Future Class 313 options

[40129]

Merseyrail could take a few especially if the network was extended. It could allow some more 507/508 sets to be combined to six car sets to reduce overcrowding at peak times and help fill the gap prior to any Merseyrail order for new stock being delivered, although the 507/508's are also supposed to go about the same time.

A potentially brilliant idea for Wrexham - Bidston as would improve the initial BCR of electrification by avoiding the need to procure new trains immediately.

PS: The cynical side of me says its far too obvious to happen

 

[Manchester77]

Thats essentially a line heavily used by 90/100mph capable traffic and the 313's have a max speed of 75, they would have to have very good acceleration to not reduce capacity for other services.

Good point I wasn't thinking of the full picture merely of the onboard conditions.

 

[Mikey C]

Really as someone used to traveling on Northern Junk I had a trip on a GN 313 a couple of months ago and my god what a piece of clapped out junk they are, and of course its another 4 years before they get replaced.

Ok they might do as very short term stop gap, but to be kept long term I imagine they would need a significant amount spending on them, plus im sure the publicity will be great, yes we are replacing your 30 year old Railbuses but with trains that are 10 years older, with no Toilet.

The Coastway 313s are actually quite nice, nicely painted and furnished, decent seats, a big step up from any Pacer I've been in! It shows what can be done...

 

[Manchester77]

The Coastway 313s are actually quite nice, nicely painted and furnished, decent seats, a big step up from any Pacer I've been in! It shows what can be done...

Very true however the Great Northern 313s retain mostly the original seating layout and do look quite dated. Obviously the plan for the Coastway 313s isn't clear however I'd imagine that when the southern routes start to get an influx of 377/5s from thameslink routes then some 377/3s can be cascaded to begin to replace the 313s.

 

[Mikey C]

Very true however the Great Northern 313s retain mostly the original seating layout and do look quite dated. Obviously the plan for the Coastway 313s isn't clear however I'd imagine that when the southern routes start to get an influx of 377/5s from thameslink routes then some 377/3s can be cascaded to begin to replace the 313s.

What I meant, was that the 313s, with heavy refurbishment, can be made into something reasonably nice for a short term 5-10 years period of service, whereas the Pacers will always be, er Pacers whatever you do with them

 

[HSTEd]

I thought we were talking about the 3 car 313s with around 200 seats? Preston-Hazel Grove services are operated by 4 car Sprinters at peak time with up to 300 seats and they aren't that many empty seats on some services. But maybe you're assuming 6 car operation with a few platforms like Davenport being lengthened?

There are a lot of platform lengthenings going on in the North West over the next few years, lengthening a couple from 4x23m to 6x20m (so by ~28m) is probably not going to be impossible.
We are apparently swimming in units so six car operation might even be the rule rather than the exception.

There aren't any plans to make Hazel Grove-Preston more frequent. In fact the long term future of the route as it stands isn't guaranteed - Stockport to Preston will stay as is but Hazel Grove may not remain the origin. (Network Rail analysis stated the Hazel Grove path could be more effectively used for a half-hourly Buxton service or a Manchester-Hazel Grove-Chinley service.)

PEP based EMUs eat Pacers alive in the acceleration stakes, so surely there are some paths to be gained by the improved performance of the rolling stock? And where will the diesel units come to operate these extended services?
There will be no more diesel construction by the looks of it.

Just realised you seem to be talking about diverting Hazel Grove to Preston via Wigan! Apart from there would probably be no paths to do that it would be pointless as Northern services between Manchester and Preston form the local services. Even TPE services on that route include a popular call at Bolton. That would be like diverting the LM Crewe-London service away from the Trent Valley.

I thought the route that was used for Hazel Grove to Preston services will be electrified.
We are talking nearly into CP6 and I thought bolton was supposed to be wired up by then?
Network Rail's website seems to imply project completion by 2016.

So not a probelm when the 313s aren't released until 2018.

 

[Wavertreelad]

A potentially brilliant idea for Wrexham - Bidston as would improve the initial BCR of electrification by avoiding the need to procure new trains immediately.

PS: The cynical side of me says its far too obvious to happen

Or better still Wrexham/Liverpool, plus you could do via an electrified Halton Curve Liverpool Lime Street to Ellesmere Port returning via the Wirral to Liverpool Central and back, Preston to Liverpool via Ormskirk, Wigan to Liverpool via Kirkby, and Warrington to Lime Street via CLC route.

The 507/508 and their replacements could then be concentrated on the existing Merseyrail services, leaving the 313's to provide "outer suburban services" and additional capacity and into Liverpool at relatively low start up cost.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Could a 507/508 be coupled to a 313 and operate in service without any modification or would one or both need to be modified?

 

[northwichcat]

There are a lot of platform lengthenings going on in the North West over the next few years, lengthening a couple from 4x23m to 6x20m (so by ~28m) is probably not going to be impossible.
We are apparently swimming in units so six car operation might even be the rule rather than the exception.

The CP5 plans for platform lengthening in the North West are:

 4x 24m car length at Mossley Down, Greenfield Down, Marsden, Slaithwaite, Mouldsworth, Delamere, Cuddington, Greenbank, Plumley Down, Ashley Down, Hathersage and Grindleford
 4 x 23m car length at Dove Holes, Chapel-en-le Frith, Middlewood, Woodsmoor, Humphrey Park, Glazebrook Down, New Lane, Bescar Lane, Moses Gate, Hall i’th’wood, Darwen, Ramsgreave & Wilpshire, Langho, Whalley and Clitheroe
 6 x 24m car length at Liverpool South Parkway Up and Down fast platforms, Widnes, Warrington Central and Newton-le-Willows
 3 x 23m car at Bamber Bridge Up

There's also a mention of Blackrod up to 6 x 24m - dependant on what rolling stock is to be utilised on the Manchester-Bolton-Preston line post-electrification.

Salford Crescent has just been lengthened to 6 x 24m, so 6 car 185s are covered so I can't see Network Rail funding a further extension so soon afterwards.

PEP based EMUs eat Pacers alive in the acceleration stakes, so surely there are some paths to be gained by the improved performance of the rolling stock?

Pacers are the worst of the DMUs for acceleration, but don't forget on lines being electrified there's a lot of 150s, 156s and 185s currently used.

Don't forget that there will still be DMUs operating on the Bolton-Manchester and Manchester-Stockport lines post-electrification.

And where will the diesel units come to operate these extended services?
There will be no more diesel construction by the looks of it.

The idea is the number of additional electric carriages will significantly exceed the number of diesel carriages withdrawn. This means not only do the newly electrified lines get additional capacity but non-electrified routes get additional capacity through cascades.

It was ATOC who declared no new DMUs would be required before 2024 - not never - but that was based on certain assumptions like the 150s remaining in service until at least 2024. If the 150s start failing left, right and centre they'll have to review that idea.

Also building dual-powered (diesel and electric) trains or electric trains that can do the last leg on a charged battery could be looked at. Network Rail have said such units would need to be built for regional routes which have a good business case for new rolling stock which could then result in units like 158s and 170s being cascaded down to rural routes which have a poor business case for new rolling stock or electrification.

I thought the route that was used for Hazel Grove to Preston services will be electrified.
We are talking nearly into CP6 and I thought bolton was supposed to be wired up by then?
Network Rail's website seems to imply project completion by 2016.

So not a probelm when the 313s aren't released until 2018.

You earlier said

or run a Preston-Hazel Grove train under electric traction now that a northern route out of Manchester is electrified.

Which implied diverting the service via Wigan to use the route that is now fully electrified rather than the route which will be fully electrified.

Manchester-Blackpool via Bolton should be fully electric by 2016 so we'll need something which is available before 2018.

6 car EMU formations would be good for the North West but as some-one pointed out if the 313s are to survive beyond 2019 then they'll need significant work to remain in service which may not prove economically viable.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Could a 507/508 be coupled to a 313 and operate in service without any modification or would one or both need to be modified?

They would need modification, IIRC the 508s that went to Silverlink were modified to make them able to work in multiple with the 313s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Could a 507/508 be coupled to a 313 and operate in service without any modification or would one or both need to be modified?

I'm not sure. I have a feeling that when Silverlink got a few 508s to use on Euston-Watford they were delayed into service due to needing work to couple to the 313s (which was needed to access the depot which was AC only). That said, this might have been due to some earlier modifications carried out to either fleet- as BR generally seemed to make sure units could couple wherever possible (165/166s notwithstanding!).

 

[northwichcat]

Any routes operated by a pacer or a 153 that are under the wires all the way? Could free up a few DMUs for elsewhere

Well there's one or two peak time services but they're part of diagrams which run on non-electrified routes. For example, the 07:48 Hazel Grove-Manchester is a 156. However, the previous service for that unit is 06:30 Wigan Wallgate-Hazel Grove and the next is 0817 Manchester-Chester, so if you found an EMU to do a run from Piccadilly to Hazel Grove and back, you'd probably just end up with a 156 being sat at Manchester for an hour.

 

[HSTEd]

T
There's also a mention of Blackrod up to 6 x 24m - dependant on what rolling stock is to be utilised on the Manchester-Bolton-Preston line post-electrification.

Salford Crescent has just been lengthened to 6 x 24m, so 6 car 185s are covered so I can't see Network Rail funding a further extension so soon afterwards.

That would seem to indicate that 6 x 20m is not beyond belief if most of the platforms have already been extended to support it and the rest seem soon to follow in any case.

Pacers are the worst of the DMUs for acceleration, but don't forget on lines being electrified there's a lot of 150s, 156s and 185s currently used.

As I understand it almost all Northern DMU services are timed for Pacers because the fleet is so stretched that they cannot guarantee what will turn up on any particular route on any particular day.
Massive delay payments taught them to assume the worst case on every route and just have the Sprinters pushed less hard to keep to time.

Don't forget that there will still be DMUs operating on the Bolton-Manchester and Manchester-Stockport lines post-electrification.

Yes, but those DMUs will be the faster accelerating Sprinters and not the slower Pacers. And CP6 could easily see a bunch of infill projects if there is a ready supply of 75mph EMUs and a shortage of 75mph DMUs (which appears to be the situation at the present time).

The idea is the number of additional electric carriages will significantly exceed the number of diesel carriages withdrawn. This means not only do the newly electrified lines get additional capacity but non-electrified routes get additional capacity through cascades.

There are 192 Class 313 carriages - that is a lot, it seems there would be no shortage of stock in the Manchester area (for example).
If the alternative is to scrap 190 useable vehicles or add that as capacity that seems to be a no brainer.

It was ATOC who declared no new DMUs would be required before 2024 - not never - but that was based on certain assumptions like the 150s remaining in service until at least 2024. If the 150s start failing left, right and centre they'll have to review that idea.

I was thinking more along the lines of the political connotations of ordering more 'dirty diesel' trains in the future.
The government is trying desperately to cling to 'green' credentials and ordering trains that require fuel purchased from the Russians is not going to look very good.
Better to force the railway to struggle on with existing diesels. So that is what will happen.

Also building dual-powered (diesel and electric) trains or electric trains that can do the last leg on a charged battery could be looked at. Network Rail have said such units would need to be built for regional routes which have a good business case for new rolling stock which could then result in units like 158s and 170s being cascaded down to rural routes which have a poor business case for new rolling stock or electrification.

Requires expensive bespoke new stock - if the recent past has shown us anything it is that the future is in knockoffs of a handful of designs - which at the present time appear to be the IEP, Electrostar and Desiro.
Network Rail is just terrified of being forced to electrify more stuff more quickly and would say anything to force the abandonment of the electrification programme.
(Wide deployment of dual powered units would kill the programme it appears since it removes the network effect from consideration).

Which implied diverting the service via Wigan to use the route that is now fully electrified rather than the route which will be fully electrified.

Sorry, that was my result of my not really understanding the railway network North-west of Manchester as well as I should.
I never really grasped their being more than one route out of Manchester to the North and the WCML.

Manchester-Blackpool via Bolton should be fully electric by 2016 so we'll need something which is available before 2018.

Just like we need something to work the Todmorden curve from opening?
Or we need electric trains to operate Hazel Grove services?

Just because the wires will be up and powered doesn't mean that electric trains will instantaneously appear to work them - if they were going to be available they almost certainly would have been ordered by now.

6 car EMU formations would be good for the North West but as some-one pointed out if the 313s are to survive beyond 2019 then they'll need significant work to remain in service which may not prove economically viable.

The only work they need to remain in service is a shiny certificate signed by the Secretary of State for Transport exempting them from the requirements of the DDA.
Any other work they recieve would be justified on operational and marketing grounds.

 

[sarahj]

The Southern refurb also included, PIS, new drivers desk, GSMR as well. They are fine units. i like them in a way, esp the fact that they have space in the rear for us guards to dump our stuff, work them, go to when its busy. They also have a large wheelchair space, bike area as well. Pass coms are a bit basic, but heh!.
The PIS system is better for us guards as well. Unlike on a 377 where its part of the mitrac system and can only be changed when active, we can add, modify etc the system from the back cab. I have a nice book of codes for as/when needed. And much better than the old roller blinds we used to have when we first got them.
Only issues with the seats as, as they are all facing, is punters with their feet on them.:-x

 

[evergreenadam]

Well there's one or two peak time services but they're part of diagrams which run on non-electrified routes. For example, the 07:48 Hazel Grove-Manchester is a 156. However, the previous service for that unit is 06:30 Wigan Wallgate-Hazel Grove and the next is 0817 Manchester-Chester, so if you found an EMU to do a run from Piccadilly to Hazel Grove and back, you'd probably just end up with a 156 being sat at Manchester for an hour.

Why/when was the short route to Hazel Grove electrified?

 

[northwichcat]

Why/when was the short route to Hazel Grove electrified?

1981, so the overheads had 27 years of regular use before the December 2008 timetable changes.

In the 1980s there were some cross-Manchester EMU services. The Altrincham-Sale-Manchester line was still British Rail and had OHEs and some of those services continued to Hazel Grove or Wilmslow. Conversion of the Altrincham-Sale-Manchester line to Metrolink meant EMUs arriving in central Manchester from Stockport/Ardwick direction couldn't continue beyond central Manchester (except to Old Trafford Football Ground) until a few months ago.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are 192 Class 313 carriages - that is a lot, it seems there would be no shortage of stock in the Manchester area (for example).
If the alternative is to scrap 190 useable vehicles or add that as capacity that seems to be a no brainer.

Who says the 313s from Moorgate services will be usable come 2018? The newer 508s which LO and Southeastern had were deemed unfit to transfer to Merseyrail for additional capacity and subsequently scrapped.

Also where does 192 come in to it? FCC have 44 x 313s - that's 132.

The government is trying desperately to cling to 'green' credentials and ordering trains that require fuel purchased from the Russians is not going to look very good.

Does it?

Apparently we have 8.6 million gallons of oil in the South of England: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27529175

The EU are also looking at various options for obtaining oil which don't involve trading with Russia.

Requires expensive bespoke new stock - if the recent past has shown us anything it is that the future is in knockoffs of a handful of designs - which at the present time appear to be the IEP, Electrostar and Desiro.

An order has been placed for 36 x 5 car bi-mode IEP trains for the GWML and 13 x 9 car bi-mode IEP trains for the ECML. How difficult would it be to place an order for bi-mode replacements for Voyagers and to cascade the Voyagers down to regional routes which get DMUs currently?

Just like we need something to work the Todmorden curve from opening?
Or we need electric trains to operate Hazel Grove services?

Just because the wires will be up and powered doesn't mean that electric trains will instantaneously appear to work them - if they were going to be available they almost certainly would have been ordered by now.

I thought the idea was the 319s would stretch far enough to cover North West and Thames Valley electrification. There's ample time to order new EMUs, if required for electrification programs like North TPE or to allow 350/4s to be cascaded to LM in time for Chase Line electrification.

The only issue I can see is Manchester Airport to Blackpool if it remains a TPE route. The 319s don't currently meet the specification of train that TPE have to provide on their services under the franchise commitment.

I think people get overworked up about Hazel Grove. Hazel Grove-Manchester is only a 20-25 minute service than runs hourly - that could be 1 diagram if it was a self-contained shuttle.

The only work they need to remain in service is a shiny certificate signed by the Secretary of State for Transport exempting them from the requirements of the DDA.
Any other work they recieve would be justified on operational and marketing grounds.

The Secretary of State for Transport has to explain exactly why one has been issued. If we're talking about a delayed EMU order and 313s remaining in service until March 2020 to cover that then it's one thing, saying replacement trains have not been ordered and there's no plausible reason why could result in a legal challenge by disability groups.

 

[HSTEd]

Thats 8.6bn barrels, not 8.6 million gallons!

The Thameslink cascades will also likely kick the 313s from southern out in the shuffle IMO.

And I doubt there would be a legal challenge over the SoS exempting the 313s, the likely result of someone trying is the repeal of the DDA as it applies to rail vehicles.
They won't risk the Government brute forcing its way out of the problem.

 

[Manchester77]

Also where does 192 come in to it? FCC have 44 x 313s - that's 132.

Think he's counted the 19 coast way units as well as the FCC units.

I thought the idea was the 319s would stretch far enough to cover North West and Thames Valley electrification. There's ample time to order new EMUs, if required for electrification programs like North TPE or to allow 350/4s to be cascaded to LM in time for Chase Line electrification.

I thought that the 319s would be used for the Northern projects (excluding the TPE services which according to Tony Miles will get 387s) with the Thames Valley also getting 387s but the shorter branches being worked by 319s. The electrified Bristol lines too would receive 319s also. Of course none of us really know anything concrete I think everyone has their own idea of the 319s and 387s cascades which is probably based on someone else's view!

I think people get overworked up about Hazel Grove. Hazel Grove-Manchester is only a 20-25 minute service than runs hourly - that could be 1 diagram if it was a self-contained shuttle.

Very true however if you operated Manchester - Hazel Grove services with an EMU you'd then have to try and terminate the Preston - Hazel Grove service somewhere either at platform 13 at Piccadilly or Oxford Road somewhere. The combination of the two services is probably the best option since it saves having to terminate another train on the Piccadilly through lines as well as releases one of northerns EMUs. Then again you could re-instate platform 6 at MCO and terminate Preston services in there (unlikely!)

 

[northwichcat]

Thats 8.6bn barrels, not 8.6 million gallons!

So it is. A lot more oil then!

The Thameslink cascades will also likely kick the 313s from southern out in the shuffle IMO.

When I suggested that the other day someone said no as the 377/1s will now transfer to Southeastern.

Very true however if you operated Manchester - Hazel Grove services with an EMU you'd then have to try and terminate the Preston - Hazel Grove service somewhere either at platform 13 at Piccadilly or Oxford Road somewhere. The combination of the two services is probably the best option since it saves having to terminate another train on the Piccadilly through lines as well as releases one of northerns EMUs. Then again you could re-instate platform 6 at MCO and terminate Preston services in there (unlikely!)

Alternatively you could run Buxton-Preston or Chester-Preston but Northern didn't want to do either of those due to reliability issues when they operated Buxton-Blackpool and 3 morning services between the Mid-Cheshire line and the Fylde Coast.

Northern also have to provide direct services between Manchester Oxford Road and Stockport as part of the franchise agreement.

 

[Emyr]

I was thinking more along the lines of the political connotations of ordering more 'dirty diesel' trains in the future.
The government is trying desperately to cling to 'green' credentials and ordering trains that require fuel purchased from the Russians is not going to look very good.
Better to force the railway to struggle on with existing diesels. So that is what will happen.

Given our Coal and Gas fired powerstations will continue to produce a lot of the electricity required, EMUs still don't solve our dependence on Russia.

Thorium reactors (which can consume uranium waste and produce non-fisile waste) please.

 

[HSTEd]

Thorium reactors are pointless.

Seawater extraction of uranium is already cheap enough (only 5 times the price of imported mines uranium) to ensure that the breeder cycle will never beat the Once-through uranium fed cycle using either PHWRs or LWRs. And that is before we consider the possibility of solution mining for deposits of uranium in the UK like the one that was discovered in the Orkney islands in the 70s.

 

[Emyr]

The point of Thorium reactors is the lack of fissile waste product, which is exactly why India is working on them and USA isn't.

 

[WatcherZero]

USA did do some work on sealed portable reactor units that could be sent to Africa.

All the nuclear powers though have more fissile material than they could ever use, they have no need to continue to produce it from commercial reactors. UK has more than 12 tons of stockpiled HEU, USA has 260t with around a further 100t earmarked as in excess of requirements. Russia has a stockpile of around 600t with around a further 70t in excess of requirements.

The UK has around 90t of Plutonium due to the civil nuclear industry, thats slightly more than the total for the USA which holds a 38t military stockpile, Russia has around 160t including a 90t stockpile.

Since it takes around 4kg of Plutonium or around 50kg or Uranium to make a megaton class weapon you can see they have plenty.

 

[HSTEd]

The point of Thorium reactors is the lack of fissile waste product, which is exactly why India is working on them and USA isn't.

India is working on them due to having vast tonnages of free thorium on beaches and a desire to develop an indigenous technology not subject to technology transfer restrictions as imported technologies are.

The OTC provides the cheapest electricity and produces compact waste (spent fuel in dry casks) that can be stored cheaply for many centuries prior to recycling to sepeerate and eliminate the actinide content.

No need to reprocess now when you can do it later on a less radioactive waste stream.

 

[Muzer]

Just invest in fusion, that'll solve everything!

 

[prod_pep]

As I've just mentioned in another thread, if Merseytravel decides to re-work the existing Class 507s and 508s on Merseyside as opposed to replacing them, at least some of the Great Northern 313s could come to Liverpool. The current Merseyrail fleet of 59 units is falling short of what is required in peak times.