Class 321 to Scotland?

[northwichcat]

TPE is a Siemens outfit pretty much (just a few 170s and they are going soon).

And will be replaced by non-Siemens DMUs, most likely 158s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed one of the main complaints about 170s on Scottish Intercity routes was the temperature issue in the passenger cabin due to 1/3, 2/3 door layout, particularly in Highland winter conditions.

Proposals were made for intermediate saloon doors on 170s but that would have been high cost and reduced seating capacity.

That's more of a Scottish weather issue - elsewhere in the UK that door layout doesn't seem to cause all that much of an issue, even on stopping commuter services, and it's mitigated a bit by modern units closing unused doors after a couple of minutes. SBB and DB mitigate it further by closing the outside doors after just a few seconds of non-use.

I imagine vestibule doors are awkward to add, but if added as built they should be no more difficult than on an end-doored layout, other than that you need twice as many of them per vehicle.

Neil

 

[Altnabreac]

That's more of a Scottish weather issue - elsewhere in the UK that door layout doesn't seem to cause all that much of an issue, even on stopping commuter services, and it's mitigated a bit by modern units closing unused doors after a couple of minutes. SBB and DB mitigate it further by closing the outside doors after just a few seconds of non-use.

I imagine vestibule doors are awkward to add, but if added as built they should be no more difficult than on an end-doored layout, other than that you need twice as many of them per vehicle.

Neil

Agreed, but it helps to explain why most (all?) 170s will be surplus to requirements in Scotland and heading down south in the next few years.

 

[Haydn1971]

Out of interest - for the 1/3, 2/3 evangelists - if these type of trains are so great for TPE Scotland services, are you also suggesting that more typical intercity trains should also be 1/3, 2/3 layouts also ? If not, why not ?

 

[northwichcat]

Out of interest - for the 1/3, 2/3 evangelists - if these type of trains are so great for TPE Scotland services, are you also suggesting that more typical intercity trains should also be 1/3, 2/3 layouts also ? If not, why not ?

Related to that I wonder why some people argue 156s are more suitable for limited stop Liverpool-Manchester Airport services than all stops Mid-Cheshire or Hope Valley line services. If end doors would cause problems on Scotland-Manchester Airport services because of using platforms 13 and 14 at Piccadilly then surely any Northern service using those platforms should be a 150 (or 323 where appropriate.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Out of interest - for the 1/3, 2/3 evangelists - if these type of trains are so great for TPE Scotland services, are you also suggesting that more typical intercity trains should also be 1/3, 2/3 layouts also ? If not, why not ?

There is a case for it - such trains are far quicker to load/unload, and it's far easier to get your luggage to/from your seat, which can be a right pain on narrow trains such as Pendolinos. Though a narrower vestibule would probably suffice so one person can board/alight at once.

To be fair the Class 350 layout is more like 1/4 and 3/4, giving an equal spacing of passenger accommodation between the door sets.

Neil

 

[Rich McLean]

And will be replaced by non-Siemens DMUs, most likely 158s.

If 158's are taken on by TPE as a temporary measure, they can be maintained at Neville Hill on behalf of TPE, and run mostly Hull - Manchester runs in order to keep training costs to a minimum

 

[northwichcat]

If 158's are taken on by TPE as a temporary measure, they can be maintained at Neville Hill on behalf of TPE, and run mostly Hull - Manchester runs in order to keep training costs to a minimum

As discussed in another thread only TPE Scarborough based crews sign 158s, Hull crews haven't signed them since 2007 so even crews that were there in 2007 would have to be re-trained on them.

Can Neville Hill cope with more units? I know Newton Heath couldn't manage once the LM 150s arrived, hence why the 156s moved to Allerton.

Would there be job loses at Ardwick if there are less units maintained there?

If the 2 x 4 car 170 diagrams on South TPE got 3 car 185s instead, how bad would the overcrowding be?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

And will be replaced by non-Siemens DMUs, most likely 158s.

Where will the replacements be coming from?

 

[Haydn1971]

There is a case for it - such trains are far quicker to load/unload, and it's far easier to get your luggage to/from your seat, which can be a right pain on narrow trains such as Pendolinos. Though a narrower vestibule would probably suffice so one person can board/alight at once.

To be fair the Class 350 layout is more like 1/4 and 3/4, giving an equal spacing of passenger accommodation between the door sets.

Neil

That's not really answered my question, just split hairs over thirds and quarters...

If 1/4 & 3/4 is good enough for TPE Scotland services, why aren't we hearing you barking about 390's, 80x's, 22x's etc being unfit for purpose.

 

[edwin_m]

That's not really answered my question, just split hairs over thirds and quarters...

If 1/4 & 3/4 is good enough for TPE Scotland services, why aren't we hearing you barking about 390's, 80x's, 22x's etc being unfit for purpose.

For TPE Scotland services it was a choice of 1/3 2/3 or nothing. Nobody has any current orders for units with end door bodyshells except Hitachi with the IEP and that won't be arriving for a few years yet. Ordering a small batch of units with a unique bodyshell is a recipe for getting silly prices, rather like saying you are a bit taller than most so can Ford do you a Focus that's a couple of inches higher. This isn't just about purchase price but also the residual value, if TPE don't need them in five years' time then who will want to lease a small non-standard fleet? The only sensible choice was to go for a unit that's 95% suitable for the job and a minor variation on a design another TOC was ordering anyway (and I think had a fixed price for under the option on a previous contract). There is the added bonus that if TPE buy a common fleet of EMUs in future, or even if Manchester-Scotland gets some sort of "intercity" unit, the 350/4s can join the other sub-classes with LM or some other operator.

There is also the argument that many of TPE's routes, possibly including Manchester-Scotland especially if it reverts to running via Bolton in future, there is a lot of peak crowding with short-distance passengers. Having wide door vestibules makes things more comfortable both for these people and for longer-distance seated travellers, and also shortens station stops, at the cost of a losing a few seats from the total number.

To me this is a sensible example of the railway industry working together to deliver a solution which is not absolutely perfect but better than any of the reasonable alternatives.

 

[Haydn1971]

I don't think the reasoning behind the interim use of the 350's is in question - it was the only option at the time - the point is that there appears to be a view that the 350's "are" appropriate for long distance services.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

As discussed in another thread only TPE Scarborough based crews sign 158s, Hull crews haven't signed them since 2007 so even crews that were there in 2007 would have to be re-trained on them.

Can Neville Hill cope with more units? I know Newton Heath couldn't manage once the LM 150s arrived, hence why the 156s moved to Allerton.

Would there be job loses at Ardwick if there are less units maintained there?

If the 2 x 4 car 170 diagrams on South TPE got 3 car 185s instead, how bad would the overcrowding be?

The 170/3s are maintained at Bombardier Crofton, so Ardwick shouldn't be affected.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If 1/4 & 3/4 is good enough for TPE Scotland services, why aren't we hearing you barking about 390's, 80x's, 22x's etc being unfit for purpose.

I think both layouts are fit for purpose for IC services. There are advantages and disadvantages of each.

More important is the seating layout, window alignment, number of tables, luggage rack capacity etc. And the overall capacity, which is why I'd probably say more 350s are probably needed to enable all Scottish services to be 8 car.

Neil

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I think both layouts are fit for purpose for IC services. There are advantages and disadvantages of each.

More important is the seating layout, window alignment, number of tables, luggage rack capacity etc. And the overall capacity, which is why I'd probably say more 350s are probably needed to enable all Scottish services to be 8 car.

Neil

I think you mean 380s as no more 350s can ever be made as they don't meet the current crash regs. Siemans if they wanted to could probably get production started on a new version of a 444, apart from needing a sloped cab like the 380s there can't be that much else of the design that would fall foul of the crash regs

 

[Alfie1014]

I don't think any cl444 clones will ever be built, the design is over 10 years old and it would require much re-engineering to meet current regs. The cl380s were meant as a halfway house between the traditional Desiro and the cl700s, with reductions in weight, (lard-butts as Roger Ford called them), better door cycling times, (compared to Electrostars Desiro 'classic' is very slow) and improvements to the interiors and air con, train management etc...

More interestingly is where the 321s are coming from in May 2015. Whilst LM has been quoted by sources, including Modern Railways, the 350/3s were always intended to augment the LM fleet not as replacements. Whereas in May 2015 the Shenfield and WA Inner services transfer to TfL, so I wonder if as Abellio GA is a parent company to Abellio Scotrail, whether swaps within that fleet involving 317s and 321s might be on the cards to free units up?

 

[158722]

I don't think any cl444 clones will ever be built, the design is over 10 years old and it would require much re-engineering to meet current regs. The cl380s were meant as a halfway house between the traditional Desiro and the cl700s, with reductions in weight, (lard-butts as Roger Ford called them), better door cycling times, (compared to Electrostars Desiro 'classic' is very slow) and improvements to the interiors and air con, train management etc...

More interestingly is where the 321s are coming from in May 2015. Whilst LM has been quoted by sources, including Modern Railways, the 350/3s were always intended to augment the LM fleet not as replacements. Whereas in May 2015 the Shenfield and WA Inner services transfer to TfL, so I wonder if as Abellio GA is a parent company to Abellio Scotrail, whether swaps within that fleet involving 317s and 321s might be on the cards to free units up?

As I just posted on the 319 thread.
I'd honestly have thought that another 8 to 10 (319s) could go to Northern, replacing 323s on the Airport shuttle/Crewe/etc turns, which in turn go to LM to displace the soon to be 5x 350 turns on the Cross-City line, allowing the 7x 321s to go to ScotRail...

 

[Tetchytyke]

Out of interest - for the 1/3, 2/3 evangelists - if these type of trains are so great for TPE Scotland services, are you also suggesting that more typical intercity trains should also be 1/3, 2/3 layouts also ?

TPE is a compromise and always has been.

Liverpool to Newcastle or Glasgow to Manchester is a long way on any of the TPE units, but most TPE passengers are on the "core" routes out of Manchester to either Preston or Leeds, both of which are under an hour. In the peak times the door layout of the 185s and 350s works better because it allows more people on the train and allows them to get on quicker. The dwell times at Leeds and Huddersfield when TPE had 158s were a nightmare.

I don't think the door position makes that much of a difference on long-distance services. The draughts happen when the doors are open, and when it is a long way between stops that's not really a huge problem as the cabin will stay warm/cold. It's when stops are more frequent that the doors cause more issue, but frequent stopping and the problems with dwell times is why doors at 1/3 and 2/3 were specified.

 

[northwichcat]

but most TPE passengers are on the "core" routes out of Manchester to either Preston or Leeds, both of which are under an hour.

Are you sure about that on Scottish routes? I've seen southbound Scottish TPE services arrive at Preston with very high loadings and only a small proportion of them getting off at Preston, so there must be 150+ people on some services who are travelling from one of Scotland, Cumbria or Lancaster to one of Wigan, Manchester and Manchester Airport and I don't imagine Lancaster-Wigan is a big flow for TPE!

 

[ainsworth74]

I think when people talk about 444s they need to talk about a 444 style train rather than dusting off the plans and building more of them. I'm sure if someone tendered for a train in the style of a 444 (2+2 standard class, 2+1 first class, buffet counter, doors at each end with vestibule doors separating the vestibule from the seating, etc) then Bombardier would have a suitable modification of the Aventra, Siemens an appropriate version of the Desiro City and Hitachi something from their fleet as well.

444s are good trains and in many ways its a shame that TPE didn't get a diesel version but they ain't gonna be building any more 444s (or 344s). But that doesn't mean no-one can build a modern successor.

So lets be careful with our language shall we

 

[Bletchleyite]

Worth noting that the 444 doesn't have vestibule doors at every vestibule. If I recall the outer ends don't, and there is one door (by the disabled bit, I think) where the entry door is not at the vehicle end.

And I agree, I'm sure for the right money Siemens would build a Class 380 or 700 derivative with an end-doored layout.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Well the 7 x 321s for Scotrail are actually going to come from Thameslink Great Northern (not London Midland) according to Rail, so possibly some of the 319s being freed up off Thameslink which aren't going to Northern are going to take the place of 321s?

 

[Wolfie]

Well the 7 x 321s for Scotrail are actually going to come from Thameslink Great Northern (not London Midland) according to Rail, so possibly some of the 319s being freed up off Thameslink which aren't going to Northern are going to take the place of 321s?

That might make a whole lot of sense for the short-term. Leave 319 maintenance where it is. Scotrail already operate 320s which differ little from 321s......

On the other hand why not send Scotrail all of Northern's 321s ands 322s (total eight trains) and send Northern eight more 319s thus simplifying Northern's fleet logistics and maintenance?

Nah, way too sensible!!! Make spotters/enthusiasts day by sending Northern a mixed bag of 317s and 315s - never mind operating and maintenance practicalities....

Edited to add:

I'm just waiting for someone to suggest shortening the 319s destined for Northern to three cars and then using the surplus car to lengthen Scotrail's 320s.....

 

[northwichcat]

On the other hand why not send Scotrail all of Northern's 321s ands 322s (total eight trains) and send Northern eight more 319s thus simplifying Northern's fleet logistics and maintenance?

Will it? The 319s will be maintained at Allerton (Liverpool), so to get between Allerton and Leeds they'll have to go via Edinburgh until North TPE is electrified in 2018!

EDIT: Also, Metro have a guarantee in place meaning the 144s, 155s, 158/9s, 321/9s and 333s have to remain in the West Yorkshire area until at least the end of the current franchise.

 

[Wolfie]

Will it? The 319s will be maintained at Allerton (Liverpool), so to get between Allerton and Leeds they'll have to go via Edinburgh until North TPE is electrified in 2018!

Ah... the sort of practicality which those of us out of region don't always appreciate.

My cunning plan was to try to drive Northern towards the LM model, ie a predominantly one EMU type fleet, with all the advantages that offers. I had in mind that EMU type being 319s at least in the short term.....

Also, Metro have a guarantee in place meaning the 144s, 155s, 158/9s, 321/9s and 333s have to remain in the West Yorkshire area until at least the end of the current franchise.

Me learned friends would doubtless have a view as to whether that guarantee was to the end of Northern's original franchise or still applies given the extention Northern was given.

 

[northwichcat]

Northern towards the LM model, ie a predominantly one EMU type fleet

Ignoring the 321s which could have been replaced by 350s, LM have 2 different types of EMUs - 3 car 323s (90mph) for the commuter services around Birmingham and 4 car 350s (100mph) for the services which operate on the WCML.

No reason why Northern couldn't have 2 types of EMUs or at least two sub-classes of an EMU furbished differently to allow some to be used on services which will carry a lot of suitcases (Blackpool and Airport services) and others to be used on services where additional seats will be preferable to additional luggage racks.

 

[Wolfie]

Ignoring the 321s which could have been replaced by 350s, LM have 2 different types of EMUs - 3 car 323s (90mph) for the commuter services around Birmingham and 4 car 350s (100mph) for the services which operate on the WCML.

No reason why Northern couldn't have 2 types of EMUs or at least two sub-classes of an EMU furbished differently to allow some to be used on services which will carry a lot of suitcases (Blackpool and Airport services) and others to be used on services where additional seats will be preferable to additional luggage racks.

I was of course simplifying but look at the numbers for LM - 77 x 350 and only 26 x 323. The original intent was to completely get rid of the 321s but LM successfully put together a case, based on peak time train utilisation, to keep a small number.

You are also somewhat out of date with respect to 350 operating speeds. The 350/1 and /3s are cleared for 110mph operation on the WMCL.

 

[northwichcat]

You are also somewhat out of date with respect to 350 operating speeds. The 350/1 and /3s are cleared for 110mph operation on the WMCL.

Yes I should have perhaps said a commuter type of 350 (100mph) and a non-commuter type of 350 (110mph.) The 350/1s were 100mph units for a number of years though. I believe clearing them for 110mph between Northampton and Euston was seen as a cheaper alternative to commuter IEP on that route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes I should have perhaps said a commuter type of 350 (100mph) and a non-commuter type of 350 (110mph.) The 350/1s were 100mph units for a number of years though. I believe clearing them for 110mph between Northampton and Euston was seen as a cheaper alternative to commuter IEP on that route.

No. The main reason for 110mph was so they don't get in the way on the Trent Valley service (and to speed it up). Everything else is diagrammed for 100mph to allow the /2s to be used.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

No. The main reason for 110mph was so they don't get in the way on the Trent Valley service (and to speed it up). Everything else is diagrammed for 100mph to allow the /2s to be used.

Neil

LM talk about Northampton-Euston a lot on their website when referring to 110mph running but don't make any reference to the Trent Valley line:

Faster, more frequent trains between Northampton, Milton Keynes and London are a step closer following a series of tests by London Midland to assess the impact of running 12 carriage trains at 110mph.

....

The higher speed running will free-up capacity on the congested Euston line to allow faster and more frequent commuter trains to run between Northampton/Milton Keynes and London, following the delivery of 10 new Desiro trains in summer 2014.

Highlights from December 2014

• 4,200 extra seats at peak times, Monday to Friday
• 2 new non-stop commuter trains from Northampton to London on weekday mornings
• 5 new, fast commuter trains from London to Northampton/Rugby on weekday evenings
• Northampton to London in as little as 46 minutes
• 10 new class 350/3 4-carriage Desiro trains

http://www.londonmidland.com/mobile/news/london-midland-on-track-for-high-speed-running/