WCML New Rolling Stock Discussion

[Energy]

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...w/west-coast-partnership-contract-signed.html
Well the contract has been signed as the 10 day standstill period has ended. Hopefully they will release more details soon on the rolling stock.

 

[greatvoyager]

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...w/west-coast-partnership-contract-signed.html
Well the contract has been signed as the 10 day standstill period has ended. Hopefully they will release more details soon on the rolling stock.

I have a feeling that if tilting becomes less relevant following HS2 opening, they will order 80x type units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have a feeling that if tilting becomes less relevant following HS2 opening, they will order 80x type units.

I think 5x26m 80x (some EMU and some bi-mode) is a near certainty. If they are later not needed, they could move to another FirstGroup operation like GWR.

 

[greatvoyager]

I think 5x26m 80x (some EMU and some bi-mode) is a near certainty. If they are later not needed, they could move to another FirstGroup operation like GWR.

That would make sense. Also if they order 80x units it will reduce the amount of training for drivers due to a common layout between the bimodes and electrics.

 

[krus_aragon]

That would make sense. Also if they order 80x units it will reduce the amount of training for drivers due to a common layout between the bimodes and electrics.

Your latter point could also be true of non 80x units, if they're both ordered from the same manufacturer.

The 80x seems to be the favourite on the RailUK rumour mill, either way!

 

[greatvoyager]

Your latter point could also be true of non 80x units, if they're both ordered from the same manufacturer.

The 80x seems to be the favourite on the RailUK rumour mill, either way!

I hope that something different is ordered, mainly for the variety. Also, why not try fitting different interiors as it seems not everyone is a fan of the 80x seats.

 

[Energy]

I think 5x26m 80x (some EMU and some bi-mode) is a near certainty. If they are later not needed, they could move to another FirstGroup operation like GWR.

Hopes for Stadler EC250s because there are already so many AT300s. And because I like the lower floors.

 

[Energy]

It also matters on deliver, they have about 2 years till the first enters service which isn't long and they still have hull trains and EMR to build.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I hope that something different is ordered, mainly for the variety.

The last thing an operator wants is "variety".
TPE is having a taste of what "variety" does to its costs and plans.
Also in the mix is the fact that Alstom is established as the maintenance partner for the franchise, and is set to remain that way with the retention of the Pendolinos.
There are no Hitachi depots on the WCML, which counts against AT300s (for a relatively small fleet).
CAF does have a presence on the northern WCML, and will be running north of Manchester/Liverpool with class 397 EMUs for TPE (also a First-led firm).
But what do I know...

Reading the First Group original announcement after winning the franchise, they say they are replacing the "unpopular Voyagers".
I don't think that is really the case, at least on the off-wire routes like Chester/North Wales.
I'll be really interested to see what journey times their replacement will deliver, if they are non-tilting.

 

[greatvoyager]

The last thing an operator wants is "variety".
TPE is having a taste of what "variety" does to its costs and plans.
Also in the mix is the fact that Alstom is established as the maintenance partner for the franchise, and is set to remain that way with the retention of the Pendolinos.
There are no Hitachi depots on the WCML, which counts against AT300s (for a relatively small fleet).
CAF does have a presence on the northern WCML, and will be running north of Manchester/Liverpool with class 397 EMUs for TPE (also a First-led firm).
But what do I know...

Reading the First Group original announcement after winning the franchise, they say they are replacing the "unpopular Voyagers".
I don't think that is really the case, at least on the off-wire routes like Chester/North Wales.
I'll be really interested to see what journey times their replacement will deliver, if they are non-tilting.

I was referring more to the fact that there are so many 80x units that they could try something different. They could order some bimodes/electrics from the same platform, but perhaps not Azumas but something else.

 

[greatvoyager]

The last thing an operator wants is "variety".
TPE is having a taste of what "variety" does to its costs and plans.
Also in the mix is the fact that Alstom is established as the maintenance partner for the franchise, and is set to remain that way with the retention of the Pendolinos.
There are no Hitachi depots on the WCML, which counts against AT300s (for a relatively small fleet).
CAF does have a presence on the northern WCML, and will be running north of Manchester/Liverpool with class 397 EMUs for TPE (also a First-led firm).
But what do I know...

Reading the First Group original announcement after winning the franchise, they say they are replacing the "unpopular Voyagers".
I don't think that is really the case, at least on the off-wire routes like Chester/North Wales.
I'll be really interested to see what journey times their replacement will deliver, if they are non-tilting.

I think that opinion on voyagers is divided, but not to the point that everyone hates them. With they way it's going, tilting won't be required (is tilting required for the line from Crewe to north Wales?)

 

[EE Andy b1]

I was referring more to the fact that there are so many 80x units that they could try something different. They could order some bimodes/electrics from the same platform, but perhaps not Azumas but something else.

But why would they bother?

They just want profit out of the fare paying passenger, so why pay more for a different product.
You can see the way it's all going, and not for the best. Not for the travelling public anyway.

I think that opinion on voyagers is divided, but not to the point that everyone hates them. With they way it's going, tilting won't be required (is tilting required for the line from Crewe to north Wales?)

Not all passenger hate Voyagers that's for sure, enthusiasts don't count. They were the best 125 mph diesels in years.

No tilting North Wales, max speed 90 mph, but that's not where all the congestion is, that's South from Crewe.

 

[greatvoyager]

But why would they bother?

They just want profit out of the fare paying passenger, so why pay more for a different product.
You can see the way it's all going, and not for the best. Not for the travelling public anyway.

There may be a cheaper alternative. Probably isn't though.

 

[EE Andy b1]

There may be a cheaper alternative. Probably isn't though.

Probably not for such a small order of 23 Bi-modes and 20 EMUs.

I think they will need to be able to work in multiple together between Classes so apart from Stadler and Hitachi both with orders ongoing, and cheaper just to tag on to eithers order books. I think First have had there fingers burnt with TPE and CAF.

I do too much thinking.

 

[greatvoyager]

Probably not for such a small order of 23 Bi-modes and 20 EMUs.

I think they will need to be able to work in multiple together between Classes so apart from Stadler and Hitachi both with orders ongoing, and cheaper just to tag on to eithers order books. I think First have had there fingers burnt with TPE and CAF.

I do too much thinking.

It would be logical to follow on from either of those orders.

 

[EE Andy b1]

It would be logical to follow on from either of those orders.

TOCs management don't necessarily do logical though!

 

[pt_mad]

I would love to see a standard journey time from a 390 doing say the Euston to Birmingham stopper Vs say a 397 doing it.

Do we think the timings would be all that drastically different?

 

[pt_mad]

I have copied this from the Grand Union thread as I think it has just as much relevance here:

Well we don't know whether the second Liverpool would require a new path from Euston.
Or, whether two services could be combined into one path out of Euston every hour, and split further north to form two seperate workings to their destination.

Example: 13 X 80x 5 car bi-modes. 10 X 801 5 car electrics.
A 5 car bi-mode coupled to a 5 car electric and works 10 cars at xx10 from Euston. The train set splits at Crewe. Bi-mode part goes off to Chester, electric part goes off to Liverpool.

Could that sort of thing be a possibility?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hopes for Stadler EC250s because there are already so many AT300s. And because I like the lower floors.

Low floor would certainly be a benefit, and while Stadler don't presently offer the EC250 as a bi-mode I wouldn't rule it out given their modularity.

 

[Energy]

Low floor would certainly be a benefit, and while Stadler don't presently offer the EC250 as a bi-mode I wouldn't rule it out given their modularity.

They are based on the FLIRT which has a bimode option. Hopefully they can make a tilting version, they designed and made the first EC250 in about 2 years so hopefully can make a tilting one in the same timeframe as it would be in time for this.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Example: 13 X 80x 5 car bi-modes. 10 X 801 5 car electrics.
A 5 car bi-mode coupled to a 5 car electric and works 10 cars at xx10 from Euston. The train set splits at Crewe. Bi-mode part goes off to Chester, electric part goes off to Liverpool.

Could that sort of thing be a possibility?

It sounds like a possibility for sure. I really hope it won't be the case though, the class 801 always seemed stupid to me; all the maintenance complication of a bi-mode (due to the diesel engine and alternator which wouldn't be needed on a pure EMU) without the go-anywhere capability of a full bi-mode. It only makes any sense if the diesel engine and associated equipment is significantly lighter than the batteries required to keep 'hotel power' going for a few hours. The 'limp to the next station' capability doesn't strike me as all that useful since the vast majority of issues that would stop an EMU (eg. wires down blocking the track or loss of power to the signalling) would stop a DMU just as completly.

Also, the class 800/802 and 801 can't tilt. Unless 125mph without tilt is authorised (unlikely I would say) then I think the best options are either tilting stock or 110mph units with end doors and unit end gangways. The latter would be ideal for what you describe, a bi-mode portion for Chester/Holyhead and an EMU portion for Liverpool, thanks to the unit end gangways helping passengers get into the correct part of the train.

 

[Energy]

I have copied this from the Grand Union thread as I think it has just as much relevance here:

Well we don't know whether the second Liverpool would require a new path from Euston.
Or, whether two services could be combined into one path out of Euston every hour, and split further north to form two seperate workings to their destination.

Example: 13 X 80x 5 car bi-modes. 10 X 801 5 car electrics.
A 5 car bi-mode coupled to a 5 car electric and works 10 cars at xx10 from Euston. The train set splits at Crewe. Bi-mode part goes off to Chester, electric part goes off to Liverpool.

Could that sort of thing be a possibility?

From my understanding the emus are going to be full length ones for more services not short 5 cars?

 

[Bletchleyite]

From my understanding the emus are going to be full length ones for more services not short 5 cars?

I don't think I've read that anywhere.

 

[Energy]

I don't think I've read that anywhere.

I believe the intention was for the emus to have more pendolino style services for extra capacity. Could always be 5 car but I was under the impression of 9 car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe the intention was for the emus to have more pendolino style services for extra capacity. Could always be 5 car but I was under the impression of 9 car.

I would still bet money on 5x26m 80x. Still more capacity than a Voyager (and more legroom too!) because of the 26m vehicles and far less wasted space in the layout.

 

[EE Andy b1]

I believe the intention was for the emus to have more pendolino style services for extra capacity. Could always be 5 car but I was under the impression of 9 car.

Not sure where your impressions are from, and you could be right, and if it is the case of 10 x 9 vehicle EMUs, they would need ASDO for Liverpool South Parkway which is part of the Liverpool plan and would 13 Bi-modes be enough to cover all diesel diagrams as needed and when doubled up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure where your impressions are from, and you could be right, and if it is the case of 10 x 9 vehicle EMUs, they would need ASDO for Liverpool South Parkway which is part of the Liverpool plan and would 13 Bi-modes be enough to cover all diesel diagrams as needed and when doubled up.

Is there any new stock to which ASDO isn't fitted?

Of course they don't have to go to Liverpool. They could be used on other services, with Liverpool getting 390s. You'd get the least lost time overall if they were used on the 2tph Birmingham terminators as dedicated diagrams - they'd probably only lose about 5 minutes over a Pendolino even if running at 110.

 

[EE Andy b1]

I would still bet money on 5x26m 80x. Still more capacity than a Voyager (and more legroom too!) because of the 26m vehicles and far less wasted space in the layout.

I would still go with these, of one make and as has been said then the versatility of coupling both types together and running in one path South of Crewe/Birmingham.

Only one lot of Crew training required on the Bi-mode and included conversion for the EMU, a massive cost saving.

 

[driver_m]

Is there any new stock to which ASDO isn't fitted?

Of course they don't have to go to Liverpool. They could be used on other services, with Liverpool getting 390s. You'd get the least lost time overall if they were used on the 2tph Birmingham terminators as dedicated diagrams - they'd probably only lose about 5 minutes over a Pendolino even if running at 110.

How would you stop at LSP then? Even now a pendo can only knock the back 4 out when we manually use SDO. If a 6 car 185 has to lock out doors there, even a 5 car 26m unit might struggle. There is now way in earth manual SDO would be allowed there. It’ll never pass a H&S test with potential for passengers to go straight off the side pf a road bridge where a driver could forget to enable it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would you stop at LSP then? Even now a pendo can only knock the back 4 out when we manually use SDO. If a 6 car 185 has to lock out doors there, even a 5 car 26m unit might struggle.

Design the ASDO system so it can lock out the required number of doors. It's not difficult. (Though the mind boggles as to why South Parkway, given its huge cost, wasn't built with at least 240m platforms).

I must admit I don't entirely understand why the Pendolino system is as it is. The most logical system would be that if using manual SDO from a panel it would release all doors forward of the door being used for the release, just like UDS does (for whole units) on 350s.