2024 Tube Stock (Siemens Inspiro)

[notverydeep]

Any passenger on a train (for all but the very shortest journeys) wants to have a seat and any passenger wanting to make a train journey does not want to be left behind. For those specifying rolling stock these are clearly competing needs: the more seats you have the more the first desire can be satisfied, but seats mean each passenger occupies more space and the capacity of the train is lower than it would be if there were fewer seats. At busy times on busy routes, the chance of being left behind when the train is full will be greater. So the specifier must evaluate a trade off. What is the benefit of a greater seating capacity versus the benefit of reducing waiting times, by lowering the chance of being left behind.

For a fixed frequency, the benefit of being in a seat increases with average journey length as some passengers will experience the downside of having to stand up for longer. So the longer the average passenger journey, the greater the value of the extra seats that can only be accommodated by having at least some transverse seating. The chance of being left behind will tend to only make a difference at the height of the peak time, whereas having extra seats will add benefit even at off peak times on the busiest sections as the seating capacity is inevitably somewhat lower than the total capacity including standing spaces.

Looking at rolling stock built recently, the Elizabeth line and Metropolitan lines have longer average journey lengths than say the Victoria line or Circle line and so for former, some transverse seats were the best trade off and thus specified, even though this results in a lower capacity than would be the case with only longitudinal seats, where other lines with trains of similar age have no transverse seats. There can be marginal cases, for example the District line which could have gone either way, but having the flexibility of a common fleet with the Circle and H&C made the longitudinal seat option the best choice.

 

[birchesgreen]

No. Not really, given the cramped space provided by the restricted loading gauge.

You misunderstand, i was referring to the fact some like seating like that and some don't. Objectively you are may be right it could be inferior but subjectively i prefer it.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I do like the "old fashioned" transverse seating on the Bakerloo, but only because it's now a bit of a novelty. The Bakerloo gets away with it because it's generally a fair bit quieter than the other lines. It was far more of a problem with the old trains on the Victoria.

 

[CarrotPie]

The Bakerloo gets away with it because it's generally a fair bit quieter than the other lines. It was far more of a problem with the old trains on the Victoria.

The Bakerloo gets away with it because it's the second least-used Underground line and it travels some distance. The Victoria didn't because it's a city-centre line and it's very busy.

 

[Snow1964]

BBC reporting that Siemens have announced bigger percentage of new Piccadilly line fleet will be built at Goole, 80% instead of 50%

A factory in East Yorkshire will build most of the new trains for a London Underground line, it has been announced.

Siemens Mobility said its Goole facility, which is due to open in the spring, would produce 80% of trains for the Piccadilly line - up from 50% previously announced.

They are expected to enter service in 2025, the company said.

The factory, which forms part of the town's £200m rail village, was first announced in 2018.

Sambit Banerjee, joint chief executive of Siemens Mobility, said: "This is a truly exciting milestone not just for us but the industry and local economies.

"The fact we will be increasing the amount of Piccadilly line tube trains being built in Goole is a testament of our manufacturing capabilities."

Siemens' Goole factory to build more London Underground trains

The site is now expected to produce 80% of trains for the Piccadilly line.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[TRAX]

That’s good news.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Now we just need TFL to give the magic money tree a shake and approve upgrades for the bakerloo fleet as well

 

[greyman42]

BBC reporting that Siemens have announced bigger percentage of new Piccadilly line fleet will be built at Goole, 80% instead of 50%

Which factory has the extra work being transferred from?

 

[Goldfish62]

Which factory has the extra work being transferred from?

Presumably Vienna.

 

[bluegoblin7]

It is worth mentioning that more trains are being built in Goole only because the timescales have been pushed back for delivery from LUL’s side.

Ultimately this means that it’s longer to wait until the trains enter service, which is not a good thing.

 

[Mikey C]

It is worth mentioning that more trains are being built in Goole only because the timescales have been pushed back for delivery from LUL’s side.

Ultimately this means that it’s longer to wait until the trains enter service, which is not a good thing.

Not good for the Piccadilly Line but good news for the Goole factory, as it pushes back the gap in orders after the 2024 trains are completed

 

[Blindtraveler]

Well London underground are of course often telling us to mind the gap


Why has the entry into service date been push back if anyone is allowed to say?

 

[Mawkie]

It is worth mentioning that more trains are being built in Goole only because the timescales have been pushed back for delivery from LUL’s side.

Ultimately this means that it’s longer to wait until the trains enter service, which is not a good thing.

Why has the entry into service date been push back if anyone is allowed to say?

LU asked Siemens to store the trains in Goole for a longer period due to a small delay in building works at the depots and sidings on the Pic. This would impact the ability of LU to store trains before entering service.

I'm not sure the production of the trains will be impacted, so is it inevitable the introduction of the trains will be delayed?

 

[Snow1964]

LU asked Siemens to store the trains in Goole for a longer period due to a small delay in building works at the depots and sidings on the Pic. This would impact the ability of LU to store trains before entering service.

I'm not sure the production of the trains will be impacted, so is it inevitable the introduction of the trains will be delayed?

TfL are being very careful with choice of words

Stuart Harvey, TfL’s Chief Capital Officer, said: “Producing more Piccadilly line trains in Goole will support local supply chains, clearly demonstrating how investment in transport in London benefits the whole of the UK. We have ensured that this development will not impact when the first train arrives for testing in London later this year, ahead of entering service in 2025, nor the planned timetable uplift in 2027.”

The first train for testing is coming from Vienna, so of course is not impacted. Goole is still gearing up to production (strictly assembly, as majority of parts are made elsewhere and doesn't really affect which factory they deliver parts to).
The delivery is delayed, what TfL didn't spell out is at all dates in 2026 will be higher proportion of old trains than originally planned as new trains are being phased in later than originally intended.

The first train being tested at Wildenrath is unit 71 (I think the units with de-icing tanks are numbered 71 upwards), so obviously have built one of these first.

 

[Mawkie]

The delivery is delayed, what TfL didn't spell out is at all dates in 2026 will be higher proportion of old trains than originally planned as new trains are being phased in later than originally intended.

So it depends on one's definition of delay? If all trains are delivered late, but in time for the 2027 uplift, LU will call that a win.

The first train being tested at Wildenrath is unit 71 (I think the units with ice solution tanks are numbered 71 upwards), so obviously have built one of these first.

Could you elaborate on "ice solution tanks" for me please?

 

[CarrotPie]

Could you elaborate on "ice solution tanks" for me please?

I believe that's de-icing fluid.

 

[bluegoblin7]

Could you elaborate on "ice solution tanks" for me please?

I interpreted it as “de-icing trailers”, as they are still described despite generally not being trailers any more. It makes sense that these are built and delivered first, although I don’t have the numbering scheme to hand and the pictures of the constructed trains don’t show the usual blue spot, so I can’t confirm.

 

[D7666]

As some of you might know, I do some work off and on for Platform 5.

In prepping the current, 2023, edition of UK Metro & Light Rail Systems 'spotting' book, a question arose as to how best to align data with the rest of the book and unambiguously write the wheel arrangement of a complete 2024 unit while taking into account the wheel-less unsupported "bridge" cars.

That which they used and published is what I came up with with ++ for the bridge car. The logic behind that is a single + is a single coupling between two adjacent cars so two + means two couplings (one either side of the bridge car), and no letter and no numbers between the + signs as there are no wheels.

Toying with 0 to mean no wheels such as +0+ made it look messy, did not seem to me to read right, and possibly at odds with the 0 found in steam loco / diesel shunter etc "Whyte" system.

At risk of being bombarded with wibble, anyone got any alternative ideas - but which must follow the convention used in the P5 books for all other rolling stock types, main line as well as tube and metro.

Re. de-icing cars, do not shoot this messenger, who is aware of the urban wisdom that unit 71 and upwards are de-icers, Siemens deny that unit 71 is a de-icer.

 

[trebor79]

It is worth mentioning that more trains are being built in Goole only because the timescales have been pushed back for delivery from LUL’s side.

I rather suspected that was the reason, thanks for confirming.

 

[Thirteen]

Now we just need TFL to give the magic money tree a shake and approve upgrades for the bakerloo fleet as well

I wouldn't be surprised if a Bakerloo Line replacement order is agreed in 2025.

 

[D7666]

I wouldn't be surprised if a Bakerloo Line replacement order is agreed in 2025.

I wouldn't be surprised if a Bakerloo Line replacement order is agreed in 2025.

I kind of think the same way. Something is going to yield in this respect sooner rather than later.

 

[Snow1964]

I wouldn't be surprised if a Bakerloo Line replacement order is agreed in 2025.

I could see it soon after London mayor election in 3 months.

Wouldn't rule out some of the extra Piccadilly line trains (for 27th instead of 24th) being moved to Bakerloo as part of new fleet. The new trains give about 11% capacity increase, and a second increase to nearer 24% (compared to now and pre-COVID) might not be justified.

 

[Energy]

I could see it soon after London mayor election in 3 months.

I'd imagine that the London mayor would announce Bakerloo trains if he could, TfL doesn't have the money.

 

[MaidaVale]

Wouldn't rule out some of the extra Piccadilly line trains (for 27th instead of 24th) being moved to Bakerloo as part of new fleet. The new trains give about 11% capacity increase, and a second increase to nearer 24% (compared to now and pre-COVID) might not be justified.

I don't see this as likely. Doing so wouldn't provide anywhere near a complete fleet for the Bakerloo, and despite the 24TS being the same length (as a complete unit) as the 72TS on paper, I imagine at least some form of modifications to the design would have to be made in order to fit in with the Bakerloo's line geography. Curves tend to be a little tighter on the Bakerloo than on the Piccadilly, hence why the individual 72 cars are over a metre shorter than 73 cars.

 

[Snow1964]

I don't see this as likely. Doing so wouldn't provide anywhere near a complete fleet for the Bakerloo, and despite the 24TS being the same length (as a complete unit) as the 72TS on paper, I imagine at least some form of modifications to the design would have to be made in order to fit in with the Bakerloo's line geography. Curves tend to be a little tighter on the Bakerloo than on the Piccadilly, hence why the individual 72 cars are over a metre shorter than 73 cars.

It has been stated in TfL Board Investment committee papers couple of years ago (cant quickly find correct section to link it) that Bakerloo versions will be identical apart from colours of fitting.
Also said Central line versions (if they ever get built) will be 9 section with shorter bodies.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Wouldn't rule out some of the extra Piccadilly line trains (for 27th instead of 24th) being moved to Bakerloo as part of new fleet. The new trains give about 11% capacity increase, and a second increase to nearer 24% (compared to now and pre-COVID) might not be justified.

And how would you maintain them? I'd advise you u-turn on your decision to rule it out.

 

[AM9]

Any passenger on a train (for all but the very shortest journeys) wants to have a seat and any passenger wanting to make a train journey does not want to be left behind. For those specifying rolling stock these are clearly competing needs: the more seats you have the more the first desire can be satisfied, but seats mean each passenger occupies more space and the capacity of the train is lower than it would be if there were fewer seats. At busy times on busy routes, the chance of being left behind when the train is full will be greater. So the specifier must evaluate a trade off. What is the benefit of a greater seating capacity versus the benefit of reducing waiting times, by lowering the chance of being left behind.

For a fixed frequency, the benefit of being in a seat increases with average journey length as some passengers will experience the downside of having to stand up for longer. So the longer the average passenger journey, the greater the value of the extra seats that can only be accommodated by having at least some transverse seating. The chance of being left behind will tend to only make a difference at the height of the peak time, whereas having extra seats will add benefit even at off peak times on the busiest sections as the seating capacity is inevitably somewhat lower than the total capacity including standing spaces.

Looking at rolling stock built recently, the Elizabeth line and Metropolitan lines have longer average journey lengths than say the Victoria line or Circle line and so for former, some transverse seats were the best trade off and thus specified, even though this results in a lower capacity than would be the case with only longitudinal seats, where other lines with trains of similar age have no transverse seats. There can be marginal cases, for example the District line which could have gone either way, but having the flexibility of a common fleet with the Circle and H&C made the longitudinal seat option the best choice.

I think like many you are under a misapprehension with your "average journey times". The travelling times from end to end on the lizzy are 80 minutes from Shenfield to Heathrow and 90 minutes from Abbey Wood to Reading. Now just what proportion of the 454 seats on a class 345 are you suggesting are occupied from end to end? I doubt if it is more than 5% in off peak periods. I don't know the journey time on the Piccadilly line from Cockfosters to Heathrow or Uxbridge as the line is not fully operationsal accordimng to TfL, but instead, take the Central Line (the longest on the network) which takes about 1h30m froM Epping to West Ruislip. The same observation applies there, very few passenger ever go from end to end (apart from tube enthusiasts). The only LU route where there are significant numbers of travellers travelling the full length of the service is the Metropolitan. And what is different about all the others lines when compared to the Met?, well it only runs to the centre of London, not through it and out of the other side, meaning that end to end journeys are quite rare on LU (and the Lizzy) except for the Met.
The same sort of arguments were put forward for the first operational 'Crossrail' i.e. Thameslink. So Bedford to Brighton is just over 100 miles and takes about 150m. The average travel times on the lines that the 700s serve is about 20m according to @BaldRick who has long been actively involved with the planning of the TL services. The time from Bedford to Farringdon (about the centre of the TfL network) is about 1h and about 1h 15m from Brighton. Compare that the the Lizzy, Farringdon is about 40m from Shenfield and 20m from Abbey Wood. Average travel times are probably less than 20m from the east and about 30m the west. However the difference in capacity between all longitudonal and part transversal seating is probably negligible.

 

[D7666]

I imagine at least some form of modifications to the design would have to be made in order to fit in with the Bakerloo's line geography. Curves tend to be a little tighter on the Bakerloo than on the Piccadilly, hence why the individual 72 cars are over a metre shorter than 73 cars.

The same type of stock is intended for the Bakerloo long term - ; not looked it up but IIRC the Bakerloo is provisionally up to 78 9car sets.

AFAIK 73 cars do /generally/ fit on the Bakerloo - the track recording unit middle car 666 is 73 stock - or is someone going to say that train never goes on the Bakerloo (which is true is new info to me).

 

[notverydeep]

I think like many you are under a misapprehension with your "average journey times". The travelling times from end to end on the lizzy are 80 minutes from Shenfield to Heathrow and 90 minutes from Abbey Wood to Reading. Now just what proportion of the 454 seats on a class 345 are you suggesting are occupied from end to end? I doubt if it is more than 5% in off peak periods. I don't know the journey time on the Piccadilly line from Cockfosters to Heathrow or Uxbridge as the line is not fully operationsal accordimng to TfL, but instead, take the Central Line (the longest on the network) which takes about 1h30m froM Epping to West Ruislip. The same observation applies there, very few passenger ever go from end to end (apart from tube enthusiasts). The only LU route where there are significant numbers of travellers travelling the full length of the service is the Metropolitan. And what is different about all the others lines when compared to the Met?, well it only runs to the centre of London, not through it and out of the other side, meaning that end to end journeys are quite rare on LU (and the Lizzy) except for the Met.
The same sort of arguments were put forward for the first operational 'Crossrail' i.e. Thameslink. So Bedford to Brighton is just over 100 miles and takes about 150m. The average travel times on the lines that the 700s serve is about 20m according to @BaldRick who has long been actively involved with the planning of the TL services. The time from Bedford to Farringdon (about the centre of the TfL network) is about 1h and about 1h 15m from Brighton. Compare that the the Lizzy, Farringdon is about 40m from Shenfield and 20m from Abbey Wood. Average travel times are probably less than 20m from the east and about 30m the west. However the difference in capacity between all longitudonal and part transversal seating is probably negligible.

Indeed, very few passengers of any metro service will ride from one terminus to the other and I am not surprised at @Bald Rick's observation of 20 minutes of on train time per average Thameslink passenger. Even on the Metropolitan, more than three quarters of passenger journeys are entirely within the section between Aldgate and Harrow on the Hill.

Mean on train time for the Elizabeth line is 16.7 minutes per passenger, for the Metropolitan line 17.4 minutes, on Piccadilly line 15.6 minutes and on the Central line 13.2 minutes. On journey time alone, the Piccadilly would probably justify some transverse seating to allow more off peak passengers to avoid standing, especially given a significant proportion of fairly long journeys out to Heathrow, however, these are offset by many very short Central London journeys and the need to accomodate more passenger luggage than is typical for much of the rest of the network means that like the District line (with a mean on train time of 14.1 minutes), a fully longitudinal layout was chosen. The Victoria line average is a mere 8.3 minutes.

The difference a few transverse seats makes is small, but for rolling stock designed to last 40 or more years in intensive and often crowded service, it is always worth fully evaluating this trade off...

 

[D7666]

The same type of stock is intended for the Bakerloo long term - but Bakerloo trains will be of a different train length by being formed of different combinations of the same cars.

AFAIK 73 cars do /generally/ fit on the Bakerloo - the track recording unit middle car 666 is 73 stock - or is someone going to say that train never goes on the Bakerloo (which is true is new info to me).

But I can't see any Picc trains working on Bakerloo even if reformed appropriately.

One of the things that would need to be done is depots then; already Northfields and Cockfosters need quite a bit of work for 2024; Stonebridge Park requires even bigger work to accomodate proposed Bakerloo trains of hte 2024 same model.