junction, they really need 110mph sets as a minimum, which rules out 321s.

 

[craigybagel]

Personally less likely but I wonder if GWR would look at the twenty Class 321 Renatus units? They certainly wouldn't be seen as a downgrade but if this was an option would GWR use Class 387s as is or look to fit better First Class seating?

Given they're limited to 100mph and I believe take a lot longer to get there than a 387, I doubt they'd be able to match 387 timings - especially now nearly all London - Didcot services use the fast lines at some point. Outside of Reading Newbury stoppers I doubt they'd be much use.

Also, are the platform monitors/mirrors for DOO still fitted on those routes? If they're not the 321s aren't going to be much use.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Worth noting that GWR are going to introduce 2tpd between Bristol and Oxford, so they'll need stock for that

2tpw. It's two return journeys on Saturdays only, at least for now. The stock will be IETs freed up from the end of summer Saturday workings.

 

[Towers]

Given they're limited to 100mph and I believe take a lot longer to get there than a 387, I doubt they'd be able to match 387 timings - especially now nearly all London - Didcot services use the fast lines at some point. Outside of Reading Newbury stoppers I doubt they'd be much use.

Also, are the platform monitors/mirrors for DOO still fitted on those routes? If they're not the 321s aren't going to be much use.

That’s a very good point. Certainly there are still plenty of mirrors about for the Turbo fleet, but whether they’d suffice for possibly 8 car EMUs I don’t know.

 

[Dan G]

Going by the 385s and 800s I'd expect something like this
View attachment 151247
Please note: very unofficial and based on speculative discussion. Take with a heavy grain of salt.

Engines would need to be on the driving vehicles or Hitachi would be severely underpowered on a 3-car unit. Though I'd be concerned about how much power Hitachi can get underneath, the MTU 1800 engines (used on the 195s etc.) are max 523hp which isn't a lot split between 2 cars. 769s had about that much power and they perform as well as a class 150, I'd expect GWR to want something a bit better.

While a battery is a useful addition I'm doubtful it would make up for the lack of diesel power. Hybrid systems which use the battery as a boost for acceleration could work but they'd need somewhere to recharge, either a long distance of coasting to use the diesel generators (Cornish Mainline isn't known for being flat), using the diesel generators/shore supplies at the terminus (former is very loud, latter is doable if inconvenient) or a big enough battery to last the day (needs a shore supply to recharge wherever the unit is stabled).

Hitachi could fit the bigger engines on the 800/802s but they'd end up with the high floors of the 800/802s intermediate cars which isn't ideal. I'd be very surprised if Hitachi has squeezed in multiple engines (the 230s managed that but struggle to cool them) or got them roof-mounted.

Stadler have a proven low floor platform with enough space for generators. Alstom (from Bombardier) and Siemens have inside frame motored bogeys, which are about 2-2.5 ton per bogey lighter than Hitachi's outside frame powered bogeys. Aside from UK manufacturing I can't see Hitachi's advantages.

DMUs don't spend more than 50% of their time at full power, do they? If not, then there's your answer. Two generator units and a LTO battery unit per three cars, or even one GU and one BU per two cars, would give adequate performance.

Edit: typo

 

[Pat31]

I've read on another forum Hitachi have proposed a 4 carriage unit with diesel engines under two carriages and battery packs under the other two .

So probably something similar body wise to the class 385s.

Could you link this please?

 

[Pete_uk]

4 carriages seems interesting.
I wonder how long the carriages would be?

 

[TurboMan]

Also, are the platform monitors/mirrors for DOO still fitted on those routes? If they're not the 321s aren't going to be much use.

There are some mirrors/monitors, but it's all life-expired and Network Rail are keen to remove it as soon as possible (which is why the focus of the 16x ASDO project, which includes in-cab monitors, has shifted to the east, so that 16x can still run DOO in the Thames Valley).

Worth pointing out as well that GWR and driver reps have an understanding that no new traction which requires the driver to release the doors will be introduced unless fitted with correct side door enable. It's not impossible to fit the necessary equipment, but it would make any 'quick fix' less quick and more expensive.

 

[craigybagel]

There are some mirrors/monitors, but it's all life-expired and Network Rail are keen to remove it as soon as possible (which is why the focus of the 16x ASDO project, which includes in-cab monitors, has shifted to the east, so that 16x can still run DOO in the Thames Valley).

Worth pointing out as well that GWR and driver reps have an understanding that no new traction which requires the driver to release the doors will be introduced unless fitted with correct side door enable. It's not impossible to fit the necessary equipment, but it would make any 'quick fix' less quick and more expensive.

Cheers, that's pretty much what I suspected. That would most likely rule out 321s, or any other units that don't have cameras fitted then!

 

[CarrotPie]

Worth pointing out as well that GWR and driver reps have an understanding that no new traction which requires the driver to release the doors will be introduced unless fitted with correct side door enable. It's not impossible to fit the necessary equipment, but it would make any 'quick fix' less quick and more expensive.

Does that include "more of the same", ie extra Turbos or Electrostars or only totally new stuff?

 

[Caaardiff]

Apparently TFW's 150's will start to leave the fleet when major C exams are due, as Porterbrook are not planning on putting them through that exam anymore. So unless there's a long term plan for a TOC to take the 150's on, there's no guarantee they will find a new home, unless there's a certain amount that can be life extended with another TOC with a C exam a long way off. It's also dependant on a successful introduction of TFW's 398 trams. Although once the full 197 and 756 fleet are actually in service, TFW may be able to spare some 150's. Where would GWR likely use additional 150's to free up IET's or 158s?

It has also been mentioned that TFW plan not to renew leases on some of the 153's. Some will remain alongside the ones that TFW actually own. There in lies another training issue for another TOC.

175's make sense, they are readily available. Nearly all of them have gone through or will soon have gone through end of lease maintenance. They could be in service sooner than most of the other suggested option.
There are also 27 175s vs 18 158's. They could even replace the 158's with 175's and still increase capacity.

 

[TurboMan]

Does that include "more of the same", ie extra Turbos or Electrostars or only totally new stuff?

The latter as far as I'm aware (387s are already CSDE enabled, as long as the balises are fitted to the track, and 16x will have CSDE once the ASDO system is commissioned).

 

[Lurcheroo]

Apparently TFW's 150's will start to leave the fleet when major C exams are due, as Porterbrook are not planning on putting them through that exam anymore. So unless there's a long term plan for a TOC to take the 150's on, there's no guarantee they will find a new home, unless there's a certain amount that can be life extended with another TOC with a C exam a long way off. It's also dependant on a successful introduction of TFW's 398 trams. Although once the full 197 and 756 fleet are actually in service, TFW may be able to spare some 150's. Where would GWR likely use additional 150's to free up IET's or 158s?

It has also been mentioned that TFW plan not to renew leases on some of the 153's. Some will remain alongside the ones that TFW actually own. There in lies another training issue for another TOC.

175's make sense, they are readily available. Nearly all of them have gone through or will soon have gone through end of lease maintenance. They could be in service sooner than most of the other suggested option.
There are also 27 175s vs 18 158's. They could even replace the 158's with 175's and still increase capacity.

There should be 24 158's at TFW ? still more 175's and some are 3 cars.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

There should be 24 158's at TFW ? still more 175's and some are 3 cars.

18 158s at Great Western Railway. I don't believe one would propose to replace the TfW 158s with stock they have just released, and stock that they have the replacements all lined up for (even if they are leaving it all the way until Dec 24).

He's saying even if GWR got rid of their 158s as they took the 175s on, there would still be a net gain.

 

[RPI]

18 158s at Great Western Railway. I don't believe one would propose to replace the TfW 158s with stock they have just released, and stock that they have the replacements all lined up for (even if they are leaving it all the way until Dec 24).

He's saying even if GWR got rid of their 158s as they took the 175s on, there would still be a net gain.

There would but this is also to replace the remaining HST sets and move some 80x back onto actual High Speed Services.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

There would but this is also to replace the remaining HST sets and move some 80x back onto actual High Speed Services.

Yes, I'm not advocating it in the slightest, simply explaining the post's rationale I for one am sick of the constant 5 cars turning up on Londons, so I'd certainly not want to see a trade off with the 158s.

 

[Lurcheroo]

18 158s at Great Western Railway. I don't believe one would propose to replace the TfW 158s with stock they have just released, and stock that they have the replacements all lined up for (even if they are leaving it all the way until Dec 24).

He's saying even if GWR got rid of their 158s as they took the 175s on, there would still be a net gain.

Ohhhh that makes so much more sense haha !

Yes, I'm not advocating it in the slightest, simply explaining the post's rationale I for one am sick of the constant 5 cars turning up on Londons, so I'd certainly not want to see a trade off with the 158s.

Absolutely crazy in my opinion that they have so many that do run as just 5’s. Hopefully they can get it sorted soon.

 

[Bikeman78]

Yes, I'm not advocating it in the slightest, simply explaining the post's rationale I for one am sick of the constant 5 cars turning up on Londons, so I'd certainly not want to see a trade off with the 158s.

The current situation was predicted by lots of people on this forum when the reduction of HST diagrams was announced.