Theoretical Design For A New DMU For Portsmouth-Cardiff Services

[whole diary]

[swlines]

Disagree.

They're overweight piles of junk. The concept needs redesigning and the engines need to be more spread out.

[Btline]

But they offer improved acceleration, and less dwell than 158s.

[swlines]

Again. Disagree.

185s are unsuitable for the TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) route - a lot of commuters have this view. There is a lack of seating due to it being a 1/3 and 2/3 door alignment.

Portsmouth to Cardiff is majorly different mainly due to the fact that trains stop less than on TPE, are not used as much as TPE for commuter through traffic (feel free to dispute this, but it's a fact and is unavoidable). Carriage end doors as per the 158 and 444 fleets would be far more suitable for Cardiff Pompey.

[Btline]

Again. Disagree.

185s are unsuitable for the TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) route - a lot of commuters have this view. There is a lack of seating due to it being a 1/3 and 2/3 door alignment.

Portsmouth to Cardiff is majorly different mainly due to the fact that trains stop less than on TPE, are not used as much as TPE for commuter through traffic (feel free to dispute this, but it's a fact and is unavoidable). Carriage end doors as per the 158 and 444 fleets would be far more suitable for Cardiff Pompey.

Actually, passengers prefer the new 185s "particularly the ease of getting on and off." This is due to the doors.

Punctuality has improved - look at another thread on this forum - FTPE^» (First TransPennine Express - website) are right up near the top.

The reason why there are not enough seats is that the trains are only 3 cars! The gov would not fund (according to Wikipedia) an extra coach.

The fact that the trains stop more on Cardiff to "Pompey" (Portsmouth?)  points towards having the better acceleration.

They are also more reliable and eco friendly.

They have faults (like their weight etc.), but these could be fixed for mark 2.

[swlines]

The "ease of getting on and off" has reduced the number of seats. People like seats. Seats = good. I'll agree it improves the possibility of getting on and off quicker reducing dwell time, but I don't think people enjoy standing on 1hr+ journies!

Punctuality has improved for one reason. The timetable hasn't changed much, only a bit of tightening up, and hence there is more slack to play with.

The reason why the trains do not have enough seats are because the doors are too bloody big and occupy too much of the coach. There is still an option for an additional 185 coach.

Let's review a train on the TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) route, Scarborough to Manchester Airport against Cardiff to Portsmouth.

Scarborough - Seamer: 2 miles 72 chains
Seamer - Malton: 18 miles 2 chains
Malton - York (85~mph linespeed): 21 miles 12 chains
York - Leeds: 25 miles 46 chains
Leeds - Dewsbury: 9 miles 12 chains
Dewsbury - Huddersfield: 8 miles 2 chains
Huddersfield - Manchester Piccadilly (70 - 80mph linespeed): 25 miles 28 chains
Manchester Piccadilly - M. Airport (15 - 60mph linespeed): 9 miles 72 chains

You get the idea here where the TPE route is fairly high speed and has varying lengths between stations...

Cardiff Central - Newport S Wales: 11 miles 60 chains
Newport S Wales - Filton Abbey Wd: 23 miles 12 chains
Filton Abbey Wd - Bristol Temple Mds: 4 miles 28 chains
Bristol Temple Mds - Bath Spa: 11 miles 40 chains

I'm not going to continue but bear in mind the average linespeed between stops on the Cardiff Portsmouth route is lower - therefore the enhanced speed potential is sort of negated as 185s cannot take advantage of Sprinter linespeed differentials at present unless the infrastructure is upgraded. That's occured on all TPE lines and, well, you get the idea. The problem with introducing the heavy 185s is that you cannot really benefit without spending thousands on P.Way improvements (which could be better used in upgrading other lines, such as the Cotswolds).

185s are more reliable but are certainly not more eco friendly than 158s!! Only the EM mode that has been introduced more recently has improved it - and this only works by dropping out one engine where required... such are the problems of using the same engines as a Voyager!

[devon_metro]

I'm not sure that 1/3 and 2/3 doors are ideal, they reduce seating capacity and also luggage space. Sure, there are longer dwell times with end doors but the 158s with the slowest doors known to man seem to cope!

[Btline]

But what I am saying is that you could add an extra coach to make up for the loss of seats.

And make them lighter.

[swlines]

You can't just make something lighter... if you could we'd all have magic wands, have little broomsticks we fly around on...

Btline - you can't just make trains longer either! In this day of computers, adding an additional coach requires rebuilding the software!!

[devon_metro]

But what I am saying is that you could add an extra coach to make up for the loss of seats.

And make them lighter.

Btline. We live in a world of efficiency. They aren't going to fund an extra coach to get the same seats as having one less are they?

[swlines]

It would all be so much easier if we could fly around on English Electric powered broomsticks.

[Btline]

You can't just make something lighter... if you could we'd all have magic wands, have little broomsticks we fly around on...

Btline - you can't just make trains longer either! In this day of computers, adding an additional coach requires rebuilding the software!!

Umm, I'm not talking about modifying exiting stock, but designing new stock (as per the title) based on the 185. Therefore there would not be any need for software mods and it would be possible to design something to be lighter without using a magic wand.

e.g. The new 172s (as in my picture), are the same as the 168s,170s and 171s. However, they are to be lighter, with improved acceleration.
e.g. The Meridians are clones of the Voyagers - with improvements.

Therefore we do live in a world where this is possible!

But what I am saying is that you could add an extra coach to make up for the loss of seats.

Btline. We live in a world of efficiency. They aren't going to fund an extra coach to get the same seats as having one less are they?

A valid point, but any new build will loose seats anyway - wheelchair toilet/space (which I am all for, IF the train length is increased to compensate).

In addition, new stock should be planning ahead for growth so an extra coach is needed. On FTPE^» (First TransPennine Express - website), they have made the capacity lower, when they should have made it larger. A 3 car 185 has less standard seats than a 158. A 4 car 185 would have the same number, lus "growing room."

And at the same time, delays are reduced.

Punctuality has improved for one reason. The timetable hasn't changed much, only a bit of tightening up, and hence there is more slack to play with.

That was the idea. Allow every train to arrive in stations say 30 secs earlier, cutting delays. in time, any slack which they think is too much can be tightened up, although this is unlikely.

And more FTPE people prefer the new 185 trains (surprising, considering that more commuters have to stand at peak times).

[Btline]

It would all be so much easier if we could fly around on English Electric powered broomsticks.

Perhaps, but I think even a Pacer would be more comfortable!

[swlines]

You can't just make something lighter... if you could we'd all have magic wands, have little broomsticks we fly around on...

Btline - you can't just make trains longer either! In this day of computers, adding an additional coach requires rebuilding the software!!

Umm, I'm not talking about modifying exiting stock, but designing new stock (as per the title) based on the 185. Therefore there would not be any need for software mods and it would be possible to design something to be lighter without using a magic wand.

e.g. The new 172s (as in my picture), are the same as the 168s,170s and 171s. However, they are to be lighter, with improved acceleration.
e.g. The Meridians are clones of the Voyagers - with improvements.

Therefore we do live in a world where this is possible!

One thing, 172s and Meridians are vastly different from the trash Siemens bring out ...

But what I am saying is that you could add an extra coach to make up for the loss of seats.

Btline. We live in a world of efficiency. They aren't going to fund an extra coach to get the same seats as having one less are they?

A valid point, but any new build will loose seats anyway - wheelchair toilet/space (which I am all for, IF the train length is increased to compensate).

In addition, new stock should be planning ahead for growth so an extra coach is needed. On FTPE^» (First TransPennine Express - website), they have made the capacity lower, when they should have made it larger. A 3 car 185 has less standard seats than a 158. A 4 car 185 would have the same number, lus "growing room."

And at the same time, delays are reduced.

The 3 car 185s did plan for growth ... just the growth levels were a bit, well, higher than what they were expecting. Also the huge toilets are a bit pointless, eats up half of a coach!

Punctuality has improved for one reason. The timetable hasn't changed much, only a bit of tightening up, and hence there is more slack to play with.

That was the idea. Allow every train to arrive in stations say 30 secs earlier, cutting delays. in time, any slack which they think is too much can be tightened up, although this is unlikely.

And more FTPE people prefer the new 185 trains (surprising, considering that more commuters have to stand at peak times).

TCpedia asks... citation needed! And enthusiasts don't count for preferring 185 trains.

You can't tighten an already tight schedule, btw. TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) interface with a number of TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) and once they lose their path it could delay trains across the entire Pennines...

[Btline]

You can't just make something lighter... if you could we'd all have magic wands, have little broomsticks we fly around on...

Btline - you can't just make trains longer either! In this day of computers, adding an additional coach requires rebuilding the software!!

Umm, I'm not talking about modifying exiting stock, but designing new stock (as per the title) based on the 185. Therefore there would not be any need for software mods and it would be possible to design something to be lighter without using a magic wand.

e.g. The new 172s (as in my picture), are the same as the 168s,170s and 171s. However, they are to be lighter, with improved acceleration.
e.g. The Meridians are clones of the Voyagers - with improvements.

Therefore we do live in a world where this is possible!

One thing, 172s and Meridians are vastly different from the trash Siemens bring out ...

But what I am saying is that you could add an extra coach to make up for the loss of seats.

Btline. We live in a world of efficiency. They aren't going to fund an extra coach to get the same seats as having one less are they?

A valid point, but any new build will loose seats anyway - wheelchair toilet/space (which I am all for, IF the train length is increased to compensate).

In addition, new stock should be planning ahead for growth so an extra coach is needed. On FTPE^» (First TransPennine Express - website), they have made the capacity lower, when they should have made it larger. A 3 car 185 has less standard seats than a 158. A 4 car 185 would have the same number, lus "growing room."

And at the same time, delays are reduced.

The 3 car 185s did plan for growth ... just the growth levels were a bit, well, higher than what they were expecting. Also the huge toilets are a bit pointless, eats up half of a coach!

Punctuality has improved for one reason. The timetable hasn't changed much, only a bit of tightening up, and hence there is more slack to play with.

That was the idea. Allow every train to arrive in stations say 30 secs earlier, cutting delays. in time, any slack which they think is too much can be tightened up, although this is unlikely.

And more FTPE people prefer the new 185 trains (surprising, considering that more commuters have to stand at peak times).

TCpedia asks... citation needed! And enthusiasts don't count for preferring 185 trains.

You can't tighten an already tight schedule, btw. TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) interface with a number of TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) and once they lose their path it could delay trains across the entire Pennines...

But how can FTPE have proveded for growth if there are less seat?

I think FTPE did a survey.

[swlines]

BTW^▸ (by the way), if TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) do a survey, surely it's in their interest to say people prefer 185s? I'd rather see it done independently!!

Aaaaalso, passenger figures on the TPE network at the time of procurement for the 185s were dropping - but in the event of an increase a 4th car option was inserted into the contract. TPE lobbied the govt. to provide this fourth car, but as you've already said they refused on grounds of cost and that there wasn't enough overcrowding....