New trains for East Midlands Franchise

[JonathanH]

I'm pretty sure (not certain) that Southern rejected the other 5 was because of reliability, because they definitely did need those extra Turbostars.

What for? No one has ever been able to explain to this forum what the other five Turbostars would have been used for by Southern.

 

[RailWonderer]

All I can say is that the GA 360/1 refurbishment will be interesting. Units geared up to 110mph, plug sockets and wifi (that works properly), tables (as per the bid) with 2+2 and armrests and new exterior vinyls if they can be bothered. I hope it's like the TPE refresh, there's so much opportunity to make an effort. The Desiros are such robust quality units that with a refurb you can easily disguise that they're 15 years old.

 

[samuelmorris]

All I can say is that the GA 360/1 refurbishment will be interesting. Units geared up to 110mph, plug sockets and wifi (that works properly), tables (as per the bid) with 2+2 and armrests and new exterior vinyls if they can be bothered. I hope it's like the TPE refresh, there's so much opportunity to make an effort. The Desiros are such robust quality units that with a refurb you can easily disguise that they're 15 years old.

I agree and I hope they do a decent job of it. With the high quality of the original fit out from Siemens, if the refurb is extensive, there's potentially scope to make them worse than they were before!
As for the WiFi working properly, I'll believe it when I see it - getting that right doesn't require a rolling stock refurbishment.

 

[swt_passenger]

What for? No one has ever been able to explain to this forum what the other five Turbostars would have been used for by Southern.

Was it something to do with more EMUs being available and hence splitting the Brighton <> Ashford services? Genuine question, I never saw any offficially sourced reasoning either...

 

[hwl]

Was it something to do with more EMUs being available and hence splitting the Brighton <> Ashford services? Genuine question, I never saw any offficially sourced reasoning either...

They also decided not to strengthen as many the LBG - Uckfield services as originally planned.

 

[whhistle]

With the reported delays at Bombardier, I'd have thought they are out of the running.

So I guess it's Hitachi (which will probably have spare capacity to build) or Stadler (who have a good relationship with Greater Anglia).
I really hope it's the former, but I think it'll be the latter.

 

[hwl]

With the reported delays at Bombardier, I'd have thought they are out of the running.

So I guess it's Hitachi (which will probably have spare capacity to build) or Stadler (who have a good relationship with Greater Anglia).
I really hope it's the former, but I think it'll be the latter.

DfT specified the dates in the tender so the it wouldn't be decided by who had spare capacity but who could deliver the required performance.
As has been stated in the other threads Bombardiers biggest problems are software and storing completed rolling stock before delivery (given the software issues).

 

[samuelmorris]

With the reported delays at Bombardier, I'd have thought they are out of the running.

So I guess it's Hitachi (which will probably have spare capacity to build) or Stadler (who have a good relationship with Greater Anglia).
I really hope it's the former, but I think it'll be the latter.

As far as I know Hitachi don't currently have a suitable product (but that may not stop them getting the contract). Stadler seems about the most reasonable option at present but it depends whether EMR consider them 'inter-city enough' for the job. The journey time to Sheffield isn't that much further than Norwich so they may well do the job - it being another Abellio TOC also swings my opinion in favour of Stadler as the more likely option, but we'll see.

 

[hwl]

As far as I know Hitachi don't currently have a suitable product (but that may not stop them getting the contract). Stadler seems about the most reasonable option at present but it depends whether EMR consider them 'inter-city enough' for the job. The journey time to Sheffield isn't that much further than Norwich so they may well do the job - it being another Abellio TOC also swings my opinion in favour of Stadler as the more likely option, but we'll see.

Stadler don't have anything that meets the performance and other requirements that DfT have laid down (covered about 25 pages ago)
Most of Abellio's orders (by #cars) have been with Bombardier so far...

 

[cactustwirly]

Stadler don't have anything that meets the performance and other requirements that DfT have laid down (covered about 25 pages ago)
Most of Abellio's orders (by #cars) have been with Bombardier so far...

How do you know that? Stadler are very good at custom jobs, I'm sure Stadler could build something that meets the spec.

 

[samuelmorris]

Stadler don't have anything that meets the performance and other requirements that DfT have laid down (covered about 25 pages ago)
Most of Abellio's orders (by #cars) have been with Bombardier so far...

By number of cars yes, but their only express fleet orders and their only bimodu unit orders have both been with Stadler.
The fact that 755s are only 100mph units is fair enough, however, I see no reason why you couldn't have at least 4 power packs in a 240m config of a 755-like unit, which would be 7720hp fully populated - slightly above the power output of a 230m (i.e. 10-car) 222. I can't believe that amount of power wouldn't be sufficient for the performance characteristics required. We know the Flirt is a 125mph-capable design so there'd be no issue producing a 125mph unit on electric, and given the above I don't see the power output being an issue either. The only issue I can potentially think of is if the width of the power cars would be problematic on any of the routes they'd have to operate on.

 

[43096]

By number of cars yes, but their only express fleet orders and their only bimodu unit orders have both been with Stadler.
The fact that 755s are only 100mph units is fair enough, however, I see no reason why you couldn't have at least 4 power packs in a 240m config of a 755-like unit, which would be 7720hp fully populated - slightly above the power output of a 230m (i.e. 10-car) 222. I can't believe that amount of power wouldn't be sufficient for the performance characteristics required. We know the Flirt is a 125mph-capable design so there'd be no issue producing a 125mph unit on electric, and given the above I don't see the power output being an issue either. The only issue I can potentially think of is if the width of the power cars would be problematic on any of the routes they'd have to operate on.

I keep saying this, but if you need that many power packs, then best thing to do is to group them at each end of the train in a power car. Stadler already pretty well has such a thing: a single cab Class 68 would do the job.

 

[samuelmorris]

I keep saying this, but if you need that many power packs, then best thing to do is to group them at each end of the train in a power car. Stadler already pretty well has such a thing: a single cab Class 68 would do the job.

Would a power car at each end offer sufficient acceleration? Distributed traction isn't just for gaining passenger space, it also improves adhesion by adding more powered axles.

 

[43096]

Would a power car at each end offer sufficient acceleration? Distributed traction isn't just for gaining passenger space, it also improves adhesion by adding more powered axles.

You can feed the power to traction motors down the train, as you would on an EMU. A Class 68 has an engine of 3,750hp, so 7,500hp for two of them. Plus the maintenance benefit of both fewer engines and fewer vehicles with engines.

 

[samuelmorris]

You can feed the power to traction motors down the train, as you would on an EMU. A Class 68 has an engine of 3,750hp, so 7,500hp for two of them. Plus the maintenance benefit of both fewer engines and fewer vehicles with engines.

Yes but does such a configuration currently exist? I don't expect a coupler would deal with that sort of power, they would have to design a new version of the loco with traction current cabling that integrates with the hauled stock. It's all doable I'm sure, but I can't see it happening if there isn't such a configuration out there already, the development time on it would be enormous.

 

[Chris125]

As far as I know Hitachi don't currently have a suitable product (but that may not stop them getting the contract).

IIRC Hitachi have put forward an IET with more power, presumably by increasing the number of powered vehicles.

 

[samuelmorris]

IIRC Hitachi have put forward an IET with more power, presumably by increasing the number of powered vehicles.

I'm sure they will have, but by our calculations in this thread, even a full length 230m train with all intermediate vehicles powered won't have quite the same power to weight ratio as a 222, even if the power limiters were completely removed, so I'm curious whether that will be acceptable or not.

 

[Chris125]

I'm sure they will have, but by our calculations in this thread, even a full length 230m train with all intermediate vehicles powered won't have quite the same power to weight ratio as a 222, even if the power limiters were completely removed, so I'm curious whether that will be acceptable or not.

Perhaps they've designed a powered driving car?

 

[Railperf]

T

By number of cars yes, but their only express fleet orders and their only bimodu unit orders have both been with Stadler.
The fact that 755s are only 100mph units is fair enough, however, I see no reason why you couldn't have at least 4 power packs in a 240m config of a 755-like unit, which would be 7720hp fully populated - slightly above the power output of a 230m (i.e. 10-car) 222. I can't believe that amount of power wouldn't be sufficient for the performance characteristics required. We know the Flirt is a 125mph-capable design so there'd be no issue producing a 125mph unit on electric, and given the above I don't see the power output being an issue either. The only issue I can potentially think of is if the width of the power cars would be problematic on any of the routes they'd have to operate on.

The electric Flirt has at least one additional powered bogie and presumably additional or larger transformers and traction equipment.

 

[samuelmorris]

T

The electric Flirt has at least one additional powered bogie and presumably additional or larger transformers and traction equipment.

Electric power wouldn't be an issue - the 12-car 745s would probably have enough power as it is. The limiting factor, as with the Hitachi offering, would be the diesel power output.

 

[gingertom]

Electric power wouldn't be an issue - the 12-car 745s would probably have enough power as it is. The limiting factor, as with the Hitachi offering, would be the diesel power output.

I think the 12-car needs more power for 125mph running. The 745 has 4 powered bogies, a 125mph would need 6. Powering them from diesel power packs would require 3 pods, so a passenger vehicle may need to be sacrificed or the consist could be too long to fit many platforms.
A diesel pod with 4 engines has enough power to operate a pair of bogies at the continuous rating- Stadler has this well matched. The diesel packs fitted to the 80x don't have enough power to allow the motors to operate at their rated output. On overhead power the traction motors can be run "hot" giving higher acceleration or hill climbing ability for short bursts of time on both the 745 and 80x. Diesel operation is handicapped from the start so let's just do it properly and have more OLE. Lots more.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Yes but does such a configuration currently exist? I don't expect a coupler would deal with that sort of power, they would have to design a new version of the loco with traction current cabling that integrates with the hauled stock. It's all doable I'm sure, but I can't see it happening if there isn't such a configuration out there already, the development time on it would be enormous.

The original IEP concept had diesel power cars providing traction power to the motors located under the intermediate vehicles. If I'm not mistaken, the power cars wouldn't even have any motors at all, so it'd be fairly easy to have a standard inter-vehicle power bus not designed for easy decoupling. The electric versions had the pantograph and transformer in the driving vehicles and sent the power in a similar way. Later, the design changed so that diesel engines would be fitted to intermediate vehicles but the driving vehicles are still the only ones equipped with pantograph and transformer.

 

[MML]

Has it really been confirmed the Corby electric services will use 360/1 stock from GA ?
With no gangway end doors, the train manager would have difficulty proceeding through a 12-car formation.
There would be significant cost of interior refurbishment for 2+2 seating with arm rests and tables.
I'm surprised it wouldn't be more cost effective and easier to operate a common new build fleet of 10 or 12 coach intercity trains such as IET new build with bimodes and all electric units until all routes are electrified.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Electric power wouldn't be an issue - the 12-car 745s would probably have enough power as it is. The limiting factor, as with the Hitachi offering, would be the diesel power output.

3 755/4 in multiple (or a 745 with 3 power packs) would give a 240m train (240m is the length NR are required to provide for in MML Upgrade) with about 6MW (7500hp) diesel power and maybe 600-700 seats depending on config. Compared to 2*5 Cl222 which is about 235m and has the same power on diesel, but only ~500 seats. Think the biggest issue might be track access charges as the axle loading is presumably quite high but I don't think there'd be much issue with performance.

Has it really been confirmed the Corby electric services will use 360/1 stock from GA ?

Not officially but other posters mention seeing this on internal documents at EMT and there are some pictures floating about that look a lot like 360s, certainly they don't have corridor connections.

 

[samuelmorris]

The original IEP concept had diesel power cars providing traction power to the motors located under the intermediate vehicles. If I'm not mistaken, the power cars wouldn't even have any motors at all, so it'd be fairly easy to have a standard inter-vehicle power bus not designed for easy decoupling. The electric versions had the pantograph and transformer in the driving vehicles and sent the power in a similar way. Later, the design changed so that diesel engines would be fitted to intermediate vehicles but the driving vehicles are still the only ones equipped with pantograph and transformer.

The Pendolino is the example I was thinking of along those lines - while I'm sure it's possible, I don't know if it's necessarily something that the layout of the Flirt is designed to support. It seems like a lot of modification work to have to do.

 

[LowLevel]

I'm not sure how much more official you get than Abellio's own staff and stakeholder briefings. It hasn't been confirmed publically but it certainly has been officially.

 

[edwin_m]

Has it really been confirmed the Corby electric services will use 360/1 stock from GA ?
With no gangway end doors, the train manager would have difficulty proceeding through a 12-car formation.
There would be significant cost of interior refurbishment for 2+2 seating with arm rests and tables.
I'm surprised it wouldn't be more cost effective and easier to operate a common new build fleet of 10 or 12 coach intercity trains such as IET new build with bimodes and all electric units until all routes are electrified.

The gangway doors are something of an issue, but I assume with all stations barriered there won't be much in the way of on-train inspection and for that journey length no catering either. However with the units getting on for 20 years old they would need a fairly heavy interior refurbishment regardless of their future use, and it probably costs about the same to do a lower-density layout.

It may be that the 360s are an indirect consequence of the Graylingisation of the electrification scheme. If they had electrified through to Sheffield and Nottingham, and decided to abandon the various few-times-a-day extensions off those routes, then the MML could have had a common fleet of 125mph EMUs similar to the ones Transpennine is getting for its Manchester-Scotland services. A bi-mode is a much more specialist and costly design to build and to operate, and leasing costs will be higher even for units that just have provision for diesels rather than actually carrying them. That may have tipped the balance towards secondhand EMUs for Corby.

 

[swt_passenger]

There would be significant cost of interior refurbishment for 2+2 seating with arm rests and tables...

Perhaps there won’t be any interior changes though?

 

[samuelmorris]

Perhaps there won’t be any interior changes though?

They almost have to do something with the interiors, the existing ones are pretty careworn to say the least.

 

[MML]

Class 379 would be a better option than Class 360 give their ability to operate with corridor connections.
And the Class 379 are already configured with 2+2 seating, together with luggage capacity. Most seats already have tables and those that don't could easily have them fitted.
Whether it is possible to make them 110mph capable from their current top speed of 100mph I'm not sure.