43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,310
Because the plan is they won’t be running until 2023.If they do stick around to 2023 why not just do what XC have done with their HST power cars and Mark IIIs?
Because the plan is they won’t be running until 2023.If they do stick around to 2023 why not just do what XC have done with their HST power cars and Mark IIIs?
Clearly they want to save some money by using 5-car sets on certain services. I don't share the optimism that "most" of them will be 10-car, otherwise they would have bought 10-car units.
What is the proposed ratio of 5car and 10car
Is it going to be like SWR class 701 Aventra fleet with third of units 5car, (only 20% by vehicles) SWR will be 60x10 and 30x5 =750 cars
It’s not an extra as such - it releases two 153s to go to West Mids.I don't know if this counts as "new trains" for the purpose of this thread but it looks like the extra class 156s have started to arrive as I saw a slightly rebranded one at Derby this morning.
All of the units will be 5 car - some will operate in pairs but this proportion is unknown yet
AFAICT there’s no evidence whatsoever for it being a leasing company requirement. It might be someone in the forum’s opinion, but it could just as easily be exactly what the TOC wants...Will the 2x5 units have 2 guards etc? Ordering trains on the basis of what the leasing company might want to do with them in 20 years time is ridiculous.
Will the 2x5 units have 2 guards etc? Ordering trains on the basis of what the leasing company might want to do with them in 20 years time is ridiculous.
All the TOCs that have ordered bi-modes have gone for either an all-5-car or a mix of 5-car and longer units. Having only 10-car units would increase the number of cars, and therefore also the rolling stock leasing and operating costs, by a significant percentage - particularly important for bi-modes which cost more to buy and run than EMUs.AFAICT there’s no evidence whatsoever for it being a leasing company requirement. It might be someone in the forum’s opinion, but it could just as easily be exactly what the TOC wants...
Will the 2x5 units have 2 guards etc? Ordering trains on the basis of what the leasing company might want to do with them in 20 years time is ridiculous.
There are no examples of 125mph capable gangwayed stock in the UK. The total cost of designing one is likely completely unknown, which is a huge risk.
Given the tiered requirements in the crash regs 115mph is the fastest sensible for end gangway with several 110mph examples in the UK already.There are no examples of 125mph capable gangwayed stock in the UK. The total cost of designing one is likely completely unknown, which is a huge risk.
Why does it need to be 125mph capable ?
What part of the Midland route is already operating, or planned to be at that speed
Seeing as already have 110mph gangwayed class 350 and 387s, would it be possible to operate at say 115mph or 120mph (assuming it is easier to meet crash standards at intermediate lower speeds than at 125mph, as presumably with every speed increment, needs to be stronger).
So, if possible, would a 115mph fully gangwayed design be better economics, and not really lose much time, and be more practical than a 125mph capable train that has to operate as two coupled short-trains with no connection between units.
Why do they need 2 guards ?
Whenever I've been on a double ICE/TGV etc there have always been multiple train managers.
Whereas on regional lines in the UK there typically aren't, even with non gangwayed units.
...to "replace" 2 of the 4 153s that are supposedly moving from WMT to TfW...?It’s not an extra as such - it releases two 153s to go to West Mids.
Indeed, the AT300s for the MML are already knee deep in redesign requirements.Given the tiered requirements in the crash regs 115mph is the fastest sensible for end gangway with several 110mph examples in the UK already.
The substantially worse aerodymanics would increase the power requirements to meet performance criteria and the EMR units will only just meet them as is.
They've actually become so distinct from the standard AT300 that Hitachi have redesignated them AT300 SXRs - which quite appropriately sounds like a name for a "hot" or sporty model like seen in carsIndeed, the AT300s for the MML are already knee deep in redesign requirements.
The full name "Short, eXtended Range" sounds less sporty though!They've actually become so distinct from the standard AT300 that Hitachi have redesignated them AT300 SXRs - which quite appropriately sounds like a name for a "hot" or sporty model like seen in cars
...to "replace" 2 of the 4 153s that are supposedly moving from WMT to TfW...?
Definitely not, according to the published image. I think it means the nose cone will be slightly shorter or reprofiled to suit the shorter vehicle length.Think i read they will have redesigned front ends, does anyone know what this will entail? Might it be something radical like a door for inter unit use?
Will the bi-modes be running before the southern OLE upgrade?
If so it will be a travesty if they run on diesel in and out of St Pancras rather than panning up/down wherever it is that the track speed limit drops to the OLE limit
Maybe the sensible thing to do is raise the photograph a couple miles outside of St Pancras, once the speed drops below 100 and/or then use it in the station to save on having an idling diesel engine. The engines won't be a particularly efficient way to generate a minimal amount of power while sat in the station to keep the lights on, doors opening and loos flushing. Photograph can be retracted just before leaving, or once the train gets up to say 90mph or so.
Because the plan is they won’t be running until 2023.
Will the 2x5 units have 2 guards etc? Ordering trains on the basis of what the leasing company might want to do with them in 20 years time is ridiculous.
I don't think so, probably 1 guard in the rear set and another member of staff in the front like GWR and XC
Because the linespeed is 125mph...
Radlett to St Alban's and Leagrave to Bedford is 125mph, with Leicester to Trent junction 120mph
Seeing is believeing and best laid plans and all that
Don't really see why this is needed from a safety point of view. There are currently 12 car trains running around with driver plus guard or only a driver.
Leicester to Trent Jn not an issue as not planned to be wired yet thanks to Failing Grayling.
In the case of the other two sites how many miles is that and how much is the saving running at the speeds over 100mph compared to 100mph maximum noting that electric trains should also be quicker accelartaing compared to diesel ones?