-
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!
DLR B23 Stock (CAF Inneo)
- Thread starter TRAX
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Jammy Dodger
Member
Out of curiosity, why do the end coaches have 2 doors per side, but the intermediates have 3? I assume it's to do with the "cab" ends, as the bodyshells are close to the same length...?
Is that carriage in its final colour scheme?Reddit - Dive into anything
www.reddit.com
Seems they arrived a few hours ago
Jammy Dodger
Member
I believe so, means it matches the "new" DLR scheme (in line with the tube map). The original red and blue was the original livery from when the DLR was made in '87. See it as a modernizing refresh, which I personally agree with!
Jammy Dodger
Member
Apologies! Thought they had always been red and blue (which technically wasn't wrong, just the other way around for a time!). Regardless, I still see the "White Mint Chocolate" livery as a pleasing, refreshing look. Hopefully the B07 stock will be repainted during a mid-life refresh to reflect this once the whole fleet is in service.
As this stock was bought a while ago (i.e. pre pandemic and economic truss-up), I'm surprised the whole fleet isn't being replaced. Would make maintenance and operation overall much more simple.
It wouldn't have made sense to replace the B07 and B09s as they're not that old. I imagine they'll be getting a major refurb once the CAF stock is in service so that it looks uniform.
Jammy Dodger
Member
I can understand why, given their age (they are my preferred stock that's currently operating), however for such a large order (given the size of the network) it would make sense to consolidate to a uniform fleet, that's all.
Given that B07 stock are the same age as a Javelin*, I would assume that they will be refurbed soon, depending on TfL's funding situation.
*Javelin's are relevant because they are about to begin a mid-life refurb in March
The issue with the B07s is that they can't be cascaded elsewhere.
It's not a big deal to have two different rolling stock. London Overground has the 378s and the 710s and the Trams have the CR4000s and the Variobahns.
Jammy Dodger
Member
Fair point well made. We should have more light rail systems in cities around the UK, where they could be used, but that's a topic for another day.
Given that all this stock (old and new) will be based out of Beckton, what would the likelihood be that the depot at Poplar would begin to wind down operation at the end of the upgrade schedule, and eventually close for good, likely handing the land over to construction companies for more high-rises?
The DLR depot at Beckton is at the extreme end of one of the branches, and would not be a resilient move to make it the only base. There have been several weekend line closures there in the last 12 months (the old contract that any DLR branch could only be closed for works one weekend a year seems to have been forgotten), which would snooker the entire system. Poplar is immaculately sited to be at the centre of things. If you are going to offer an inner city intense service, the costs associated with having a base there is just one of those things.
In any event, if Poplar (obtained for a pittance in the early 1980s - I genuinely think the land was transferred from the old LDDC to the initial DLR for £1, part of how the whole of the initial DLR was built and equipped for £77m) was sold off for a tidy sum then TfL would scoop all the money, not to the benefit of the DLR, and then the DfT would reduce their payments to TfL on the grounds that they have had a property windfall. So what's the point?
In any event, if Poplar (obtained for a pittance in the early 1980s - I genuinely think the land was transferred from the old LDDC to the initial DLR for £1, part of how the whole of the initial DLR was built and equipped for £77m) was sold off for a tidy sum then TfL would scoop all the money, not to the benefit of the DLR, and then the DfT would reduce their payments to TfL on the grounds that they have had a property windfall. So what's the point?
DanNCL
Established Member
If I'm not mistaken, isn't the idea to concentrate the CAF units on the Lewisham route, and use what's left over after that on the Bank - Woolwich Arsenal and Tower Gateway - Beckton routes? Leaving Canary Wharf - Stratford and Stratford Int'l - Woolwich Arsenal/Beckton to the B07s?
Has the issue with stabling 90m sets at Poplar been resolved? If it hasn't that'll massively limit the diagrams that the CAF fleet can work.
Not inconceivable to think that the B07s and B09s could have found work elsewhere but they'd have required the same level of work as the P86s and P89s had to make them compatible with other networks. There was a missed opportunity for TFL and Nexus to cooperate by ordering a common design of new train as one large order to replace the full fleets for both the DLR and the Tyne & Wear Metro (albeit with relevant adjustments for each network), as that would have made the costs of full fleet replacement lower, and Nexus were open to such a cooperation. The existing Tyne & Wear units, B90s, B92s and B2Ks could have all gone for scrap, and the B07s and B09s found work elsewhere, most likely in Eastern Europe or Turkey.
Has the issue with stabling 90m sets at Poplar been resolved? If it hasn't that'll massively limit the diagrams that the CAF fleet can work.
Not inconceivable to think that the B07s and B09s could have found work elsewhere but they'd have required the same level of work as the P86s and P89s had to make them compatible with other networks. There was a missed opportunity for TFL and Nexus to cooperate by ordering a common design of new train as one large order to replace the full fleets for both the DLR and the Tyne & Wear Metro (albeit with relevant adjustments for each network), as that would have made the costs of full fleet replacement lower, and Nexus were open to such a cooperation. The existing Tyne & Wear units, B90s, B92s and B2Ks could have all gone for scrap, and the B07s and B09s found work elsewhere, most likely in Eastern Europe or Turkey.
You are correct that the sidings at Poplar suit current double but not triple formations, which have to be broken up. Apparently daily unhitching of the couplings for stabling is one of the wear and unreliability issues not envisaged when the stock was built, or when the system went from double to triple units.
Jammy Dodger
Member
Definitely won't have that problem with fixed 5 car units!
Chris M
Member
I've not heard anything like that, but it;s not impossible. Bank to Lewisham is the most heavily used route in normal operation (some events at ExCeL mean Canning Town-Custom House/Prince Regent the busiest stretch) so it would make sense for the new units to be allocated there once the fleet is fully bedded in. However, I would not be surprised to see early passenger introduction Between Beckton and Canning Town (for proximity to Beckton Depot) and Stratford-Canary Wharf (the only self-contained route). The DLR is inherently very flexible though so during disruption routes can and sometimes do change at the drop of a hat.
I'm not sure how much commonality there is with between the two networks
DLR | Metro | |
| Operation | Driverless, doors operated from any doorway | Driver, doors operated from driving cab |
| Power supply | Bottom-contact third rail | OLE |
| Voltage | 750v DC | 1500v DC |
| Floor height | 1003mm (existing fleet) | 940mm (new fleet) |
| Body profile | Tapering | Vertical (or at least more so) |
| Minimum curve radius | 38m | 50m |
| Maximum gradient | 1 in 12 (8.33%) | 1 in 25 (4%) |
DanNCL
Established Member
Canary Wharf - Stratford won't happen for the CAF units outside of disruption unless the issues with stabling at Poplar are resolved. I agree the Beckton/Woolwich - Stratford Int'l trips seem a good bet for bedding in the fleet.
There's a surprising amount of commonality between the two. For example comparing the existing fleets on both networks, both have units that are 27.5m long, 3.45 (or within a few cm of) high, 2.65m wide, 50mph top speed, same door density and (originally) almost identical interior layouts. It's easy enough to build both cabbed and driverless versions of the same trains, Alstom have been doing it for Paris for decades.
Both networks ultimately had a requirement for the following: 3.45m high, 2.65m wide, 50mph units with a Metro door layout and longitudinal seating throughout. A common design could have met the needs of both, with the two versions having smaller differences to meet the needs of the respective networks, for example different wheel profiles, one fleet being driverless etc.
There was certainly a missed potential, especially as Nexus and at least one of the manufacturers (believe CAF but not 100% certain) were interested in such a possibility, but with both networks now starting to receive different new fleets from different manufacturers it's one of those what could have beens.
Whilst there are similarities, there are also some considerable differences - the new Tyne and Wear Metro fleet has essentially had to be built to mainline standards, due to the shared running sections. If anything the new TW fleet should have really been specified with a higher top speed due to this too; there are significant sections of the network that would benefit from 60/75mph capable units (hopefully this is something that can be enabled with minor work later).
The DLR also has much tighter curves in some places than Metro does, so wheel profiles and indeed the actual wheel sets have the potential to be very different. Save for one or two places Metro has a fairly conventional route, and as such if the profiles and bogie designs can be changed to avoid the hunting oscillation which is an issue with both the existing Metrocars and some of the DLR stock, this would be very beneficial from both a passenger comfort and maintenance/wear and tear perspective. To this end it's quite interesting that both are 5 cars, but the DLR CAF fleet is 86.7m in length, with the Stadler 555s being only 59.9m.
Metro also has a passive requirement for either an IP solution, or dual voltage - this is something Stadler are very good at doing, so we got a win there with the choice of vendor. The DLR on the other hand has absolutely no use for this, beyond perhaps "limp" capabilities to be used in the event of a failure.
Whilst a group buy is often a good thing to consider for the reasons mentioned, the reality is that it very often results in one or all of the target networks getting a product filled with compromises. This sort of solution works well in countries which have built substantial and numerous networks to similar specifications (think the ex-USSR and their standardised Metro and tram designs), but less so in a small place like the UK where the various networks are all quite different having evolved in differing eras and circumstances.
I think both networks are getting great products to meet their individual needs here - and we should focus on that rather than the missed opportunity to save some money... which probably wouldn't have been that much in the grand scheme of things.
3-car trains also operate from Poplar depot- there's only a few sidings at Poplar that 3-car trains cannot fit onto
100andthirty
Member
One of the features of train procurement competitions is the importance of price. I'm not saying "cheapest wins", but the usual approach means that "chapest bid compliant with the Invitation to Tender genrally wins. A lot will depend on what the client specifies. These days, specifications are generally expressed in output terms - "the train must do this, this and that etc" together with the key interfaces, - gauge, power supply, ATO/ATP, platofm heights/lengths etc.
I suspect that the DLR team thought that the tight curves would have led to articulated designs being offered and I also suspect that they would have been surprised at the CAF offering. An articulated train would have had more body sections but fewer bogies, and probably would have been more expensive than the CAF offering. It remains to be seen what the CAF design makes of the tight curves!
So what might Stadler/Siemens have offered? The fact of the matter is that none of us know even how the joint bid arrangement was structured (i.e. which supplier was planned to do what), let alone what the dseign might have looked like. I'm confident that it would have had little or nothing in common with the class 777 which is built to a whole host of different standards and is a bespoke design to Liverpool with no similarities to anything else.
Gag Halfrunt
Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2019
- Messages
- 722
This is because the original trains for both systems were based on the West German Stadtbahnwagen B standard. The Essen Stadtbahn was able to buy the DLR's P86 and P89 trains and convert them into manually-driven trams.
TT-ONR-NRN
Veteran Member
If anyone has any CGI/artist impression or even amateur drawings/images of a B07/B09 in the new stock's livery, as I'm sure will become reality soon enough, I'd love to see
The Stadler Siemens bid would have likely been similar to the new S Bahn Berlin trains which the same consortium are building. Siemens supplied traction equipment and bogies, Stadler did the rest and assembly.
It doesn't have to be the cheapest, it depends on what the awarding body wants. Merseyrail would have been sold by level building and the strong battery offering by Stadler. The DLR is a make your own version of our existing trains for a low price. CAF look like a reasonable choice depending on how they handle the curves.
Jammy Dodger
Member
I'd assume whatever is on the inside of the unit that was delivered to Beckton this week will be final (unless it still hasn't been kitted out, which would be a surprise).
While TfL will likely sell the moquette through LTM, I can't see it having the product range or appeal of the Crossrail ones (ahem, I mean Elizabeth Line - still getting used to that!)
Techniquest
Veteran Member
I still prefer to call it CrossRail, so you're not the only one! I absolutely refuse to call it the purple line, or refer to the trains as Purple Trains or whatever though.
As for the DLR moquette, I don't know, it has a fun appeal and I suspect given the chance it would sell well. I'd buy a model DLR train to sit on my mantelpiece if I could, it's a quirky and fun little system to travel on and I regret not doing a full run on it recently. Next time!
Jammy Dodger
Member
Agreed! With XR2 and 3 (or Thameslink 2 as it is also known) on the list of possible future projects in London, we should start calling it the Crossrail network (like the Overground). Discussion for another time...
I'd buy a OO DLR model any day! Still waiting for a OO 345 model...
Techniquest
Veteran Member
Agreed with the first point, so I won't continue that. An interesting topic, of course!
As for the models, I'm surprised TfL haven't jumped all over a model 345 yet!
TT-ONR-NRN
Veteran Member
Here is a link to an earlier 2022 conference regarding the new trains (referred to as B23 Stock) and service patterns on YouTube:
Also, for anyone interested, a link to a PDF file of the complete set of branding and signage to be applied to the B23 stock:
Also, for anyone interested, a link to a PDF file of the complete set of branding and signage to be applied to the B23 stock:
Last edited:
Thanks for that info, I’ve updated the name of the thread accordingly.