Knock-on effect of electrification scheme cancellations on **Rolling Stock**

[Kettledrum]

Errrrrrr. Wrong way round. The EMT HST I am currently sat on has 469 seats (112 first and 357 standard) in 8 cars. If you make it all standard class that goes up to around 530 seats. Any 22x has less seats than a Mark 3 - the 22x design (especially 220 and 221) is incredibly poor in its use of space.

Focusing on seats is not the whole picture.

I had to stand on a EMT 22x this week - with lots of other people, and realised there was much more space to stand than if we had all been standing in an HST.

Similarly luggage space is also an important factor on some services.

The DOT obsession with seats means that on other lines 3+2 seating is squeezed in, with even less standing space.

...and some cases, we just have to pay for more carriages and longer trains (probably more XC than MML though).

 

[The Ham]

Errrrrrr. Wrong way round. The EMT HST I am currently sat on has 469 seats (112 first and 357 standard) in 8 cars. If you make it all standard class that goes up to around 530 seats. Any 22x has less seats than a Mark 3 - the 22x design (especially 220 and 221) is incredibly poor in its use of space.

I didn't compare HST's. However what I think that you missed is that I was including the length of the loco and DVT.

If you had an all standard class 22x which was 10 coaches it would have 596 seats in the same length as an 8+2 HST. Which is about 65 seats more.

 

[PHILIPE]

Focusing on seats is not the whole picture.

I had to stand on a EMT 22x this week - with lots of other people, and realised there was much more space to stand than if we had all been standing in an HST.

Similarly luggage space is also an important factor on some services.

The DOT obsession with seats means that on other lines 3+2 seating is squeezed in, with even less standing space.

...and some cases, we just have to pay for more carriages and longer trains (probably more XC than MML though).

The DFT could favour 2+3 seating to provide more seats so that they can brag that they have provided more seats to ease overcrowing. That's the impression I get

 

[edwin_m]

In that case, would EMT would have a micro fleet, just for the Corby trains, that was not compatible with the rest of the MML fleet. The consequences of this are a lack of flexibility, increased maintenance challenges and driver training etc.

There would also be no inter-operability with the rest of the MML fleet, no chance that a Corby train would be split and carry on to Oakham and Melton that are not electrified.

(I assume that you could attach a 2x5 Hitachi bi-mode to a new 2x5 Hitachi electric unit and run them together if needed to give more flexibility on the Corby route).

The Corby service is largely self-contained anyway. MML already has incompatible HST and 222 fleets so would be no worse off with incompatible Corby and main line fleets. The runs via Melton are essentially stock positioning moves - if they're considered commercially important then one of the longer-distance units could be diverted that way.

The other problem with 80x units on MML is that the platforms at St Pancras would be too short for a 10-car of 25m stock, so the shorter units either have to be all 4-car which reduces capacity, or an inflexible mix of 4-car and 5-car.

 

[Kettledrum]

The Corby service is largely self-contained anyway. MML already has incompatible HST and 222 fleets so would be no worse off with incompatible Corby and main line fleets. The runs via Melton are essentially stock positioning moves - if they're considered commercially important then one of the longer-distance units could be diverted that way.

The majority of services on the MML now are operated by the 222 units, with less use made of the HST's, other than Nottingham services.

I've been on a number of trains formed of two 222 units coupled together until they get to Kettering, when they are uncoupled and the front unit goes onto Corby, and the rear unit goes on to Leicester and further north.

It seemed a sensible way of making use of platform capacity at St Pancras and the available paths.

The lack of paths and platforms is one of the reasons, there has never been any enthusiasm for more trains to go beyond Corby to Melton and Oakham - other then the stock positioning moves.. Who knows what suppressed demand there could be here. Some bi-modes for the Corby services would give the future operator options.

 

[Chester1]

The Corby service is largely self-contained anyway. MML already has incompatible HST and 222 fleets so would be no worse off with incompatible Corby and main line fleets. The runs via Melton are essentially stock positioning moves - if they're considered commercially important then one of the longer-distance units could be diverted that way.

The other problem with 80x units on MML is that the platforms at St Pancras would be too short for a 10-car of 25m stock, so the shorter units either have to be all 4-car which reduces capacity, or an inflexible mix of 4-car and 5-car.

Class 800 units are 5 or 9 coaches of 26m. What are the difficulties of extending the platforms to just over 234m? In addition, Stadler is well placed to bid and CAF and Alstrom may. Its entirely possible that a new bi mode express train could be designed and built specifically for the franchise.

 

[Domh245]

Class 800 units are 5 or 9 coaches of 26m. What are the difficulties of extending the platforms to just over 234m?

The platforms are already 260m according to the sectional appendix, the issue is when 2x 5 cars couple to form a 10 car, which would be over 260m

 

[Kettledrum]

The platforms are already 260m according to the sectional appendix, the issue is when 2x 5 cars couple to form a 10 car, which would be over 260m

The class 222 cars are 23m long, so 2x5 units fit easily in the platforms at St Pancras .

The class 395 Javelins are 6 cars each totalling 121m long, so 2x6 car Javelins would fit in one of the MML platforms at St Pancras.

However, neither are bi-mode, and if the Hitachi class 800 bi-modes are too long, perhaps something new is needed for the new East Midlands franchise.

 

[Chester1]

The platforms are already 260m according to the sectional appendix, the issue is when 2x 5 cars couple to form a 10 car, which would be over 260m

Why bother? The simplest solution of 9-10 coach bi modes for London to Sheffield / Nottingham and EMUs for Corby would work fine. Alternatively order fewer bi modes and use 2x5 Meridian sets. There is sufficient demand north of Kettering to justify full length trains and splitting is an unnecessary complication.

 

[Kettledrum]

Why bother? The simplest solution of 9-10 coach bi modes for London to Sheffield / Nottingham and EMUs for Corby would work fine. Alternatively order fewer bi modes and use 2x5 Meridian sets. There is sufficient demand north of Kettering to justify full length trains and splitting is an unnecessary complication.

There are two main reasons why East Midlands Trains currently split trains:

1) to get the most out of the 4 platforms and limited paths out of St Pancras. One path can be used to serve Corby and Sheffield by splitting at Kettering. If you don't double up, which service do you cut?
2) to provide resilience in case a unit fails. If the service was due to be made up of 2x5 car units, and one fails, then the service can still run, albeit more shorter

and as a bi-product of the current fleet, it means you can serve Melton and Oakham.

 

[lejog]

The Corby service is largely self-contained anyway. MML already has incompatible HST and 222 fleets so would be no worse off with incompatible Corby and main line fleets. The runs via Melton are essentially stock positioning moves - if they're considered commercially important then one of the longer-distance units could be diverted that way.

I caught the evening London to Melton service a few weeks back. I was 1 of 2 passengers for Melton, there were a few more for Oakham.

 

[43096]

Focusing on seats is not the whole picture.

I had to stand on a EMT 22x this week - with lots of other people, and realised there was much more space to stand than if we had all been standing in an HST.

Similarly luggage space is also an important factor on some services.

But if there are more seats then less people need to stand!!!!!

As for luggage space, an HST wins hands down on that with the space in the TGS, plus the end racks, mid-coach racks and space between the seat backs on the EMT fleet.

 

[47802]

Well you could get EMU's for Corby but would be simpler to operate it with a single Bi-mode fleet, are we even sure Electrification is going to reach Corby?

Its been suggested before that Hitachi may be able to do a 23m version although presumably that would cost more than the now off the shelf 26m version, and whether you could get all the equipment in 3 metres less.

Hitachi would probably struggle to do a 4 Car version as the Driving trailers are not designed to take an engine so that would only give you 2 engines per set, maybe Hitachi could redesign one of the Driving trailers but again that's going to be significant extra cost.

There may off course be other manufacturers out there that can offer something.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well you could get EMU's for Corby but would be simpler to operate it with a single Bi-mode fleet, are we even sure Electrification is going to reach Corby?

The consulation for the next franchise was published on the same day as all the electrification stuff, and it says 12 car trains will be used to an electrified Corby. Unless the authors of that have been kept completely out the loop, then it looks like yes, wires are still going to Corby:

...The electrifcation between Kettering and Corby and other infrastructure enhancements between London and Shef eld are due to complete by December 2019, with the new East Midlands franchise delivering the passenger bene ts as soon as practicable after this date.
The proposed approach is to separate the intercity and commuter markets to improve the services for both.

...Introduce higher capacity trains, up to 12 carriages long, on dedicated commuter services.

 

[jimm]

...The electrifcation between Kettering and Corby and other infrastructure enhancements between London and Shef eld are due to complete by December 2019, with the new East Midlands franchise delivering the passenger bene ts as soon as practicable after this date.
The proposed approach is to separate the intercity and commuter markets to improve the services for both.

...Introduce higher capacity trains, up to 12 carriages long, on dedicated commuter services.

Separate markets and 12-car commuter trains - sound like a handover to Thameslink is on the horizon.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The ITT was published on the same day as all the electrification stuff, and it says 12 car trains will be used to an electrified Corby. Unless the ITT writers have been kept completely out the loop, then it looks like yes, wires are still going to Corby:

Strictly, the DfT document is to kick off a new consultation.
The ITT is not due until April 2018.

 

[43096]

I really don't understand why people think bi-modes are the answer. Too many people believing DfT spin!

The performance characteristic of the AT300s, even with the diesels turned up to maximum, is poor and the wiring south of Bedford is not fit for 125mph. What the MML needs for services to Leicester and beyond is a fleet of high-performance 125mph diesel trains - they need to keep out of the way of the more-important-than-anything-else Thameslinks.

If the plan is for a half-hourly Pancras-Corby to pick up the intermediate stations (Luton AP, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering - though some of the longer distance trains should also call at Kettering to provide connections) then using the Class 379 fleet would be eminently sensible. With wiring being further scaled back, any thought of new trains when we already have fleets of modern stock going spare should be rejected.

 

[47802]

The ITT was published on the same day as all the electrification stuff, and it says 12 car trains will be used to an electrified Corby. Unless the ITT writers have been kept completely out the loop, then it looks like yes, wires are still going to Corby:

Sorry yes I have just had a look at that, will Corby be an opportunity to use redundant EMU's eg 379's? would 100mph be fast enough and would they be available in time assuming the Corby is completed on time Dec19 (pause for Laughter)

There are clearly going to be a lot a spare EMU's in the next few years OK the BR stuff can go to the Bin unless Porterbrook want to stick an engine underneath, but that does leave the newer EMU's and the highly overhauled 321's and new West Midlands Franchise may bin off even more EMU's.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Class 800 units are 5 or 9 coaches of 26m. What are the difficulties of extending the platforms to just over 234m? In addition, Stadler is well placed to bid and CAF and Alstrom may. Its entirely possible that a new bi mode express train could be designed and built specifically for the franchise.

I would say that, but it would be nice if Stadler built a 125mph FLIRT derivative, based on the new Gotthardbahn EMUs.

 

[jimm]

I really don't understand why people think bi-modes are the answer. Too many people believing DfT spin!

Well since the Transport Secretary seems to believe it and as

The next operator will be required* to deliver modern, fast and efficient trains. This includes a brand new fleet of bi-mode intercity trains from 2022

bi-modes for EMT it will be. There is nothing stopping them upgrading the overhead south of Bedford by 2022 to make it fit for 125mph to match what will presumably be specified from new for Bedford-Kettering, is there?

* my italics

 

[47802]

I really don't understand why people think bi-modes are the answer. Too many people believing DfT spin!

The performance characteristic of the AT300s, even with the diesels turned up to maximum, is poor and the wiring south of Bedford is not fit for 125mph. What the MML needs for services to Leicester and beyond is a fleet of high-performance 125mph diesel trains - they need to keep out of the way of the more-important-than-anything-else Thameslinks.

If the plan is for a half-hourly Pancras-Corby to pick up the intermediate stations (Luton AP, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering - though some of the longer distance trains should also call at Kettering to provide connections) then using the Class 379 fleet would be eminently sensible. With wiring being further scaled back, any thought of new trains when we already have fleets of modern stock going spare should be rejected.

I would imagine that the plan will be to fix the issue with the wires south of Bedford, haven't Anglia extended to the lease on the 379's into 2020 so potentially if Corby was actually completed on time they may not be available. They may well want 110/125 mph capable EMU's.

If they go for 8 or 9 car AT300's then clearly an 8 Car on 5 engines should have better performance or adding an additional engine to a 9 Car would improve Performance, but as has been said there may be other manufacturers in the running.

 

[swt_passenger]

Strictly, the DfT document is to kick off a new consultation.
The ITT is not due until April 2018.

Yes, better if I fix that to avoid further confusion.

 

[Domh245]

Sorry yes I have just had a look at that, will Corby be an opportunity to use redundant EMU's eg 379's? would 100mph be fast enough and would they be available in time assuming the Corby is completed on time Dec19 (pause for Laughter)

The 379s at 100mph would fit right in with the Thameslink timetable, although they might not be as fast to accelerate. They could also be redone to allow a 110mph top speed, as I don't think they aren't too different to the 387s if that is required, but I would have thought that acceleration would be the important factor if they were to be operating semi-fast services alongside Thameslink. 360s redone with a new interior could be another possibility as well?

 

[47802]

The 379s at 100mph would fit right in with the Thameslink timetable, although they might not be as fast to accelerate. They could also be redone to allow a 110mph top speed, as I don't think they aren't too different to the 387s if that is required, but I would have thought that acceleration would be the important factor if they were to be operating semi-fast services alongside Thameslink. 360s redone with a new interior could be another possibility as well?

Yes what you say may be possible but hey if they get a good deal on new EMU's which many TOC's seem to be getting at present then why mess about with second hand trains, no doubt some clue will be given in the ITT as to what Dft are thinking on this.

The fact that newish EMU's may be sat in the sidings is of no consequence to a TOC they are looking at the best overall business case unless they are essentially directed to use them by Dft.

Also if the bidders are free to choose any type of Bi-mode as long as it meets the spec then they may well choose a different answer to Hitachi. In the case of first group the AT300 was a fairly obvious choice for the South West given the franchise was going to have to use the IEP version anyway, and similarly for TPE/Hull Trains given this type of train was already going to be used on the East Coast and other First Group franchise. Clearly these factors may not apply to MML

 

[Hadders]

Move the 387s from GN to the Corby services and keep all the 365s on GN.

 

[reddragon]

It was in part the cost of upgrading the old wires out of Paddington to enable operate Class 80x IEP that in part blew the budget on the GW electrification and they still haven't been cleared!

The cost of the St. P to Bedford electrification upgrading is what killed the MML electrification as it is only suited to 100mph EMUs not high speed trains.

Bi-modes will be restricted to OH power from Bedford to Kettering or 100 mph south of Bedford. Combined with low diesel power, slower than a HST.

Well, should keep the HSTs going a few years yet then, probably ex GWR / VTEC as they have better power units!

 

[The Ham]

It was in part the cost of upgrading the old wires out of Paddington to enable operate Class 80x IEP that in part blew the budget on the GW electrification and they still haven't been cleared!

The cost of the St. P to Bedford electrification upgrading is what killed the MML electrification as it is only suited to 100mph EMUs not high speed trains.

Bi-modes will be restricted to OH power from Bedford to Kettering or 100 mph south of Bedford. Combined with low diesel power, slower than a HST.

Well, should keep the HSTs going a few years yet then, probably ex GWR / VTEC as they have better power units!

Given that the 80x's can switch power at speed it could be that they are powered by the wires to 95mph and then switch to diesel to go faster. That would allow the units to get going as quick as an EMU but still have the high top speed. Such a mix would probably be faster than a HST and would probably be close to the 222's.

 

[43096]

Yes what you say may be possible but hey if they get a good deal on new EMU's which many TOC's seem to be getting at present then why mess about with second hand trains, no doubt some clue will be given in the ITT as to what Dft are thinking on this.

The fact that newish EMU's may be sat in the sidings is of no consequence to a TOC they are looking at the best overall business case unless they are essentially directed to use them by Dft.

Never mind that it is a shocking waste of resources.

At some point the cost of new trains will rise, because the banks will see that we have lots of modern trains sat doing nothing/going for scrap and think "that could happen to our fleets, we'd better price in that risk".

 

[43096]

It was in part the cost of upgrading the old wires out of Paddington to enable operate Class 80x IEP that in part blew the budget on the GW electrification and they still haven't been cleared!

The cost of the St. P to Bedford electrification upgrading is what killed the MML electrification as it is only suited to 100mph EMUs not high speed trains.

Bi-modes will be restricted to OH power from Bedford to Kettering or 100 mph south of Bedford. Combined with low diesel power, slower than a HST.

That is it in essence. You might push the OHLE to 110mph for EMUs to Corby, but not beyond that without major expenditure.

Well, should keep the HSTs going a few years yet then, probably ex GWR / VTEC as they have better power units!

That's debatable - the VP185 offers better fuel economy, uses less oil and goes longer between overhauls. Still, there's only one power car with the best power unit!

 

[CosherB]

I really don't understand why people think bi-modes are the answer. Too many people believing DfT spin!

The performance characteristic of the AT300s, even with the diesels turned up to maximum, is poor and the wiring south of Bedford is not fit for 125mph. What the MML needs for services to Leicester and beyond is a fleet of high-performance 125mph diesel trains - they need to keep out of the way of the more-important-than-anything-else Thameslinks.

Indeed. How about a fleet of refurbished Mk4s top-and-tailed by 21st-Century diesel locos to create a new-era HST?