London Midland/Northern EMU changes speculation

[Bletchleyite]

And that is not going to be a popular move for passengers on the Chat Moss. Having just got the benefit of electric trains with 4 coaches, they will find that fast services revert to diesel units with a totally inadequate 2¼ coaches of standard class seating

I still think the extra TPE trains are a bad idea, and that it would be more sensible to run a more resilient railway with fewer but longer trains.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

This thought has come up multiple times. Could I ask the reasoning behind why the chat moss is being considered as the ideal route for running the replacement Wigan service, as opposed to running it say via Atherton.

I thought the aim was to keep a fast service to Wigan, having diverted the Scotland services non-stop via Chat Moss and wanting to retain the benefits.
Diverting the Scotland services back through Bolton means you have spare capacity via Chat Moss, and a fast electrified route.
Running via Atherton would mean a diesel, which is not exploiting the wires.
However I think it would make more sense as part of a longer cross-Manchester route.
Ironically, if the mooted station at Golborne had been built it would be the obvious service to call there.

 

[WatcherZero]

Running to the airport makes most sense maintaining a 2tph frequency from Wigan and easier interchange from the Liverpool lines. You have options for continuing it beyond Wigan, Preston is only a short hop and the Warrington-Wigan-Preston WCML commuter belt does generate a lot of short journeys freeing seats on crowded intercity trains. Windermere and Blackpool are options.

 

[thealexweb]

I thought the aim was to keep a fast service to Wigan, having diverted the Scotland services non-stop via Chat Moss and wanting to retain the benefits.
Diverting the Scotland services back through Bolton means you have spare capacity via Chat Moss, and a fast electrified route.
Running via Atherton would mean a diesel, which is not exploiting the wires.
However I think it would make more sense as part of a longer cross-Manchester route.
Ironically, if the mooted station at Golborne had been built it would be the obvious service to call there.

The spare path argument would indeed be true as well as the fact it that route is electrified. I feel the fast part is disputable. Fast yes, fastest? Maybe.

Most Transpennine services can do Manchester Piccadilly to Wigan North Western (via Chat Moss) in 30 minutes, give or take a few. The Northern services running from Manchester Piccadilly to Wigan Wallgate (via Bolton) take about 40 minutes, give or take a few. This may look like a clear cut victory for the Chat Moss but in the future it won't be so simple. If the same Class 319 was used for a comparison the Chat Moss journey time would go (due to it not being able to match the Class 350's acceleration) up and Bolton's down (due to it being able to it accelerate faster than a Pacer). If all the intermediate stops from the Bolton service were not required for this new service the journey time would drop even further.

 

[WatcherZero]

Well Piccadilly is further than Victoria so going further in less time is notable, as to argument over stops only the limited stop via Bolton takes around the same time as via Atherton which has a greater number of calls.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Running to the airport makes most sense maintaining a 2tph frequency from Wigan and easier interchange from the Liverpool lines. You have options for continuing it beyond Wigan, Preston is only a short hop and the Warrington-Wigan-Preston WCML commuter belt does generate a lot of short journeys freeing seats on crowded intercity trains. Windermere and Blackpool are options.

Once the fourth (mothballed) platform at Manchester Airport finally does open for rail traffic, will that aid the matters to which you make reference to?

 

[Greybeard33]

The Northern TSR for Dec 2019 requires, interpeak, 6tph between Manchester (Victoria, Oxford Road or Piccadilly) and Wigan (Wallgate or North Western). Of these, 4tph must call at Walkden, Atherton, Daisy Hill and Hindley and 2tph at Westhoughton (and Bolton). So no requirement for a Chat Moss service.

 

[Emblematic]

It's easy to overlook that, by the end of the decade, there will be a surplus of EMU stock. That was true even before the delays to Transpennine and MML electrifications, factoring those in means we will likely see significant number of units going to storage and withdrawals. There will also be, for the first time, some real competition in the rolling stock market as the ROSCOs vie to obtain some revenue for their older fleets. In this situation, it isn't necessary for the operators to squeeze every bit of utilization from the older fleets, indeed it would probably be better commercially to have more slack in the fleet, and concentrate on a higher quality service with fewer short-formed and cancelled services.
We're so used to stock being in permanent short supply it's hard to picture the situation where there will be a choice of units available - although not necessarily in the ideal configurations.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Northern TSR for Dec 2019 requires, interpeak, 6tph between Manchester (Victoria, Oxford Road or Piccadilly) and Wigan (Wallgate or North Western). Of these, 4tph must call at Walkden, Atherton, Daisy Hill and Hindley and 2tph at Westhoughton (and Bolton). So no requirement for a Chat Moss service.

The Stakeholder Briefing alongside the ITT says this (p34):

Manchester-Wigan:
We have specified one extra Northern train per hour on this route by December 2017. This is intended to reduce the impact of TPE services reverting to running via Bolton once the electrification of the line between Manchester, Bolton and Preston – due in December 2016 – is completed.

The route is not specified, but the TPE service runs via Chat Moss and is non-stop (ie no requirement for intermediate calls).
And on p39:

Manchester-Scotland (via Wigan/Bolton):
We expect that once the Manchester-Bolton-Chorley-Preston route is electrified, the TPE Manchester-Scotland services that have been running via Wigan will go back to running via Bolton, as they did previously.
Although this would mean that services between Wigan and Manchester will decrease from six trains per hour to five trains per hour after December 2017, we will be asking for Northern to provide an additional Wigan-Manchester service, restoring the sixth train. We are leaving flexibility for Northern bidders to decide whether to route their trains to Barrow and Windermere via Bolton, as is currently the case, or via Wigan; if a route via Wigan was selected, there could then be a seventh service between Wigan and Manchester.

 

[AM9]

It's easy to overlook that, by the end of the decade, there will be a surplus of EMU stock. That was true even before the delays to Transpennine and MML electrifications, factoring those in means we will likely see significant number of units going to storage and withdrawals. There will also be, for the first time, some real competition in the rolling stock market as the ROSCOs vie to obtain some revenue for their older fleets. In this situation, it isn't necessary for the operators to squeeze every bit of utilization from the older fleets, indeed it would probably be better commercially to have more slack in the fleet, and concentrate on a higher quality service with fewer short-formed and cancelled services.
We're so used to stock being in permanent short supply it's hard to picture the situation where there will be a choice of units available - although not necessarily in the ideal configurations.

Which may dissappoint the rolling stock manufacturers as the demand for new stock will go down. I expect TOCs to take the withdrawn stock, applying refurb/refresh/deep-clean as necessary and use the assets until the end of it's useful life. The only candidates for 'new' stock will be those lines where there are specific operating requirements that cannot be economically met with modified cascaded stock.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Which may dissappoint the rolling stock manufacturers as the demand for new stock will go down. I expect TOCs to take the withdrawn stock, applying refurb/refresh/deep-clean as necessary and use the assets until the end of it's useful life. The only candidates for 'new' stock will be those lines where there are specific operating requirements that cannot be economically met with modified cascaded stock.

All DC units which can't be converted to either AC only or dual-voltage will eventually get scrapped. Most of the 31x classes must be getting on a bit

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Which may dissappoint the rolling stock manufacturers as the demand for new stock will go down. I expect TOCs to take the withdrawn stock, applying refurb/refresh/deep-clean as necessary and use the assets until the end of it's useful life. The only candidates for 'new' stock will be those lines where there are specific operating requirements that cannot be economically met with modified cascaded stock.

This may be behind the class 323 situation.
Porterbrook don't want half the 319s left on their hands, and might have offered the Northern bidders a large fleet, probably upgraded, at a decent price.
It will be easier to find a home for the 323s.

 

[northwichcat]

It will be easier to find a home for the 323s.

I'm not sure as not many lines currently have carriages 23.5m in length and 2.8m in width.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And that is not going to be a popular move for passengers on the Chat Moss. Having just got the benefit of electric trains with 4 coaches, they will find that fast services revert to diesel units with a totally inadequate 2¼ coaches of standard class seating

Don't forget the 185s are 71.5m in length, while the 319s are 79.5m in length. I don't think most passengers care about whether the train is electric or diesel they'll be more interested in how modern the interior is.

 

[Greybeard33]

The Stakeholder Briefing alongside the ITT says this (p34):


The route is not specified, but the TPE service runs via Chat Moss and is non-stop (ie no requirement for intermediate calls).
And on p39:

Yes, but the TSR does specify that the 6th train runs on the Atherton line (4tph vs 3 pre 2017). The 7th train could use the Chat Moss, but that call at Wigan is optional, not a requirement.

Of the 6tph, 2tph continue to Southport & 1tph to Kirkby. So 3tph terminators, 1 via Atherton & 2 via Bolton.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm not sure as not many lines currently have carriages 23.5m in length and 2.8m in width.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---.

Thames Valley branches?

 

[northwichcat]

Thames Valley branches?

365s and 387s have already been secured for them post-electrification.

 

[hwl]

This may be behind the class 323 situation.
Porterbrook don't want half the 319s left on their hands, and might have offered the Northern bidders a large fleet, probably upgraded, at a decent price.
It will be easier to find a home for the 323s.

Agreed.
It also works out well for Northern as they end up with a less diverse fleet to maintain rather than a smallish number of lots of different MUs often with lots of variants within a class. Reducing Northern's operating costs so it requires less subsidy is important else adding more capacity might just mean a bigger subsidy from DfT (Especially with the potentially expensive DMU requirement) and I would be surprised if the bidders and ROSCOs weren't aware that there might be some opportunities from fleet rationalisation on both cost and flexibility grounds.

Southeastern is possibly the only Franchise than might be interested in 319s in a few years time as there aren't really any other DC options for existing stock to supplement services (post 377/1 transfer from southern (TSGN) but they have to run services transferred from Thameslink with those so no gain on existing routes). They also wouldn't want or need that many 319s overall.

I can see the ROSCOs also wanting to possibly concentrate some other fleets like 321s in a similar way when GN's get released for example.

 

[northwichcat]

It also works out well for Northern as they end up with a less diverse fleet to maintain rather than a smallish number of lots of different MUs often with lots of variants within a class. Reducing Northern's operating costs so it requires less subsidy is important else adding more capacity might just mean a bigger subsidy from DfT (Especially with the potentially expensive DMU requirement) and I would be surprised if the bidders and ROSCOs weren't aware that there might be some opportunities from fleet rationalisation on both cost and flexibility grounds.

Porterbrook make the following claim about the 323s

the running cost per seat is around 25% less than the more
common 20m design

http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/downloads/brochures/323 Brochure.pdf Page 5

That would suggest replacing 323s with 319s would have a negative effect on the Northern subsidy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If 319s are cheaper to lease this may be offset by that, however.

 

[northwichcat]

If 319s are cheaper to lease this may be offset by that, however.

Would running cost not include the leasing cost?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would running cost not include the leasing cost?

If you're trying to lease them out, no, I doubt it would. Do car salesmen ever factor the price of the car paid over 36 months (say) when they're pointing out how much the latest engine technology will save you in fuel over your old car?

 

[northwichcat]

If you're trying to lease them out, no, I doubt it would. Do car salesmen ever factor the price of the car paid over 36 months (say) when they're pointing out how much the latest engine technology will save you in fuel over your old car?

The difference with a car is you usually buy it not lease it.

Just checked the track access charges (which includes electricity for EMUs) and a 323 costs 16.8p per mile, while a 319 costs 26.2p per mile. That would suggest a 55% saving in using a 323 over a 319 unless the 'running costs' include maintenance costs and/or leasing costs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just checked the track access charges (which includes electricity for EMUs) and a 323 costs 16.8p per mile, while a 319 costs 26.2p per mile. That would suggest a 55% saving in using a 323 over a 319 unless the 'running costs' include maintenance costs and/or leasing costs.

No it wouldn't, it'd suggest a 35% saving (using a 323 costs 65% of what using a 319 does).

 

[northwichcat]

No it wouldn't, it'd suggest a 35% saving (using a 323 costs 65% of what using a 319 does).

Ah yes I was working out what the increase for Northern would be as a result of switching from 323s to 319s, not what the saving would be in switching from 319s to 323s.

 

[hwl]

Would running cost not include the leasing cost?

I would assume running cost track access charges, electricity and maintenance but not leasing (i.e. petrol insurance and servicing equivalent for a car).

That may also be a very subjective comparison as it is a sale brochure after all!

If 319s were reconfigured with some airline style seating so you got 7 or 8 rows of seats in place of the current 6 (excluding cab ends etc) the numbers would change. It also ignores standing passengers - increasing the number of passengers via passengers standing for <= 20mins by maximising standing space might also be key. Lower dwell times at key stations might also be important in running the max tph possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If 319s were reconfigured with some airline style seating so you got 7 or 8 rows of seats in place of the current 6 (excluding cab ends etc)

Have you ever been on a Class 150/2? If so you'd recognise that is a mad idea (and that crams them in to get 2 (two) side-facing seats in, there isn't space for a 7th row). If they need loads of capacity, go for 2+2 in the present spacing but with a good amount of standing room and a wide aisle.

 

[hwl]

Have you ever been on a Class 150/2? If so you'd recognise that is a mad idea (and that crams them in to get 2 (two) side-facing seats in, there isn't space for a 7th row). If they need loads of capacity, go for 2+2 in the present spacing but with a good amount of standing room and a wide aisle.

I was thinking of the more upright thinner seats found in the 377/6 &/7, 387 and 700s than anything based on the original type of seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was thinking of the more upright thinner seats found in the 377/6 &/7, 387 and 700s than anything based on the original type of seats.

You'd still not get a 7th row in for anything other than midgets.

 

[Emblematic]

All DC units which can't be converted to either AC only or dual-voltage will eventually get scrapped. Most of the 31x classes must be getting on a bit

Everything eventually gets scrapped! Given the rate of third rail to OLE conversion, which is suspiciously close to zero at the moment, I can't see anything getting scrapped just because it can't be converted.*

*except possibly a certain well-discussed class, whose traction equipment is life expired even if the rest of the unit isn't quite.

 

[northwichcat]

According to a poster on wnxx LM are apparently set to get another 11 x 319s as part of the Direct Award, on top of the 7 they've already agreed to take on.

If they take on the Northern 323s and TPE 350/4s as well that will mean 38 additional trains, while they have 37 x 350/2s. While the 323s are 3 car, they have 23.5m carriages so I would imagine have as many (if not more) standard class seats than a 350/2 but would lack the FC.