Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I'd be tempted to order a FLIRT fleet for SWR and GWR. The WofE line is one of the worst candidates for batteries, given the distance from Basingstoke to Exeter. Secondly the SWR diesel fleet is pretty small and a single fleet for regional and local services in the west is a good idea. The size of the order would also ameliorate one of the primary issues with flirts(and other low floor units), which is the need for depot rebuilds.
6 car FLIRTs could work for Portsmouth-Cardiff and WofE, while 3 and 4 car units could work the regional services.
Secondly GWR can't order Civities if they want to replace their 150s, since some branch lines require 20M units. Though the 230s give some flexibility in that respect, but it's not a particularly good long-term solution.
I am not so sure the FLIRTs are best suited to GWR and SWR because there are only 15.7m vehicles for all of the diesel units. Also, the Jacobs bogie makes it harder to split the vehicles. For example, if they need to go by Road, which is not too common, it is still routine. A 6-car FLIRT might be unable to fit into the bays at stations like Salisbury or Southampton Central, which could prevent use on the Romsey Rocket, which would leave 158s and 159s with SWR.
GWR is looking at the 230s for the lines which can't take 23m long vehicles and lines which can't take more than around 56m long units due to short platforms at a terminus station, in as well as that some lines which GWR operate over are RA3 which rules out FLIRTs, due them being RA4-6.
I am not so sure the FLIRTs are best suited to GWR and SWR because there are only 15.7m vehicles for all of the diesel units. Also, the Jacobs bogie makes it harder to split the vehicles. For example, if they need to go by Road, which is not too common, it is still routine. A 6-car FLIRT might be unable to fit into the bays at stations like Salisbury or Southampton Central, which could prevent use on the Romsey Rocket, which would leave 158s and 159s with SWR.
GWR is looking at the 230s for the lines which can't take 23m long vehicles and lines which can't take more than around 56m long units due to short platforms at a terminus station, in as well as that some lines which GWR operate over are RA3 which rules out FLIRTs, due them being RA4-6.
Flirts do fine on the Sudbury branch with short terminal platforms, alongside the fact they are able to have sprinter differentials in the Fens, which have much worse ground conditions than any route in the West. I accept there may need to be limited track upgrades on certain routes, but it's not a dealbreaker and the 230s will likely be a nightmare long term based on previous experience.
Flirts do fine on the Sudbury branch with short terminal platforms, alongside the fact they are able to have sprinter differentials in the Fens, which have much worse ground conditions than any route in the West. I accept there may need to be limited track upgrades on certain routes, but it's not a dealbreaker and the 230s will likely be a nightmare long term based on previous experience.
The main issue with the 230s is the diesel engines, which aren't an issue with the GWR Battery units. Sunbury Branch is easy as it has no points used in regular service apart from at Marks Tay to link it to the GEML; however, on Western, there are a few branches which have to change direction to continue the service by moving points at one end of the station and a buffer stop is at the other end of the station so you can't overhang the station and use ASDO which you can do on the Sunbury Line. The Fenn's have a higher RA.
Flirts do fine on the Sudbury branch with short terminal platforms, alongside the fact they are able to have sprinter differentials in the Fens, which have much worse ground conditions than any route in the West. I accept there may need to be limited track upgrades on certain routes, but it's not a dealbreaker and the 230s will likely be a nightmare long term based on previous experience.
The other issue is that, while SWR could potentially afford FLIRTS to cascade off the 158s/159s, I can't see GWR being permitted to go for a large order of FLIRTS as a uniform regional fleet.
They are quite expensive and the likes of CRRC are rumoured to be bidding for that round of unit procurement, so a Stadler bid may not be competitive with lower cost manufacturers from the Far East.
The other issue is that, while SWR could potentially afford FLIRTS to cascade off the 158s/159s, I can't see GWR being permitted to go for a large order of FLIRTS as a uniform regional fleet.
They are quite expensive and the likes of CRRC are rumoured to be bidding for that round of unit procurement, so a Stadler bid may not be competitive with lower cost manufacturers from the Far East.
That’s assuming that ordering Chinese is politically acceptable. Not too sure it would be -especially if it meant one or more UK factories “going without”.
Other lines with issues on GWR are the Windsor Branch, which is limited to RA3, the Looe branch line, and its 20 metres for multiple units; single car units are permitted to be 23 metres long. Cornwall can't take long and wide units like the Networkers; however, short and wide units like the 150s and long and thin units like the IETs can fit.
That’s assuming that ordering Chinese is politically acceptable. Not too sure it would be -especially if it meant one or more UK factories “going without”.
Other lines with issues on GWR are the Windsor Branch, which is limited to RA3, the Looe branch line, and its 20 metres for multiple units; single car units are permitted to be 23 metres long. Cornwall can't take long and wide units like the Networkers; however, short and wide units like the 150s and long and thin units like the IETs can fit.
The other issue is that, while SWR could potentially afford FLIRTS to cascade off the 158s/159s, I can't see GWR being permitted to go for a large order of FLIRTS as a uniform regional fleet.
They are quite expensive and the likes of CRRC are rumoured to be bidding for that round of unit procurement, so a Stadler bid may not be competitive with lower cost manufacturers from the Far East.
I can't see CRRC participating in the UK train market, given the costs of designing and building a UK spec train alongside the political considerations. Stadler trains can be surprisingly cheap, especially once the initial "UK premium" for the first order in the UK market is overcome.
There's a reason they are so popular in Central and Eastern Europe. The main additional cost of low floor trains is depot retrofitting. The main thing that goes against Stadler is the lack of final assembly in the UK, however they use a substantial number of UK parts, and are the only train manufacturer currently used in the UK that is currently producing self powered trains with vehicle lengths of 20M or less, which is important for GWR.
755s are RA4, and it's not like it would be impossible to increase RA3 lines to RA4, though maintenance costs would increase slightly. Lines are often only maintained to the RA necessary for normal operation.
I can't see CRRC participating in the UK train market, given the costs of designing and building a UK spec train alongside the political considerations. Stadler trains can be surprisingly cheap, especially once the initial "UK premium" for the first order in the UK market is overcome.
There's a reason they are so popular in Central and Eastern Europe. The main additional cost of low floor trains is depot retrofitting. The main thing that goes against Stadler is the lack of final assembly in the UK, however they use a substantial number of UK parts, and are the only train manufacturer currently used in the UK that is currently producing self powered trains with vehicle lengths of 20M or less, which is important for GWR.
755s are RA4, and it's not like it would be impossible to increase RA3 lines to RA4, though maintenance costs would increase slightly. Lines are often only maintained to the RA necessary for normal operation.
Siemens is also doing shorter vehicle lengths for some units in the UK. A 20M standard coach will have a wheelbase/bogie centre longer than a 20M Jacobs Bogie coach. A 150 has a wheelbase/bogie centre of 14.17m, which is even shorter than the length of a standard 755 coach, so there is no chance of that having a smaller wheelbase/bogie centre than the 150. A 755 would have wheelbase/bogie centre closer to those of the 158s, which are 16m, so a FLIRT might also not be permitted on the Gunnislake and Looe Branches.
The RA3 limit is down to the Bridges on approach to Windsor, which can't be raised to RA4 without complete replacement.
I can't see CRRC participating in the UK train market, given the costs of designing and building a UK spec train alongside the political considerations. Stadler trains can be surprisingly cheap, especially once the initial "UK premium" for the first order in the UK market is overcome.
There's a reason they are so popular in Central and Eastern Europe. The main additional cost of low floor trains is depot retrofitting. The main thing that goes against Stadler is the lack of final assembly in the UK, however they use a substantial number of UK parts, and are the only train manufacturer currently used in the UK that is currently producing self powered trains with vehicle lengths of 20M or less, which is important for GWR.
755s are RA4, and it's not like it would be impossible to increase RA3 lines to RA4, though maintenance costs would increase slightly. Lines are often only maintained to the RA necessary for normal operation.
Although political considerations usually fall apart if a bid is cheap enough and fulfills the contractual requirements, the supply of trains is a lot less controversial than e.g. internet infrastructure or something that may be crucial to the Armed Forces in wartime.
I'm surprised Bombardier/Alstom aren't producing max. 20m carriage length multiple units, or that CAF don't have an option. Perhaps they could if it was a priority.
I agree that line availability isn't a major barrier, whichever unit is chosen.
That’s assuming that ordering Chinese is politically acceptable. Not too sure it would be -especially if it meant one or more UK factories “going without”.
Perhaps. An order may be directed to Bombardier/Alstom, to prop up the factory in Derby, but I'm not sure they have any experience in building bimodes, which is a pretty crucial part of the GWR/Northern future rolling stock strategy.
I'm surprised Bombardier/Alstom aren't producing max. 20m carriage length multiple units, or that CAF don't have an option. Perhaps they could if it was a priority.
I agree that line availability isn't a major barrier, whichever unit is chosen.
Perhaps. An order may be directed to Bombardier/Alstom, to prop up the factory in Derby, but I'm not sure they have any experience in building bimodes, which is a pretty crucial part of the GWR/Northern future rolling stock strategy.
Alstom does do 20m carriage lengths, with the 701 Aventra being an example.
Line availability is quite important as it is one of the key limits on your rolling stock, just like the Loading Gauge. Unless you plan to upgrade RA and know it will work, you shouldn't be buying units with a higher RA than the Line, because you might find out your Line cannot be upgraded to support the higher RA units you have ordered.
Perhaps. An order may be directed to Bombardier/Alstom, to prop up the factory in Derby, but I'm not sure they have any experience in building bimodes, which is a pretty crucial part of the GWR/Northern future rolling stock strategy
Hitachi didn't before they started building them, either. In fact nobody at Newton Aycliffe had built a train of any sort. And (810 teething troubles aside which I'm sure will be overcome) they seem to have done OK on balance.
Hitachi didn't before they started building them, either. In fact nobody at Newton Aycliffe had built a train of any sort. And (810 teething troubles aside which I'm sure will be overcome) they seem to have done OK on balance.
Done OK? If we ignore the chronic fatigue cracking that continues to plague the fleet and led to it being grounded completely for a period. If we ignore the shocking ride quality. If we ignore the expensive price tag that goes with them. If we ignore the below promised fleet availability. If we ignore Hitachi's utter contempt for its customers. If we ignore the chronic late delivery of the 810s.
Hitachi didn't before they started building them, either. In fact nobody at Newton Aycliffe had built a train of any sort. And (810 teething troubles aside which I'm sure will be overcome) they seem to have done OK on balance.
That's a manifestly different situation. Hitachi's new factory in Newton Aycliffe was just a UK expansion of the company's manufacturing facilities, not a completely fresh startup.
Indeed Newton Aycliffe started with just assembly I believe, with the majority of work done by Hitachi's Kasado plant and parts shipped over.
It's true that the merged Alstom/Bombardier now has Bi Mode models available, but those models are Alstom designs for the continent and will need significant adaptation for the UK anyway.
And the production line would have to be moved to Derby in part, if you want it to prop up that plant.
Personally I think a Southeastern order to replace the Networkers would probably be smart, then all of the fleet is Bombardier/Alstom, apart from the Desiro City (and that can largely be confined to metro services that may well transferred to TfL anyway).
Bombardier already have plenty of experience in constructing pure EMUs, and this could be a good opportunity to trial adding batteries to their offerings (e.g. diversionary capabilities and perhaps options like SE taking over Marshlink etc.)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Alstom does do 20m carriage lengths, with the 701 Aventra being an example.
Line availability is quite important as it is one of the key limits on your rolling stock, just like the Loading Gauge. Unless you plan to upgrade RA and know it will work, you shouldn't be buying units with a higher RA than the Line, because you might find out your Line cannot be upgraded to support the higher RA units you have ordered.
1.) Thank you for your correction re 20 metre carriage lengths.
2.) I do agree that route availability is a limiting factor, but a lot of the underlying components influencing route availability are already known and will only become more crucial to monitor as our Victorian railway network structures deteriorate further with time - e.g max tonnage over a viaduct, or clearance in a tunnel. So some of the work will inevitably have to be done regardless.
3.) They may have said that, but I don't think it's a reason to choose them over others, they don't have any experience building a UK loading gauge bi mode as far as I know, while several other manufacturers do.
Although something influencing orders may well be capacity.
In terms of the UK-based rolling stock manufacturers, Hitachi seem to be busy for the next few years (and potentially more orders coming with more Lumo routes in future or exports).
Siemens are occupied building the Piccadilly line stock and TfL will have to get started with ordering Bakerloo line stock replacement pretty soon, then maybe Central/Northern at some point.
Bombardier have the joint HS2 order with Hitachi some time in the near future, but not too much in the interim.
CAF have that LNER bi mode order to replace the Intercity 225s.
In terms of the UK-based rolling stock manufacturers, Hitachi seem to be busy for the next few years (and potentially more orders coming with more Lumo routes in future or exports).
Given that the 800/801 fleet consists of about 865 coaches delivered within 4 years, even if 1/2 of those were delivered from the UK, that's still capacity of circa 100 per year.
Therefore (even if Lumo replaced their 222's they've agreed a lease for) that's one year for their order (95 coaches)
Grand Central's order (45 coaches) is six months.
How much other stuff do they have in order? However, if that's 2 years of stuff currently on order, then to deliver 25*5 coach trains for SWR could still just about be done before the 158/159's hit 40.
You could probably speed things up a little by getting some bodyshells shipped to the UK.
Given that the 800/801 fleet consists of about 865 coaches delivered within 4 years, even if 1/2 of those were delivered from the UK, that's still capacity of circa 100 per year.
Therefore (even if Lumo replaced their 222's they've agreed a lease for) that's one year for their order (95 coaches)
Grand Central's order (45 coaches) is six months.
How much other stuff do they have in order? However, if that's 2 years of stuff currently on order, then to deliver 25*5 coach trains for SWR could still just about be done before the 158/159's hit 40.
You could probably speed things up a little by getting some bodyshells shipped to the UK.
Other lines with issues on GWR are the Windsor Branch, which is limited to RA3, the Looe branch line, and its 20 metres for multiple units; single car units are permitted to be 23 metres long. Cornwall can't take long and wide units like the Networkers; however, short and wide units like the 150s and long and thin units like the IETs can fit.
There must be enough (nearly) off the shelf tram designs (even high floor ones) available that could do the job on the Thames branches. Convert to line of sight running to enable increased frequency if required. Level crossings suddenly become less of an issue and extensions become possible (though other than theoretically Bourne End - High Wycombe I can’t imagine there’s much need)
There must be enough (nearly) off the shelf tram designs (even high floor ones) available that could do the job on the Thames branches. Convert to line of sight running to enable increased frequency if required. Level crossings suddenly become less of an issue and extensions become possible (though other than theoretically Bourne End - High Wycombe I can’t imagine there’s much need)
It's a great idea that I have considered many times. It would permit many useful station reopenings too, and potentially new lines (Southall to Brentford in particular).
The only issue is that you'd have to have some sort of mainline capability (even if that just meant getting dragged by a loco) to a central depot (probably somewhere in the Slough area), as maintenance facilities on each individual branch would be uneconomic and, on some branches, very difficult to site.
It's a great idea that I have considered many times. It would permit many useful station reopenings too, and potentially new lines (Southall to Brentford in particular).
The only issue is that you'd have to have some sort of mainline capability (even if that just meant getting dragged by a loco) to a central depot (probably somewhere in the Slough area), as maintenance facilities on each individual branch would be uneconomic and, on some branches, very difficult to site.
Tram trains exist, there's the class 398 which could be ordered tomorrow and would be perfect for the Thames valley and would link well with a wider Stadler based fleet strategy for local and regional trains.
Tram trains exist, there's the class 398 which could be ordered tomorrow and would be perfect for the Thames valley and would link well with a wider Stadler based fleet strategy for local and regional trains.
Lack of toilets is an issue on the 398s. Another issue is the lack of capacity for the Henley Regatta, which would require four units working together, as they are the length of a class 150, which is 40m, and a 7-car turbo is 161 metres long. Also, do we know the class 398s RA value? Do we know what the differential speeds they are allowed to follow are?
There must be enough (nearly) off the shelf tram designs (even high floor ones) available that could do the job on the Thames branches. Convert to line of sight running to enable increased frequency if required. Level crossings suddenly become less of an issue and extensions become possible (though other than theoretically Bourne End - High Wycombe I can’t imagine there’s much need)
'Line of sight' is of little benefit on a single line network, with or without additional passing loops. Movements would still be governed exclusively by some kind of failsafe single line block control. Having 'road legal' trains could allow useful future small-scale improvements and extensions to the branches that might be constructed to light rather than heavy rail standards, permitting new level crossings more easily, less hard segregation from pedestrians, even limited street running for short critical sections where expedient, and exploiting the tighter curving and steeper gradient climbing capabilities of LR vehicles to weave around or surmount obstacles rather than removiing them. These are good reasons for choosing a flexible tram-train type vehicle like Cardiff. That solution could also offer level boarding at standard UK 3ft height platforms and allow periodic return to a depot for maintenance over the mainline.
Tram trains exist, there's the class 398 which could be ordered tomorrow and would be perfect for the Thames valley and would link well with a wider Stadler based fleet strategy for local and regional trains.
398 is a Vossloh design, not really a Stadler design in terms of compatibility for maintenance purposes (Vossloh's rail vehicles division was acquired by Stadler).
I agree that they are a decent option for any tram-train fleet on the Thames Valley branches.
'Line of sight' is of little benefit on a single line network, with or without additional passing loops. Movements would still be governed exclusively by some kind of failsafe single line block control. Having 'road legal' trains could allow useful future small-scale improvements and extensions to the branches that might be constructed to light rather than heavy rail standards, permitting new level crossings more easily, less hard segregation from pedestrians, even limited street running for short critical sections where expedient, and exploiting the tighter curving and steeper gradient climbing capabilities of LR vehicles to weave around or surmount obstacles rather than removiing them. These are good reasons for choosing a flexible tram-train type vehicle like Cardiff. That solution could also offer level boarding at standard UK 3ft height platforms and allow periodic return to a depot for maintenance over the mainline.
Many Thames Branches platforms are set to the Great Western Railway platform height standard of 750mm. If you're converting it to tram-train, wouldn't something like the low-floor class 399 be better, since it will be cheaper and easier to add new stops, especially during on-street running? These stops could be used by Buses which would provide a seamless interchange between Reading Buses and the Tram-Trains, which probably should be operated by Reading Buses, with a maintenance contract to Reading TCD, or they could build their own depot on the fields by Reading TCD or in the triangle.
Many Thames Branches platforms are set to the Great Western Railway platform height standard of 750mm. If you're converting it to tram-train, wouldn't something like the low-floor class 399 be better, since it will be cheaper and easier to add new stops, especially during on-street running? These stops could be used by Buses which would provide a seamless interchange between Reading Buses and the Tram-Trains, which probably should be operated by Reading Buses, with a maintenance contract to Reading TCD, or they could build their own depot on the fields by Reading TCD or in the triangle.
You'd need to do a full survey clearly. If substantial extensions were planned on street, then low floor could be an option, but I doubt it's the optimal solution here. If you really wanted, I'm sure Stadler could make a 750mm version of the Citylink that would still be compatible with empty mainline running to Reading or another depot not too far away for maintenance, just as would the even lower floored Sheffield tram trains. I think 3ft should be the standard all platforms are adapted too eventually. That's more achievable than 1m+ at many smaller station, and its likely some, especially the mainline junctions, will have been raised to that level during reconstructions over the decades. In all cases of substandard platform height, a ~950mm train/tram floor is going to offer a smaller vertical stepping distance than a traditional ~1200mm train floor height.
You'd need to do a full survey clearly. If substantial extensions were planned on street, then low floor could be an option, but I doubt it's the optimal solution here. If you really wanted, I'm sure Stadler could make a 750mm version of the Citylink that would still be compatible with empty mainline running to Reading or another depot not too far away for maintenance, just as would the even lower floored Sheffield tram trains. I think 3ft should be the standard all platforms are adapted too eventually. That's more achievable than 1m+ at many smaller station, and its likely some, especially the mainline junctions, will have been raised to that level during reconstructions over the decades. In all cases of substandard platform height, a ~950mm train/tram floor is going to offer a smaller vertical stepping distance than a traditional ~1200mm train floor height.
I would say Reading could really benefit from a tram system which could be linked to the Henley-on-Branch. The Tram system would provide easy access to the Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading Uni and the Reading Festival just to name a few places. 750mm is the one of the standard platform heights in the interoperability standards which the UK follows. Reading is the closest depot which makes sense as Maidenhead is just Carriage sidings.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
