Stopgap options to cover for delays to introduction of Class 810 for EMR?

[43096]

No, it's really that bad. The line is already massively over loaded, after losing a significant amount of capacity when the HST's and then 180's were released with no replacement.

That’s not really true, is it? When the HSTs went the timetable was re-cast after electrification to Corby which brought with it the 360s.

 

[Yew]

Short answer.
No.

Long answer…
Not typing it all out, but really, no.

I understand that rolling stock is more complicated, but it is disappointing how difficult it is to get things to work together, especially for units made around the same time, by the same manufacturer.

It certainly feels like our preference for everything to be a small contract, individually bid, and with modifications is starting to show its flaws.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I understand that rolling stock is more complicated, but it is disappointing how difficult it is to get things to work together, especially for units made around the same time, by the same manufacturer.

I seem to recall the reason for 220/221 having a different TMS was for more commonality with Pendolinos. Alongside which they worked far more closely than 222s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 15:51 ==

It certainly feels like our preference for everything to be a small contract, individually bid, and with modifications is starting to show its flaws.

Though of course when we did standardise (most 80x bar the 810s which are different for a reason) people moaned about that too

 

[Nym]

I understand that rolling stock is more complicated, but it is disappointing how difficult it is to get things to work together, especially for units made around the same time, by the same manufacturer.

It certainly feels like our preference for everything to be a small contract, individually bid, and with modifications is starting to show its flaws.

… starting???

This whole lack of proper standards from the DfT and RSSB over the last 20 years is rather a large pain in many an engineers’ side.

It’s only now it’s starting to become more public

 

[Bletchleyite]

… starting???

This whole lack of proper standards from the DfT and RSSB over the last 20 years is rather a large pain in many an engineers’ side.

It’s only now it’s starting to become more public

Even among 15x you hardly ever see a sandwich of different unit types even though in that case you actually can because each vehicle is independent. So would this actually have been that useful? Even the Scottish 153s are coupled on the end rather than sandwiched between halves of 156. The only time I've seen odd vehicles mixed within formation in the UK since the Mk1 DMU/EMU scratch sets days is that odd 508 coach in some 455s.

Just get in four of the spare 221s and run them as two pairs.

 

[Zomboid]

Though of course when we did standardise (most 80x bar the 810s which are different for a reason) people moaned about that too

Let's see what happens when someone tries to multi an 802 with an 805!

 

[Yew]

I seem to recall the reason for 220/221 having a different TMS was for more commonality with Pendolinos. Alongside which they worked far more closely than 222s.

I think that's the wrong way around, why did the 222s have a different TMS to the very similar trains that were already running. I can hardly imagine a 222-HST combo, not a 222-170 or 15X.

Though of course when we did standardise (most 80x bar the 810s which are different for a reason) people moaned about that too

There is a reason that when the HSTs were introduced, the design was based on proven technologies and a prototype was built and verified first - as opposed to going straight into full procurement. Unfortunately, since then there is an arrogant tendency in engineering to think that prototypes are a waste of money, and that everything can be solved up-front.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a reason that when the HSTs were introduced, the design was based on proven technologies and a prototype was built and verified first - as opposed to going straight into full procurement.

That's just how the engineering industry has changed now you can effectively computer model pretty much anything.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 16:26 ==

I think that's the wrong way around, why did the 222s have a different TMS to the very similar trains that were already running.

Licensing reasons I believe. I'm almost certain (but could be wrong) that the 220/221 TMS includes software components by Alstom for commonality with Pendolinos. There's no need for the 222 TMS to have that.

(Yes I know they're now the same company but in the early 2000s they were not)

 

[Failed Unit]

Even among 15x you hardly ever see a sandwich of different unit types even though in that case you actually can because each vehicle is independent. So would this actually have been that useful? Even the Scottish 153s are coupled on the end rather than sandwiched between halves of 156. The only time I've seen odd vehicles mixed within formation in the UK since the Mk1 DMU/EMU scratch sets days is that odd 508 coach in some 455s.

Central trains seemed to do anything with the 15x - although maybe not in passenger service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Central trains seemed to do anything with the 15x - although maybe not in passenger service.

I think a half 156 half 158 combo did happen once and you might be right it was Central Trains, using two halves of accident damaged units. There might also have been a combo of half a 156 and a 153 but my memory is hazy. I've not seen any others aside from making 3 car 158s out of 2 car ones which several TOCs have done over the years. 2 ever isn't often (I didn't say never ).

 

[Yew]

That's just how the engineering industry has changed now you can effectively computer model pretty much anything.

Unless it's an 810 wiring loom, an 801 bogie, or the propulsion system for the Type 45 Destroyer.

 

[sad1e]

I think a half 156 half 158 combo did happen once and you might be right it was Central Trains, using two halves of accident damaged units. There might also have been a combo of half a 156 and a 153 but my memory is hazy. I've not seen any others aside from making 3 car 158s out of 2 car ones which several TOCs have done over the years. 2 ever isn't often (I didn't say never ).

Regional railways did a few 156 158 hybrids when the 158s were new and wouldn't activate track circuits.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unless it's an 810 wiring loom, an 801 bogie, or the propulsion system for the Type 45 Destroyer.

You can get stuff wrong with physical models too.

Also don't forget that the AT300 platform wasn't new, e.g. the Class 395s predate the 80x by a few years, and there are loads in Japan.

* Indeed with the 395 being basically a 20m 80x, I'm surprised there's so much faff getting a 24m version to work!

 

[Nym]

I think that's the wrong way around, why did the 222s have a different TMS to the very similar trains that were already running. I can hardly imagine a 222-HST combo, not a 222-170 or 15X.

There is a reason that when the HSTs were introduced, the design was based on proven technologies and a prototype was built and verified first - as opposed to going straight into full procurement. Unfortunately, since then there is an arrogant tendency in engineering to think that prototypes are a waste of money, and that everything can be solved up-front.

Change engineering to project Managment there and you’re right…

 

[Zomboid]

You can prototype until the cows come home and you'll still find unforeseen issues when you go into series production.

810s are a good example of that actually, they're not fundamentally that different from the many 80x bi-modes that are knocking about, but they're still being beset by teething troubles.

 

[Killingworth]

Oh for the good old days when there were hundreds of compatible carriages parked up in obscure sidings across the nation, all capable of being hauled by steam, diesel or electric locomotives.

Dr Beeching wasn't happy with all of them, but I doubt he'd be favourably impressed with the current situation - following from pages 14 and 15 of his 1963 "The Reforming of British Railways" Part 1. Report; https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BRB_Beech001a.pdf

In so far as the increased traffic arising in a peak period can be carried by the regular time-tabled trains, the yield from it is almost all net revenue. Up to that level it is very welcome financially, but the situation changes as soon as the traffic rises to a level necessitating extra trains. Moreover, because the capacity of many fast train services is well matched to the steady traffic, they are not able to absorb very large additional loads unless extra trains are put on. Extra trains are very expensive to run, and may easily cause a loss which more than offsets any gain from increased traffic on the regular trains, especially if the extras are themselves only partly filled and if there is no balancing return working for engines, vehicles and men.

Such trains give rise to a high proportion of overtime working and they depend upon the availability of reserve coaching stock which is expensive to supply, maintain, and assemble, and which is idle for most of the year. The extent to which reserve stock has been held to cover peak demands in the past, and its gross under-utilisation, is shown by the following table, which relates to 1959:- Total number of gangwayed coaches allocated to fast and semi-fast services . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,500 Number in year-round service . . . . . . . . . . 5,500 Additional vehicles for regular summer service . . . . 2,000 Available for high peak service . . . . . . . . 8,900 , Under repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,100 ‘

A large number of the coaches available for high peak traffic were only required on a limited number of occasions as the following table, relating to the last 6,000 vehicles in the fleet, shows:- Number of Coaches Required on not more than: 2,000 10 occasions 2,000 14 occasions 2,000 18 occasions The annual cost of providing the 6,000 coaches was E3.4m. Against this it was estimated that they only earned £O.5m. after allowing for all other costs of the movements concerned.

Since the beginning of 1959 the number of passenger-carrying gangway coaches has been reduced by 5,584 and by the end of 1965 stock will not be available for use at high peak periods. Efforts will be made to control these peaks by seat reservation schemes and by fares policy, as is the custom with I airline services.

 

[Failed Unit]

I think a half 156 half 158 combo did happen once and you might be right it was Central Trains, using two halves of accident damaged units. There might also have been a combo of half a 156 and a 153 but my memory is hazy. I've not seen any others aside from making 3 car 158s out of 2 car ones which several TOCs have done over the years. 2 ever isn't often (I didn't say never ).

I went on a 158 / 153 combo once with them.

 

[WAO]

All either scrapped or sold. Those sold are either exported to Mexico or are at Mid-Norfolk Railway pending developments.

There are a good number in working preservation, whose several groups would be transformed financially with even modest, 18 month lease contracts.

Bring them on!

WAO

 

[43096]

There are a good number in working preservation, whose several groups would be transformed financially with even modest, 18 month lease contracts.

Bring them on!

WAO

My original comment was about sliding door HSTs. Which of those are in preservation?

 

[dosxuk]

Indeed with the 395 being basically a 20m 80x, I'm surprised there's so much faff getting a 24m version to work!

One of the requirements for the MML bimodes was that they could match the 222 timings while running on diesel. The existing 80x platform couldn't do this, hence leading to some pretty extensive redesign work.

 

[InTheEastMids]

arrogant tendency in engineering to think that prototypes are a waste of money,

Or, to put it another way, a protoype was probably unaffordable.

Procurements almost always place a lot of emphasis on price. If the bid includes a prototype, and the time taken to test it, then it contains a lot of extra cost. There will be another bidder that says they can skip the protoype costs, so there's a good chance they'll be cheaper. The smaller the fleet, the worse the issue gets.

Clients will also often put significant emphasis on low delivery risk - they are trying to avoid the situation EMR is now in! However, if the bidder says "We need to build and test a prototype", the client may well think "Wow, there must be some risky stuff in here, what are they not telling us?", and mark the bid down accordingly.

 

[WAO]

My original comment was about sliding door HSTs. Which of those are in preservation?

Point taken but they do have central locking.
WAO

 

[43096]

Point taken but they do have central locking.
WAO

But are not PRM compliant so cannot be used for service trains. It's a complete non-starter, before you even get to how do volunteer organisations support daily fleet use and the condition that vehicles would be returned in.

 

[cactustwirly]

125 isn't really needed other than for recovery. In fact if on time anything over 110 isn't needed really.

Wasn't the timetable rewritten to take advantage of the speed increase to 125mph?

 

[MCR247]

I think that's the wrong way around, why did the 222s have a different TMS to the very similar trains that were already running. I can hardly imagine a 222-HST combo, not a 222-170 or 15X.

The Bombardier TMS on 222s is superior to the 220s/221s and makes changing carriages/formations a lot easier than it is on the latter so I’d have to disagree. It also would’ve required Bombardier to pay Alstom to use their inferior product

 

[Yew]

Or, to put it another way, a protoype was probably unaffordable.

Procurements almost always place a lot of emphasis on price. If the bid includes a prototype, and the time taken to test it, then it contains a lot of extra cost. There will be another bidder that says they can skip the protoype costs, so there's a good chance they'll be cheaper. The smaller the fleet, the worse the issue gets.

Clients will also often put significant emphasis on low delivery risk - they are trying to avoid the situation EMR is now in! However, if the bidder says "We need to build and test a prototype", the client may well think "Wow, there must be some risky stuff in here, what are they not telling us?", and mark the bid down accordingly.

I agree that is the optimal way to play the game in our tendering system, but given the alarming frequency of issues introducing new classes, we should ask ourselves if we should continue with that process. At the moment, we trade a lower list-price for service disruptions and delays in operation, whilst also depriving ourselves of the opportunity to iterate and improve the design. I would like to hope that for future large procurements (sprinter replacement?) we will try and take a more pragmatic and integrated approach, as opposed to bespoke designs for each sprinter operator, with who-knows-what problems.

But are not PRM compliant so cannot be used for service trains. It's a complete non-starter, before you even get to how do volunteer organisations support daily fleet use and the condition that vehicles would be returned in.

Does the whole train have the be PRM compliant? Could we put compliant coaches in to existing rakes, or could we even make the argument that since the majority of the fleet is still compliant, these additional "queue buster" services are acceptable?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 09:05 ==

The Bombardier TMS on 222s is superior to the 220s/221s and makes changing carriages/formations a lot easier than it is on the latter so I’d have to disagree. It also would’ve required Bombardier to pay Alstom to use their inferior product

Would Alstom owning Bombardier make this easier?

 

[MCR247]

Would Alstom owning Bombardier make this easier?

I was talking about at the time of building, it’s all immaterial now. The point is at the time it made sense to have voyagers and pendos have compatible TMS’ and it also made sense for the 222s to not also use this TMS.

 

[Backroom_boy]

Yes I agree, fix forward on this.

 

[43096]

Does the whole train have the be PRM compliant?

Yes, it does. PRM is not just about toilets, it is about doors, PIS systems etc etc.

Could we put compliant coaches in to existing rakes, or could we even make the argument that since the majority of the fleet is still compliant, these additional "queue buster" services are acceptable?

Where are you getting those compliant coaches from?

Good luck making that argument - you won't get anywhere.

I have no idea why people are still flogging this "idea". What part of "It's a complete non-starter" are people struggling with?!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

In Eversholts Rails annual report for year ending 31st December 2024 there is this comment



Admittedly that decision was taken over 12mths ago and the specifics of the arrangement aren't published but there going to need another extension clearly for whatever left and presumably those options are built into the leasing agreement.