Abellio Greater Anglia Class 755s (Regional Trains)

[Peter Sarf]

GA sabotaged themselves of a good revenue source by not speccing all 745s with first class.

I agree, although a buffet should have been fitted to a few more units than 10, hence another 2-4 745/0s needed, a trolley is good enough for some of these services.

Also it's not only the lack of tables that are the worst consequence, but the loss of revenue for a lack of first class on all 745s as well.

There will never be any more trains ordered. The UK is awash with new trains going off lease. These are austere times. It will be a nice bonus if the Stanstead 745s get tables.

As for First Class - Steadily more and more TOCS are dropping first class.

That only leaves the buffet and I think a trolley will be the best we can hope for.

That's probably the case unless GA/DfT actually ordered more units - that kinda what I'm saying, additional units to address the shortage, Rock Rail would probably pay for short term with GA paying in leasing costs, refurb or alteration would be a direct cost for GA now. The issue with ordering more is the excess of 720s available and nowhere to sub lease them to.

DfT run things now and are very very unlikely to invest in anything on the railways. GA has about 20 surplus 720s - plenty for Stansted Express.

The only real problem is that 20 745s is too many for London-Norwich so tempting to keep some for Stansted Express. Which is where the 755s come in as they allow effectively 12 x 745 like operation on the London-Norwich route.

 

[RailWonderer]

There will never be any more trains ordered. The UK is awash with new trains going off lease. These are austere times. It will be a nice bonus if the Stanstead 745s get tables.

As for First Class - Steadily more and more TOCS are dropping first class.

That only leaves the buffet and I think a trolley will be the best we can hope for.

DfT run things now and are very very unlikely to invest in anything on the railways. GA has about 20 surplus 720s - plenty for Stansted Express.

The only real problem is that 20 745s is too many for London-Norwich so tempting to keep some for Stansted Express. Which is where the 755s come in as they allow effectively 12 x 745 like operation on the London-Norwich route.

I know they won't be allowed to order anymore, I meant they should have from the off back in 2016. Extra 745s if replaced with 720s on Stansted could operate a few GE diagrams but then you would need funding to convert 20 720s for StanEx, which the DfT will not likely pay for either.

 

[Haywain]

I know they won't be allowed to order anymore, I meant they should have from the off back in 2016.

But the number ordered was based on the timetable possible after Network Rail had carried out improvements on the route. That work has not been carried out, but it was part of the basis for bidding for the franchise. So, the problem isn't Greater Anglia's lack of foresight in placing the order but the failure of the organisation* who invited tenders for the franchise to ensure that the conditions were in place for commitments to be met.

*DfT

 

[Energy]

which the DfT will not likely pay for either.

The cost of removing the 3rd seat and putting some luggage stacks into the 720s and adding tables to the 745s wouldn't be a lot.

But the DfT will want work lined up for the freed 755s, such as Nottingham to Norwich (with EMR operating the remaining Nottingham to Liverpool). Not much point spending money to go from spare 720s to spare 755s.

I'd also expect the Ipswich London 1tph to become 745 operate to use up some of the freed 745s.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

But the number ordered was based on the timetable possible after Network Rail had carried out improvements on the route. That work has not been carried out, but it was part of the basis for bidding for the franchise. So, the problem isn't Greater Anglia's lack of foresight in placing the order but the failure of the organisation* who invited tenders for the franchise to ensure that the conditions were in place for commitments to be met.

*DfT

Although true, this all was based on a very very best case, my feeling is that given where we are now the options are:
1. Muddle through as today but that does mean there's no slack for timetable improvements, i.e. extra peak services if required.
2. Fit tables to StanEx units and use the spare 720s on Stansted service - my point is that although this is the most likely, it actually makes no one happy and gives the impression of the best of a bad job. 720s in commuter trim will struggle with the luggage and not give a great product, very symptomatic of the railways tbh. Meanwhile the I.C. services will not be consistent either as I very much doubt buffet and first will consistently be on the correct diagrams.
3. Bite the bullet and either refurb 720s as well to StanEx trim so they're interchangeable with what would be the remaining 745s used and ideally put first in the now to i.c. 745s, don't hold out much hope in adding buffet to those.

My view is if they don't do option 3 now, money will end up being spent again later to try and fix the remaining problems after option 2 is implemented.

Also I don't understand this absolute refusal to order new trains, I'm sure ROSCOs would want to get value out of the off lease fleets they have but in the end if you laid out you're options like above and added ordering new trains, the only place the ROSCO stands to gain is by ordering more.

 

[Haywain]

Although true, this all was based on a very very best case, my feeling is that given where we are now the options are:
1. Muddle through as today but that does mean there's no slack for timetable improvements, i.e. extra peak services if required.
2. Fit tables to StanEx units and use the spare 720s on Stansted service - my point is that although this is the most likely, it actually makes no one happy and gives the impression of the best of a bad job. 720s in commuter trim will struggle with the luggage and not give a great product, very symptomatic of the railways tbh. Meanwhile the I.C. services will not be consistent either as I very much doubt buffet and first will consistently be on the correct diagrams.
3. Bite the bullet and either refurb 720s as well to StanEx trim so they're interchangeable with what would be the remaining 745s used and ideally put first in the now to i.c. 745s, don't hold out much hope in adding buffet to those.

My view is if they don't do option 3 now, money will end up being spent again later to try and fix the remaining problems after option 2 is implemented.

Also I don't understand this absolute refusal to order new trains, I'm sure ROSCOs would want to get value out of the off lease fleets they have but in the end if you laid out you're options like above and added ordering new trains, the only place the ROSCO stands to gain is by ordering more.

Only option 1 encompasses the DfT and Treasury's current default position on spending money, therefore that's the one I would expect to happen. As for ROSCOs ordering more trains, the train operator would have increased leasing and operational costs which fall foul of the same problems as options 2 and 3. Additionally, any ordered now would probably become a new sub-class and involve the horrendous timescale and cost of introduction on top.

 

[samuelmorris]

I can think of a surplus fleet of EMUs big enough to run the Stansted Services that already have an interior suitable for airport use... No new stock order required!

 

[AM9]

I can think of a surplus fleet of EMUs big enough to run the Stansted Services that already have an interior suitable for airport use... No new stock order required!

Might need a clean up approaching a full refurbishment owing to them having wasted away in sidings for a few years.

 

[samuelmorris]

Might need a clean up approaching a full refurbishment owing to them having wasted away in sidings for a few years.

Perhaps, but from what I hear they're probably still in better condition than the other legacy fleet from GA still in active duty!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I can think of a surplus fleet of EMUs big enough to run the Stansted Services that already have an interior suitable for airport use... No new stock order required!

Very funny.

 

[RailWonderer]

But the DfT will want work lined up for the freed 755s, such as Nottingham to Norwich (with EMR operating the remaining Nottingham to Liverpool). Not much point spending money to go from spare 720s to spare 755s.

the cost of training EMR drivers on them would make it a no-no, plus some exra slack in the 755 fleet as there was initially worked very well. Not every fleet needs to be stretched.

 

[dk1]

The cost of removing the 3rd seat and putting some luggage stacks into the 720s and adding tables to the 745s wouldn't be a lot.

But the DfT will want work lined up for the freed 755s, such as Nottingham to Norwich (with EMR operating the remaining Nottingham to Liverpool). Not much point spending money to go from spare 720s to spare 755s.

I'd also expect the Ipswich London 1tph to become 745 operate to use up some of the freed 745s.

It has been quoted as at least £30k per vehicle to install tables so that’s over £350k for each of the ten 745/1 trains.

I can’t see any 755s operating to Nottingham any time soon if ever.

The sensible plan was to keep all Stadler units on the GEML nearer to their only depot and to avoid conflict on the WAML should a failure occur on this mainly double track railway. Original plan was to use these on Clacton as well as some Ipswich services.

 

[Energy]

It has been quoted as at least £30k per vehicle to install tables so that’s over £350k for each of the ten 745/1 trains.

Thanks for the cost. Any particular reason why it's so expensive?

 

[dk1]

Thanks for the cost. Any particular reason why it's so expensive?

I don’t think it’s straightforward mate. Panels & floors need attention as well as the cost of the sturdy tables themselves. Anything retrofitted seems to have inflated cost so wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t more in the end.

 

[Mikey C]

The 755s though are far more useful to the national network than the 720s, seeing that there are loads of spare EMUs. I imagine they were quite an expensive train too.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

I don’t think it’s straightforward mate. Panels & floors need attention as well as the cost of the sturdy tables themselves. Anything retrofitted seems to have inflated cost so wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t more in the end.

I also think, although obviously not sure as haven't measured, the facing seats on StanEx units are closer together than the tables on the others

 

[py_megapixel]

The 755s though are far more useful to the national network than the 720s, seeing that there are loads of spare EMUs. I imagine they were quite an expensive train too.

I've replied to this post in a different thread so as to avoid too much speculation here

Greater Anglia potential fleet changes and uses for surplus stock

This thread is to discuss possible changes Greater Anglia could make to their fleet (or the way it is used). I'm replying to a post from this thread to avoid that getting too speculative. The context is that Greater Anglia currently has a large fleet of Aventras (with some being surplus to...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[dk1]

I also think, although obviously not sure as haven't measured, the facing seats on StanEx units are closer together than the tables on the others

I think they are the same although I don’t really pay that much attention.

 

[321over360]

I'd also expect the Ipswich London 1tph to become 745 operate to use up some of the freed 745s.

Using the Stan Ex 745s on the Ipswich stopper makes more sense and cascade the 720s used on the Ipswich services to the Stan Ex route thus putting the WAML mostly in 720 services, as then if a 745/1 has issues on the GEML it will be easier to get it to Crown Point than from the WAML

 

[dk1]

Using the Stan Ex 745s on the Ipswich stopper makes more sense and cascade the 720s used on the Ipswich services to the Stan Ex route thus putting the WAML mostly in 720 services, as then if a 745/1 has issues on the GEML it will be easier to get it to Crown Point than from the WAML

Not that easy. The Ipswich stoppers have to share platforms at Ipswich platforms 3/4 with 755s on regional services so would not fit. Better to keep them on the Clacton route for most of the day.

 

[Halish Railway]

Not that easy. The Ipswich stoppers have to share platforms at Ipswich platforms 3/4 with 755s on regional services so would not fit. Better to keep them on the Clacton route for most of the day.

I'm assuming that this was part of the motivation to extend the Ipswich stoppers to Norwich so they wouldn't occupy a platform at Ipswich for as long and assist in uplifting frequencies on the regional routes.

There does seem to be an ongoing theme with the Greater Anglia franchise where what on the surface could be seen as a simple move resulting in a significant improvement (E.g. frequency uplifts or extending routes) is much more difficult than it seems, even more so given the apparent reasons why the 745/1s and 720s can't be reconfigured for more practical uses.

 

[Energy]

I don’t think it’s straightforward mate. Panels & floors need attention as well as the cost of the sturdy tables themselves. Anything retrofitted seems to have inflated cost so wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t more in the end.

They'd have to change the interior panel by the tables, floor would be suprising.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

I'm assuming that this was part of the motivation to extend the Ipswich stoppers to Norwich so they wouldn't occupy a platform at Ipswich for as long and assist in uplifting frequencies on the regional routes.

There does seem to be an ongoing theme with the Greater Anglia franchise where what on the surface could be seen as a simple move resulting in a significant improvement (E.g. frequency uplifts or extending routes) is much more difficult than it seems, even more so given the apparent reasons why the 745/1s and 720s can't be reconfigured for more practical uses.

You have to remember that over the last 20 years service frequency in the GA area have been significantly improved with minimal capacity improvements on the infrastructure so it makes further improvements challenging as most of the infrastructure capacity is maxed out. Examples just out of Norwich, used to be hourly to London now half hourly, Yarmouth, sheringham and Lowestoft frequency has improved.
The Cambridge/ Stansted service is also new in the last 20 years.

It's probably forgotten these Extra services are fairly recent in railway terms, at least since privatisation anyway.

 

[RailWonderer]

Not that easy. The Ipswich stoppers have to share platforms at Ipswich platforms 3/4 with 755s on regional services so would not fit. Better to keep them on the Clacton route for most of the day.

The turnaround times can be long enough to send them into the goods sidings between runs.

 

[dk1]

The turnaround times can be long enough to send them into the goods sidings between runs.

Not any good if they are booked to spend a short time with a turnaround or during disruption they lose flexibility. Of course though with diagram changes anything can happen. Seems easier to focus them on the Clacton runs.

 

[Class 170101]

But the DfT will want work lined up for the freed 755s, such as Nottingham to Norwich (with EMR operating the remaining Nottingham to Liverpool). Not much point spending money to go from spare 720s to spare 755s.

Wouldn't be difficult to find work for Class 755s within Anglia, Ipswich to Peterborough isn't hourly as yet. According to what I've seen Norwich to Cambridge is also crowded so perhaps more services will be needed on this corridor too.

I'd also expect the Ipswich London 1tph to become 745 operate to use up some of the freed 745s.

No chance. Dwell times for some stations would need to be increased.

 

[Rick1984]

Spare class 755 could be used to double up busy services?

 

[dk1]

Spare class 755 could be used to double up busy services?

That’s only possible on the main line. Regional stopping services services can only accommodate 4-cars at most intermediate stations.

Yes ASDO is set up to only open the required amount of vehicles but on resignalled routes like Yarmouth/Lowestoft trains are not allowed to overhang or foul foot or level crossings. At stations like Cambridge where platforms 5/6 are often used, these will not accommodate more than one 755. The same is the case with Ipswich platform 1. You could say run them in multiple Norwich-Yarmouth/Lowestoft but only non-stop.

At Stansted Airport the Norwich service relies upon sharing a platform with a 745 so again anything more than a single unit is prohibited.

 

[trebor79]

That’s only possible on the main line. Regional stopping services services can only accommodate 4-cars at most intermediate stations.

Yes ASDO is set up to only open the required amount of vehicles but on resignalled routes like Yarmouth/Lowestoft trains are not allowed to overhang or foul foot or level crossings. At stations like Cambridge where platforms 5/6 are often used, these will not accommodate more than one 755. The same is the case with Ipswich platform 1. You could say run them in multiple Norwich-Yarmouth/Lowestoft but only non-stop.

At Stansted Airport the Norwich service relies upon sharing a platform with a 745 so again anything more than a single unit is prohibited.

I wonder if an hourly Norwich - Ely could slot in on the Breckland? Or even go the whole hog and run it to Cambridge or Stansted?

 

[Farigiraf]

I wonder if an hourly Norwich - Ely could slot in on the Breckland? Or even go the whole hog and run it to Cambridge or Stansted?

A second Cambridge to Stansted would be great, the XCs are very crowded by the time they reach Cambridge. Could they maybe also run it to Bury?