My idea for Class 395s for LM / SWT

[corfield]

As this is definitely rolling stock, hopefully picked the right sub-forum...

Idea is more Class 395s for LM to run high speed Northampton / Milton Keyenes to London services as mooted perhaps using IEPs, but sooner and without 26m issues plus as I understand it, 125mph doesn't require tilt south of the Trent Valley on the WCML so the 395s could do 125 and fit in with Pendolino services. This would release some LM 350s to permit the last 321s to go (strengthen Northern?) and to work the Cov-Nuneaton service once electrified.

SWT, with Southampton-Basingstoke being AC wired, could use 395s to run quicker express services to the South Coast, since the line is straight, flat and presumably could support 125mph running... It would free some Class 444s to focus on all long distance routes, thus potentially releasing some 450s for conversion to 350s to support LM/TP, or, because SWT needs to expand it's capacity (having become sick of packed trains) strengthening it and/or covering for lack of availability of 444/450s if/when they go in for panto fitting in future.

In both cases, probably only looking at a relatively small fleet, say 15-20 units max.

Is an 8 car 395 (2 unpowered trailers) feasible?, reduced speed/acceleration, but given they are designed to fit in with 186mph Estars, would this handicap them on other, slower mainlines?

I know it's fanciful, but I am really, really bored.

Plus, the SWML seems to have potential (quad track, flat/straight) for better/faster services just as is proposed for WCML, MML & ECML/WAML large towns into London, and the commuter belt of Woking-Fboro etc.-Basingstoke probably has the wallet to pay for it. Although, AC extended to Woking would make better use of such a capability.

 

[TheGrew]

As this is definitely rolling stock, hopefully picked the right sub-forum...

Idea is more Class 395s for LM to run high speed Northampton / Milton Keyenes to London services as mooted perhaps using IEPs, but sooner and without 26m issues plus as I understand it, 125mph doesn't require tilt south of the Trent Valley on the WCML so the 395s could do 125 and fit in with Pendolino services. This would release some LM 350s to permit the last 321s to go (strengthen Northern?) and to work the Cov-Nuneaton service once electrified.

Seeing as they have just cleared a subclass of 350 for 110MPH would this be required. (I gather the 350s have faster acceleration than the Pendolinos). In addition to this surely pathing would eventually become a problem (though I don't know how many free paths there are on the WCML fasts)

SWT, with Southampton-Basingstoke being AC wired, could use 395s to run quicker express services to the South Coast, since the line is straight, flat and presumably could support 125mph running... It would free some Class 444s to focus on all long distance routes, thus potentially releasing some 450s for conversion to 350s to support LM/TP, or, because SWT needs to expand it's capacity (having become sick of packed trains) strengthening it and/or covering for lack of availability of 444/450s if/when they go in for panto fitting in future.

The main problem with the idea of 125MPH running on Southampton-Basingstoke would be the freight paths that would slow everything down (most of it is two track). Unless you started routing all freight via Salisbury, I imagine you might need to straighten the track through Micheldever station as well.

In both cases, probably only looking at a relatively small fleet, say 15-20 units max.

Small fleet sounds expensive compared to more 444s/450s/350s of which both operators have several.

Is an 8 car 395 (2 unpowered trailers) feasible?, reduced speed/acceleration, but given they are designed to fit in with 186mph Estars, would this handicap them on other, slower mainlines?

Wouldn't that be on the assumption of 140MPH running?

I know it's fanciful, but I am really, really bored.

Fair enough I guess we can all dream I feel sort of bad bringing it back to reality.

Plus, the SWML seems to have potential (quad track, flat/straight) for better/faster services just as is proposed for WCML, MML & ECML/WAML large towns into London, and the commuter belt of Woking-Fboro etc.-Basingstoke probably has the wallet to pay for it. Although, AC extended to Woking would make better use of such a capability.

Not all the SWML is quad track (specifically South of Basingstoke-Shawford, Eastleigh-Weymouth) which is why passing places are used extensively at Eastleigh, Southampton Central and Brokenhurst. Though I gather the main problem with the SWML is lack of paths into Waterloo (for which they are trying to put in a 5th track).

 

[jopsuk]

Two Class 395s (12 car formation) seat 680 passengers, Standard Class only configuration. How many passengers does a 12 carriage (3 x 4 car) 350/1 seat?

 

[Bald Rick]

As this is definitely rolling stock, hopefully picked the right sub-forum...

Idea is more Class 395s for LM to run high speed Northampton / Milton Keyenes to London services as mooted perhaps using IEPs, but sooner and without 26m issues plus as I understand it, 125mph doesn't require tilt south of the Trent Valley on the WCML so the 395s could do 125 and fit in with Pendolino services.

I must have imagined being 9 degrees to the vertical at Bushey, Berkhamsted, Linslade, Wolverton (twice) and Weedon (three times) then...

 

[Pumbaa]

110 max on WCML if no tilt. Blanket rule. Nothing other than tilting trains can do above 110. Uprated 350/1s will do just fine thanks.

 

[sprinterguy]

Two Class 395s (12 car formation) seat 680 passengers, Standard Class only configuration. How many passengers does a 12 carriage (3 x 4 car) 350/1 seat?

606 in standard class (Plus 27 tip-up seats - A pair of 395s also has 24 of these) and 72 in first class.

 

[Eagle]

(I gather the 350s have faster acceleration than the Pendolinos.)

Off the mark, even 153s have better acceleration than 390s (as anyone who's been to Coventry station at xx.42 will see when the two usually depart simultaneously from adjacent platforms).

 

[D365]

If those IEP or 395 microfleets were built (and SWT gave up some 450s to LM, as well as TPE with their 350/4s if and when they receive a larger EMU fleet), wouldn't this be [a few] too many EMUs? Maybe not, but I don't think either will happen for a long time, if ever.

 

[sprinterguy]

Off the mark, even 153s have better acceleration than 390s (as anyone who's been to Coventry station at xx.42 will see when the two usually depart simultaneously from adjacent platforms).

Really? I can't imagine that the Pendolino is being given the full works if that is the case, and from travelling on Pendolinos departing Coventry that have overtaken the 153 that has departed at the same time, consistently, my observations would tend to support such a hypothesis. Pendolino acceleration is swift.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If those IEP or 395 microfleets were built (and SWT gave up some 450s to LM, as well as TPE with their 350/4s if and when they receive a larger EMU fleet), wouldn't this be [a few] too many EMUs? Maybe not, but I don't think either will happen for a long time, if ever.

A batch of commuter IEPs were included in the original proposals for the Intercity Express Programme to operate services on the Northampton corridor, and there remains an option for a batch of such trains in the present proposed order. That would suggest that the replacement of at least some of the 350s on the WCML with Hitachi products is a distinct possibility.

 

[John55]

Off the mark, even 153s have better acceleration than 390s (as anyone who's been to Coventry station at xx.42 will see when the two usually depart simultaneously from adjacent platforms).

Acceleration is dependent on many factors. A Pendolino is designed for operation up to 140 mph a 153 to 75/90 mph. I expect a 70 year old man on a bicycle is faster from 0 to 5 mph than either a Pendolino or 153 but of course that is not important in the great scheme of things.

I once travelled from Crewe to Liverpool on a 153 which left Crewe just before a Glasgow bound Pendolino. The 153 ran at full power all the way to Winsford on green signals. The Pendolino overtook us before we were half way to Winsford and was noticably going faster when the rear car passed than when the leading car passed. So while we had topped out in speed the Pendolino was still accelerating fast.

The reason is that a Pendolino is adhesion limited until very high speed so there is no drop off in acceleration until the power curve is reached at probably 90 mph. In contrast the poor old 153 has probably hit the power curve at 20 mph so the acceleration is rapidly declining from that point on.

 

[corfield]

If you couldn't use 395s on the London end of WCML, what difference is there for IEP ? neither tilt, which I must admit, was informing my idea on that one, only that 395s would be available sooner.

On the SWML, I agree that twin tracking south of Basingstoke would be a possible constraint - but how busy is it?, would 25% faster services, slotted in accordingly, really change anything? How difficult/costly would quadtracking be...


The 8 car / 2 unpowered trailer option was because if they aren't expected to do 140mph (as per HS1), would the extra weight affect their 125 performance?

Anyway, it's just an idea. I'd heard SWT is short 444s and using some 450s in longer distance roles. Other than a boring "buy more 444s or equivalent", this seemed a more interesting idea, offering HS servies to the Central South West, which with Woking-Bstoke-Sthampton has to be a bigger market for HS commuters (and wealthier ones) than SE HS network?

As I said, I suspect the lines would need to be up to Woking at least to make it remotely worthwhile.

I can't see us being short EMUs in the future !

 

[Eagle]

On the SWML, I agree that twin tracking south of Basingstoke would be a possible constraint - but how busy is it?

South of Worting Junction, SWT have 4tph, XC have 3tp2h, and there's usually around 2tph freight, for a total of 7.5tph each way.

 

[jopsuk]

If you couldn't use 395s on the London end of WCML, what difference is there for IEP ? neither tilt, which I must admit, was informing my idea on that one, only that 395s would be available sooner.

No-one is suggesting using IEP on the WCML. At all. They've got a modern fleet of Pendolinos, many of which have been lengthened for a second time, and bidders for the franchise have proposed adding to that fleet with some shorter (possibly Pendolino) units for use on services that are currently run by Voyagers under the wires entirely, and routes that use Voyagers that will be electrified in the near future.

The Pendolinos were designed and built for the WCML. They're pretty good at their job, especially in the 11-car formation (the original 8-car was too short and too 1st class focused).

The 350s aren't bad for the secondary services- though they'd be better if the /2s were kept to the shorter/slower services.

IEP is proposed for the Great Western (long straightish 125mph, potentially faster, stretches) and the East Coast (ditto) Main Lines.

 

[D365]

If you couldn't use 395s on the London end of WCML, what difference is there for IEP ? neither tilt, which I must admit, was informing my idea on that one, only that 395s would be available sooner.

On the SWML, I agree that twin tracking south of Basingstoke would be a possible constraint - but how busy is it?, would 25% faster services, slotted in accordingly, really change anything? How difficult/costly would quadtracking be...

The 8 car / 2 unpowered trailer option was because if they aren't expected to do 140mph (as per HS1), would the extra weight affect their 125 performance?

How much extra capacity would 125mph (or 140mph if ever achieved - extra 395s should be built for that speed too) offer over 110mph?

Anyway, it's just an idea. I'd heard SWT is short of 444s and using some 450s in longer distance roles. Other than a boring "buy more 444s or equivalent", this seemed a more interesting idea, offering HS servies to the Central South West, which with Woking-Bstoke-Sthampton has to be a bigger market for HS commuters (and wealthier ones) than SE HS network?

As I said, I suspect the lines would need to be up to Woking at least to make it remotely worthwhile.

I can't see us being short EMUs in the future !

Are we realisticly going to see any south-western railways, whether upgraded or new, faster than 125mph in the next half-decade, let alone any quicker than 100/110mph. Wouldn't be worth it rebuilding 450s as 110mph 444s, I presume. Order some 6-car, 110mph-tested 377(/7)s for Brighton/Gatwick Expresses, return the 442s to the south-west and give them some TLC - new traction? Wait, they wouldn't be any use on AC unless completely refitted...

More 444s, plus 344s for GE? ALthough I don't want to see more EMU diversity in the Anglia region particularly...

No-one is suggesting using IEP on the WCML.

Why is there an option for it in the IEP contract then?

 

[Lrd]

South of Worting Junction, SWT have 4tph, XC have 3tp2h, and there's usually around 2tph freight, for a total of 7.5tph each way.

You also have extra from St Deny's to Redbridge, 2tph SWT, 2tph Southern, 1tph FGW (plus a few extras).

 

[corfield]

No-one is suggesting using IEP on the WCML. At all.

I think quite a few would beg to differ. Including the dft who in their announcement of the IEP order state an option for just the services I suggest. Obviously they know nothing about IEP proppsals. At all.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-press-20120725a/

 

[The Ham]

On the SWML, I agree that twin tracking south of Basingstoke would be a possible constraint - but how busy is it?, would 25% faster services, slotted in accordingly, really change anything? How difficult/costly would quadtracking be...

Very costly and fairly difficult. As there are a few tunnels and the restrictions on the width of land available things like like Winchester the M3.

Also given NR's just rebuilt a few bridges and lowered the tunnels the locals wouldn't be keen on those bridges being rebuilt again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Possible a better option would be to run the fast trains to Salisbury/Exeter and have a few more of the long distance trains from the coast either skip Basingstoke or call at a few more stations towards London to encorage those from Basingstoke to use the west country services for getting to London.

Then you big cost is "just" electrifying the line to Salisbury and/or Exeter and finding new paths at Waterloo, both of which may stand on their own in terms of value for money.

The line between Basinstoke & Southampton via Salisbury could well be electrified anyway as part of the frieght diversion route (or at the very least had all the clearance works done as part of that project anyway). It would also bring benefits in that SWT could use the 444's (two 444's have 598 standard and 70 first seats) rather than 159's (three 159's have 516 standard and 72 first seats) meaning more seats (80) per service and although it requires a larger fleet of 444's it would give a chance to top up the existing fleet further.

Likewise the extra paths to Waterloo could be found if Crossrail 2 is built as a regional service freeing up the approach to Waterloo a massive amount. There still could be a few bottle necks (the flat junction at Woking being one), but again given how buisy the SWML is the extra capacity is always likely to be welcomed, used and fairly good value for money.

 

[tbtc]

If you couldn't use 395s on the London end of WCML, what difference is there for IEP ?

No difference - both could run on the WCML, but AIUI both would be limited to 110

 

[Wolfie]

No-one is suggesting using IEP on the WCML. At all.

I think quite a few would beg to differ. Including the dft who in their announcement of the IEP order state an option for just the services I suggest. Obviously they know nothing about IEP proppsals. At all.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-press-20120725a/

Given dft's great success with the WCML retendering exercise and, if the Evening Standard is to be believed, the Thameslink rolling stock procurement you may well be correct....

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...rains-for-thameslink-in-meltdown-8269207.html

 

[The Ham]

Given dft's great success with the WCML retendering exercise and, if the Evening Standard is to be believed, the Thameslink rolling stock procurement you may well be correct....

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...rains-for-thameslink-in-meltdown-8269207.html

Doubts over the Thameslink contract were raised after Chris Williamson, the Derby MP (Labour) and RMT Parliamentary group member, lodged an official question demanding to know when the new Thameslink stock will be delivered.

The source of this story is linked to Labour and the RMT and is the Derby MP (where Bombardier have their plant), I therefore leave it up to the members of the forum to draw their own concussions as if this story has any hint of political motivation.

 

[Wolfie]

The source of this story is linked to Labour and the RMT and is the Derby MP (where Bombardier have their plant), I therefore leave it up to the members of the forum to draw their own concussions as if this story has any hint of political motivation.

Anything involving politicians, of any party, has political motivation! I note that you carefully ignore the Railnews follow on which suggests there are real problems in financing the Siemens bid (and no, I am NOT saying that Bombardier would find financing any easire to obtain).....

 

[tsr]

Are we realisticly going to see any south-western railways, whether upgraded or new, faster than 125mph in the next half-decade, let alone any quicker than 100/110mph. Wouldn't be worth it rebuilding 450s as 110mph 444s, I presume. Order some 6-car, 110mph-tested 377(/7)s for Brighton/Gatwick Expresses, return the 442s to the south-west and give them some TLC - new traction? Wait, they wouldn't be any use on AC unless completely refitted...

My mad plan would involve building a new lot of 460s to replace the ones that are becoming 458s. They should ideally be dual-voltage 12-coach units, capable of 125mph under wires and 100mph on third-rail lines. Full SDO would be available, and they would also be "walk-through". Those would be put on all fast Southern/FCC services, then 377s could replace 455s and 456s, as well as 319s, with infrastructure works to match. Gatwick Express services would be replaced with a new Luton Airport Parkway/St Pancras International/Gatwick Airport express service under the whole Thameslink brand. Existing Gatwick Express traffic (what there is of it) to/from London Victoria would be able to use the many alternative services that exist (almost at a metro-frequency level).

 

[JamesRowden]

How much extra capacity would 125mph (or 140mph if ever achieved - extra 395s should be built for that speed too) offer over 110mph?

Once at that speed, running trains faster actually reduces capacity. The gap between two trains needs to be greater than the distance it takes for the train behind to stop. Braking distance is directly proportional to the square of the speed (asuming contant deccaleration in order to maintain constant G-force for passengers).

This means that increasing the services from 100mph to 140mph would lead to the distance between between trains being roughly doubled ('1.96'). Divide the distance between the trains by the speed and the frequency is reduced by a factor of '1.4' to about 70 % of what it would be at 100mph.

If the signalling system measured and controlled train speed as well as train position then trains might be able to run down a line at the same speed with a minimum distance between them. This would result in line capacity being directly proportional to the line speed (1.4 times speed means 1.4 times capacity) but a system would need to be prooved safe beyond reasonable doubt in the event of any realistic driver/system faliures.

Such a system might be in the form of:

The train behind stays within the area of speed/distance that would allow it to stop short (plus a bit) of where the train infront would stop if both were to suddenly begin to deccalerate to zero.

 

[corfield]

Ah, so the IEPs proposed for WCML will be 110mph limited?

Given these are expensive, are 125+ mph units, isn't that a bit of a waste on the WCML? Plus as an orphan fleet alongside Pendos why bother?, why not just get more baby Pendos to do it?

I appreciate the same thing stands with 395s! Except they are commuter configured.

I still don't get why increasing speed reduces capacity, why have we spent fortunes on our busiest lines to do just that, all in the name of increasing capacity.
If we reduced to walking speed how many more trains could we fit on?

Surely with high speed, there are less trains required on the line because they'll have finished their route and turned back the other way sooner?

 

[JamesRowden]

I still don't get why increasing speed reduces capacity, why have we spent fortunes on our busiest lines to do just that, all in the name of increasing capacity.
If we reduced to walking speed how many more trains could we fit on?

The complete formula for frequency along a stretch of track (if not limited by platform capacity of crossover junction capacity) is:

maximum_train_frequency = speed / distance_between_trains

distance_between_trains = train_length + distance_between_signals + braking_distance

braking_distance = 1/2 X speed X speed / deccaleration

Therefore:

maximum_train_frequency = speed / (train_length + distance_between_signals + 1/2 X speed X speed / deccaleration)

Clearly at low speed, the maximum frequency is roughly directly proportional to train speed (such is the case at waking speed). But if the braking distance became the dominant part of the distance between trains, then capacity is inversly proportional to speed. This would be the situation at any reasonable speed if an incab signalling system (required above 125mph) were used that indicated how far in front the train ahead is (distance_between_signals becomes virtually zero).

If however the altemate limit of capacity on a line was crossover junctions or platform capacity then capacity would be pretty much independent of the speed of the trains.

 

[anthony263]

Really? I can't imagine that the Pendolino is being given the full works if that is the case, and from travelling on Pendolinos departing Coventry that have overtaken the 153 that has departed at the same time, consistently, my observations would tend to support such a hypothesis. Pendolino acceleration is swift.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A batch of commuter IEPs were included in the original proposals for the Intercity Express Programme to operate services on the Northampton corridor, and there remains an option for a batch of such trains in the present proposed order. That would suggest that the replacement of at least some of the 350s on the WCML with Hitachi products is a distinct possibility.

Someone in the DFT did put forward a suggestion of using IEP on certain routes operated by South West Trains as was reported a few months back in Modern Railways.

Most likely as a way to help boost the number of units to be built etc.

 

[RobShipway]

I hate to put a spanner in the works, but is it not the case that the OHLE that is going to be put in place on the SWML, is just for the use of Freight and not for the use of passenger trains?

 

[ainsworth74]

I hate to put a spanner in the works, but is it not the case that the OHLE that is going to be put in place on the SWML, is just for the use of Freight and not for the use of passenger trains?

No the 3rd rail will be removed at the same time (it's seemingly impossible/very hard/expensive to have OHLE and 3rd rail co-exist over long distances) meaning that all passenger trains will become dual-voltage once the OHLE is installed.

 

[RobShipway]

No the 3rd rail will be removed at the same time (it's seemingly impossible/very hard/expensive to have OHLE and 3rd rail co-exist over long distances) meaning that all passenger trains will become dual-voltage once the OHLE is installed.

Ah, okay thanks Ainsworth. However, I am sure that I read in both Rail and Modern Railways that the OHLE would be co - existing with the 3rd rail, but that might just be the impression the articles provided to me.

 

[jopsuk]

Half the justification for the project is that the 3rd rail equipment is approaching life expiry.