New TPE Train Discussion

[Domh245]

Siemens order books are very full at the moment, so as said it is a doubt whether they would be able to build anything else. Talk of anything coming from Stadler has gone quiet would that not be an option?
Sam

It'd be difficult because Stadler don't have a UK gauged train that has been approved so it'd be a very expensive order to recoup the design, development, and certification costs for what would be a relatively small number of trains

 

[Bletchleyite]

It'd be difficult because Stadler don't have a UK gauged train that has been approved so it'd be a very expensive order to recoup the design, development, and certification costs for what would be a relatively small number of trains

Stadler are known to want to break into the UK market, and UK loading gauge is not *vastly* different from Swiss narrow gauge loading gauge, for which market they are the main builder.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It'd be difficult because Stadler don't have a UK gauged train that has been approved so it'd be a very expensive order to recoup the design, development, and certification costs for what would be a relatively small number of trains

Aren't Stadler the new owners of the Vossloh plant in Spain which is building the 68s and 88s?

 

[RobShipway]

Siemens order books are very full at the moment, so as said it is a doubt whether they would be able to build anything else. Talk of anything coming from Stadler has gone quiet would that not be an option?
Sam

The only way that I can see Siemens is involved, is if like the class 332 & 333 is the trains are built for Siemens by CAF.

 

[47802]

Siemens order books are very full at the moment, so as said it is a doubt whether they would be able to build anything else. Talk of anything coming from Stadler has gone quiet would that not be an option?
Sam

I was under the impression the only Stadler talk related to Northern DMU's which of course went to CAF in the end, in any case the word from those allegedly in the know still seems to be CAF EMU and CAF LHCS and that there might be an announcement this week.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Stadler are known to want to break into the UK market, and UK loading gauge is not *vastly* different from Swiss narrow gauge loading gauge, for which market they are the main builder.

Might have worked for Northern maybe, but the FLIRTs are articulated which NR doesn't like.
Most of the production is electric (DMUs only to Estonia), and while 200kph is on the spec sheet they are not really high-speed units.

 

[andyb2706]

The CAF Mark 5 stock doesn't have a DVT as such, it would feature seating, and be more akin to the old Mark 2 DBSO, so it's not utterly insane, only insane.

Yes but wouldn't they need to order DVT' as well. Think of the places that TPE operate to. Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, York, Newcastle. All these either have some access to bay platforms or are totally bay platforms so they would require DVT's or are they going to pay to have spare engines lying around and shunters to couple/uncouple locos and carry out brake tests? To quote yourself that is what I think the coaching stock idea would be great for the enthusiast but in the real world were finance and business rules it would be utterly insane.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is the 'requirement' part of the franchise specification or are people assuming that to be the case because that's where doors have traditionally been located on non-commuter stock?

No matter the type of route, boarding or disembarking from a rail vehicle with end doors is more of an obstacle course, akin to joining an aircraft, compared with a vehicle with 1/3, 2/3 doors. Add luggage to the equation and the problems magnify.

I don't know whether it is a "requirement" but the idea of an Intercity style franchise is that you get more seats in the coach if you have your doors at either end of the coach rather than the 1/3 and 2/3 positions.

For the commuter train the positioning of the doors at 1/3 and 2/3 is supposedly to make it easier and quicker for people to get on and off and also to give more standing room so they can stack and rack the passengers

 

[NotATrainspott]

Yes but wouldn't they need to order DVT' as well. Think of the places that TPE operate to. Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, York, Newcastle. All these either have some access to bay platforms or are totally bay platforms so they would require DVT's or are they going to pay to have spare engines lying around and shunters to couple/uncouple locos and carry out brake tests? To quote yourself that is what I think the coaching stock idea would be great for the enthusiast but in the real world were finance and business rules it would be utterly insane.

A Mk5 DBSO is what is being described here. That is, a passenger carriage with a driving cab at the end. There would be no reason to build DVTs which don't carry passengers.

 

[andyb2706]

That's not the case AFAICT. If you go back to mid April in this thread there are links to four separate track access applications, and in one of those it refers to one of the three orders being for '100 mph trains'.

Sorry to disappoint people who were hoping for class 68 locomotives hauled trains on TPE but please read the link below thato is on TPE website from their launch date stating that the order will be for 220 coaches capable of 125mph. This is from their website.
http://http://www.tpexpress.co.uk/news/2016/04/new-transpennine-express-franchise-launches/
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A Mk5 DBSO is what is being described here. That is, a passenger carriage with a driving cab at the end. There would be no reason to build DVTs which don't carry passengers.

Fair dos for putting me right there. Thanks for the clarification on DBSO. Still think it is utterly insane unless they can guarantee to get 15-20 years out of them minimum , people and government are always going on about the railways wasting money.

 

[swt_passenger]

Sorry to disappoint people who were hoping for class 68 locomotives hauled trains on TPE but please read the link below thato is on TPE website from their launch date stating that the order will be for 220 coaches capable of 125mph. This is from their website.
...

IMHO track access applications are usually considered more authoritative than PR stuff at launch. Which is the more recent?

I have no opinion either way about loco hauled trains, just quoting the words used in the TAA.

 

[andyb2706]

IMHO track access applications are usually considered more authoritative than PR stuff at launch. Which is the more recent?

I have no opinion either way about loco hauled trains, just quoting the words used in the TAA.

I would go off their website. Which company in their right mind would put out a public statement where the normal Joe Public would likely see it and not like us geeks on here ( I'm proud to be a geek) would go hunting around on the internet for conflicting rumours. Its like a motor company saying its next model is going to have 6 gears but when it comes out it only has 5 gears or something on that line. It would be PR suicide.

I noted people on hear saying 125mph would be overkill as the majority of the track at the moment is under 100mph. But it is for the track where you can get 125mph to increase capacity.

Look at the 350's and the retro fitting to 110mph so that capacity can be increased on the West Coast.


The following extract is from the DfT website:
First Trans Pennine Express Limited will operate services on the TransPennine Express franchise — which runs intercity services across the region and into Scotland — from April 2016 until March 2023. They will bring in 220 new carriages, equivalent to 44 trains and worth more than £400 million, providing fast 125 mph services across the network, as well as:

I've highlighted the word "will", This means they have to be 125mph otherwise some one could get in trouble with the law. Part of my work in the past has been to write risk assessment/method statements and you have to be very careful in your choice of words. If you use words or phrases like will/have to these are an order and have to be carried out. If you use words like may/could its a request and not an order. So all should be 125mph unless someone wants to get into trouble with the law.

 

[The Ham]

Although the carriages will be capable of running at 125 mph they may be hauled by a Loco which is only capable of 100mph. They have kept their promise of 125 coaches, they just won't be running that fast. PR is often about spinning the best capability of your product even though it is difficult to use that way or will not be able to be used that way by most users.

That's not saying that is what they are say, just that could be happening. Nor does it mean I now if they are using locos and coaches or not.

 

[al.currie93]

Although the carriages will be capable of running at 125 mph they may be hauled by a Loco which is only capable of 100mph. They have kept their promise of 125 coaches, they just won't be running that fast. PR is often about spinning the best capability of your product even though it is difficult to use that way or will not be able to be used that way by most users.

That's not saying that is what they are say, just that could be happening. Nor does it mean I now if they are using locos and coaches or not.

I was going to say exactly that. Furthermore I don't believe that much (if any) of the lines for the routes that the elusive new LHCS are believed to serve is even rated at 125mph. As The Ham says, First are perfectly entitled to order 125mph coaches and run them at 100 - they still would have ordered 125mph capable coaches. They could couple them to an 09 and run them at 27.5mph and still have kept that promise! I reckon that the reason they are going for an all-125mph fleet of coaches is for future-proofing - not having stock that can't reach full line speed in the event of a future upgrade. And if LHCS is ordered for certain routes then they could run them with a 100mph locomotive and swap that for a 125mph locomotive if the lines are upgraded. If the lines don't happen to be upgraded, then there are no real losses, and the costs of running a 125mph powered vehicle (ie. a locomotive or D/EMU) at 100mph for its entire life will have been avoided.

I don't know what will be ordered, as The Ham says, but those are all possible outcomes.

 

[higthomas]

They will bring in 220 new carriages, equivalent to 44 trains and worth more than £400 million, providing fast 125 mph services across the network, as well as:

I've highlighted the word "will", This means they have to be 125mph otherwise some one could get in trouble with the law. Part of my work in the past has been to write risk assessment/method statements and you have to be very careful in your choice of words. If you use words or phrases like will/have to these are an order and have to be carried out. If you use words like may/could its a request and not an order. So all should be 125mph unless someone wants to get into trouble with the law.

The way I'd read that, with my most cynical hat on, is that they will bring in 220 new carriages, and they will introduce 125mph services across the network. I think I have not misread it too much, but simply read it in the most doubting of manners. But I'd agree with those who say, really don't trust press releases! They are really not well know for having the levels of accuracy us enthusiasts demand, but are about spinning a good story, which if true is a bonus.

 

[edwin_m]

The way I'd read that, with my most cynical hat on, is that they will bring in 220 new carriages, and they will introduce 125mph services across the network. I think I have not misread it too much, but simply read it in the most doubting of manners. But I'd agree with those who say, really don't trust press releases! They are really not well know for having the levels of accuracy us enthusiasts demand, but are about spinning a good story, which if true is a bonus.

Correct. There's nothing in that text that says that all the new vehicles will be 125mph. The promise of 125mph service just implies that some of them must be operational at (not just capable of) 125mph. The announced order for AT300s already satisfies this condition.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't know whether it is a "requirement" but the idea of an Intercity style franchise is that you get more seats in the coach if you have your doors at either end of the coach rather than the 1/3 and 2/3 positions.

You don't necessarily - this depends on the width of the doors.

Most 1/3 2/3 doored stock has wide doors, but there is no reason it needs to have.

Compare these two designs of Stadler FLIRT:

Suburban:
http://bonbytes.eu/swi/swi_sbb_c523_flirt_mountains_1_155_steinen_2011_L.jpg

InterCity:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mdU15u_ec-M/maxresdefault.jpg

Door positions do not dictate how much space is taken up by doors.

 

[themiller]

I would go off their website. Which company in their right mind would put out a public statement where the normal Joe Public would likely see it and not like us geeks on here ( I'm proud to be a geek) would go hunting around on the internet for conflicting rumours. Its like a motor company saying its next model is going to have 6 gears but when it comes out it only has 5 gears or something on that line. It would be PR suicide.

I noted people on hear saying 125mph would be overkill as the majority of the track at the moment is under 100mph. But it is for the track where you can get 125mph to increase capacity.

Look at the 350's and the retro fitting to 110mph so that capacity can be increased on the West Coast.


The following extract is from the DfT website:
First Trans Pennine Express Limited will operate services on the TransPennine Express franchise — which runs intercity services across the region and into Scotland — from April 2016 until March 2023. They will bring in 220 new carriages, equivalent to 44 trains and worth more than £400 million, providing fast 125 mph services across the network, as well as:

I've highlighted the word "will", This means they have to be 125mph otherwise some one could get in trouble with the law. Part of my work in the past has been to write risk assessment/method statements and you have to be very careful in your choice of words. If you use words or phrases like will/have to these are an order and have to be carried out. If you use words like may/could its a request and not an order. So all should be 125mph unless someone wants to get into trouble with the law.

From past experience in industry, 'Will' is an aim and not compulsory. 'Shall' on the other hand is an imperative and cannot be deviated from.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That doesn't in any case say *all* of them will provide 125mph services.

 

[Starmill]

There isn't a lot of benefit to having narrow doors in the middle of the coach (à la 395). The loss is only of ambiance and is relatively minor, but is there really any gain?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There isn't a lot of benefit to having narrow doors in the middle of the coach (à la 395). The loss is only of ambiance and is relatively minor, but is there really any gain?

I don't suppose there is... but it's more difficult (and pointless) to have double doors at the ends. In any case in this theoretical LHCS set there's no reason all the coaches have to have doors in the same positions. A "DBFO" with a set of doors at the inner end and another behind the cab, the rest of the vehicles could have 1/3 2/3 doors and be standard class. Just look at the 444s which have doors in various places throughout the unit.

 

[RobShipway]

You don't necessarily - this depends on the width of the doors.

Most 1/3 2/3 doored stock has wide doors, but there is no reason it needs to have.

Compare these two designs of Stadler FLIRT:

Suburban:
http://bonbytes.eu/swi/swi_sbb_c523_flirt_mountains_1_155_steinen_2011_L.jpg

InterCity:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mdU15u_ec-M/maxresdefault.jpg

Door positions do not dictate how much space is taken up by doors.

Personally, I would go with the SBB flirt with double doors even if it is an Inter City route, as quite a few Inter City routes are becoming more of being commuter routes nowadays.

I also agree that there is no point in having either a singe or double door in the middle of a carriage, it should as per the class 350/450 trains 1/3 2/3 sections where the doors are within the carriages.

 

[Haydn1971]

The way I'm seeing this is that there is a much longer term plan with the AT300s and LHCS being stop gaps, the EMUs for the WCML can be ordered as specific units for TPE with mid doors and will get transferred to TP North once the line is electrified along with further orders to replace the AT300s and LHCS - the AT300 give a credible intercity vibe from 2018 and will cascade either to other parts of the TPE franchise ofter TP North gets wires, or more likely get added to another AT300 fleet at EC/GW or where ever... The LHCS ends up with an electric loco on the WCML Scotland services where end door units are ultimately better suited, leaving just the TP South service with six car 185s

 

[47802]

The way I'm seeing this is that there is a much longer term plan with the AT300s and LHCS being stop gaps, the EMUs for the WCML can be ordered as specific units for TPE with mid doors and will get transferred to TP North once the line is electrified along with further orders to replace the AT300s and LHCS - the AT300 give a credible intercity vibe from 2018 and will cascade either to other parts of the TPE franchise ofter TP North gets wires, or more likely get added to another AT300 fleet at EC/GW or where ever... The LHCS ends up with an electric loco on the WCML Scotland services where end door units are ultimately better suited, leaving just the TP South service with six car 185s

I would have thought the AT300's would be moved to the Scarborough/Middlesbrough route, the LHCS may be stop gap you either stick an electric loco on or move elsewhere and get more EMU's either way that's something for the next franchise to consider with the next ITT.

 

[43074]

The way I'm seeing this is that there is a much longer term plan with the AT300s and LHCS being stop gaps, the EMUs for the WCML can be ordered as specific units for TPE with mid doors and will get transferred to TP North once the line is electrified along with further orders to replace the AT300s and LHCS - the AT300 give a credible intercity vibe from 2018 and will cascade either to other parts of the TPE franchise ofter TP North gets wires, or more likely get added to another AT300 fleet at EC/GW or where ever... The LHCS ends up with an electric loco on the WCML Scotland services where end door units are ultimately better suited, leaving just the TP South service with six car 185s

The AT300s will use the overheads when TP North has been electrified and the LHCS can simply switch to using an electric loco - if it is that LHCS is eventually ordered. There's no reason why they should be a stop gap. I also doubt the North West - Scotland will have mid doors given the way TPE North has gone with AT300s which will have end doors.

 

[Mikey C]

Isn't it the case that the worst ride in a carriage is at the ends above the bogies, thus if possible it's desirable to put the doors there?

End doors give a nicer ambience inside too, and also reduce heat/cool loss from the passenger areas when the doors are open

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't it the case that the worst ride in a carriage is at the ends above the bogies, thus if possible it's desirable to put the doors there?

Yes, that's often true, and the vehicle tends to taper at the ends so it doesn't whack platforms making seating cramped in those locations. The bog can go there, of course, but that only works for one end.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Isn't it the case that the worst ride in a carriage is at the ends above the bogies, thus if possible it's desirable to put the doors there?

End doors give a nicer ambience inside too, and also reduce heat/cool loss from the passenger areas when the doors are open

And then you go on XC and realise it adds about a week and a half to any station stop at a major station or indeed any station at rush hour. And yet the ambience is still horrendous.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And then you go on XC and realise it adds about a week and a half to any station stop at a major station or indeed any station at rush hour. And yet the ambience is still horrendous.

That's because Voyagers are (a) incorrectly used as commuter trains and (b) don't have a nice interior ambiance anyway.

The Class 444 on the other hand is a delightful train with a lovely airy interior.

 

[YorkshireBear]

That's because Voyagers are (a) incorrectly used as commuter trains and (b) don't have a nice interior ambiance anyway.

The Class 444 on the other hand is a delightful train with a lovely airy interior.

I haven't seen an AC version of the 444 suggested for a long time....

I just fear for the dwell times through the Manchester core. Happy to be proved wrong of course. Maybe interior design has moved on to improve the flows. Certainly the tightness of the Voyagers (and indeed the 158 vestibules are small) doesn't help.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I just fear for the dwell times through the Manchester core. Happy to be proved wrong of course. Maybe interior design has moved on to improve the flows. Certainly the tightness of the Voyagers (and indeed the 158 vestibules are small) doesn't help.

Desiros (of all kinds, I think) make you wait 7 seconds before releasing the doors.
So on 185/350s most of the benefits of mid-car door layout are immediately nullified.
Voyagers are actually quite quick to release their end doors.
We'll have to wait and see what the AT300s can achieve.