Capable and suitable/appropriate are two different things. Indeed, all the classes you mention are capable of working middle-distance services but the 175 is the only one of those classes which has the door layout to make it appropriate for regional express services. The door configuration of the other units makes them outer-suburban types. Yes, outer-suburban services are middle-distance services, but they arre middle-distance secondary services with more stops. They are not the middle-to-long-distance primary fast services (such as TPE between Leeds/York and Manchester/Liverpool, the Cardiff-Portsmouth service and the Manchester-Swansea part of ATW's MAN-CMN/Milford route)
The fact is that stock with doors closer to the middle of the coaches (166, 170 185, 350s etc) are used on some "middle distance" services.
You may not like this, you may prefer to have all doors at the carriage end, but that's just your personal opinion - most people seem to cope with this okay.
PS: "Outer suburban" suggests a service that doesn't leave the boundaries of one city - it's not a phrase I'd use to describe 100mph units like the ones mentioned above.
You've probably already heard this from me, but if my brother (not a rail enthusiast by any means, and somebody who very rarely uses trains) is sent off to Nottingham (we dropped him at Port Talbot) and reports back that 'the doors were in the wrong place', what does that tell you?
Obviously I don't know your brother, but I think that you come from a relatively rural part of southern Wales (?) - and the majority of stock along the South Wales Main Line has doors at the end of the carriages (142, 143, 158, 175, HST), so it's hardly surprising that someone used to those kind of trains felt that doors closer to the middle of a carriage was "wrong" - if all of your railway experience was of "end" doors then of course you'd be surprised to find the doors somewhere else (just like if all of your railway experience was of diesel trains then you'd be surprised to find electric trains).
Hardly proof that the rest of the world is "wrong" though.
Are you sure about the "poor acceleration", relative to Pacers? My perception as a passenger is that a heavily-laden 142 really struggles to move off from a stand, particularly if the rails are at all slippery
That's hardly damning about Pacers.
Most trains will struggle with a full load of passengers on slippery rails - even the saintly 323s struggle in "leaf fall" season.
How much additional capacity will the trans-pennine route be getting when electrified ? I'm sure it wasn't a huge increase, yet these routes are already crowded a lot of the time
I thought that the plan was for six/ hour on the Manchester - Huddersfield - Leeds corridor (presumably all at least four coaches long, maybe with something like a 365 as a benchmark of the type of stock you could expect - probably a number of services running as six or eight coaches), plus the current couple of stoppers east of Huddersfield, which would add up to a reasonable increase in capacity.
All i can say is thank god we dont get pacers here in Scotland because most people if not all who are subjected to using them day in-day out just downright despise them
They do run to Dumfries, from time to time, AIUI
I totally agree with you on the point about the South entrance, but there is a problem with crowding and flow at the main barrier
I agree that something needs to be done at Leeds, just like I agree that something needs to be done about platform lengths at Waterloo.
The fact is that there are always upgrades that don't increase the number of platforms (such as lenghening the existing platforms at Waterloo, or building a further entrance at Leeds). I just thought it unfair to complain about the money being spent at Waterloo, without giving context.
To rid Yorkshire of Pacers an accelerated programme of electrification is required. The Harrogate Loop needs 9 sets (2x2-cars) each day for the timetable. Electrification, costed at £99m for 61 single track miles, would release 18 Pacers for withdrawal replaced by 9 317/319/321 units. NW electrification will replace 30-40 Pacers and trans-Pennine wiring probably another 10. That is half replaced on only five routes electrified at a cost of £700m in infrastructure
We are already committed to wiring around a thousand miles in CP5, some of which is going to be delayed, so I don't think there's any realistic hope of anything more (beyond the idea of privately financing Selby to Hull).
Whilst I'd like the Harrogate line to be wired, and think it has a good chance in CP6, I can't see it being accelerated.
Ten minutes is not long enough to turn round a London train at Leeds. It is cleaned, tanked and catering restocked. A bigger margin is allowed for any late running of incoming trains.
Yes but the electric horseshoe means trains wouldn't be turned at Leeds.
They would be turned someplace that isn't as hard pushed for platform space.
Where do you suggest if not Leeds?
Considering 225s have sufficient catering supplies, water tanks and similar for a very long run to Glasgow they almost certainly have sufficient supplies to manage a London-Leeds round trip in one go. And KGX is not going to have constrained platform capacity in the future once its reduced to InterCity trains and the Cambridge Cruisers so a longer replenishment there is not a big issue.
If not perhaps they should put some additional catering materiel in the DVT so they can base the 'cold' elements of the first class offering from there, freeing space in the galley.
As
HSTEd says, the plan was to run round the "horseshoe", so that a train would go London - Doncaster - (Hambleton) - Leeds - Wakefield - Doncaster - London.
It'd take under five hours, so shorter than many EC services to Scotland (which cope with a ten minute break at Waverley) - which would free up a lot of "platform minutes" at Leeds each hour. Having one platform at Leeds almost solidly occupied by a 225 set is a waste of capacity.
