IC225 for GEML?

[Sidious]

This might seem a wild suggestion, but why not cascade Cl91 + Mk IV formations onto North TransPennine Express Newcastle - Liverpool services?

It would give an Intercity Class train between several cities in the North of England. At many peak periods the current 6 car class 185 formations between Manchester and York are full.

It would also mean that services between York and Newcastle could be accelerated with 125 MPH stock, instead of the current 100 MPH limit.

 

[ash39]

I would imagine platform length at places like Huddersfield, Stalybridge etc would kill that idea off. Not to mention a 185 would be quite a lot quicker when you consider the start stop.

 

[306024]

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.

Careful, you are getting dangerously close to specifying a replacement fleet of class 309 EMUs

Some interesting views here. For what it is worth I'd favour new fixed formation 10 car 23m EMUs, so that won't happen. No doubt more cast-offs coming our way, which if that is considered the most economical solution, so be it. So long as I don't have to stand.

 

[Dave1987]

To be honest having travelled on the 225's just recently I was very surprised at how nice they are. I think most people on GEML would think they were "new trains" per say compared to the state the current intercity sets are in. On balance brand new 10 car emus would be great but if the cheaper option is the 225's and that is the option that is taken dont think most passengers would mind the "cast offs".

 

[D6975]

It's perhaps worth noting that Crosslink and Thameslink are both going to be long sets rather than multiple short sets. Are we seeing the start of a different approach here that will spread to other operations?

 

[joeykins82]

Unlikely I think; the Crossrail, Thameslink and IEP sets are DfT procured & specified stock that'll almost certainly operate on the routes in question until the end of their lives. ROSCO/TOC procured stock will have flexibility in mind for changes to the franchise spec or the lease holder.

 

[tbtc]

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

Correct - but the 380 seems to be more suited to longer distance travel than the equivalent modern units (377s etc), based on my own minimal experience - I appreciate that differences between three/four coach 100 mph EMUs is splitting hairs - there's no reason a 319 couldn't be configured with longer distance seats after all!

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.

Any new stock for the GEML is going to have to be pretty tiny - there are fifteen (?) 90s with GA and little scope for additional loco hauled services on the franchise.

So, do you build a niche class of 15x ten coach EMUs or do you build 30x EMUs of a common design to an existing other order (e.g. for TPE electrification)?

Having a small class of unique units then runs the risk of a future use for them - the long trains for Crossrail and Thameslink are intended to last for thirty-odd years on those lines, like Underground stock, so have been specifically designed for the task. Look at the costs of converting the tiny class of 460s into "normal" trains (once their Gatwick duties ended).

Build more five coach EMUs (as part of a big order for the various other middle-distance lines that require similar stock).

 

[AndyLandy]

Correct - but the 380 seems to be more suited to longer distance travel than the equivalent modern units (377s etc), based on my own minimal experience - I appreciate that differences between three/four coach 100 mph EMUs is splitting hairs - there's no reason a 319 couldn't be configured with longer distance seats after all!

Quite. As far as I can tell, there are three primary variables:

• Vehicle length: 20m or 23m (20m usually commuter stock, 23m usually express stock)
• Door configuration: Mid or End (Mid usually commuter stock, End usually express stock)
• Seating configuration: 3+2 or 2+2 (3+2 usually commuter stock, 2+2 usually express stock)

I have no doubt that if you asked for a 100mph AC EMU design with any configuration of the above, Siemens, Bombardier and Alstom would be able to furnish you with a quote. If you matched something we've previously ordered, you stand a reasonable chance of getting more of that type of train. There's probably little value in saying "We want something that's a bit like the 360, 377, 380, 444..."

Any new stock for the GEML is going to have to be pretty tiny - there are fifteen (?) 90s with GA and little scope for additional loco hauled services on the franchise.

So, do you build a niche class of 15x ten coach EMUs or do you build 30x EMUs of a common design to an existing other order (e.g. for TPE electrification)?

Having a small class of unique units then runs the risk of a future use for them - the long trains for Crossrail and Thameslink are intended to last for thirty-odd years on those lines, like Underground stock, so have been specifically designed for the task. Look at the costs of converting the tiny class of 460s into "normal" trains (once their Gatwick duties ended).

Build more five coach EMUs (as part of a big order for the various other middle-distance lines that require similar stock).

That's exactly my take on the matter at the moment. I doubt anyone disagrees that 15x 10-car EMUs would be the most suitable trains, in the ideal circumstances, but maintaining a unique fleet of 15 trains may be counter-productive in the long run.

 

[Dave1987]

Correct - but the 380 seems to be more suited to longer distance travel than the equivalent modern units (377s etc), based on my own minimal experience - I appreciate that differences between three/four coach 100 mph EMUs is splitting hairs - there's no reason a 319 couldn't be configured with longer distance seats after all!



Any new stock for the GEML is going to have to be pretty tiny - there are fifteen (?) 90s with GA and little scope for additional loco hauled services on the franchise.

So, do you build a niche class of 15x ten coach EMUs or do you build 30x EMUs of a common design to an existing other order (e.g. for TPE electrification)?

Having a small class of unique units then runs the risk of a future use for them - the long trains for Crossrail and Thameslink are intended to last for thirty-odd years on those lines, like Underground stock, so have been specifically designed for the task. Look at the costs of converting the tiny class of 460s into "normal" trains (once their Gatwick duties ended).

Build more five coach EMUs (as part of a big order for the various other middle-distance lines that require similar stock).

Sorry but 2 x 5 car emus are just not suitable. You would end up having to first class carriages one at the front of the train and one in the middle of the train. So you would need two buffets cars as first class passengers get complementary refreshments. Also because there is no need or space for them to split you would still be wasting middle cab space all the time. Why would a 10 car desiro not be able to spend its full life on GEML? In many ways the cascaded stock would be more suitable for the line!!

 

[tbtc]

Quite. As far as I can tell, there are three primary variables:

• Vehicle length: 20m or 23m (20m usually commuter stock, 23m usually express stock)
• Door configuration: Mid or End (Mid usually commuter stock, End usually express stock)
• Seating configuration: 3+2 or 2+2 (3+2 usually commuter stock, 2+2 usually express stock)

I have no doubt that if you asked for a 100mph AC EMU design with any configuration of the above, Siemens, Bombardier and Alstom would be able to furnish you with a quote. If you matched something we've previously ordered, you stand a reasonable chance of getting more of that type of train. There's probably little value in saying "We want something that's a bit like the 360, 377, 380, 444..."

We do have a lot of different versions of what are basically two or three different types of EMU - when you consider all of the classes and subclasses of 100mph unit!

It makes railways both interesting and frustrating.

That's exactly my take on the matter at the moment. I doubt anyone disagrees that 15x 10-car EMUs would be the most suitable trains, in the ideal circumstances, but maintaining a unique fleet of 15 trains may be counter-productive in the long run

Fair point.

I don't think that there's anything unique about the London - Norwich route in railway terms - and there are plenty of lines that will require similar middle distance 100/110mph EMUs over the rest of the decade.

Why complicate things by ordering a tiny class (like the 180s or 460s)?

 

[AndyLandy]

Sorry but 2 x 5 car emus are just not suitable. You would end up having to first class carriages one at the front of the train and one in the middle of the train. So you would need two buffets cars as first class passengers get complementary refreshments. Also because there is no need or space for them to split you would still be wasting middle cab space all the time. Why would a 10 car desiro not be able to spend its full life on GEML? In many ways the cascaded stock would be more suitable for the line!!

These are all "problems" that we have to live with on the SWML. You could put all the 1st class together by orienting the units such that it's all in the centre, but it's really not a big deal at all.

There is no denying that centre cabs and twice the buffet provision is wasteful of space, but it will waste much less space than a locomotive and DVT do. If you're looking at capacity 2x5-car EMUs is still better than cascading Mk4s. Yes, you're right that a single 10-car design is even better for the line, but does it really make that big a difference?

If there was somewhere else on the network where 10-car EMUs would be useful, I'd totally support an additional order of 15 or so for the GE. But ordering a dedicated small fleet? Assuming they'll live out their lives on the GE is all well and good if you assume that service patterns will never change. But if they do, you could end up with another fleet of 442s, that nobody really knows what to do with any more.

 

[tbtc]

Sorry but 2 x 5 car emus are just not suitable. You would end up having to first class carriages one at the front of the train and one in the middle of the train. So you would need two buffets cars as first class passengers get complementary refreshments. Also because there is no need or space for them to split you would still be wasting middle cab space all the time. Why would a 10 car desiro not be able to spend its full life on GEML? In many ways the cascaded stock would be more suitable for the line!!

These are all "problems" that we have to live with on the SWML

London to Norwich is usually mentioned alongside London to Bournemouth as they are pretty similar journeys (in terms of distance, time, frequency).

SWT manage to run EMUs efficiently on their line - I've seen thousands of "enthusiastic" suggestions on this forum (reopening ancient lines etc), but never seen anyone suggest that SWT replace their 444/450s with ten coach EMUs.

you could end up with another fleet of 442s, that nobody really knows what to do with any more

Good example

 

[Tobbes]

Being a relatively frequent GEML passenger, I can only echo the hope that they will get "proper" coaches (EMU or hauled/DVT'd) to replace the Mark 3s. It's such a pleasure to get up to the quiet coach B and settle down with no doors opening and shutting 1/3 / 2/3 at Chelmsford, Colchester & Manningtree, especially in winter. Mark 4s would be great, as would Chilternised Mark 3s.

One question on the infrastructure - I know that most of it tops out at 100 mph, but how much scope is there for 110 or 125mph running (even if this would largely be north of Ipswich)? Not going to save a lot of time to Norwich, but ever little bit helps (as would knocking out Chelmsford stops....!)

Tobbes

 

[Dave1987]

Being a relatively frequent GEML passenger, I can only echo the hope that they will get "proper" coaches (EMU or hauled/DVT'd) to replace the Mark 3s. It's such a pleasure to get up to the quiet coach B and settle down with no doors opening and shutting 1/3 / 2/3 at Chelmsford, Colchester & Manningtree, especially in winter. Mark 4s would be great, as would Chilternised Mark 3s.

One question on the infrastructure - I know that most of it tops out at 100 mph, but how much scope is there for 110 or 125mph running (even if this would largely be north of Ipswich)? Not going to save a lot of time to Norwich, but ever little bit helps (as would knocking out Chelmsford stops....!)

Tobbes

The big problem is signalling and level crossings. It would require a lot of investment to get the line up to that spec. NR recently tried to get a change of use for Motts Lane crossing to enable a cheaper foot crossing to be installed. But the ramblers association objected to it and demanded that it remain a bridal way. Needless to say the cost of putting a bridal bridge in is about 4 times more expensive. Some level crossings would be impossible to realistically put a bridge in and closing the crossing is the only alternative but you then get mass local opposition. It would take a very large amount to get GEML up to even 110mph all the way.

 

[TheGrew]

A bit of a random thought, but would the Class 700/1 be suitable (with a more intercity interior)
I was also wondering if you were to order a set of EMUs for Liverpool St-Norwich if you could improve the viability of the fleet by also replacing the units used on Liverpool St-Ipswich?

 

[Dave1987]

A bit of a random thought, but would the Class 700/1 be suitable (with a more intercity interior)
I was also wondering if you were to order a set of EMUs for Liverpool St-Norwich if you could improve the viability of the fleet by also replacing the units used on Liverpool St-Ipswich?

Do you mean the 360's? They were only introduced in 2003.

 

[Tobbes]

Dave, many thanks

*If* the crossings issue could be sorted, do you / others know how much of GEML is theoretically / geometrically capable of being upgraded to 110 / 125? And how much time would this save to Colchester / Manningtree / Ipswich / Norwich (stopping LSt / Stratford / Colchester / Manningtree / Ipswich / Norwich)?

Cheers,

Tobbes

 

[TheGrew]

Do you mean the 360's? They were only introduced in 2003.

Surely the 360s could be cascaded to replace older units like the 321s. Or combined with the units currently running Heathrow connect that are due to be replaced by Crossrail and used by GA or moved to a different TOC like TPE or Northern.

 

[dosxuk]

So, do you build a niche class of 15x ten coach EMUs or do you build 30x EMUs of a common design to an existing other order (e.g. for TPE electrification)?

Isn't the solution to build 30x 5 car EMUs, but with 15x in one internal configuration and 15x in another and operate them in semi-permanently coupled pairs? (LU and Eurostar seem to manage this type of operation fine)

Example - fifteen of each of:
- Driving First + First + First Buffet + Standard + Standard Shunt
- Shunt Standard + Standard + Standard + Standard + Driving Standard Luggage

Have the "Shunt" vehicles fitted with a standard sized cab, but only fit it out with basic controls suitable for moving the units around in the depot.

As far as the manufacturer is concerned, they've supplied 30x 5 car units. As far as the operator is concerned, they have 15x 10 car units. If the units need cascading later in their lives, the shunt cabs could be refitted with a full cab, and the seating can easily be reconfigured / replaced.

 

[Dave1987]

Surely the 360s could be cascaded to replace older units like the 321s. Or combined with the units currently running Heathrow connect that are due to be replaced by Crossrail and used by GA or moved to a different TOC like TPE or Northern.

But the 321's are only about 25 years old and in my opinion a much better train. Plus you would also have to replace all the 321's on the Southend vic line and I don't think enough 360's exist to cascade to replace all the 321's on GA. they are our core traction. The 360's are overly complicated compared to 321's.

 

[D365]

Surely the 360s could be cascaded to replace older units like the 321s. Or combined with the units currently running Heathrow connect that are due to be replaced by Crossrail and used by GA or moved to a different TOC like TPE or Northern.

I was thinking the 26-strong 360 fleet (minus the HC /2 5th cars) could move to GN for non-Thameslink/Moorgate service but it seems that all 40 365s and 44+ of the 313s will be utilised. The 360s could go to LM for a like-for-like replacement of their 323 fleet, which would go to Northern. Platform extensions and/or SDO would be needed though, with 4x20m (80m) replacing 3x23m (69m), doubled on some routes.

But the 321's are only about 25 years old and in my opinion a much better train. Plus you would also have to replace all the 321's on the Southend vic line and I don't think enough 360's exist to cascade to replace all the 321's on GA. they are our core traction. The 360's are overly complicated compared to 321's.

I have the perfect answer; more 321s for you! Take the 13 GN units and add the 7 Midland as and when they are replaced, perhaps by the 10 TPE 350/4s. Also have some more 317s and spruce up the lot if you feel like it

About the express fleet, I haven't used this service so I can't make any judgement on the state of it. 'Chiltern-ise' the Mk3s, perhaps add Traxx power o.e. or alternatively go for the 444 equivalent in what would hopefully be a larger order. I'm just repeating what others have said.

 

[Lockwood]

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.

Can't speak for the buffet, but have them formed as 4 standard class then a first class at the B end.
Pair them as AB-BA.
First class is together.

 

[43074]

If the Mainline service between Norwich and Liverpool Street were to be operated by 5-car EMUs, where would splitting/joining take place anyway? Colchester is on a very congested stretch of line and you would block the Up/Down Main for 5 or 10 minutes each hour to split or join, Ipswich platforms 2 and 3 are on a curve so might cause problems with the alignment of the coupler pins when coupling. Also the detached unit from London would have to negotiate the track at the North end of the station to get from Platform 3 to Platform 2. If you split or join during the turn around at Norwich or Liverpool Street you defeat the object of running EMUs in the first place by not utilising the flexibility offered by EMUs to split or join in a matter of minutes during the journey. Finally if coupling doesn't work and you end up leaving a station with a 5 car set vice 10 cars, then you will have overcrowding.

Journey time reductions would be marginal, because the trains run relatively long distances (e.g. Ipswich to Diss or Colchester to London) non-stop, and acceleration becomes less important as distance between stops increases.

Best to leave the Norwich to London service with refurbished Mark 3s + Traxx and then give the 91s and Mark 4s to the Midland Mainline for their fast Sheffield or Nottingham services.

I have no problem with EMUs on the route but they would have to be fixed formation 10 car trains for it to make sense.

Can't speak for the buffet, but have them formed as 4 standard class then a first class at the B end.
Pair them as AB-BA.
First class is together.

How would you keep First Class together all of the time? You would have to run them in a fixed formation permanently so it would be pointless ordering short units in the first place. 15 10 car EMUs will do nicely, with a small galley and First Class in the London end Driving car, 2 more first class vehicles, a mini buffet in a Standard Class, 5 Standard class coaches and a driving standard vehicle with cycle space at the end. Alternatively, stick with what we've got.

 

[joeykins82]

Can't speak for the buffet, but have them formed as 4 standard class then a first class at the B end.
Pair them as AB-BA.
First class is together.

But then you'll get the first class pax complaining when the Stds come ambling through first to get to the buffet/shop, since inevitably there'll only be a shop operating in one of the two sets. It'd make more sense to have the first accom at the two ends, or to replace the static buffet/shops with a trolley service that comes to the first class areas (which I suspect would go down like a lead balloon).

 

[TheGrew]

What about 10 car 395s with maintenance being carried out by Hitachi in Ashford?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[D365]

What about 10 car 395s with maintenance being carried out by Hitachi in Ashford?

395 is more a commuter/express hybrid in my experience. Might as well just go for IEP if you're going down that road. Ashford's too far out anyway; is it really sensible introducing yet more variation to the GA fleet?

 

[AndyLandy]

We do have a lot of different versions of what are basically two or three different types of EMU - when you consider all of the classes and subclasses of 100mph unit!

It makes railways both interesting and frustrating.

Indeed. The whole of the Southern region (SWT, Southern, SouthEastern) could probably be ran with a single EMU design. Whether that's Siemens (a la 350/450); Bombardier (a la 377) or Alstom (a la 458) is neither here nor there. Depending on how you furnish them internally (2+2, 3+2, longitudinal) and a bit of flex on forming them as 3-, 4-, or 5-car sets, you've basically got a train that's suitable for just about anything in the region. Whack in a DEMU off the same platform for London-Salisbury-Exeter, Oxted and the other unelectrified bits and you've got a coherent fleet. And there's no reason you couldn't add a 444-esque train for the longer distance Intercity services if you really wanted one. Particularly if it's a design that interoperated with your existing trains.

London to Norwich is usually mentioned alongside London to Bournemouth as they are pretty similar journeys (in terms of distance, time, frequency).

SWT manage to run EMUs efficiently on their line - I've seen thousands of "enthusiastic" suggestions on this forum (reopening ancient lines etc), but never seen anyone suggest that SWT replace their 444/450s with ten coach EMUs.

In fairness, SWT do make use of splits and joins of the units. It's not uncommon for a 10-444 to split at Southampton and the front runs fast to Bournemouth then does a stopping service down to Poole or Weymouth, and the rear unit does a stopping service down to Bournemouth.

Of course, maybe SWT could have ordered a combination of 5- and 10- car trains, so as not to waste space on trains that run full-formation end to end. But for some bizarre reason that I just can't quite fathom, they decided not to do that. I wonder why that might be?

 

[corin paul]

I question whether the GEML really needs locos and coaches.

I think an OHL version of the class 444 would have been ideal for London-Norwich services, worked as a single unit off-peak and pairs in the peak. As the 444 is no longer available, I would go for a class 379 (or similar) EMU solution to Mk 3 & class 90 replacement. Do away with the cafe and go over to at-seat trolley catering.

However, assuming an EMU solution is rejected, Mk 4 plus class 90 sounds good: but far less flexible around peaks and troughs in demand.

Did read somewhere an E.M.U. works one of the turns in the morning. So I am with this idea.

 

[Bald Rick]

Dave, many thanks

*If* the crossings issue could be sorted, do you / others know how much of GEML is theoretically / geometrically capable of being upgraded to 110 / 125? And how much time would this save to Colchester / Manningtree / Ipswich / Norwich (stopping LSt / Stratford / Colchester / Manningtree / Ipswich / Norwich)?

Cheers,

Tobbes

If the crossings were sorted, the signalling upgraded, the OLE retensioned, the power supply strengthened, the track maintenance enhanced (considerably), some bridges rebuilt, some embankments strengthened, places of (staff) safety provided for 100mph+ operation, some track renewed to 100mph+ standards, some of the curves realigned, and some junctions removed altogether, then most of the route is fit for 125. Exceptions are through Chelmsford, Colchester, Manningtree and Ipswich station areas but trains would be stopping there.

Assuming 125 where it is currently 100, and a train of Pendolinesque characteristics, the journey time saving London-Norwich is approx 8mins on today's stopping pattern. Roughly half this saving is due to the better acceleration / braking of the train, and half is due to the raised line speeds. This assumes that all the slower trains in front are shifted out of the way, these being the ones that call at wayside halts such as Shenfield, Witham etc.

With new trains it would be an awful lot of money to save 4 mins. Alternatively knock out a stop for free.

 

[D365]

Indeed. The whole of the Southern region (SWT, Southern, SouthEastern) could probably be ran with a single EMU design. Whether that's Siemens (a la 350/450); Bombardier (a la 377) or Alstom (a la 458) is neither here nor there...

Can you imagine if the entire Southern region had gone for Class 458... Washwood Heath wouldn't be able to churn them out quickly enough, let alone take any back - would have been a disaster! Even if infrastructure did take a little longer, and that they are now the most reliable train.