Atomic Systems

My Dad has been working on the new tunnels (which one has a leak, oops) and the trains are rumored to be something like a 376 but a 12 car with no doors in between the coaches ( ).
Here are some of the specs:
No Ganways at Cabs (376 front).
No slidy doors between coaches.
12 Car (to manage congestion).
Air Con (yay).
First Class.
Overhead wires.

Platforms on the FCC route will need to be lengthened to 12 car instead of 6 (grr, more building work). London bridge will include this in it's new design (for those who don't know, 9 platforms through, 6 terminating).
Also the new spec will be more or less the same for Crossrail (more ), I can remember 1 service proposed which will be: Letchworth Garden City-Guildford. At the meeting where Halcrow (my dad works for them), Network rail, DfT, First and FCC attended, DfT said sarcasticly that First wasn't a proffesional group ( ).

Hope it proves interesting.

NB. London bridge is being bid for on Friday.

I went on one of the new Metro trains in Paris a couple of weeks ago, and they have a full car width gangway between the coaches, with no doors, and I was very impressed. It was a bit odd at first being able to see through six coaches, but it made a busy train seem a lot less congested.

one of these by any chance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_378

And I think the layout will be much like http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/de/ele ... r/pix.html (Thats a German S-Bahn EMU - prob equivilent to a 455) - but TfL have specced tube style longitudal seats, 378s won't be quite that wide, see http://bp3.blogger.com/_RZ_ujIXCINU/SCC ... ostar2.jpg for a rough idea

To my knowledge, nothing has been formally decided regarding the Key Output 2 service pattern - indeed there are some major inconsistencies within DfT between the Thameslink specification and the IEP specification*. Morever, KO2 is something for the future "Greater Thameslink" franchise, after 2015.

The new Thameslink trains are out to tender, with four bidders (Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens and Hitachi). From what the specification requires, there is a lot more flexibility in the design compared with IEP. I doubt it is entirely certain that it will be a development of the Electrostar - indeed, it won't be if any of the other bidders win. And it will almost certainly not involve fixed 12-car formations - you will be looking at 80m or 120m formations (4x20m or 6x20m equivalent) running in multiple to form 240m trains (12x20m equivalent).

Alstom are rumoured to be putting in an articulated design - probably a UK-gauge version of the unsuccessful 'Nouveau Automotrice Transilien' Coradia Lirex design, with some components from the new AGV design (permanent magnet motorised axles - very 'tech'). Bombardier and Siemens will likely put the Electrostar and Desiro UK families through WeightWatchers and hope that it is good enough. And Hitachi will either revive the commuter A-Train design, or simply adapt a stock Japanese-market EMU to UK requirements. That doesn't rule out Bombardier putting up a UK version of the LightTrain (DBAG Class 423), or Siemens doing likewise, but there will be the risk of having a high level of development to achieve the technical specification, and thus not being able to deliver within the required timescales.

There are certain technical risks with any design: Class 378-style longitudinal seating will not go down well with anyone - particularly if they end up on service groups which break the 20-minute rule (Passengers In Excess of Capacity - the number of passengers will not exceed the number of standard-class seats where the heaviest-loaded leg of the journey is more than 20 minutes**). The lack of gangways between units may make them unpopular - especially when the 'Key Output 0' (March 2009) Class 377s will make them seem like a retrograde step. And if they are to have no gangway - why the Class 376-style front? I know I bang on about aerodynamics, but at a sustained 100mph, air resistance does form something close to 75% of the friction acting on the average four-car EMU - so a bit of aerodynamics will save quite a few kWh. It also allows a bit more style to go into the design, rather than simply another inconspicuous brick with windows. As I said above, they will be either 80m or 120m formations - more likely the former to allow for the residual 8-car workings on routes where platforms cannot reasonably be extended (ie those where DfT/NR won't stump up the cash). It also allows for formations to be varied according to demand - running around fixed 12-car sets all day is very wasteful on resources (not least energy) and is a maintenance and operational headache. And one important feature not mentioned by the original poster - third-rail pickup shoes. They won't be getting very far south of Farringdon/City Thameslink*** without them.

* - The two (Thameslink and IEP) are separate teams within DfT, which, if they can't privately agree their own boundaries where specifications overlap (as it does do on the ECML), raises the question as to who they are calling unprofessional.

** - this helps explain why the fast services between Cambridge and Kings Cross, Reading and Paddington, and Woking and Waterloo always score badly in PIXC - it's not that they are especially heavily loaded, it is more a case of journey times being in excess of 20 minutes thus no allowance can be made for standing room.

*** - the AC/DC changeover is being moved to City Thameslink.