IC225 for GEML?

[junglejames]

91s have questionable reliability (they'd need a lot spending on an overhaul)

The 91s are at the stage where they are needing an overhaul. All trains go through this stage numerous times in their lifecycle.

If you wanted to replace trains just because they are approaching overhaul time, well, that could be a good thing, as you are suggesting the replacement of voyagers and bendy pendys. Voyagers themselves are in line for a heavy overhaul as they themselves are apparently sh***ed. Replacement time? If only.


As for what should go where. Well there are too many Mk4s for the GEML. So the best solution is IC225s to the MML, and the Mk3s on the GEML to undergo a Chilternisation. 90s and Mk3s still have years of service to give, and this would be a lot cheaper than newbuild. Unless of course Norwich passengers want a more expensive, and inferior service?? I for one would still like to visit Norwich on occasion. Ive been stopped from using the WCML, and will shortly be stopped from using the GWML and ECML. At least allow me to continue using the GEML.

 

[jon0844]

People are stopping you from using trains?!

 

[junglejames]

People are stopping you from using trains?!

Yep. The people who introduced c**p. You introduce voyagers, and you stop me using XC. You introduce bendy pendys, and you stop me using the WCML. Oh, and before anyone says im just being stupid. No, im not. They are honestly horrendously uncomfortable, and i cant stand the cramped nature of bendy pendys. I can only do long distance on them if in 1st class. Standard is an absolute no no. When you have some pacers with more comfortable seats, and more space than a pendy, you know there are problems.

I did Oxford to Southampton frequently on a voyager years ago, and that was horrendous enough. Nowadays they are even worse.

 

[AndyLandy]

Yep. The people who introduced c**p. You introduce voyagers, and you stop me using XC. You introduce bendy pendys, and you stop me using the WCML. Oh, and before anyone says im just being stupid. No, im not. They are honestly horrendously uncomfortable, and i cant stand the cramped nature of bendy pendys. I can only do long distance on them if in 1st class. Standard is an absolute no no. When you have some pacers with more comfortable seats, and more space than a pendy, you know there are problems.

I did Oxford to Southampton frequently on a voyager years ago, and that was horrendous enough. Nowadays they are even worse.

Those are your preferences, and it is your privilege to choose whether or not to travel by train.

Sadly, neither your preferences, nor our academic discussions here will likely have any bearing on what eventually replaces the current fleet of GA Intercity trains.

 

[dk1]

There is no need for Norwich-London services to split during the off-peak because anyone who travels on the services will know they are well filled all day (apart from the early morning down Norwich services) this pretense that 5 car emus are needed so they can split during the off peak is complete rubbish. They need to be full strength all day. So it's either a brand new full length 10 intercity type EMU or the cascaded 225's from east coast.

Why not use the cheaper 225's?

Well said. On an ordinary day morning trains up until the 11.00 ex-Nrw would need to be doubles and so would down trains from the 14.30 & far earlier Fridays/School holidays, so hardly worth the effort. Splitting/attatching would be a performance nightmare too.

 

[306024]

Splitting/attatching would be a performance nightmare too.

Too true. It used to be done on the Shenfield Metro's to reduce unit mileage, but fortunately Westfield Shopping Centre at Stratford saved us from that. And then there were the Stansted Express services that used to split into 4 cars off peak and leave units all over the place, turning Liverpool St into a car park and forcing passengers to walk past dead units to find their train. Very helpful with luggage in tow

 

[junglejames]

Those are your preferences, and it is your privilege to choose whether or not to travel by train.

Sadly, neither your preferences, nor our academic discussions here will likely have any bearing on what eventually replaces the current fleet of GA Intercity trains.

Dont i know it.

 

[joeykins82]

Can anyone explain why there's a preference for electric loco haulage over EMU? I totally get that in a choice between diesel loco vs DMU that loco is much nicer (no noise/vibration from the underfloor engine) but on an electrified route the loco vs MU consideration, to me at least, is completely irrelevant. It's much more about the ambience (especially the lighting), configuration and comfort of the seating and noise insulation. I don't get what the issue would be with replacing the c90+mk3 sets with something akin to the c444 (70 first, 598 std seats in a doubled up set).

NR want to eliminate loco hauled passenger services because MUs accelerate so much faster, and on a railway as intensively operated as the UK's that matters a lot.

 

[Dave1987]

Can anyone explain why there's a preference for electric loco haulage over EMU? I totally get that in a choice between diesel loco vs DMU that loco is much nicer (no noise/vibration from the underfloor engine) but on an electrified route the loco vs MU consideration, to me at least, is completely irrelevant. It's much more about the ambience (especially the lighting), configuration and comfort of the seating and noise insulation. I don't get what the issue would be with replacing the c90+mk3 sets with something akin to the c444 (70 first, 598 std seats in a doubled up set).

NR want to eliminate loco hauled passenger services because MUs accelerate so much faster, and on a railway as intensively operated as the UK's that matters a lot.

There is no "problem" as such but the cascaded sets will be cheaper and you would have wasted middle cab space as the Norwich-London services need to be full strength all day. Any emu would need to be 10 cars long to eliminate the wasted middle cab space plus they would undoubtedly be more expensive so why not go for the cheaper cascaded stock with new locos.

I can't emphasise enough that people who say there is a need to use 2x5 cars emus so they can split in the off peak are talking nonsense. They need to be full capacity throughout the day!

 

[joeykins82]

The "wasted middle cab space" (losing between 4-5m of space in total between the set pairs) is less wasteful than the loco & DVT though, and if the usage justifies it then doubled up 5 car sets that don't split en route still make more operational sense than a fixed formation set because if one of the sets fails for whatever reason then the service can still run, albeit short-formed.

 

[O L Leigh]

Barking...!!

The wasted space of middle cabs in an MU formation is far far less than the wasted platform space required for a loco and (largely empty) DVT. Introducing Mk4s onto the GEML route is not an improvement in any way whatsoever except that the vehicles are newer and purpose built for push-pull working unlike the Mk3s. No matter what the motive power used with them, cascading them onto the GEML is a pointless exercise except to ensure that the stock is employed.

It annoys me that the GEML is simply used as a dumping ground for stock cascaded from elsewhere (the WCML in the past). Whether or not the formations split, the ideal rolling stock for the route is a modern 23 metre body 5 car EMU with a proper intercity seating layout run in pairs. The last thing the GEML needs is yet more cast-offs from elsewhere.

O L Leigh

 

[AndyLandy]

The "wasted middle cab space" (losing between 4-5m of space in total between the set pairs) is less wasteful than the loco & DVT though, and if the usage justifies it then doubled up 5 car sets that don't split en route still make more operational sense than a fixed formation set because if one of the sets fails for whatever reason then the service can still run, albeit short-formed.

The question is about practicality. In the ideal world, the GE would get a new-build 10-car EMU design that's specified exactly for the service.

But when you have to factor in things like cost and suitability for use elsewhere, you need to consider other options.

1. You could simply make the existing Mk3 vehicles PRM-TSI compliant. You don't even necessarily need power doors for that, they just need to be openable from the inside. Cheap, easy, functional.
2. We've signed the paperwork to replace the IC225s with IEP on the ECML. That's going to result in about 30 spare electric Intercity train sets. The Mk4 vehicles are more suitable than Mk3s accessibility-wise, so if they're available, it might make more sense to use them and ditch the Mk3s instead. If the slower acceleration of the 91s makes them a poor choice for the GE, then using the existing fleet of 90s with the Mk4s is a reasonable solution.
3. Perhaps funding may be available for a new EMU for that line, but we want to avoid the situation where we have a fleet of 15 trains that are unique to everything else on the network. Buying in more of an existing design might be considered a suitable compromise. 30 sets of 5-car "Class 344" trains, even if they're always ran in pairs, could be a solution. For sure, some space will be wasted due to central cabs, but it won't be nearly as much space as a locomotive and DVT use.

Of course, I bet Dave1987 is secretly crossing his fingers for another batch of IEP trains for the GE service.

 

[Loki]

Just out of curiosity is it absolutely impossible to fit double deckers on any of these routes?

 

[starrymarkb]

Yes, Most double decks have the lower deck between the bogies, fine on the continent where 26m is the norm and the loading gauge is wide down to almost rail height. In the UK our platforms would intrude into the lower deck area making it unfeasible narrow.

A long term solution might be to fit new build trains with retractable 'gangplanks'* so that platforms can be trimmed back gradually.

*Most new EMUs on the continent have them at all doors to give a level bridge between the platform and the train meaning no more 'mind the gap'

 

[JamesRowden]

3. Perhaps funding may be available for a new EMU for that line, but we want to avoid the situation where we have a fleet of 15 trains that are unique to everything else on the network. Buying in more of an existing design might be considered a suitable compromise. 30 sets of 5-car "Class 344" trains, even if they're always ran in pairs, could be a solution. For sure, some space will be wasted due to central cabs, but it won't be nearly as much space as a locomotive and DVT use.

This option would be even cheaper if implemented using a more standard style of EMU. Great Western will probably run Thames Valley services which run fast between Paddington and Reading and then either fast to Oxford or a stopping service to Newbury/Oxford. 110 mph EMUs with 'commuter' style double doors and 2+2 seeting should provide comfort and use the capacity between Paddington and Reading efficiently. I think that this style train would also work on the Great Eastern fast services since London to Nrowich takes less than 2 hours and people have been repeatedly stating that capacity is crucial along the route during the peak (hence my suggestion for wider doors). The services could be formed of 3X4 car 20m carriages or 2X5 car 23m carriages.

 

[joeykins82]

Wider doors reduce seating capacity. They reduce station dwell times which is important for suburban/metro services but for regional/intercity services end doors are more appropriate.

 

[JamesRowden]

Wider doors reduce seating capacity.

Not if they take the place of luggage racks.

 

[TheEdge]

Not if they take the place of luggage racks.

So where does the luggage go?

Frankly (and this is from someone who works Mk3s up and down the GEML) I think the best solution is a Chilternisation of the current fleet. Everything still fits into platforms and staff don't need too much additional training. Life is a lot easier for us guards with power doors and dispatch times will be improved.

What I expect to see, OHL 444s.

 

[JamesRowden]

So where does the luggage go?

On overhead luggage racks.

Or under the chair (if it is too wide for the rack)

If that is not enough space for someone's huge suit case they can use a hiking bag instead and not carry so much.

Or of course they can stand with it in the door way which will still have enough space for people to walk past.

 

[AndyLandy]

On overhead luggage racks.

Reasonable, but why not stick with Express doors and have even more space for seating, as well as putting the luggage overhead?

(Actually, you can't do away with all the luggage space, some stuff just won't fit overhead, or is too heavy to put there, but putting most of it overhead makes sense.)

 

[JamesRowden]

Reasonable, but why not stick with Express doors and have even more space for seating, as well as putting the luggage overhead?

(Actually, you can't do away with all the luggage space, some stuff just won't fit overhead, or is too heavy to put there, but putting most of it overhead makes sense.)

Wider doors might actually make it easier to get large luggage on board (e.g. bike, huge suitcase) (but the owner would have to stand for the journey).

 

[AndyLandy]

Wider doors might actually make it easier to get large luggage on board (e.g. bike, huge suitcase) (but the owner would have to stand for the journey).

To be fair, my reasons for suggesting an Express layout is because the service is described as an Intercity one, and that's what there currently.

If the usage patterns are long-distance travellers, I'd suspect that an Express layout would be more appropriate than a Commuter one. But I freely admit that I don't know the route well enough to judge.

Cost-wise, I don't see why an Express layout EMU should cost much different from an equivalent Commuter layout one.

 

[tbtc]

Barking...!!

The wasted space of middle cabs in an MU formation is far far less than the wasted platform space required for a loco and (largely empty) DVT. Introducing Mk4s onto the GEML route is not an improvement in any way whatsoever except that the vehicles are newer and purpose built for push-pull working unlike the Mk3s. No matter what the motive power used with them, cascading them onto the GEML is a pointless exercise except to ensure that the stock is employed.

It annoys me that the GEML is simply used as a dumping ground for stock cascaded from elsewhere (the WCML in the past). Whether or not the formations split, the ideal rolling stock for the route is a modern 23 metre body 5 car EMU with a proper intercity seating layout run in pairs. The last thing the GEML needs is yet more cast-offs from elsewhere.

O L Leigh

I'd agree (based on my significantly lower experience of the GEML) - and suggest that this is the kind of unit 110mph that we probably require for the Liverpool - Newcastle, Manchester - Glasgow, Bristol - Swansea (etc) lines that are being electrified in the next few years. Maybe even Manchester - Bournemouth, Glasgow - Edinburgh, London - Newbury/Oxford (semi fast) etc too.

In your opinion, would such a unit be better for the GA London - Cambridge services than the 379s?

(I'd include the MML, but that really depends on the fate of the 225s)

 

[O L Leigh]

Well, I happen to believe that the ideal unit already exists in the form of the Cl380. It's a 23 metre body EMU that could be formed and configured in any way desired and I think that building more Cl350s for TPE is short-sighted and a mistake given the distances over which they are expected to operate.

As for the Cambridge run, no I don't believe that they would be suitable. The platforms lengths are sufficient for 8 or 12 car formations using 20 metre body EMUs. SDO would help a bit, but you'd end up with coaches hanging out the ends of the platforms and could never run any formation longer than 10 coaches.

O L Leigh

 

[tbtc]

Well, I happen to believe that the ideal unit already exists in the form of the Cl380. It's a 23 metre body EMU that could be formed and configured in any way desired and I think that building more Cl350s for TPE is short-sighted and a mistake given the distances over which they are expected to operate.

As for the Cambridge run, no I don't believe that they would be suitable. The platforms lengths are sufficient for 8 or 12 car formations using 20 metre body EMUs. SDO would help a bit, but you'd end up with coaches hanging out the ends of the platforms and could never run any formation longer than 10 coaches.

O L Leigh

Cheers - it's a shame that we're not seeing a follow on of 380s for elsewhere as they seem to be the closest to the "overhead 444" that enthusiasts usually "wish" for (based on what is on the current market)

 

[Dave1987]

The "wasted middle cab space" (losing between 4-5m of space in total between the set pairs) is less wasteful than the loco & DVT though, and if the usage justifies it then doubled up 5 car sets that don't split en route still make more operational sense than a fixed formation set because if one of the sets fails for whatever reason then the service can still run, albeit short-formed.

So why aren't the pendo's on the WCML all 5 car emu's just in case one breaks down....... because they have thunderbirds for that precise reason.

If you are going to use emus which I'm not saying would be a problem you need to make them a full length emu.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The whole point is that if you are going to buy brand new trains why would you get 5 car trains? They are going to stay together all day so you might as well save the middle cab space and buy full length emus.

 

[AndyLandy]

Cheers - it's a shame that we're not seeing a follow on of 380s for elsewhere as they seem to be the closest to the "overhead 444" that enthusiasts usually "wish" for (based on what is on the current market)

380s have commuter doors though, right? I thought the usual reason for citing the 444 is it's the only example of a Desiro/Electrostar with express doors.

What actually are the differences between 350s, 360s and 380s? They all appear to be much of a muchness to me.

So why aren't the pendo's on the WCML all 5 car emu's just in case one breaks down....... because they have thunderbirds for that precise reason.

If you are going to use emus which I'm not saying would be a problem you need to make them a full length emu.

The whole point is that if you are going to buy brand new trains why would you get 5 car trains? They are going to stay together all day so you might as well save the middle cab space and buy full length emus.

The design of a Pendolino would mean that two units joined would waste about a carriage's worth of platform space, and would preclude the ability to pass between sets, as there's no gangway. Besides, there was a requirement for tilting trains on the WCML, so a dedicated fleet of trains was procured.

The GE is a little bit different. It doesn't need 125mph+ running, nor does it need tilting trains. For operational flexibility and future compatibility with other stock, it probably makes sense to procure something that fits in with trains we already have. Something off the Desiro platform would seem a reasonable solution. Particularly as there are already class 360 Desiros in the GA fleet.

So, I'd actually agree with you that the ideal unit would probably be a 10-car Desiro design with 23m vehicles, express doors and 2+2 seating.

However, I don't think that having 2x 5-car units is that big a deal. Yes, you'll lose a little bit of space, and if we're getting new trains, why not just get trains that are long enough, but is it really a huge deal?

 

[starrymarkb]

350 and 360 are essentially the same train, but with different historys.

Originally the 360 was an AC Version of the Desiro for FGE, though they have a full width cab rather then gangwayed due to issues with DOO mirrors on the Great Eastern. The second batch for Heathrow connect started out as an AC version of the standard 450 (provisionally 350/0), but again for DOO reasons were fitted with the 360 cab (1 unit was fitted with a gangwayed cab but it was replaced before entering service)

The next batch of 350s (/1s) were diverted from the SWT growth order when the government found themselves facing a big bill from Siemens for cancelling while the units were under construction when the required infrastructure works fell through. At great expense the order was converted to dual voltage 4 car units (from 5 car DC only - the Mother of Last Minute Variation orders in the words of Roger Ford) for Central/Silverlink (later LM)

380s are a new lighter 23m bodyshell (after complaints about Siemens stock being too heavy) - they are a hybrid between the original Desiro and Desiro City for Thameslink

 

[Dave1987]

380s have commuter doors though, right? I thought the usual reason for citing the 444 is it's the only example of a Desiro/Electrostar with express doors.

What actually are the differences between 350s, 360s and 380s? They all appear to be much of a muchness to me.



The design of a Pendolino would mean that two units joined would waste about a carriage's worth of platform space, and would preclude the ability to pass between sets, as there's no gangway. Besides, there was a requirement for tilting trains on the WCML, so a dedicated fleet of trains was procured.

The GE is a little bit different. It doesn't need 125mph+ running, nor does it need tilting trains. For operational flexibility and future compatibility with other stock, it probably makes sense to procure something that fits in with trains we already have. Something off the Desiro platform would seem a reasonable solution. Particularly as there are already class 360 Desiros in the GA fleet.

So, I'd actually agree with you that the ideal unit would probably be a 10-car Desiro design with 23m vehicles, express doors and 2+2 seating.

However, I don't think that having 2x 5-car units is that big a deal. Yes, you'll lose a little bit of space, and if we're getting new trains, why not just get trains that are long enough, but is it really a huge deal?

If we were to get new trains I would just see it as a waste. Take the class 360's for instance. DMC1 and DMC2 are built exactly the same, only difference is one has the main compressor on it (DMC1). It's just one is turned around but they are all made in exactly same way. The same applies to the TS and PTS coaches. I'm sure that virtually all emus are built this way now in a modular way. Only difference is the equipment tht is bolted to them inside and out. How hard would it be, if new emus were built for the GEML intercity services, for the to be 10 cars long instead on 5? Plus I'm pretty sure the Norwich services are required to have buffet car. If you could have a 10 car intercity type emu with a full buffet it would be fine.

 

[D6975]

If we were to get new trains I would just see it as a waste. Take the class 360's for instance. DMC1 and DMC2 are built exactly the same, only difference is one has the main compressor on it (DMC1). It's just one is turned around but they are all made in exactly same way. The same applies to the TS and PTS coaches. I'm sure that virtually all emus are built this way now in a modular way. Only difference is the equipment tht is bolted to them inside and out. How hard would it be, if new emus were built for the GEML intercity services, for the to be 10 cars long instead on 5? Plus I'm pretty sure the Norwich services are required to have buffet car. If you could have a 10 car intercity type emu with a full buffet it would be fine.

Yes, 2x5 may be fine for suburban use, but 'intercity' services have a significant amount of first class, which operators would prefer to be all together and at one end. Also the buffet car problem, if all the sets are the same you have 2 buffets, only one in use the other dead space. Or do you go for two variants, buffet and non buffet sets, one of each making up a set. 10 car sets make it so much easier and use the space more efficiently.