Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tflblg$20pe6$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:07:29 on Sun, 11 Sep
> 2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>> Midland Main Line electrification will displace some Class 222s. They
>> are not compatible with Class 220 & 221, so where do they go?
>
> Not compatible in what sense? Coupling up perhaps. So use them coupled
> up (should that even be required) to each other, not mix-and-matched.
>

I would imagine a mixed fleet of 220/221 and 222 would trouble XC no more
than a mixed fleet of 220/221, 170 and HST. You might hope that if XC got
the whole 222 fleet that they'd be running everything as 8/9 car sets
anyway so no need to worry about coupling!

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/09/2022 20:46, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2022 13:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> There a piece in this months Rail magazine say that the first heathrow 360
>>>>> is off for scrapping. This train is only 17 years old and I don't for a moment
>>>>> believe a home can't be found for this class elsewhere on the network. Perhaps
>>>>> if the railway industry stopped flushing money down the drain in this manner
>>>>> there'd be more around to improve other aspects such as stations and general
>>>>> infrastructure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Already reported in another thread a few days ago.
>>>>
>>>> Two problems with the 360/2s:
>>>>
>>>> Firstly they were always privately owned, not by a TOC or ROSCO. HAL sold
>>>> them to ROG who intended to convert them for parcels traffic but decided
>>>> not to.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, a small fleet of only 5 units is often difficult to accommodate
>>>> elsewhere. Too small to be a fleet for a new electrification anywhere,
>>>> they'd have to be an addition to an existing fleet - and a mixed fleet of
>>>> different, incompatible unit types creates maintenance, training and
>>>> operational headaches and costs.
>>>>
>>>> Other examples of small fleets include the 180s which have been passed
>>>> around between four different operators (one of them twice!), and the 322s
>>>> which worked for effectively ten operators before finally being considered
>>>> part of a bigger fleet of similar units.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are not the only relatively modern trains whose future is uncertain.
>>>
>>> Transport for Wales is obtaining more than enough Class 197s to replace
>>> all their Class 175s. What happens to them ?
>>>
>>
>> gWr to replace their HST is one suggestion I've heard.
>>
>>> Midland Main Line electrification will displace some Class 222s. They
>>> are not compatible with Class 220 & 221, so where do they go?
>>>
>>
>> XC, one would hope.
>
> Doubt it. XC will presumably get some of the Avanti West Coast 221s, but
> I suspect that DfT will not approve the additional costs of hiring 222s
> as well, plus the inevitable crew training costs.
>

IMX many/most XC trains are absolutely packed. Wedged, one might say. The
ability to run every train as a double set would be a game-changer in
capacity on these routes where the congestion undoubtedly puts people off
from travelling.

I would imagine (though of course I don't know for sure) that the trains
are similar enough that the staff training costs would be quite low, one or
two days at the most?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> Had BR survived, we would have seen the Networker program actually come
> into being. At the end of BR days there were plans for proper longer
> distance models for CIG/VEP/CEP replacement, and similar 25 kV variants
> planned for the GE, GN and Euston outer suburban routes, and more than
> likely a 25 kV variant of the 465 for LTS. BR's approach was generally
> dual-sourcing rolling stock but to a relatively standard design, as
> seen with the two subtypes of 465. In that environment, it is likely
> Heathrow would have simply been provisioned with a build of whatever
> flavour of Networker type unit was current at the time.

It's an interesting question as to how BR would have responded to the
current commercial environment. Up until the 80s/early 90s BR had their own
workshops and built their many of their own trains. Then bits got sold off
to the likes of ABB. Part of that deal was that BR did (some of) the design
and BREL/ABB/Brush/etc did the manufacture, so dual-sourcing was a case of
lining up two manufacturers.

These days it's not like that: the trainbuilders do the design, and the
railway selects from the products of Siemens, Bombardier, Stadler, Hitachi,
etc, with customisations as offered in the Aventra/Desiro/A-train/etc
package.

I don't know if any foreign railways are still continuing the BR model where
design is in-house, or are they also just purchasing from the usual
suspects like the UK does?

Arguably the current prevalence of IETs is a return to something vaguely
like BR practice, but with Hitachi as single-source supplier and design
house.

Theo

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2022 11:15:41 +0100 (BST)
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>> There are also the 30 class 379 units sitting idle. And for a while
>>> the future of the class 707s, only a few years old, was in doubt.
>>>
>>> I think Muttley's right and there's something structurally wrong with
>>> the train leasing/provision system. I know that with interest rates
>>> effectively at zero and lots of cash looking for a home it's entirely
>>> possible - even likely - that the TOCs acted rationally, but that's
>>> where a fragmented industry gets you. It's wasteful and shouldn't have
>>> happened.
>>
>> I think the real killer is the combination of a small fleet of electric
>> trains. Had they been diesel they could have been taken up by somebody to
>> run a short branch line service, maybe even a preserved railway. Witness
>> how many of the Pacers survive. But they're AC electric which lines only
>> exist as part of much bigger networks.
>>
>> Operators of AC electric networks don't want a small fleet of trains
>> different to what they have - it just causes lots of hassles in the depot
>> (if they even have their own maintenance depot any more and don't have a
>> build and maintain contract with their train supplier). The only isolated
>> electric network small enough for a fleet of 5 units I can think of is
>> Island Line, but that's DC and now not in need of new trains.
>>
>> Which leaves conversion to diesel (didn't work very well with the 230s or
>> 769s, not worth doing for such a tiny class) or some niche application (ROG
>> tried parcels, didn't work). There is another question about whether they
>> are technically more complicated to convert than, say, a D78, given the
>> software work likely to be involved.
>>
>> Had this been BR I think they still might have gone for scrap, for the same
>
> Had it been BR its highly unlikely they'd have been built in the first place.
>

You're still missing the fact that this wasn't BR, a BR-substitute, a TOC
or a ROSCO. They were ordered by BAA, just like the HEX 332s.

Whether the HEX/HConn services would have been operated by BR if
privatisation hadn't happened is another discussion, but the precedent for
private operation, or at least private procurement and ownership of stock,
had been set some while earlier with the class 59 locomotives.

> BR may have had its faults but it was generally pragmatic and would have
> repurposed other stock for Heathrow and wouldn't have so many different types
> of new stock which are all variations on a theme. Just how many types of EMU
> do there need to be FFS?
>

Well unless you want to still be manufacturing SUBs and BILs, designs need
to change and be replaced over time.

Also unless you want now non-existent BR to build all its own trains, you
have to allow for each of the major manufacturers having an EMU design
suitable for UK use.

So that gives you the basic types we have now: Electrostar, Desiro,
Aventra, Flirt, Hitachi's AT200 and whatever CAF call theirs.

Then, incremental developments (better control systems, motors etc), plus
different spec for different operators (sometimes minor, eg gWr/GEx/c2c
387s; sometimes major, eg 345 vs 710/720/730 or 444/450) give the multitude
of options.

It's also worth remembering how many different EMUs BR had - very similar
304/305/308 for example - and DMUs (surely only four different types needed
rather than every number from 100 to 122?!).

What's your solution? A prescribed list of classes from which operators can
order? Forbid new manufacturers from entering the UK market? (Sorry Stadler
and CAF, we've got enough already thanks)

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <tfn506$28cp8$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:54 on Mon, 12 Sep
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-09-11 15:50:28 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>
>> On 11 Sep 2022 11:15:41 +0100 (BST)
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>> There are also the 30 class 379 units sitting idle. And for a while
>>>> the future of the class 707s, only a few years old, was in doubt.
>>>> I think Muttley's right and there's something structurally wrong
>>>>with
>>>> the train leasing/provision system. I know that with interest rates
>>>> effectively at zero and lots of cash looking for a home it's entirely
>>>> possible - even likely - that the TOCs acted rationally, but that's
>>>> where a fragmented industry gets you. It's wasteful and shouldn't have
>>>> happened.
>>> I think the real killer is the combination of a small fleet of
>>>electric
>>> trains. Had they been diesel they could have been taken up by somebody to
>>> run a short branch line service, maybe even a preserved railway. Witness
>>> how many of the Pacers survive. But they're AC electric which lines only
>>> exist as part of much bigger networks.
>>> Operators of AC electric networks don't want a small fleet of
>>>trains
>>> different to what they have - it just causes lots of hassles in the depot
>>> (if they even have their own maintenance depot any more and don't have a
>>> build and maintain contract with their train supplier). The only isolated
>>> electric network small enough for a fleet of 5 units I can think of is
>>> Island Line, but that's DC and now not in need of new trains.
>>> Which leaves conversion to diesel (didn't work very well with the
>>>230s or
>>> 769s, not worth doing for such a tiny class) or some niche application (ROG
>>> tried parcels, didn't work). There is another question about whether they
>>> are technically more complicated to convert than, say, a D78, given the
>>> software work likely to be involved.
>>> Had this been BR I think they still might have gone for scrap, for
>>>the same

>> Had it been BR its highly unlikely they'd have been built in the
>>first place.

>> BR may have had its faults but it was generally pragmatic and would have
>> repurposed other stock for Heathrow and wouldn't have so many different types
>> of new stock which are all variations on a theme. Just how many types of EMU
>> do there need to be FFS?
>
>Had BR survived, we would have seen the Networker program actually come
>into being. At the end of BR days there were plans for proper longer
>distance models for CIG/VEP/CEP replacement, and similar 25 kV variants
>planned for the GE, GN and Euston outer suburban routes, and more than
>likely a 25 kV variant of the 465 for LTS. BR's approach was generally
>dual-sourcing rolling stock but to a relatively standard design, as
>seen with the two subtypes of 465. In that environment, it is likely
>Heathrow would have simply been provisioned with a build of whatever
>flavour of Networker type unit was current at the time.

The elephant in the room being they wouldn't have ever built the link to
Heathrow. That was only achieved by Heathrow Airport paying for it (and
hence to some extent running it as a private railway).
--
Roland Perry

In message <tfn5c3$28dq4$3@dont-email.me>, at 11:32:19 on Mon, 12 Sep
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>IMX many/most XC trains are absolutely packed. Wedged, one might say. The
>ability to run every train as a double set would be a game-changer in
>capacity on these routes where the congestion undoubtedly puts people off
>from travelling.
>
>I would imagine (though of course I don't know for sure) that the trains
>are similar enough that the staff training costs would be quite low, one or
>two days at the most?

When you say "XC" do you include flows like Birmingham-Stansted? Which I
agree are often very full, but double-sets of what: Turbostars, or
replace all of those with Voyager/Meridians?
--
Roland Perry

On 12/09/2022 13:23, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tfn5c3$28dq4$3@dont-email.me>, at 11:32:19 on Mon, 12 Sep
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>
>> IMX many/most XC trains are absolutely packed. Wedged, one might say. The
>> ability to run every train as a double set would be a game-changer in
>> capacity on these routes where the congestion undoubtedly puts people off
>> from travelling.
>>
>> I would imagine (though of course I don't know for sure) that the trains
>> are similar enough that the staff training costs would be quite low,
>> one or
>> two days at the most?
>
> When you say "XC" do you include flows like Birmingham-Stansted? Which I
> agree are often very full, but double-sets of what: Turbostars, or
> replace all of those with Voyager/Meridians?

I suggest they put the extra Voyager/Meridians on the Birmingham
Stansted services and give us the Turbostars released on the Cardiff
Nottingham services.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tfn5c3$28dq4$3@dont-email.me>, at 11:32:19 on Mon, 12 Sep
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>
>> IMX many/most XC trains are absolutely packed. Wedged, one might say. The
>> ability to run every train as a double set would be a game-changer in
>> capacity on these routes where the congestion undoubtedly puts people off
>> from travelling.
>>
>> I would imagine (though of course I don't know for sure) that the trains
>> are similar enough that the staff training costs would be quite low, one or
>> two days at the most?
>
> When you say "XC" do you include flows like Birmingham-Stansted? Which I
> agree are often very full, but double-sets of what: Turbostars, or
> replace all of those with Voyager/Meridians?

I'm thinking largely of the original XC network, ie the services currently
operated mostly by single voyagers.

On what you call the 'XC lite' network, I presume that platform lengths in
many places (and lack of SDO) preclude operation of longer than 4-cars.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 12/09/2022 13:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tfn5c3$28dq4$3@dont-email.me>, at 11:32:19 on Mon, 12 Sep
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>
>>> IMX many/most XC trains are absolutely packed. Wedged, one might say. The
>>> ability to run every train as a double set would be a game-changer in
>>> capacity on these routes where the congestion undoubtedly puts people off
>>> from travelling.
>>>
>>> I would imagine (though of course I don't know for sure) that the trains
>>> are similar enough that the staff training costs would be quite low,
>>> one or
>>> two days at the most?
>>
>> When you say "XC" do you include flows like Birmingham-Stansted? Which I
>> agree are often very full, but double-sets of what: Turbostars, or
>> replace all of those with Voyager/Meridians?
>
> I suggest they put the extra Voyager/Meridians on the Birmingham
> Stansted services and give us the Turbostars released on the Cardiff
> Nottingham services.
>

If those Birmingham-Stansted services are usually 3-car 170, a 4-car
voyager will be a reduction in capacity.

*checks RTT* they are.
*checks further* there's an interesting mix of 2, 3 and 4 car trains on the
Cardiff-Birmingham trains!

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 13:20:30 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <tfn506$28cp8$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:54 on Mon, 12 Sep
>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>On 2022-09-11 15:50:28 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>
>>> On 11 Sep 2022 11:15:41 +0100 (BST)
>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>>> There are also the 30 class 379 units sitting idle. And for a while
>>>>> the future of the class 707s, only a few years old, was in doubt.
>>>>> I think Muttley's right and there's something structurally wrong
>>>>>with
>>>>> the train leasing/provision system. I know that with interest rates
>>>>> effectively at zero and lots of cash looking for a home it's entirely
>>>>> possible - even likely - that the TOCs acted rationally, but that's
>>>>> where a fragmented industry gets you. It's wasteful and shouldn't have
>>>>> happened.
>>>> I think the real killer is the combination of a small fleet of
>>>>electric
>>>> trains. Had they been diesel they could have been taken up by somebody to
>>>> run a short branch line service, maybe even a preserved railway. Witness
>>>> how many of the Pacers survive. But they're AC electric which lines only
>>>> exist as part of much bigger networks.
>>>> Operators of AC electric networks don't want a small fleet of
>>>>trains
>>>> different to what they have - it just causes lots of hassles in the depot
>>>> (if they even have their own maintenance depot any more and don't have a
>>>> build and maintain contract with their train supplier). The only isolated
>>>> electric network small enough for a fleet of 5 units I can think of is
>>>> Island Line, but that's DC and now not in need of new trains.
>>>> Which leaves conversion to diesel (didn't work very well with the
>>>>230s or
>>>> 769s, not worth doing for such a tiny class) or some niche application (ROG
>>>> tried parcels, didn't work). There is another question about whether they
>>>> are technically more complicated to convert than, say, a D78, given the
>>>> software work likely to be involved.
>>>> Had this been BR I think they still might have gone for scrap, for
>>>>the same
>
>>> Had it been BR its highly unlikely they'd have been built in the
>>>first place.
>
>>> BR may have had its faults but it was generally pragmatic and would have
>>> repurposed other stock for Heathrow and wouldn't have so many different types
>>> of new stock which are all variations on a theme. Just how many types of EMU
>>> do there need to be FFS?
>>
>>Had BR survived, we would have seen the Networker program actually come
>>into being. At the end of BR days there were plans for proper longer
>>distance models for CIG/VEP/CEP replacement, and similar 25 kV variants
>>planned for the GE, GN and Euston outer suburban routes, and more than
>>likely a 25 kV variant of the 465 for LTS. BR's approach was generally
>>dual-sourcing rolling stock but to a relatively standard design, as
>>seen with the two subtypes of 465. In that environment, it is likely
>>Heathrow would have simply been provisioned with a build of whatever
>>flavour of Networker type unit was current at the time.
>
>The elephant in the room being they wouldn't have ever built the link to
>Heathrow. That was only achieved by Heathrow Airport paying for it (and
>hence to some extent running it as a private railway).

Yes, and part of that was that it wanted smart Airport Express trains weren't the same as normal commuter trains (a rule
it has relaxed somewhat now). So it wouldn't have simply accepted standard Networkers of the day. So, even if BR had
actually operated the service, BAA would have wanted to dictate the service standards and prices.

In message <tfnbv9$28ur5$5@dont-email.me>, at 13:24:57 on Mon, 12 Sep
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 12/09/2022 13:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tfn5c3$28dq4$3@dont-email.me>, at 11:32:19 on Mon, 12 Sep
>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> IMX many/most XC trains are absolutely packed. Wedged, one might say. The
>>>> ability to run every train as a double set would be a game-changer in
>>>> capacity on these routes where the congestion undoubtedly puts people off
>>>> from travelling.
>>>>
>>>> I would imagine (though of course I don't know for sure) that the
>>>>trains are similar enough that the staff training costs would be
>>>>quite low, one or two days at the most?
>>>
>>> When you say "XC" do you include flows like Birmingham-Stansted? Which I
>>> agree are often very full, but double-sets of what: Turbostars, or
>>> replace all of those with Voyager/Meridians?
>>
>> I suggest they put the extra Voyager/Meridians on the Birmingham
>> Stansted services and give us the Turbostars released on the Cardiff
>> Nottingham services.
>
>If those Birmingham-Stansted services are usually 3-car 170, a 4-car
>voyager

What about 5-car Meridians?

>will be a reduction in capacity.
>
>*checks RTT* they are.

It's a mixture of 2-car and 3-car.

>*checks further* there's an interesting mix of 2, 3 and 4 car trains on the
>Cardiff-Birmingham trains!

Are the 4-car a pair of 2-car 170's?
--
Roland Perry

In message <tfnbv8$28ur5$4@dont-email.me>, at 13:24:56 on Mon, 12 Sep
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tfn5c3$28dq4$3@dont-email.me>, at 11:32:19 on Mon, 12 Sep
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>
>>> IMX many/most XC trains are absolutely packed. Wedged, one might say. The
>>> ability to run every train as a double set would be a game-changer in
>>> capacity on these routes where the congestion undoubtedly puts people off
>>> from travelling.
>>>
>>> I would imagine (though of course I don't know for sure) that the trains
>>> are similar enough that the staff training costs would be quite low, one or
>>> two days at the most?
>>
>> When you say "XC" do you include flows like Birmingham-Stansted? Which I
>> agree are often very full, but double-sets of what: Turbostars, or
>> replace all of those with Voyager/Meridians?
>
>I'm thinking largely of the original XC network, ie the services currently
>operated mostly by single voyagers.
>
>On what you call the 'XC lite' network, I presume that platform lengths in
>many places (and lack of SDO) preclude operation of longer than 4-cars.

I've not done a comprehensive survey, but can't think of any off-hand.

Or they could do what Avanti does with pairs of Voyagers, and announce
which half you need to be in to alight at some of the stations ahead.
--
Roland Perry

On 12/09/2022 12:32, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tflblg$20pe6$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:07:29 on Sun, 11 Sep
>> 2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> Midland Main Line electrification will displace some Class 222s. They
>>> are not compatible with Class 220 & 221, so where do they go?
>>
>> Not compatible in what sense? Coupling up perhaps. So use them coupled
>> up (should that even be required) to each other, not mix-and-matched.
>>
>
> I would imagine a mixed fleet of 220/221 and 222 would trouble XC no more
> than a mixed fleet of 220/221, 170 and HST. You might hope that if XC got
> the whole 222 fleet that they'd be running everything as 8/9 car sets
> anyway so no need to worry about coupling!
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>

What would be sensible, and how the DfT acts are rarely in agreement.

I don't know all the technical details, but it is my understanding that
whilst 222s superficially resemble Voyagers, there are internal
differences, probably including software, that would make it expensive
to make them compatible with classes 220/221.

But the greater difficulty would be getting DfT to finance extra stock
for XC. It has been obvious for many years that Whitehall cares little
about overcrowding or inconvenience, especially in areas remote from
London.

As for putting 220/221 or 222 on Birmingham / Stansted services, that
would not be sensible. Their door layout is not ideal for fast boarding
/ alighting, and there is nowhere that their high speed capability could
be used. Also, I suspect that platforms at some intermediate stations
might now be too short for them.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tfnbv9$28ur5$5@dont-email.me>, at 13:24:57 on Mon, 12 Sep
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 12/09/2022 13:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <tfn5c3$28dq4$3@dont-email.me>, at 11:32:19 on Mon, 12 Sep
>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> IMX many/most XC trains are absolutely packed. Wedged, one might say. The
>>>>> ability to run every train as a double set would be a game-changer in
>>>>> capacity on these routes where the congestion undoubtedly puts people off
>>>>> from travelling.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would imagine (though of course I don't know for sure) that the
>>>>> trains are similar enough that the staff training costs would be
>>>>> quite low, one or two days at the most?
>>>>
>>>> When you say "XC" do you include flows like Birmingham-Stansted? Which I
>>>> agree are often very full, but double-sets of what: Turbostars, or
>>>> replace all of those with Voyager/Meridians?
>>>
>>> I suggest they put the extra Voyager/Meridians on the Birmingham
>>> Stansted services and give us the Turbostars released on the Cardiff
>>> Nottingham services.
>>
>> If those Birmingham-Stansted services are usually 3-car 170, a 4-car
>> voyager
>
> What about 5-car Meridians?
>

Will they fit in all the platforms?

>> will be a reduction in capacity.
>>
>> *checks RTT* they are.
>
> It's a mixture of 2-car and 3-car.
>

All 3-car today.

>> *checks further* there's an interesting mix of 2, 3 and 4 car trains on the
>> Cardiff-Birmingham trains!
>
> Are the 4-car a pair of 2-car 170's?

Yes.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tfnbv8$28ur5$4@dont-email.me>, at 13:24:56 on Mon, 12 Sep
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tfn5c3$28dq4$3@dont-email.me>, at 11:32:19 on Mon, 12 Sep
>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> IMX many/most XC trains are absolutely packed. Wedged, one might say. The
>>>> ability to run every train as a double set would be a game-changer in
>>>> capacity on these routes where the congestion undoubtedly puts people off
>>>> from travelling.
>>>>
>>>> I would imagine (though of course I don't know for sure) that the trains
>>>> are similar enough that the staff training costs would be quite low, one or
>>>> two days at the most?
>>>
>>> When you say "XC" do you include flows like Birmingham-Stansted? Which I
>>> agree are often very full, but double-sets of what: Turbostars, or
>>> replace all of those with Voyager/Meridians?
>>
>> I'm thinking largely of the original XC network, ie the services currently
>> operated mostly by single voyagers.
>>
>> On what you call the 'XC lite' network, I presume that platform lengths in
>> many places (and lack of SDO) preclude operation of longer than 4-cars.
>
> I've not done a comprehensive survey, but can't think of any off-hand.
>

Lydney and Chepstow for a start, the first two that I checked.

> Or they could do what Avanti does with pairs of Voyagers, and announce
> which half you need to be in to alight at some of the stations ahead.
>

I'm not aware of SDO fitted to Voyagers, so presumably that refers to half
the train being left behind at some intermediate station.

Interestingly class 222s apparently *do* have SDO.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 12/09/2022 13:08, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On 11 Sep 2022 11:15:41 +0100 (BST)
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>> There are also the 30 class 379 units sitting idle. And for a while
>>>> the future of the class 707s, only a few years old, was in doubt.
>>>>
>>>> I think Muttley's right and there's something structurally wrong with
>>>> the train leasing/provision system. I know that with interest rates
>>>> effectively at zero and lots of cash looking for a home it's entirely
>>>> possible - even likely - that the TOCs acted rationally, but that's
>>>> where a fragmented industry gets you. It's wasteful and shouldn't have
>>>> happened.
>>>
>>> I think the real killer is the combination of a small fleet of electric
>>> trains. Had they been diesel they could have been taken up by somebody to
>>> run a short branch line service, maybe even a preserved railway. Witness
>>> how many of the Pacers survive. But they're AC electric which lines only
>>> exist as part of much bigger networks.
>>>
>>> Operators of AC electric networks don't want a small fleet of trains
>>> different to what they have - it just causes lots of hassles in the depot
>>> (if they even have their own maintenance depot any more and don't have a
>>> build and maintain contract with their train supplier). The only isolated
>>> electric network small enough for a fleet of 5 units I can think of is
>>> Island Line, but that's DC and now not in need of new trains.
>>>
>>> Which leaves conversion to diesel (didn't work very well with the 230s or
>>> 769s, not worth doing for such a tiny class) or some niche application (ROG
>>> tried parcels, didn't work). There is another question about whether they
>>> are technically more complicated to convert than, say, a D78, given the
>>> software work likely to be involved.
>>>
>>> Had this been BR I think they still might have gone for scrap, for the same
>>
>> Had it been BR its highly unlikely they'd have been built in the first place.
>>
>
> You're still missing the fact that this wasn't BR, a BR-substitute, a TOC
> or a ROSCO. They were ordered by BAA, just like the HEX 332s.
>
> Whether the HEX/HConn services would have been operated by BR if
> privatisation hadn't happened is another discussion, but the precedent for
> private operation, or at least private procurement and ownership of stock,
> had been set some while earlier with the class 59 locomotives.
>
>> BR may have had its faults but it was generally pragmatic and would have
>> repurposed other stock for Heathrow and wouldn't have so many different types
>> of new stock which are all variations on a theme. Just how many types of EMU
>> do there need to be FFS?
>>
>
> Well unless you want to still be manufacturing SUBs and BILs, designs need
> to change and be replaced over time.
>
> Also unless you want now non-existent BR to build all its own trains, you
> have to allow for each of the major manufacturers having an EMU design
> suitable for UK use.
>
> So that gives you the basic types we have now: Electrostar, Desiro,
> Aventra, Flirt, Hitachi's AT200 and whatever CAF call theirs.
>
> Then, incremental developments (better control systems, motors etc), plus
> different spec for different operators (sometimes minor, eg gWr/GEx/c2c
> 387s; sometimes major, eg 345 vs 710/720/730 or 444/450) give the multitude
> of options.
>
> It's also worth remembering how many different EMUs BR had - very similar
> 304/305/308 for example - and DMUs (surely only four different types needed
> rather than every number from 100 to 122?!).
>
> What's your solution? A prescribed list of classes from which operators can
> order? Forbid new manufacturers from entering the UK market? (Sorry Stadler
> and CAF, we've got enough already thanks)
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver

To your last point - yes to some extent. At least it should have been
specified that all trains should have been built with a single type of
coupling and compatible software, so that trains could be coupled
together - either to boost capacity, or to permit one dmu to couple to,
and remove a failed unit of different design.

For example, all the 14x and 15x classes could be coupled and run
together. Now, Manchester Piccadilly (for example) can get 15x, 175, 195
and 220/221 classes, none of which can couple together, and chaos can
arise if one of them fails, because there is nothing nearby capable of
moving the failed unit.

In message <tfnjoo$29heh$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:38:01 on Mon, 12 Sep
2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>On 12/09/2022 12:32, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tflblg$20pe6$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:07:29 on Sun, 11 Sep
>>> 2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Midland Main Line electrification will displace some Class 222s. They
>>>> are not compatible with Class 220 & 221, so where do they go?
>>>
>>> Not compatible in what sense? Coupling up perhaps. So use them coupled
>>> up (should that even be required) to each other, not mix-and-matched.
>>>
>> I would imagine a mixed fleet of 220/221 and 222 would trouble XC no
>>more
>> than a mixed fleet of 220/221, 170 and HST. You might hope that if XC got
>> the whole 222 fleet that they'd be running everything as 8/9 car sets
>> anyway so no need to worry about coupling!
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>
>
>What would be sensible, and how the DfT acts are rarely in agreement.
>
>I don't know all the technical details, but it is my understanding that
>whilst 222s superficially resemble Voyagers, there are internal
>differences, probably including software, that would make it expensive
>to make them compatible with classes 220/221.
>
>But the greater difficulty would be getting DfT to finance extra stock
>for XC. It has been obvious for many years that Whitehall cares little
>about overcrowding or inconvenience, especially in areas remote from
>London.
>
>As for putting 220/221 or 222 on Birmingham / Stansted services, that
>would not be sensible. Their door layout is not ideal for fast boarding
>/ alighting, and there is nowhere that their high speed capability
>could be used.

High speed isn't the issue here.

>Also, I suspect that platforms at some intermediate stations might now
>be too short for them.

See the reply I gave earlier.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 17:41:20 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 17:55:45 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I was thinking something similar to Muttley: what’s so different about
>the
>>>> Heathrow 360s from other Siemens stock of the same vintage and overall
>>>> likeness, the 360/1s, the various 350s and even the 450s?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In terms of why the 360/2s have begun to be scrapped, and the others
>>> haven't, the main difference as I said is that they've always been
>>> privately-owned, not by a TOC or ROSCO.
>>>
>>> They don't have corridor connections between coupled units, like the EMR
>>> 360s, but unlike the 350s and 450s.
>>>
>>> The other factor which I neglected to mention in my reply to Muttley is
>>> that there's currently no shortage of AC EMU stock in the UK, in fact
>>> there's a lot in storage and more being delivered to replace the last of
>>> the legacy fleets AIUI.
>>
>> This simply proves the procurement system has gone badly wrong. Money seems
>> to have been thrown at new stock in the last few years for no good reason
>> because the old stocks were far from life expired.
>
>DfT decision to encourage franchise bids to include new stock, even where
>not perhaps required; plus wanting to be seen to give new trains to areas
>which usually get cascaded stock.

I'm not really too interested in the bizarre reasoning. Whats clear is that
ultimately taxpayers money is being wasted procuring new trains when older
perfect fit stock is still available. Eg why did Greater Anglia need 100 million
worth of new 720s? What exactly was wrong with the 357s?

>
>> Now we have the absurd
>> situation of 17 year old EMUs being scrapped. You wouldn't even scrap a bus
>> at that age!
>>
>>
>
>I think you're rather mistaken about the bus industry.

So all those 20+ year old (some ex-TfL) buses I see around some of the
Hertfordshire county towns are figments of my imagination?

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 12:08:43 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>Well unless you want to still be manufacturing SUBs and BILs, designs need
>to change and be replaced over time.

They don't need to change every 5 mins. Just off the top of my head we've
had the 700, 701, 707, 710, 717, 720, 310, 345 just in the london area alone
in the last few years! Why so many??

>Also unless you want now non-existent BR to build all its own trains, you
>have to allow for each of the major manufacturers having an EMU design
>suitable for UK use.

The UK doesn't have much variation in conditions so if EMU A is suitable
then why is EMU B ordered by someone else? They can't both be the best solution.
They're just boxes on wheels and can be specced as appropriate.

>What's your solution? A prescribed list of classes from which operators can
>order? Forbid new manufacturers from entering the UK market? (Sorry Stadler
>and CAF, we've got enough already thanks)

If it saves the taxpayer money then yes. LU finally got the memo and ordered
a single stock for the subsurface lines so why can't TOCs do the same or is it
glad handing and brown envelopes at various business do's?

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:08:41 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 13:20:30 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>The elephant in the room being they wouldn't have ever built the link to
>>Heathrow. That was only achieved by Heathrow Airport paying for it (and
>>hence to some extent running it as a private railway).
>
>Yes, and part of that was that it wanted smart Airport Express trains weren't
>the same as normal commuter trains (a rule
>it has relaxed somewhat now). So it wouldn't have simply accepted standard
>Networkers of the day. So, even if BR had
>actually operated the service, BAA would have wanted to dictate the service
>standards and prices.

And BR would have probably have said you use the trains we say or they don't
go on our network.

In message <tfnl7c$4t3$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:02:52 on Mon, 12 Sep
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 17:41:20 -0000 (UTC)
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 17:55:45 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I was thinking something similar to Muttley: what’s so different about
>>the
>>>>> Heathrow 360s from other Siemens stock of the same vintage and overall
>>>>> likeness, the 360/1s, the various 350s and even the 450s?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In terms of why the 360/2s have begun to be scrapped, and the others
>>>> haven't, the main difference as I said is that they've always been
>>>> privately-owned, not by a TOC or ROSCO.
>>>>
>>>> They don't have corridor connections between coupled units, like the EMR
>>>> 360s, but unlike the 350s and 450s.
>>>>
>>>> The other factor which I neglected to mention in my reply to Muttley is
>>>> that there's currently no shortage of AC EMU stock in the UK, in fact
>>>> there's a lot in storage and more being delivered to replace the last of
>>>> the legacy fleets AIUI.
>>>
>>> This simply proves the procurement system has gone badly wrong. Money seems
>>> to have been thrown at new stock in the last few years for no good reason
>>> because the old stocks were far from life expired.
>>
>>DfT decision to encourage franchise bids to include new stock, even where
>>not perhaps required; plus wanting to be seen to give new trains to areas
>>which usually get cascaded stock.
>
>I'm not really too interested in the bizarre reasoning. Whats clear is
>that ultimately taxpayers money is being wasted procuring new trains

Dutch taxpayers' money, presumably?

> when older perfect fit stock is still available. Eg why did Greater
>Anglia need 100 million worth of new 720s? What exactly was wrong with
>the 357s?

I think they said they wanted an integrated consistent fleet, not about
ten different types.

--
Roland Perry

In message <tfnkij$29nh5$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:51:47 on Mon, 12 Sep
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tfnbv9$28ur5$5@dont-email.me>, at 13:24:57 on Mon, 12 Sep
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 12/09/2022 13:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <tfn5c3$28dq4$3@dont-email.me>, at 11:32:19 on Mon, 12 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> IMX many/most XC trains are absolutely packed. Wedged, one might say. The
>>>>>> ability to run every train as a double set would be a game-changer in
>>>>>> capacity on these routes where the congestion undoubtedly puts people off
>>>>>> from travelling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would imagine (though of course I don't know for sure) that the
>>>>>> trains are similar enough that the staff training costs would be
>>>>>> quite low, one or two days at the most?
>>>>>
>>>>> When you say "XC" do you include flows like Birmingham-Stansted? Which I
>>>>> agree are often very full, but double-sets of what: Turbostars, or
>>>>> replace all of those with Voyager/Meridians?
>>>>
>>>> I suggest they put the extra Voyager/Meridians on the Birmingham
>>>> Stansted services and give us the Turbostars released on the Cardiff
>>>> Nottingham services.
>>>
>>> If those Birmingham-Stansted services are usually 3-car 170, a 4-car
>>> voyager
>>
>> What about 5-car Meridians?
>>
>
>Will they fit in all the platforms?
>
>>> will be a reduction in capacity.
>>>
>>> *checks RTT* they are.
>>
>> It's a mixture of 2-car and 3-car.
>
>All 3-car today.

That's a fairly new development. And I see last week they sprinkled in a
few 6's!
--
Roland Perry

In message <tfnlt1$g8u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:14:25 on Mon, 12 Sep
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:

>>What's your solution? A prescribed list of classes from which operators can
>>order? Forbid new manufacturers from entering the UK market? (Sorry Stadler
>>and CAF, we've got enough already thanks)
>
>If it saves the taxpayer money then yes. LU finally got the memo and ordered
>a single stock for the subsurface lines so why can't TOCs do the same

Hold on! GA got the memo, and now you are criticizing them for doing it.
--
Roland Perry

Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/09/2022 13:08, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On 11 Sep 2022 11:15:41 +0100 (BST)
>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>>> There are also the 30 class 379 units sitting idle. And for a while
>>>>> the future of the class 707s, only a few years old, was in doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Muttley's right and there's something structurally wrong with
>>>>> the train leasing/provision system. I know that with interest rates
>>>>> effectively at zero and lots of cash looking for a home it's entirely
>>>>> possible - even likely - that the TOCs acted rationally, but that's
>>>>> where a fragmented industry gets you. It's wasteful and shouldn't have
>>>>> happened.
>>>>
>>>> I think the real killer is the combination of a small fleet of electric
>>>> trains. Had they been diesel they could have been taken up by somebody to
>>>> run a short branch line service, maybe even a preserved railway. Witness
>>>> how many of the Pacers survive. But they're AC electric which lines only
>>>> exist as part of much bigger networks.
>>>>
>>>> Operators of AC electric networks don't want a small fleet of trains
>>>> different to what they have - it just causes lots of hassles in the depot
>>>> (if they even have their own maintenance depot any more and don't have a
>>>> build and maintain contract with their train supplier). The only isolated
>>>> electric network small enough for a fleet of 5 units I can think of is
>>>> Island Line, but that's DC and now not in need of new trains.
>>>>
>>>> Which leaves conversion to diesel (didn't work very well with the 230s or
>>>> 769s, not worth doing for such a tiny class) or some niche application (ROG
>>>> tried parcels, didn't work). There is another question about whether they
>>>> are technically more complicated to convert than, say, a D78, given the
>>>> software work likely to be involved.
>>>>
>>>> Had this been BR I think they still might have gone for scrap, for the same
>>>
>>> Had it been BR its highly unlikely they'd have been built in the first place.
>>>
>>
>> You're still missing the fact that this wasn't BR, a BR-substitute, a TOC
>> or a ROSCO. They were ordered by BAA, just like the HEX 332s.
>>
>> Whether the HEX/HConn services would have been operated by BR if
>> privatisation hadn't happened is another discussion, but the precedent for
>> private operation, or at least private procurement and ownership of stock,
>> had been set some while earlier with the class 59 locomotives.
>>
>>> BR may have had its faults but it was generally pragmatic and would have
>>> repurposed other stock for Heathrow and wouldn't have so many different types
>>> of new stock which are all variations on a theme. Just how many types of EMU
>>> do there need to be FFS?
>>>
>>
>> Well unless you want to still be manufacturing SUBs and BILs, designs need
>> to change and be replaced over time.
>>
>> Also unless you want now non-existent BR to build all its own trains, you
>> have to allow for each of the major manufacturers having an EMU design
>> suitable for UK use.
>>
>> So that gives you the basic types we have now: Electrostar, Desiro,
>> Aventra, Flirt, Hitachi's AT200 and whatever CAF call theirs.
>>
>> Then, incremental developments (better control systems, motors etc), plus
>> different spec for different operators (sometimes minor, eg gWr/GEx/c2c
>> 387s; sometimes major, eg 345 vs 710/720/730 or 444/450) give the multitude
>> of options.
>>
>> It's also worth remembering how many different EMUs BR had - very similar
>> 304/305/308 for example - and DMUs (surely only four different types needed
>> rather than every number from 100 to 122?!).
>>
>> What's your solution? A prescribed list of classes from which operators can
>> order? Forbid new manufacturers from entering the UK market? (Sorry Stadler
>> and CAF, we've got enough already thanks)
>>
>>
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
> To your last point - yes to some extent. At least it should have been
> specified that all trains should have been built with a single type of
> coupling and compatible software, so that trains could be coupled
> together - either to boost capacity, or to permit one dmu to couple to,
> and remove a failed unit of different design.
>
> For example, all the 14x and 15x classes could be coupled and run
> together. Now, Manchester Piccadilly (for example) can get 15x, 175, 195
> and 220/221 classes, none of which can couple together, and chaos can
> arise if one of them fails, because there is nothing nearby capable of
> moving the failed unit.
>
>

14x 15x and 170 can all couple but don't forget that it's a BR decision
that 16x can't.

15x might all be compatible but they shared Manchester Picc with 101s,
305/309, 323, 47/86/90, just as much incompatibility then as now!

Each new generation of stock has a step-change in quantity and quality of
on-board computing equipment (I've signed 175/180 and IET, and route
learned on Voyagers, so I’ve seen ~20 years of progress on that front).
Restrict everything to being compatible with (…with what? 150s? Or 175s, as
the first computerised generation?) and you potentially remove a lot of the
newer features available on current stock.

Some incompatibility needs to occur somewhere or else we'd still be on, for
example, vacuum brakes, or even no brakes.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 17:41:20 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 17:55:45 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I was thinking something similar to Muttley: what’s so different about
>> the
>>>>> Heathrow 360s from other Siemens stock of the same vintage and overall
>>>>> likeness, the 360/1s, the various 350s and even the 450s?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In terms of why the 360/2s have begun to be scrapped, and the others
>>>> haven't, the main difference as I said is that they've always been
>>>> privately-owned, not by a TOC or ROSCO.
>>>>
>>>> They don't have corridor connections between coupled units, like the EMR
>>>> 360s, but unlike the 350s and 450s.
>>>>
>>>> The other factor which I neglected to mention in my reply to Muttley is
>>>> that there's currently no shortage of AC EMU stock in the UK, in fact
>>>> there's a lot in storage and more being delivered to replace the last of
>>>> the legacy fleets AIUI.
>>>
>>> This simply proves the procurement system has gone badly wrong. Money seems
>>> to have been thrown at new stock in the last few years for no good reason
>>> because the old stocks were far from life expired.
>>
>> DfT decision to encourage franchise bids to include new stock, even where
>> not perhaps required; plus wanting to be seen to give new trains to areas
>> which usually get cascaded stock.
>
> I'm not really too interested in the bizarre reasoning. Whats clear is that
> ultimately taxpayers money is being wasted procuring new trains when older
> perfect fit stock is still available. Eg why did Greater Anglia need 100 million
> worth of new 720s? What exactly was wrong with the 357s?
>

357s don't run on GA and all of them are still in service with c2c.

Presuming you meant 379s, yes that's very much what I was talking about in
my reply; DfT encouraging new stock where not needed, and a lack of a
rolling programme of electrification to cascade to.

>>
>>> Now we have the absurd
>>> situation of 17 year old EMUs being scrapped. You wouldn't even scrap a bus
>>> at that age!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think you're rather mistaken about the bus industry.
>
> So all those 20+ year old (some ex-TfL) buses I see around some of the
> Hertfordshire county towns are figments of my imagination?
>

I suspect that a great deal of the original batches that were purchased
have fallen by the wayside by now. [1]

[1] unlike trains where these days fleets tend to be replaced as a whole,
rather than in BR era ending up with "the last three" of some class hanging
on for years.

In Bristol I rarely see buses older than about ten years.

Clearly some older buses survive, especially with smaller operators, but I
suspect the vast majority die around 15-20 years old.

Also, relevant to this thread, certain large operators are very willing to
scrap serviceable vehicles rather than have other operators use them, or
preservation.

Anna Noyd-Dryver