WCML New Rolling Stock Discussion

[Sprinter150]

Well it would likely unclog some capacity between Birmingham and Stafford, allowing other inter regional services to run. Presumably a service from Birmingham to Glasgow via HS2 would be pretty fast once they've cleared parts of the WCML for 125 for non tilt, and considering the service would be high-speed out of Birmingham all the way to the WCML link.

Not that I was suggesting the service would be any more useful, more in reply to a point a poster made about Wolverhampton Birmingham, Crewe and Warrington etc being partly excluded due to HS2. There is no reason why they would be.

Don't forget about capacity on WCML into Stafford. The 2.5 mile (ish) section between Colwich Jnc and Milford is only 2 track, and it could well be headways of 5 mins in between phase 1 and 2a. Also, I would have thought that it is likely to become a bottleneck, because however well you timetable the trains (no mean feat when paths into Manchester etc might not change much), it only takes a pass 1 minutes late to delay the next service. Also will be interesting if they use the diamond crossing for Manchester trains - presume this will be the case, as now, for trains via Stoke, rather than paths via Stafford and what impact this could have on performance. The repercussions could be massive if delays imported onto the HS2 network. Anyway, we'll wait and see - it could even be that phase 1 and 2a are merged.

 

[AndrewE]

Clearly not.

Again clearly not, but that would be operated using HS2 stock, not these units. I think we've gone off at a tangent here regarding what stock might be needed post-HS2 for the legacy services.
For this new order pre-HS2, I would still put serious money on 5x26m Class 80x.

Exactly my point. Who cares if provincial services to Scotland are slower post-HS2? They are not serving London, so why bother to maintain the current timings, especially as London times via HS2 will be the same or better?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly my point. Who cares if provincial services to Scotland are slower post-HS2? They are not serving London, so why bother to maintain the current timings, especially as London times via HS2 will be the same or better?

There is also likely, if HS2 is built in full, to be an HS2 Brum-Scotland service (this is what is cited by some to provide the calls at Lancaster, Oxenholme and Penrith; this is causing some controversy as one might imagine). So almost nobody will have a slower primary service. MKC and Coventry? Yet MKC will get significant increases in service so I'd imagine people would put up with a slightly slower Scotland service.

 

[Energy]

I imagine any of the suppliers could provide a unit with 23m(ish) car bodies, doors at ends of each car and an end gangway. It doesn't have to be Siemens, just that they happen to have made the closest reasonably modern existing unit.

Yep, Bombardier are making the class 730 for West Midlands Trains, it has 5 24 metre carriages and goes 110 mph.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yep, Bombardier are making the class 730 for West Midlands Trains, it has 5 24 metre carriages and goes 110 mph.

It's not end-doored, but I'm sure they wouldn't find it too difficult to move the doors to create something a bit Class 444-like.

 

[AndrewE]

There is also likely, if HS2 is built in full, to be an HS2 Brum-Scotland service (this is what is cited by some to provide the calls at Lancaster, Oxenholme and Penrith; this is causing some controversy as one might imagine). So almost nobody will have a slower primary service. MKC and Coventry? Yet MKC will get significant increases in service so I'd imagine people would put up with a slightly slower Scotland service.

Apart from Wolverhampton and Crewe (and pasengers connecting in there) then...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apart from Wolverhampton and Crewe (and pasengers connecting in there) then...

Crewe will have the HS2 Brum-Scotland services operated using the classic compatible HS2 stock.

Wolves, perhaps. But Wolves is like Cov - it gets the level of service it does because it is operationally convenient, not because it justifies it alone.

 

[gingertom]

Exactly my point. Who cares if provincial services to Scotland are slower post-HS2? They are not serving London, so why bother to maintain the current timings, especially as London times via HS2 will be the same or better?

so I'd imagine people would put up with a slightly slower Scotland service.

I'd suspect those of us north of the border would have something to say about slower services / increased journey times.

 

[Sprinter150]

In terms of tilt, I was on this service from Edinburgh on WCML, and, whilst I got off at Crewe, having lost time on the northern section (although if as the post on the previous page suggests that there will be 125mph not tilt this won’t be a problem), it seems to have remained fairly on time - only dropped 2 mins between Wolverhampton and Euston. With better acceleration on the new EMUs, there’s every chance it could squeeze (tightly) into a West Midlands path, albeit with little recovery time. Nevertheless, it seems that there is little anyway, so maybe it wouldn’t make much of a difference.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd suspect those of us north of the border would have something to say about slower services / increased journey times.

How often do you go to Wolverhampton, Coventry or Milton Keynes? Those are the only three places where this would affect you.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Exactly my point. Who cares if provincial services to Scotland are slower post-HS2? They are not serving London, so why bother to maintain the current timings, especially as London times via HS2 will be the same or better?

Trains on the northern WCML are flighted to allow for slower freight paths in the rest of the hour, so you don't want much variation in running times north of Crewe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Trains on the northern WCML are flighted to allow for slower freight paths in the rest of the hour, so you don't want much variation in running times north of Crewe.

There is clearly no issue fitting a 110mph unit into the mix because TPE currently operate 110mph units.

 

[AndrewE]

How often do you go to Wolverhampton, Coventry or Milton Keynes? Those are the only three places where this would affect you.

Trains on the northern WCML are flighted to allow for slower freight paths in the rest of the hour, so you don't want much variation in running times north of Crewe.

There is clearly no issue fitting a 110mph unit into the mix because TPE currently operate 110mph units.

These 3 statements refuse to acknowledge that Wolves and Crewe (and all the people connecting in there) northbound will lose out. So what if "Trains on the northern WCML are flighted to allow for slower freight paths," or "TPE currently operate 110mph units?" Slower trains northbound from Wolves and Crewe post-HS2 will give a slower service for a lot of people.
It's all very well to say that

Crewe will have the HS2 Brum-Scotland services operated using the classic compatible HS2 stock.

but you are hiding from (or not admitting) what will be on offer from the slower non-tilting service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

but you are hiding from (or not admitting) what will be on offer from the slower non-tilting service.

If you want to go faster, use the HS2 service. If you don't, use the classic line service. What's the problem?

 

[AndrewE]

If you want to go faster, use the HS2 service. If you don't, use the classic line service. What's the problem?

The HS2 service won't go faster [north of Crewe] because it won't tilt. It will be faster from London, of course. Please explain how the HS2 or the classic services will be as good (i.e as fast) as what we have now?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The HS2 service won't go faster [north of Crewe] because it won't tilt. It will be faster from London, of course. Please explain how the HS2 or the classic services will be as good (i.e as fast) as what we have now?

Where are you looking at travelling to?

 

[AndrewE]

Where are you looking at travelling to?

How about Shrewsbury, Stoke (or even just Crewe) to Glasgow or Edinburgh?

 

[MarkyT]

I'd suspect those of us north of the border would have something to say about slower services / increased journey times.

You have misquoted me in your comment. Please amend - it was AndrewE.

 

[JamesT]

The HS2 service won't go faster [north of Crewe] because it won't tilt. It will be faster from London, of course. Please explain how the HS2 or the classic services will be as good (i.e as fast) as what we have now?

Won’t it go faster North of Crewe on HS2 until it gets to the junction with the WCML near Wigan?
The trick being whether that’s enough time saved to outweigh the slowdown through lack of tilt beyond there.

 

[Energy]

It's not end-doored, but I'm sure they wouldn't find it too difficult to move the doors to create something a bit Class 444-like.

The photo above is from Bombardier's website and looking at it I think the end doors are available and if they aren't then the person responsible for that photo really needs a new job.

 

[hwl]

The photo above is from Bombardier's website and looking at it I think the end doors are available and if they aren't then the person responsible for that photo really needs a new job.

Bletchleyite was pointing out that the WM order isn't end doored but virtually identical to the Anglia ones.

End doors are an option, as are 125mph (but lower acceleration) and bimode but no one as ordered any of those options so far.

 

[pt_mad]

The HS2 service won't go faster [north of Crewe] because it won't tilt. It will be faster from London, of course. Please explain how the HS2 or the classic services will be as good (i.e as fast) as what we have now?

What's to say there won't be a 390 service maintained between Birmingham Wolverhampton Crewe and the north, while the 390s remain in operation? They will still be around until the 2030s. They could put them on a Birmingham to Manchester as well as an example.

 

[pt_mad]

Don't forget about capacity on WCML into Stafford. The 2.5 mile (ish) section between Colwich Jnc and Milford is only 2 track, and it could well be headways of 5 mins in between phase 1 and 2a. Also, I would have thought that it is likely to become a bottleneck, because however well you timetable the trains (no mean feat when paths into Manchester etc might not change much), it only takes a pass 1 minutes late to delay the next service. Also will be interesting if they use the diamond crossing for Manchester trains - presume this will be the case, as now, for trains via Stoke, rather than paths via Stafford and what impact this could have on performance. The repercussions could be massive if delays imported onto the HS2 network. Anyway, we'll wait and see - it could even be that phase 1 and 2a are merged.

You raise a major point there that if it was just phase 1, Colwich and the two track section could well be a bottleneck for HS2 services and classic WCML services.

 

[edwin_m]

Trains on the northern WCML are flighted to allow for slower freight paths in the rest of the hour, so you don't want much variation in running times north of Crewe.

In fact, if there is scope to adjust the timetable to optimise capacity, the main factor determining capacity is the difference between the fastest and the slowest trains.

So for example if you have three services in each hour taking 20min, 30min and 40min they can set out at 0000, 0005 and 0010 and arrive at 0020, 0035 and 0050. If the middle service gets 5min faster or slower then it doesn't affect the overall route capacity.

The photo above is from Bombardier's website and looking at it I think the end doors are available and if they aren't then the person responsible for that photo really needs a new job.

Do Bombardier offer a gangwayed front end?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do Bombardier offer a gangwayed front end?

Yes (at 110mph), the WCML EMUs will have it.

 

[gingertom]

You have misquoted me in your comment. Please amend - it was AndrewE.

apologies, sorted.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Hasn't the standstill period finished yet?

The photo above is from Bombardier's website and looking at it I think the end doors are available and if they aren't then the person responsible for that photo really needs a new job.

Is that an impression of the proposed bi-mode Aventra? The only single-leaf door Aventra image I've seen previously was captioned as a bi-mode if I recall correctly. Makes me wonder whether end doors were an option on the Turbostar/Electrostar family but no TOC ever took them up on it.

I'm sure CAF could do a 110mph version of the TPE EMUs with a Class 196 gangwayed cab on it, for instance.

End doors are an option, as are 125mph (but lower acceleration) and bimode but no one as ordered any of those options so far.

Clearly both CAF and Bombardier have shown all the elements (unit-end gangways, single-leaf doors at vehicle ends and different top speed options). The question is how much design work is needed to 'mix and match' these differently. Can they just take any of the three different cab designs (125mph, 110mph full-width-cab and 110mph gangwayed cab) and bolt it to a standard bodyshell which can have holes cut for doors at any location or is it more complicated than that? I have actually e-mailed CAF (twice now) asking whether they could mate the 397 bodyshell with class 196 cabs and diesel engines without an extensive redesign but haven't (yet) received a reply.

If anything (ironically given the class 444 often being used as the closest current example) it's now Siemens' Desiro City platform that is seemingly restrictive (I can't recall a variant with end doors being proposed or one with unit-end gangways, although the 717 cab looks like a gangway could be added).

 

[Energy]

http://bit.ly/2KZfAuv
This is part of a series about crossrail, it shows them making the class 345 and the cab being attached. From the looks the cab looks to be a unit they attach onto a body shell.
(I'm using a link shortener to stop it embedding the video as the video won't play when it is embedded)

 

[hwl]

Hasn't the standstill period finished yet?

Makes me wonder whether end doors were an option on the Turbostar/Electrostar family but no TOC ever took them up on it.

They weren't which was one of the big changes they needed/wanted to make with Aventra.

 

[edwin_m]

If anything (ironically given the class 444 often being used as the closest current example) it's now Siemens' Desiro City platform that is seemingly restrictive (I can't recall a variant with end doors being proposed or one with unit-end gangways, although the 717 cab looks like a gangway could be added).

The 380 is sort of in the Desiro City family and has a gangwayed end.