New trains for East Midlands Franchise

[mt4958]

If you look at the latest NR Enhancement Delivery Plan (Google it), it's in there as one deliverable as part of Key Output 1a

I was on this stretch of track a couple of weeks ago and the GPS on my phone measured a good stretch of 125mph, previously it has always been 115mph

 

[Midnight Sun]

To be fare to Herr Doktor Diesel, his first successful engine did run on a renewable fuel (Peanut oil) in 1897.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Abellio has unveiled plans to improve rail services between Spalding, Sleaford, Lincoln and Peterborough. Photo supplied.
This train is the Class 172?

Looks very much like a south WCML Aventra to me. They've just Googled "abellio new trains" I reckon...

 

[grumpyoldman01]

With regard to the bi-modes required for MML intercity services. the ITT states that a prototype/demonstrator must be available by December 2021, and that the new trains must be introduced into service from May 2022; the lowest risk option regarding this delivery requirement, therefore, is to endeavor to procure a fleet of class 802s/802 derivatives.

However, the bi-modes must be able to match 222s for both sectional and total journey times; moreover, I haven't checked tonight, but I'm reasonably sure that it says somewhere in the ITT that any new or brought-in trains must be compatible with existing infrastructure. Therefore, I believe it is reasonable to assume that - as none of the IET family nor GA's bi-mode FLIRTS are listed as being able to use enhanced speed restrictions marked HST - trains which meet the DfTs requirements when considered in their totality are currently unavailable.

Aventra bi-modes MIGHT be able to match the performance of 222s, be suitable to take advantage of enhanced speed restrictions marked for HSTs, and therefore able to meet the total journey time/point-to-point journey time requirements of the ITT, but saying that they will be available to meet the delivery/entry into service requirements of the ITT is, I believe, very unlikely; having a brand-new train design entering service in three years time is theoretically doable (and was often achieved by BR), but the fragmented structure of today's railways and the complex approval process makes it extremely risky and very unlikely.

Non-compliances with the specification are discussed elsewhere; with regard to bi-mode trains for intercity services, it is probable that each bidder would have put forward a number of non-compliant proposals, leaving it to the DfT to decide which non-complaint offer it wanted to accept - either a class 802 or 802 derivative which couldn't match 222 performance but be available for traffic in accordance with the DfT's requirements, or a new train which met the DfT's performance requirements but not its delivery one.

Which way the DfT will "jump" when faced with these two options will be interesting to see; it "sold" cancellation of the MML electrification by convincing MPs with East Midlands constituencies that bi-modes would be, at the most, only one minute slower between STP and SHF than electrics, so late delivery might be an easier "sell" (to MPs) than significantly worse performance/longer journey times than now.

It might also argue that Aventras are the best option for the MML because they will be assembled in Derby which is, of course, on the line of route!

 

[Kneedown]

I haven't checked tonight, but I'm reasonably sure that it says somewhere in the ITT that any new or brought-in trains must be compatible with existing infrastructure. Therefore, I believe it is reasonable to assume that - as none of the IET family nor GA's bi-mode FLIRTS are listed as being able to use enhanced speed restrictions marked HST - trains which meet the DfTs requirements when considered in their totality are currently unavailable.

I'm fairly certain that it was a requirement of the IEP programme that trains were able to take the higher speed of various differentials.
That they possibly may not currently be cleared to do so as yet does not mean that they will not be cleared in due course.

 

[Japan0913]

With regard to the bi-modes required for MML intercity services. the ITT states that a prototype/demonstrator must be available by December 2021, and that the new trains must be introduced into service from May 2022; the lowest risk option regarding this delivery requirement, therefore, is to endeavor to procure a fleet of class 802s/802 derivatives.

However, the bi-modes must be able to match 222s for both sectional and total journey times; moreover, I haven't checked tonight, but I'm reasonably sure that it says somewhere in the ITT that any new or brought-in trains must be compatible with existing infrastructure. Therefore, I believe it is reasonable to assume that - as none of the IET family nor GA's bi-mode FLIRTS are listed as being able to use enhanced speed restrictions marked HST - trains which meet the DfTs requirements when considered in their totality are currently unavailable.

Aventra bi-modes MIGHT be able to match the performance of 222s, be suitable to take advantage of enhanced speed restrictions marked for HSTs, and therefore able to meet the total journey time/point-to-point journey time requirements of the ITT, but saying that they will be available to meet the delivery/entry into service requirements of the ITT is, I believe, very unlikely; having a brand-new train design entering service in three years time is theoretically doable (and was often achieved by BR), but the fragmented structure of today's railways and the complex approval process makes it extremely risky and very unlikely.

Non-compliances with the specification are discussed elsewhere; with regard to bi-mode trains for intercity services, it is probable that each bidder would have put forward a number of non-compliant proposals, leaving it to the DfT to decide which non-complaint offer it wanted to accept - either a class 802 or 802 derivative which couldn't match 222 performance but be available for traffic in accordance with the DfT's requirements, or a new train which met the DfT's performance requirements but not its delivery one.

Which way the DfT will "jump" when faced with these two options will be interesting to see; it "sold" cancellation of the MML electrification by convincing MPs with East Midlands constituencies that bi-modes would be, at the most, only one minute slower between STP and SHF than electrics, so late delivery might be an easier "sell" (to MPs) than significantly worse performance/longer journey times than now.

It might also argue that Aventras are the best option for the MML because they will be assembled in Derby which is, of course, on the line of route!

Bombardier has many backlogs,
Is it in time by December 2021?
The driver should drive a bi-mode car in about half a year.

 

[hwl]

With regard to the bi-modes required for MML intercity services. the ITT states that a prototype/demonstrator must be available by December 2021, and that the new trains must be introduced into service from May 2022; the lowest risk option regarding this delivery requirement, therefore, is to endeavor to procure a fleet of class 802s/802 derivatives.

However, the bi-modes must be able to match 222s for both sectional and total journey times; moreover, I haven't checked tonight, but I'm reasonably sure that it says somewhere in the ITT that any new or brought-in trains must be compatible with existing infrastructure. Therefore, I believe it is reasonable to assume that - as none of the IET family nor GA's bi-mode FLIRTS are listed as being able to use enhanced speed restrictions marked HST - trains which meet the DfTs requirements when considered in their totality are currently unavailable.

Aventra bi-modes MIGHT be able to match the performance of 222s, be suitable to take advantage of enhanced speed restrictions marked for HSTs, and therefore able to meet the total journey time/point-to-point journey time requirements of the ITT, but saying that they will be available to meet the delivery/entry into service requirements of the ITT is, I believe, very unlikely; having a brand-new train design entering service in three years time is theoretically doable (and was often achieved by BR), but the fragmented structure of today's railways and the complex approval process makes it extremely risky and very unlikely.

Non-compliances with the specification are discussed elsewhere; with regard to bi-mode trains for intercity services, it is probable that each bidder would have put forward a number of non-compliant proposals, leaving it to the DfT to decide which non-complaint offer it wanted to accept - either a class 802 or 802 derivative which couldn't match 222 performance but be available for traffic in accordance with the DfT's requirements, or a new train which met the DfT's performance requirements but not its delivery one.

Which way the DfT will "jump" when faced with these two options will be interesting to see; it "sold" cancellation of the MML electrification by convincing MPs with East Midlands constituencies that bi-modes would be, at the most, only one minute slower between STP and SHF than electrics, so late delivery might be an easier "sell" (to MPs) than significantly worse performance/longer journey times than now.

It might also argue that Aventras are the best option for the MML because they will be assembled in Derby which is, of course, on the line of route!

Agreed.

Bombardier have up to 5 production lines at Derby with the 2 focused on SWR 701s having finished by that point. They have already shown that they can built the first unit of new variant slotted in between other orders e.g. the first 720 for GA.

The software should be sorted by that stage so just the diesel specific raft issues to sort (it is tried and test MTU product with battery options too).

The max order size for EMT is likely to be 330 cars which is about 6 months production for 2 lines enabling the 2023 target to be met.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's also a new bodyshell, though, isn't it? Bombardier Derby hasn't built an end-doored unit for years - the Class 158 would have been the last I think? (Voyagers were built in Belgium).

 

[hwl]

It's also a new bodyshell, though, isn't it? Bombardier Derby hasn't built an end-doored unit for years - the Class 158 would have been the last I think? (Voyagers were built in Belgium).

Door position is completely flexible on Aventras unlike electrostars or turbo stars so this shouldn't be problem.

 

[33021]

It's also a new bodyshell, though, isn't it? Bombardier Derby hasn't built an end-doored unit for years - the Class 158 would have been the last I think? (Voyagers were built in Belgium).

172 West Midlands and Aventra for West Midlands have front end gangways

 

[Bletchleyite]

172 West Midlands and Aventra for West Midlands have front end gangways

I don't mean gangwayed, I mean the passenger doors at the vehicle ends, but this has been clarified above as not an issue.

 

[33021]

End doors though yes some time,,,

 

[jagardner1984]

Surely the logical thing would be an add on order of Bi-Mode AT-300 to match the ones being rolled out on several high speed main lines at the moment.

The obsession with constantly creating more micro fleets of 10/20/30 marginally different, but thus incompatible trains is really baffling.

 

[superkev]

I suppose if the GW electrification is ever completed the bi modes made spare could be cascaded to the Midland and lines undergoing progressive electrification. If the GW electrification ever reaches Bristol they will be removing unnecessary weighty engines and fuel tanks.
What a way to run a railway.
K

 

[cactustwirly]

I suppose if the GW electrification is ever completed the bi modes made spare could be cascaded to the Midland and lines undergoing progressive electrification. If the GW electrification ever reaches Bristol they will be removing unnecessary weighty engines and fuel tanks.
What a way to run a railway.
K

The MML are getting their own Bi modes.

 

[Qwerty133]

I suppose if the GW electrification is ever completed the bi modes made spare could be cascaded to the Midland and lines undergoing progressive electrification. If the GW electrification ever reaches Bristol they will be removing unnecessary weighty engines and fuel tanks.
What a way to run a railway.
K

They couldn't be cascaded to the MML as they don't have enough performance. Obviously, this said the common sense approach would be to dump the GWML electrification in favor of the MML as a reverse cascade would be possible but the clowns at the DaFT don't understand this.

 

[jagardner1984]

You would have thought in these days of climate emergencies there would be more pressure to declare when various forms of travel will be carbon neutral.

There has been lots of chat about the end of petrol and diesel cars, but realistically someone is going to have to order quite a lot of 25kv cable pretty quickly to even see the end of diesel traction in 20 years, let alone the more ambitious targets suggested.

In many ways the fact we are even talking about more diesel traction for EMT, given the distance that would additionally need electrified is Corby north to Sheffield, for trains not proposed for 3-4 years, is a testament to the pitiful performance of this government and this DfT.

 

[PBarnesHST]

Could the almost brand new 707s being freed up by the 701s potentially find use on the Coby electrified services?

 

[urpert]

Could the almost brand new 707s being freed up by the 701s potentially find use on the Coby electrified services?

Not sure they’re an obvious choice being third rail units with an ultra basic suburban interior and no toilets. The smart money currently seems to be on 379s or 360s.

 

[cactustwirly]

Could the almost brand new 707s being freed up by the 701s potentially find use on the Coby electrified services?

Why? The 707s are slow and don't have the right interior, needs stock that's capable of 110mph+

 

[transmanche]

Not sure they’re an obvious choice being third rail units with an ultra basic suburban interior and no toilets.

All things that can be changed relatively easily. Heck, the first couple of 707s did some of their initial testing on 25kV AC!

 

[urpert]

All things that can be changed relatively easily. Heck, the first couple of 707s did some of their initial testing on 25kV AC!

True, but I’m not sure why you would when there are more suitable AC units due to come off lease.

 

[PBarnesHST]

Not sure they’re an obvious choice being third rail units with an ultra basic suburban interior and no toilets. The smart money currently seems to be on 379s or 360s.

Ah okay, fair enough. 379s wouldn't be bad and I'm sure Luton Airport passengers wouldn't mind if they were the Stansted Express variants with more luggage space(?)

 

[PBarnesHST]

Why? The 707s are slow and don't have the right interior, needs stock that's capable of 110mph+

What do you mean why? I was just asking a question because I know the 707s are;

1. Barely fresh off the production line so passengers don't think they're getting fobbed off with old stock
2. Able to be converted to overhead running which I assume is what'll be used to Corby as it seems to be whats used to Bedford
3. Desiro City so they could maybe be kept at Cricklewood or somewhere along route with the Thameslink/GN stock which would potentially be efficient in terms of engineering
4. Coming out of use pretty soon with no immediately obvious takers

 

[PBarnesHST]

All things that can be changed relatively easily. Heck, the first couple of 707s did some of their initial testing on 25kV AC!

That was part of why I asked, because I know they had the passive provision for pantographs et al left in from design stage (and interestingly OPO cameras fitted from manufacture despite all SWR services having a guard)

 

[cactustwirly]

What do you mean why? I was just asking a question because I know the 707s are;

1. Barely fresh off the production line so passengers don't think they're getting fobbed off with old stock
2. Able to be converted to overhead running which I assume is what'll be used to Corby as it seems to be whats used to Bedford
3. Desiro City so they could maybe be kept at Cricklewood or somewhere along route with the Thameslink/GN stock which would potentially be efficient in terms of engineering
4. Coming out of use pretty soon with no immediately obvious takers

So are the 379s and 360s which are far more suitable.
The 707s wouldn't be able to meet the timetable anyway, as they're restricted to 100mph, and have a poor power to weight ratio.

 

[PBarnesHST]

So are the 379s and 360s which are far more suitable.
The 707s wouldn't be able to meet the timetable anyway, as they're restricted to 100mph, and have a poor power to weight ratio.

Fair enough although only point 4 really applies to both 379s and 360s from that list. Arguable whether the 379s are "barely fresh" of the production line

Out of interest do you know what the maximum speeds of the 379 and 360s are as Wikipedia both has them listed as 100mph (160 km/h) or (161 km/h) along with the 707s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_360
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_379
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_707

 

[cactustwirly]

Fair enough although only point 4 really applies to both 379s and 360s from that list. Arguable whether the 379s are "barely fresh" of the production line

Out of interest do you know what the maximum speeds of the 379 and 360s are as Wikipedia both has them listed as 100mph (160 km/h) or (161 km/h) along with the 707s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_360
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_379
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_707

The 379s are very similar to the 387s, so could be easily upgraded to 110mph
Same with the 360s, they're similar to the 110mph 350s

The 707s have a poor power to weight ratio, so converting them to 110mph would be more difficult

 

[mt4958]

I would love to see something capable of 125mph, but reading the thread above, is the general feeling that it's unlikely that Corby will retain 125mph trains? There doesn't seem to be anything out there, class 397s etc but the doors are all wrong, carriage length, availability etc.

Would these class 350s be a possibility? The fleet size looks right(?) and so do the timelines (?) eg https://www.angeltrains.co.uk/Products-Services/Regional-Passenger-Trains/17

A long time ago when electrification to Corby announced, it was mentioned we would get trains like those serving Northampton (London Midland at that time). There was a bit of an outcry from the public and since then we've had the franchise bids all promising a quality intercity-style service. However, what if the plan actually never changed and we'll get the old Northampton trains with a bit of a hoover and a few shuffled chairs?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What's wrong with 360s? They are perfectly fine for a 90 minute journey just like the one I made earlier on a 350.

I'd understand if you were losing Grammer seated HSTs, but we're talking Meridians here which are decidedly at the low end of IC.