Jump to content


Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

Photo
* * * * - 7 votes

GWML Electification

Electrification GWML Crossrail



  • Please log in to reply
4096 replies to this topic

#1 Xerces Fobe2

Xerces Fobe2

    A/C removed


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,732 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 15:03

 I though I would start this topic as the topic about the Western being hired by GBRF was drifting into this area.

 

XF

 


  • Craftsmanship/Clever x 1

Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

#2 Xerces Fobe2

Xerces Fobe2

    A/C removed


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,732 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 15:28

quote "Glorious NSE, on 20 Nov 2013 - 12:23, said:snapback.png

Whilst directly relevant to the 165/166, Crossrail is pretty small beer as an electrification scheme in it's own right - I wouldn't put "we can convert them to EMUs later" past being little more than a sop to the treasury rather than a serious plan. Wouldn't be the first time that kind of thing happenned under BR...

 

Suspect that's painting a rather different picture than how the BR of the late 80s/early 90s would have seen it, they'd lost their case for a rolling programme of electrification back in the very early 1980s under Thatcher, way, way before privatisation was on the cards - any subsequent 'wins' were increasingly discrete standalone schemes, specced as cheaply and simply as possible (or they wouldn't have happenned!)

 

Simply not true.

 

The order for the fleet providing the cascade for the "Thames" EMU fleet in the original plan has been placed.

http://www.firstcapi...nk-train-order/

 

In addition there is a DfT order (plus option for additional units) on the back of the current Southern Electrostar order, which are poised to kick that first cascade off quicker if needed: http://www.railnews....-to-bridge.html

 

Crossrail still has a few years of construction to go, so not really something critical that order hasn't been signed yet". /quote

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The order for new stock for the cascade to be used for Thameslink is one piece of the jigsaw, however the plans for the GWML EMU stock are very fluid at present. The mooted plan has been to refurbish and transfer Class 319 EMU's to the GWML services however there are plans to use this stock in the North West too. Mark Hopwood MD of FGW is reported as being in favour of new stock as in his opinion Class 319's are older than the Class 165/6's and would not represent an improvement to the passenger environment. Mark Hopwood apparently wants some 2 car EMU's for the Thames Valley branches as well as 4 car's for the mainline services ( interestingly  at the same time as Stagecoach is increasing its train length from 8 to 10 car trains for all their Reading - London services!).

 

Obviously "Glorious NSE," (part of British Rail :scratchhead:?)   i f you have more details on the cascade plans please can you post them on this thread?

 

XF


Edited by Xerces Fobe2, 20 November 2013 - 15:29 .


#3 Glorious NSE

Glorious NSE

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,366 posts
  • LocationExeter, UK

Posted 20 November 2013 - 16:41

The order for new stock for the cascade to be used for Thameslink is one piece of the jigsaw,

 

Hopefully i'm not being too pedantic by saying that it is not just "a piece of the jigsaw" but in fact the basis for the whole original plan? New stock was needed for Thameslink, releasing 319s (and a few other bits and peices) for developing electric services elsewhere. The Thames Valley being just one of those.

 

however the plans for the GWML EMU stock are very fluid at present.

 

That's a fair comment. :)

 

The timings are "fun" for example. Great Western electrification to Oxford/Newbury (i.e. the bit that will start to need EMUs) is due in 2016. Current thinking seems to be that at least some 319s will be released by new build 377s so the 319s can be refurbished in time for 2016.

 

Crossrail however doesn't start services through the central section until 2018 (and although they might start running from Paddington west at that time, currently it sounds like they won't be running through between the central section and GWML till 2019!) - that does leave a temporary "hole" that needs filling. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

 

I guess the "do nothing" solution is that the existing 165/166s and 350s on inner suburban service stay running until there are enough Crossrail units to replace them. An alternative is there should be enough 319s around to have a short-term inner suburban fleet of those.

 

The mooted plan has been to refurbish and transfer Class 319 EMU's to the GWML services however there are plans to use this stock in the North West too.

 

Obviously the same units can't be in two places...but there's no less than 86 class 319 sets up for grabs which ought to be plenty of units to cover both initial bits of electrification. (You might theorise that in time there should also be some 317, 321 and 377s freed up as well, and IIRC there's some 317s already 'spare' which may kick off the Northern electrification before any 319s are released?)

 

Mark Hopwood MD of FGW is reported as being in favour of new stock as in his opinion Class 319's are older than the Class 165/6's and would not represent an improvement to the passenger environment.

 

Got to agree they are older, but not by a lot.

 

319s were built 1987-90

165s 1990-92

166s in 1992/3

 

Given that the 165s were on the basic end of the scale even when built (and neither Thames nor FGW have done much beyond a heavy clean and replacing seat cushions AFAIK) then arguably a "high spec" refurbed 319 could potentially be much better. If they spec that*. 166s were a little better (better seat arrangement and aircon) but similarly nothing that you can't do in a 319 shell if you spec that.

 

(Note - Eversholt have a demonstrator 321 coming into service very soon to demonstrate two levels of interior refurb available, both big enough makeovers to give that "new train feel" - the outer suburban one I suspect would be quite good for units aimed at longer distance commuting, which is what the fleet should end up aimed at once Crossrail takes over the inner suburban workings.

http://www.globalrai...senger-service/

 

(*But, If they spec a basic, bog standard, commuter interior like it had before, or even just a "change the seat covers" style refurb, then no, it won't be much of an improvement...)

 

Mark Hopwood apparently wants some 2 car EMU's for the Thames Valley branches as well as 4 car's for the mainline services ( interestingly  at the same time as Stagecoach is increasing its train length from 8 to 10 car trains for all their Reading - London services!).

 

Marlow is the obvious fly in the ointment, and I don't see what they can do really - clearly the answer isn't a cascaded 2 car AC EMU as there isn't any such thing - my gut feeling is that Marlow will end up with a DMU shuttle, Reading will have to still have to be rostering some DMUs anyhow for other services...

 

I'd suggest "be careful what you wish for" Nigel - if they get their wish for 2 car EMUs, then expect some services to be formed of.....a 2 car EMU. At least with a uniform fleet of 4 car units you know it'll be at least 4 cars! ;)

 

Obviously "Glorious NSE," (part of British Rail :scratchhead:?)

 

Sadly i'm not, as they are no more. ;)


  • Like x 1

#4 Xerces Fobe2

Xerces Fobe2

    A/C removed


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,732 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 17:17

Actually Martyn I came back from Slough on. 2 car 165 on Monday on a Paddington -Oxford. stopping service and there are a number of this type of workings throughout the day. To be fair to FGW some of these are effectively stock movements with passengers.

The immediate problem is reliability with either total failures of power car issues and this applies to the nice to look at but not nice to travel on Class 180's and there one door entrance exit on the driving cars - so near being great units but..........!

The other issue of course is. Maidenhead or Reading for the western end of Cross-rail the obvious answer is Reading however work on both the turn back and stabling sidings is well under was at Maidenhead however this will still be required for short workings even if Cross rail does go through to Reading,

The amount of work being carried out on the GWML at present is at an all time high as there is the additional flyover for the better grade segragation of th Heathow services at Hayes which is particially built, the Acton yard dive under again well under way and The Nortth Pole Cepot perpetration for the dreaded IEP's

Overall of positive outlook however the the all the issues still to be resolved , First on franchise extensions and potentially TFL running CrossRail it is a big jigsaw with some of the pieces still to be made and then fit !

Nigel

#5 Glorious NSE

Glorious NSE

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,366 posts
  • LocationExeter, UK

Posted 20 November 2013 - 18:48

I know Nigel, trouble is you still get 2's running round at times when it's busy, either due to failures or the limits of fleet size/diagramming.  

 

Definitely a lot still to do, and i'm sure there will be further complications as things develop. Lots of other things that could throw spanners in the works.

 

I still think trying to get TfL to take over the Greenford service would be a useful move, given it's going to end up a standalone route anyhow under the current plans it doesn't have to be part of "Thames", and it connects neatly to a rather under-used rail corridor at one end, and Crossrail at the other...

 

The HS2 interchange station at Old Oak is another big change on the cards.

 

Another thought, how long is it till the HEX contract runs out? I could see those being dropped in favour of more main line paths, replaced by additional semi-fast Crossrail services. If they don't do that and growth continues, then 6 tracking in from Airport Jcn could be something needed in the near future! (Not impossible by any means, given that most of the length the line is parralleled by goods lines/loops on one or other side, only Hanwell viaduct and presumably a tunnel under Ealing to be exciting engineering features...)


  • Like x 1

#6 Xerces Fobe2

Xerces Fobe2

    A/C removed


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,732 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 23:58

I agree Martyn, another option for the Greenfoed service is for Chiltern to run it and terminate at West Ealing in a new bay platform where the milk depot used to be located all those years ago!
I like tis idea as it frees up paths into Paddington allows First not to run DMUs in what will be an electric suburban service and also might give scope for a West Ealing. - West Ruilslip service which could be useful.

Looking at the Heathrow Express a lot of the trains are not that busy possibly due to the current outrageous fare structure. Integrating thus service with the GWML franchise would make more scence especially when the western chord (possibly from just east of Langley station) is built.

A time of great change and uncertainty but things will be different and hopefully better!

Nigel
  • Agree x 1

#7 Joseph_Pestell

Joseph_Pestell

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,687 posts
  • LocationNorth Dorset

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:05

As a former Newbury resident, I used the 165s quite a lot. By the standards of their time, they were a hi-spec train as Chris Green was determined to boost the image of NSE by more than just red lampposts. Sadly, they have not been well maintained over the years and are now a bit grubby.

 

But I share the view of those that say a 319, ever refurbished would be a step backwards and not well received in the Thames Vallley. Apart from the North West, there is now the prospect of electrification of the South Wales Valleys which could be a good home for them unless a light rail option is pursued there.

 

The Thames Valley branches are a conundrum. Two-car shuttles make sense but will compromise through running to London. One may as well go light rail.

 

Comparisons of GW suburban train lengths with SR train lengths from Reading are not really valid. SR has always had a greater commuter traffic and those longer trains are not required for Reading so muuch as for stations further east. Waterloo being better located than Paddington has much to do with this historic difference.

 

I like the idea of the Greenford service being terminated at West Ealing (usage does not justify taking up a valuable path from Crossrail) and it being extended to provide a link to Chiltern services.


  • Like x 1

#8 Glorious NSE

Glorious NSE

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,366 posts
  • LocationExeter, UK

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:32

Greenfords terminating at West Ealing (in a new bay) is a change that's supposed to happen before Crossrail starts, at the present time that leaves it as a rather isolated and forgotten bit of the Thames operation, which I don't think is ideal...

 

If there was more capacity then Ruislip-Crossrail via Ealing Broadway would be possible in the future, and i'd have thought useful, especially as HS2 now shouldn't obliterate the right of way.

 

Not convinced at all that 319s are a good solution for South Wales, I think of any secondhand unit likely to be available in decent numbers the 315s are the best fit for the valleys. (two motor cars, geared for quick getaways rather than high speed running, probably configurable to 3 cars as well) - 319s (which you can't easily reconfigure) would struggle I suspect.

 

Just as a question, why would a high spec refurbed 319 be a step backward?

 

The one single thing I can think of that is a slight backward step and wouldn't be easy to make better is the sliding versus plug doors.

 

Everything else (seating arrangements, seat number, spacing, pitch, quality, first class provision, aircon, sealed windows, higher top speed (improvable on traction renewal?), better accelaration, no underfloor engine, and with BREL bogies it'll probably ride better than a new Desiro inherently anyhow!) is all either easily acheivable or inherent if the TOC specs it to be that good.

 

Can you think of anything else that can't be done, that you have now on a 165 (or 166?)

 

One developing issue is that *everywhere* seems to be regarding a cascaded unit as inferior at present, the North West and Wales are already complaining about "having to have London's cast-offs" (so, 31X units not preferable to a pacer then?)



#9 Xerces Fobe2

Xerces Fobe2

    A/C removed


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,732 posts

Posted 21 November 2013 - 12:02

In years gone by both the Southern Region and it's predecessor the Southern Railway provided "new" stock every 25 years or so by  by changing either the underframe and/or traction package  and then replacing the body shells 25 years later. Interestingly this practice continues to this day the Class 442 and 455's both having traction equipment etc from their predecessors ! The 455 on SWT had a high quality refurb  to their bodies a few years back and are now in line for a AC 3 Phase Traction package. The current  458/460 rebuild is another amazing example of making effectively new trains from existing stock. There are also some prototype 25KV AC 3 Phase Traction package upgrades planned for the Class 317 and similar stock

 

My point is that some of these upgrades are of such a high standard that they are as good as new trains. If this high standard of upgrade was applied to a Clas319 etc I think most people would think they were new trains.

For the local politicians etc who demand new trains get them to put forward a credible business case and finance package for new trains when cheaper high quality options are available - it would difficult especially in less populated areas!

 

So for me in the Thames Valley a Class 319 with a 3 Phase traction package and high quality interior( with cycle space) is far more preferable than a overcrowded non air conditioned Turbo (166 air con never works!) with cycles blocking the doors and power cars not working.

 

In theory train leasing charges should be less than new stock however that may not be the case as train companies will need check all the small print in the leasing contracts!

 

Nigel



#10 Joseph_Pestell

Joseph_Pestell

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,687 posts
  • LocationNorth Dorset

Posted 21 November 2013 - 12:15

The multiple units based, for cheapness, on the Mk3 bodyshell are all a bit of a bodge up. My main gripe is the daft location of the doors which:

1) does not give even spacing along the platform and therefore lengthens station dwell times;

2) does not give any seats that are a decent distance away from the doors for comfort on longer journeys.

 

While on the subject of doors/doorways, they are also too narrow.

 

Also why use 20m vehicles on a railway that can operate 23m vehicles? It adds to the maintenance costs and track access costs.


Edited by Joseph_Pestell, 21 November 2013 - 12:17 .

  • Agree x 1

#11 Glorious NSE

Glorious NSE

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,366 posts
  • LocationExeter, UK

Posted 21 November 2013 - 12:39

Are the door positions are much different to an equivalent 20m Desiro or Electrostar, which is your likely 'off the peg' new EMU alternative? (The duties being talked about aren't likely to be regarded as "more Intercity" than TPX or LM's 350s for example, neither do those types appear to be used on routes that can't take 23m stock, so that's not seen as a factor...)

 

Also why use 20m vehicles on a railway that can operate 23m vehicles? It adds to the maintenance costs and track access costs.

 

That same argument applies everywhere in the UK though. There can't be many places in England or Wales on the former Regional Railways network that aren't cleared for a 153 for example, but it hardly makes it a good argument for scrapping 150s!

 

If you have an existing 20m vehicle already, and you have to specially obtain a new 23m vehicle to replace it then surely it adds to rolling stock costs...

 

Got to admit i've not checked this, but I also wouldn't be surprised if a 4 car 319 had a lower track access cost per car than a 444 or 380 (certainly the latter products have something of a reputation for hammering the track, which BREL MU's don't appear to share...)



#12 Glorious NSE

Glorious NSE

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,366 posts
  • LocationExeter, UK

Posted 21 November 2013 - 12:57

Okay - bit of digging on track access charges, to qualify, these are 2009/10 prices, and are in PPVM (Pence, per vehicle mile).

 

165 - 6.12

166 - 6.44

180 - 14.03 (just for fun!)

319 (motor) - 10.93

319 (trailer) - 4.71

350 (motor) - 8.26

350 (trailer) - 6.56

444 (motor) - 11.07

444 (trailer) - 8.18

 

So...

 

3 car 165 is 18.36ppm

3 car 166 is 19.32ppm

4 car 319 is 25.06ppm, so it will cost more, however...

4 car 350 is 27.94, so more again than the 319, though not lots more, but that almost 3p per mile will still rack up some significant numbers over a fleet per year

3 car 444 derivative is 27.43, marginally cheaper than the 350 but not a lot in it (probably not enough to justify the slightly smaller capacity?) - still works out more expensive than the 319 though.


Edited by Glorious NSE, 21 November 2013 - 13:02 .

  • Informative/Useful x 2
  • Thanks x 1
  • Like x 1

#13 Claude_Dreyfus

Claude_Dreyfus

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,263 posts
  • LocationSunny Sussex

Posted 21 November 2013 - 13:00

The multiple units based, for cheapness, on the Mk3 bodyshell are all a bit of a bodge up. My main gripe is the daft location of the doors which:

1) does not give even spacing along the platform and therefore lengthens station dwell times;

2) does not give any seats that are a decent distance away from the doors for comfort on longer journeys.

 

 

One of the biggest grips for Southern commuters when the 442s were introduced on the Brighton line were the doors. These are end-loading carriages (i.e. the doors are at the end of the carriages in normal mark 3 style), as opposed to the usual more central-loaders that we are more used to - 319s and 377s. On a busy train (especially when gangways are blocked with standing passengers) the loading and unloading at stations can be painfully slow. It also clumps passengers in close groups, as opposed to spreading them more evenly down the platform.

 

So, I would say that the central loaders are considerably better for busy routes with large volumes of passengers and frequent stopping. They help channel passenger movement more evenly in the carriage and onto the platform.

 

Your point about longer journeys may be valid, but the vast majority of the journeys on these trains are relatively short - less than 1 hour. Certainly in the context of have refurbished 319s running on the GWML, I don't think that would be a huge issue.

 

The biggest issue with the 319s is the seeming lack of care about them. They are often scruffy, and have a poor ride quality - especially a higher speeds. They are also old - by the time the new Thameslink trains come on stream, the 319s will be pretty much 30 years old; and they have been 30 very hard years. I'm sure a full refurbishment would improve this, but I'm sure any Thames valley commuters who saw these and heard the suggestion thay may get this in five or six years time would not be too happy...irrespective of the total rebuild they would need to get them up to scratch.

 

 The lack of gangway through the driving cabs is also an issue, which does not help with evenly spreading passengers throughout the train - no co-incidence that the 377s do have this feature, but for me it was an odd move to block them off on the Southern 455s. You often see an 8-coach train (particularly on the South Eastern section, whose entire suburban fleet lacks gangways through the cab ends) where the front 4 coaches are absolutely rammed and the rear four have available seats.

 

 

Edit: Lots of typos!


Edited by Claude_Dreyfus, 21 November 2013 - 13:08 .


#14 The Stationmaster

The Stationmaster

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 30,319 posts

Posted 21 November 2013 - 14:06

Okay - bit of digging on track access charges, to qualify, these are 2009/10 prices, and are in PPVM (Pence, per vehicle mile).

 

165 - 6.12

166 - 6.44

180 - 14.03 (just for fun!)

319 (motor) - 10.93

319 (trailer) - 4.71

350 (motor) - 8.26

350 (trailer) - 6.56

444 (motor) - 11.07

444 (trailer) - 8.18

 

So...

 

3 car 165 is 18.36ppm

3 car 166 is 19.32ppm

4 car 319 is 25.06ppm, so it will cost more, however...

4 car 350 is 27.94, so more again than the 319, though not lots more, but that almost 3p per mile will still rack up some significant numbers over a fleet per year

3 car 444 derivative is 27.43, marginally cheaper than the 350 but not a lot in it (probably not enough to justify the slightly smaller capacity?) - still works out more expensive than the 319 though.

 

Which presumably does not include the energy costs?

 

And while I am aware that thought is being given to something other than 319s for the Thames Valley (and not just by Mark Hopwood) I think most commuters would see them as a retrograde step compered with a 165 or 166, and I simply don't see how they could manage to retain customers from the outer Thames Valley and Oxford or indeed offer an attractive package on such journeys as Henley or Twyford - Paddington.

 

The 319s would be better allocated - as is being talked about so I understand - to the Cardiff Valleys where they would represent a considerable improvement over existing trains, even if taht are secondhand.  Secondhand is one thing, poorer standard of accommodation is the thing which passengers will notice.

 

As far as Crossrail is concerned - with no doubt high-density stock I do wonder how attractive it might be as far out as Maidenhead - another place with relatively fickle commuters (and I don't mean XF!).  The choice of Crossrail over FGW alternatives will boil down to one of journey time and convenience and not every commuter off the Thames Valley heads along the Crossrail route in London with many on the Bakerloo Line - judging by my past experience - heading south of it.  They are as likely to travel ML/Bakerloo Line as take Crossrail in my opinion.



#15 Glorious NSE

Glorious NSE

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,366 posts
  • LocationExeter, UK

Posted 21 November 2013 - 14:34

Which presumably does not include the energy costs?

 

Those figures were just the variable track access cost.

 

But i'd also expect energy take to be lower on the lighter 319 versus a comparable 350, and a new traction package should enable regeneration as well.

 

Either way they should be lots cheaper than diesel for a 165/6...

 

So is something like this:

http://railpictureli...21-demonstrator

(Particularly the 2+2 standard class variant) really going to be seen as a downgrade from a current 165?

 

Sorry guys, i'm not seeing it!

 

(I'd even see that as being rather on the conservative side of refurbs - for example check out Japanese express EMUs with modern wood block flooring and some seriously comfy looking seating, probably a bit 'out there' for any UK TOC, but i'd love to be proved wrong, you've the potential for a first class section better looking that anything on any other British train...)

http://bloodriceandn...-and-beppu.html



#16 Claude_Dreyfus

Claude_Dreyfus

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,263 posts
  • LocationSunny Sussex

Posted 21 November 2013 - 15:04

(I'd even see that as being rather on the conservative side of refurbs - for example check out Japanese express EMUs with modern wood block flooring and some seriously comfy looking seating, probably a bit 'out there' for any UK TOC, but i'd love to be proved wrong, you've the potential for a first class section better looking that anything on any other British train...)

http://bloodriceandn...-and-beppu.html

 

Indeed... the Hitachi series 885 used on this service is from the same family as the class 395.

 

http://www.jrkyushu....rain/sonic.html

 

Something for South Eastern to consider perhaps?


Edited by Claude_Dreyfus, 21 November 2013 - 15:06 .


#17 Xerces Fobe2

Xerces Fobe2

    A/C removed


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,732 posts

Posted 21 November 2013 - 15:39

One of the biggest grips for Southern commuters when the 442s were introduced on the Brighton line were the doors. These are end-loading carriages (i.e. the doors are at the end of the carriages in normal mark 3 style), as opposed to the usual more central-loaders that we are more used to - 319s and 377s. On a busy train (especially when gangways are blocked with standing passengers) the loading and unloading at stations can be painfully slow. It also clumps passengers in close groups, as opposed to spreading them more evenly down the platform.

 

So, I would say that the central loaders are considerably better for busy routes with large volumes of passengers and frequent stopping. They help channel passenger movement more evenly in the carriage and onto the platform.

 

Your point about longer journeys may be valid, but the vast majority of the journeys on these trains are relatively short - less than 1 hour. Certainly in the context of have refurbished 319s running on the GWML, I don't think that would be a huge issue.

 

The biggest issue with the 319s is the seeming lack of care about them. They are often scruffy, and have a poor ride quality - especially a higher speeds. They are also old - by the time the new Thameslink trains come on stream, the 319s will be pretty much 30 years old; and they have been 30 very hard years. I'm sure a full refurbishment would improve this, but I'm sure any Thames valley commuters who saw these and heard the suggestion thay may get this in five or six years time would not be too happy...irrespective of the total rebuild they would need to get them up to scratch.

 

 The lack of gangway through the driving cabs is also an issue, which does not help with evenly spreading passengers throughout the train - no co-incidence that the 377s do have this feature, but for me it was an odd move to block them off on the Southern 455s. You often see an 8-coach train (particularly on the South Eastern section, whose entire suburban fleet lacks gangways through the cab ends) where the front 4 coaches are absolutely rammed and the rear four have available seats.

 

 

Edit: Lots of typos!

 

The crown for the worst DMU for design is the Class 180 a.k.a Adelante ,formally Coradia 1000 change the name but still the same train!. Both dring cars have just one door per side, dwell times at station in the rush hour can be  5 mins or so. They are being used as commuter trains on FGW and they just not suitable for this. They whistle as thery speed along, squeal like a litter of 5 piglets prior to coming to a stop, you roasted in the vestibules and they lurch when traversing  ladder crossings etc.

 

These units were built by Alst(h)om in Birmingham and are nowhere as good as the trains that Met -Camm used to produce there - disgruntled employees maybe?

 

These units look very much a clone of a MK3 coach and look quite dynamic so it is a shame they have so many shot comings. Why is there such a large area for the drivers cabs with wide plug doors for the exclusive use of the driver? Brush has carried out some upgrade on them and they are more reliable then they were however when there are fundamental design problems there is a limit to what can be done.  

 

Nigel



#18 Joseph_Pestell

Joseph_Pestell

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,687 posts
  • LocationNorth Dorset

Posted 21 November 2013 - 16:02

Indeed... the Hitachi series 885 used on this service is from the same family as the class 395.

 

http://www.jrkyushu....rain/sonic.html

 

Something for South Eastern to consider perhaps?

 

Class 395. Now we are talking some sense for GW services to Newbury and Oxford. Indeed the 395 would be good for Bristol and Cardiff semi-fasts.



#19 Fat Controller

Fat Controller

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,961 posts

Posted 21 November 2013 - 16:09

The large area for the driver's cab on the Adelantes is probably because of the restriction on carrying passengers in the front third of the lead vehicle in trains intended for maximum speeds of more than 100 mph. The Voyagers had the shop and catering facilities in this position for the same reason. It would appear that this rule has now been changed, as there is passenger accomodation in this position in the 395s.


  • Agree x 1

#20 Pete 75C

Pete 75C

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,190 posts
  • LocationSheringham

Posted 21 November 2013 - 16:12

You're welcome to the 319s...

Having spent thousands of work hours driving the damn things, they have to be one of the draughtiest,  most uncomfortable, roughest-riding units in recent memory. Hated by the fitters at Selhurst New Shed too. The rather pointless front cab door was so draughty, I know I wasn't the only one to pinch a roll of duct tape from the stores in case I encountered a unit that hadn't already been "modified"...


Edited by LifeboatMan, 21 November 2013 - 16:24 .

  • Funny x 1

#21 Glorious NSE

Glorious NSE

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,366 posts
  • LocationExeter, UK

Posted 21 November 2013 - 16:21

And (some of the) 350s are now 110mph, with just the depth of a simple EMU drivers cab...



#22 The Stationmaster

The Stationmaster

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 30,319 posts

Posted 21 November 2013 - 20:31

The crown for the worst DMU for design is the Class 180 a.k.a Adelante ,formally Coradia 1000 change the name but still the same train!. Both dring cars have just one door per side, dwell times at station in the rush hour can be  5 mins or so. They are being used as commuter trains on FGW and they just not suitable for this. They whistle as thery speed along, squeal like a litter of 5 piglets prior to coming to a stop, you roasted in the vestibules and they lurch when traversing  ladder crossings etc.

 

These units were built by Alst(h)om in Birmingham and are nowhere as good as the trains that Met -Camm used to produce there - disgruntled employees maybe?

 

These units look very much a clone of a MK3 coach and look quite dynamic so it is a shame they have so many shot comings. Why is there such a large area for the drivers cabs with wide plug doors for the exclusive use of the driver? Brush has carried out some upgrade on them and they are more reliable then they were however when there are fundamental design problems there is a limit to what can be done.  

 

Nigel

 

Don't worry Nidge - at least bits of them don't seem to come off in your hand as easily as they did when new; you didn't dare touch anything in case it fell apart!  Even in Hull trains service there was still a tendency for some interior bits to fall off.  And what do you expect from Alstom - by the time these things were assembled all their time served tradespeople had long gone and they were recruiting whoever they could get cheap off the streets, I went round the factory when they were assembling the night stock and I got talking to bloke putting together a wiring loom and I asked how long he'd been there - '4 months' so I then asked where he'd done his time as an electrician 'didn't, I worked in a butcher's shop before I came here'.

 

 

 

Those figures were just the variable track access cost.

 

But i'd also expect energy take to be lower on the lighter 319 versus a comparable 350, and a new traction package should enable regeneration as well.

 

Either way they should be lots cheaper than diesel for a 165/6...

 

So is something like this:

http://railpictureli...21-demonstrator

(Particularly the 2+2 standard class variant) really going to be seen as a downgrade from a current 165?

 

Sorry guys, i'm not seeing it!

 

(I'd even see that as being rather on the conservative side of refurbs - for example check out Japanese express EMUs with modern wood block flooring and some seriously comfy looking seating, probably a bit 'out there' for any UK TOC, but i'd love to be proved wrong, you've the potential for a first class section better looking that anything on any other British train...)

http://bloodriceandn...-and-beppu.html

 

I some how doubt we'll see 2+2 in Standard Class on Thames Valley suburban services because then they'll have to make the 1st Class 2+1 to maintain a bit of difference - and I doubt they'll do that!



#23 Xerces Fobe2

Xerces Fobe2

    A/C removed


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,732 posts

Posted 21 November 2013 - 21:09

[i]Don't worry Nidge - at least bits of them don't seem to come off in your hand as easily as they did when new; you didn't dare touch anything in case it fell apart!  Even in Hull trains service there was still a tendency for some interior bits to fall off.  And what do you expect from Alstom - by the time these things were assembled all their time served tradespeople had long gone and they were recruiting whoever they could get cheap off the streets, I went round the factory when they were assembling the night stock and I got talking to bloke putting together a wiring loom and I asked how long he'd been there - '4 months' so I then asked where he'd done his time as an electrician 'didn't, I worked in a butcher's shop before I came here'.


Having served an electronic apprentiship I starting seeing this sort of behavoir in the early 1980's . The view was and still as by many bean counters that anyone can do engineering and assemble/maintain technical equipment after all we are only grease monkeys! Funny how thinks change when their car won't start or computer won't boot but when you fix for them they will say that thank for confirming what they had determined was wrong with item in question. This why we have so few Uk based and owned engineering companies . Having just had a short stint at a financial company my worst fears about that industry were realised inefficient and incompetent people who where empire builders and were using work practices which were 20 years out of date! - I resigned from the role as I did not want to become like them - I still have a brain and a free spirit!

Back to trains i had serious concerns about Japanese engineering now when you find that the had left broken fuel rods in a nuclear reactor since 1982 and the way they handled this disaster and covered up what is really going on is very worrying. With DAFT And Hitachi working together we already have an IEP that no one wants and I can't wait to see one on the GWML!

Nigel
  • Like x 2
  • Friendly/Supportive x 1

#24 Claude_Dreyfus

Claude_Dreyfus

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,263 posts
  • LocationSunny Sussex

Posted 22 November 2013 - 09:29

Back to trains i had serious concerns about Japanese engineering now when you find that the had left broken fuel rods in a nuclear reactor since 1982 and the way they handled this disaster and covered up what is really going on is very worrying. With DAFT And Hitachi working together we already have an IEP that no one wants and I can't wait to see one on the GWML!

Nigel

 

OT a little bit, but I don't think that is a deficiency in Japanese engineering...that is more an example of Japanese corporate culture which has been the source of much public scandal in recent years; TEPCO, Olympus, JR Hokkaido...to name but a couple of recent more high profile examples.


Edited by Claude_Dreyfus, 22 November 2013 - 09:31 .


#25 Glorious NSE

Glorious NSE

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,366 posts
  • LocationExeter, UK

Posted 22 November 2013 - 11:08

I some how doubt we'll see 2+2 in Standard Class on Thames Valley suburban services because then they'll have to make the 1st Class 2+1 to maintain a bit of difference - and I doubt they'll do that!

 

Unfortunately i'd have to agree with that - i'm still waiting to see any modern UK train (except possibly HEX) where the travelling experience is aspirational. I know you're on a loser from the start trying to make commuters feel positive about the experience, but if a higher spec can be made to work anywhere then the Thames Valley should be it...


  • Agree x 4







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Electrification, GWML, Crossrail

Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.