London Midland/Northern EMU changes speculation

[sd0733]

Any hint of that being in exchange for anything, or is it to allow all peak trains to be 12-car and all Trent Valley trains 8, both of which would be most welcome?

The trents definitely wont go 8 car unless the issues at the Stoke loop stations regarding 8 cae working are sorted.

 

[northwichcat]

I disagree. Quite apart from the retrograde change from quietish electric trains to noisier diesels, they will note a big reduction in seating capacity. Class 319 have nearly 300 seats, entirely unreserved. Class 185 has about 160 standard class seats, many of which will carry reservation labels.

(Yes, I know some labels will specify they are not reserved between Liverpool & Manchester, but trying to find these on busy trains makes life unnecessarily difficult for passengers. Indeed, on services with a high proportion of short distance travel, I would suggest that it should be a requirement to provide at least 100 unreserved seats.)

Well I've seen/heard comments from people travelling in the pantograph vehicle on the 319s about it being noisy with getting sudden thuds both from the electrics also the doors (when passing other trains) and presumably the 185s are on eco-mode for most of Chat Moss given there isn't much climbing involved? Also considering the 319s aren't currently air conditioned presumably you hear a lot of external noise during the Summer? I'm not sure you can really argue one type of train is noisy and the other isn't.

The original plan for the 319s was to fully refurbish them and the suggestion was 2+2 seating, including some tables. The ITT for the next Northern franchise makes reference to trains with old interiors getting a full refurbishment, suggesting that we could see the 319s have an internal layout more like the 317/7s.

Given until recently Liverpool-Airport services were operated by 2 car Sprinters and not that many services had more passengers than seats I think 185s in lieu of 319s will be an improvement, unless a significant number of CLC passengers start transferring to the Liverpool to Newcastle service - Northern replacing Sprinters with refreshed 319s hasn't resulted in that happening on the Liverpool to Airport service - most seem to prefer the 158s and 185s even if they aren't going in to Yorkshire.

And why are seat reservations a disadvantage? They allow people making longer journeys to ensure they get a seat.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But it wouldn't because 321s couldn't go into Euston, or to Liverpool, and are needed to strengthen the XCity, as well as to provide units for forthcoming electrification projects.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Soon LM will have no 321s at all.

 

[northwichcat]

The ROSCO didn't keep it a secret, TPE and the DfT knew but couldn't do anything about it. This is an effect of privatisation.

It wasn't formally announced initially though. DfT, TPE and the local PTEs were made aware of the issue months in advance any announcement. In fact the way it first got out was Modern Railways got hold of the information and then a few weeks later BBC North West Tonight did a report on it, followed by an interview with Tony Miles from Modern Railways on the topic. Then much later on Chiltern confirmed they've agreed a deal with Porterbrook for the lease of 9 x 170s.

So what's happened this time - Modern Railways have got hold of some information that indicates Porterbrook will not be leasing 323s to Northern for much longer. I'd expect we'll hear more over the coming weeks/months.

Let's bring this back to LM and Northern, ignore TPE... The LM franchise as it stands finishes at a similar time to Northern. So LM can't do a deal like Chiltern did above.

At present Govia will be in talks with DfT over an LM Direct Award which may include changes to rolling stock. Northern Rail bidders can't formally agree deals because they don't know who if they will win the next franchise yet. It's not uncommon for a deal agreed with DfT and an operator to involve replacing newer carriages with older carriages if it also includes an increase in the number of carriages.

DfT have put some conditions on DMU cascades, like preventing TPE bidders getting the units released by FGW and Scotrail and also preventing Northern bidders taking on DMUs which aren't due to be released. However, for EMUs they are being a lot more flexible with EMUs being in plentiful supply.

One poster in particular is a favourite of mine with previous suggestions of 377s coming to Northern. Now that idea died a death

Are you referring to my suggestion that there would be more logic in sending the 377/5s to Northern than ordering a huge load of Electrostars for down South, just to ensure the 319s are released? Some of the 377/5s could have been shortened to 3 car to increase flexibility up North. For example, having a 6 car 377 with corridor connections stopping at Salford Crescent instead of changing the infrastructure at Salford Crescent to cope with 8 car 319s, when £12m was recently spent to allow it cope with 6 car 185s (or equivalent), with no future proofing for 8 x 20m carriages.) The removed carriages could have gone in to other Electrostars, so no wastage.

Of course with DfT's London bias and ability to think logically not being mentioned on the job specification for DfT roles, that wasn't going to happen.

 

[Aictos]

Sudden thuds from the electrics in the pantograph vehicle? You sure that's not just the train going though a OHL neutral section

Yes I'm aware such things are strange to the north

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I often wonder what would have occurred regards rolling stock had the Northern new franchise had been let on the original scheduled date.

 

[northwichcat]

Sudden thuds from the electrics in the pantograph vehicle? You sure that's not just the train going though a OHL neutral section

Yes I'm aware such things are strange to the north

It seems Southerners make similar comments as well: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2099023&postcount=2992
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I often wonder what would have occurred regards rolling stock had the Northern new franchise had been let on the original scheduled date.

Which 'original scheduled date' is that then?

The end date that was in the original franchise agreement, let by the SRA?

The end date after the Coalition government granted Northern an extension?

The original end date of the Direct Award (Feb 2016)?

The end date for the Direct Award after the delay in getting the ITT done (April 2016)?

 

[Qwerty133]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Soon LM will have no 321s at all.

Meant 323s...
You were suggesting that 323s could replace 350s, which wouldn't work.

 

[FordFocus]

It wasn't formally announced initially though. DfT, TPE and the local PTEs were made aware of the issue months in advance any announcement. In fact the way it first got out was Modern Railways got hold of the information and then a few weeks later BBC North West Tonight did a report on it, followed by an interview with Tony Miles from Modern Railways on the topic. Then much later on Chiltern confirmed they've agreed a deal with Porterbrook for the lease of 9 x 170s.]

Whether it was 'formally' announced is irrelevant, the key thing was the major parties involved, Chiltern, TPE, DfT and PTEs were all aware. It was signed off and then the details were released. A MPs, rail groups, news outlets made some noise but in the end it's the effect of a private company (Porterbrook) making better return on their assets.

So what's happened this time - Modern Railways have got hold of some information that indicates Porterbrook will not be leasing 323s to Northern for much longer. I'd expect we'll hear more over the coming weeks/months.

It could be interesting but knowing the railway it may of been a case of misinterrupted information. None of the bidders may have let formalised fleet plans yet and Porterbrook were exploring other options as they did with the TPE 170s. I honestly can't see where Govia/LM have found funds to virtually double their 323 fleet unless the DfT have given them a bucket full of money which is unlikely given the cuts George has imposed. Also it wouldn't make sense as the DfT have then burdened Northern with costs of yet more training. The only minor cost saving I could see from 319s arriving is that they wouldn't have to maintained at Longsight for major work instead sent to the cheaper Allerton depot.


I've heard rumours from Longsight depot very recently about this but I won't go in details as it is just hearsay at the minute.

At present Govia will be in talks with DfT over an LM Direct Award which may include changes to rolling stock. Northern Rail bidders can't formally agree deals because they don't know who if they will win the next franchise yet. It's not uncommon for a deal agreed with DfT and an operator to involve replacing newer carriages with older carriages if it also includes an increase in the number of carriages.

DfT have put some conditions on DMU cascades, like preventing TPE bidders getting the units released by FGW and Scotrail and also preventing Northern bidders taking on DMUs which aren't due to be released. However, for EMUs they are being a lot more flexible with EMUs being in plentiful supply.

It's true the DfT have managed to put a tap on stock movements written into franchise agreements as Porterbrook have started something with TOCs 'pinching' stock if the end dates of franchises. Makes a mockery of the idea of the idea that John Major had in the early 1990s though

Are you referring to my suggestion that there would be more logic in sending the 377/5s to Northern than ordering a huge load of Electrostars for down South, just to ensure the 319s are released? Some of the 377/5s could have been shortened to 3 car to increase flexibility up North. For example, having a 6 car 377 with corridor connections stopping at Salford Crescent instead of changing the infrastructure at Salford Crescent to cope with 8 car 319s, when £12m was recently spent to allow it cope with 6 car 185s (or equivalent), with no future proofing for 8 x 20m carriages.) The removed carriages could have gone in to other Electrostars, so no wastage.

Of course with DfT's London bias and ability to think logically not being mentioned on the job specification for DfT roles, that wasn't going to happen.

Cost, cost, cost, cost, cost, cost, cost. That's all the DfT cares about. The 377s are earmarked for Southern capacity projects and other things after TL are done with them. Also allows them to have flexible formations to maximise capacity. Like I've said previously on these forums passenger numbers are growing, Northern are better securing platform extensions even it means remodelling Salford Crescent in the future for passenger growth.

 

[158722]

Meant 323s...
You were suggesting that 323s could replace 350s, which wouldn't work.

I would fully expect 323s to replace the 4x 350s currently used on the Walsall-Wolves service...

 

[northwichcat]

Meant 323s...
You were suggesting that 323s could replace 350s, which wouldn't work.

We don't know what changes might be made to LM services when the Direct Award is made or when the next franchise is let.

Will Crewe-Stafford via Stone remain part of a Crewe-Euston service? There's been suggestions both from Network Rail and the ORR that it won't remain that way forever, with ORR saying it's path isn't guaranteed beyond the next West Coast recast and Network Rail suggesting Stone could be served by the extension of the Manchester-Stoke stopper. If that service is split then it changes the requirements for 350s.

Other than a few pro-electrification enthusiasts no-one expected Liverpool to Blackpool to be split up to allow 319s to run Liverpool to Preston but with the DMU shortage, made worse by Chiltern securing the 170/3s, it's going to happen in October. It seems splitting services to suit rolling stock opposed to passenger demand isn't deemed unacceptable.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Which 'original scheduled date' is that then? The end date that was in the original franchise agreement, let by the SRA?

Indeed that HAS to be the date, as none of the other dates were known when the Northern franchise was let by the SRA....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We don't know what changes might be made to LM services when the Direct Award is made or when the next franchise is let.

Will Crewe-Stafford via Stone remain part of a Crewe-Euston service? There's been suggestions both from Network Rail and the ORR that it won't remain that way forever, with ORR saying it's path isn't guaranteed beyond the next West Coast recast and Network Rail suggesting Stone could be served by the extension of the Manchester-Stoke stopper. If that service is split then it changes the requirements for 350s.

Not to put too fine a point on it, since there is an existing LM thread dealing with the matter of LM services, why are such postings once again appearing upon this Northern thread...:roll

 

[northwichcat]

I honestly can't see where Govia/LM have found funds to virtually double their 323 fleet unless the DfT have given them a bucket full of money which is unlikely given the cuts George has imposed.

I agree which is why the idea of LM releasing units if they take on the Northern 323s makes sense.

One thing we can rule out is LM taking on the 350/4s before September 2018, as it's written in to the TPE ITT that bidders must take on the 350/4s until at least September 2018.

There's also a reference in the Northern ITT that bidders must take on the 333s until 2020. Possibly that relates to when PTE funding for the units expires? If so then it means they can't leave Northern or transfer across the Pennines. I don't think there's any requirement to take on the 158/9s or 321/9s, which were Metro funded initially.

 

[northwichcat]

Indeed that HAS to be the date, as none of the other dates were known when the Northern franchise was let by the SRA....

Well there's all sorts of possibilities then. The next franchise would have started before Chat Moss was electrified, given the Thameslink delay it's possible the new Northern EMU order that never was could have been resurrected and replaced the 323s as well as providing additional trains for the newly electrified lines.

It could have also meant a DMU production line in Derby could have stayed open and all the Newton Heath/Heaton 142s could have been scrapped by now.

The Conservative led Coalition liked using the excuse of the SRA under Labour specifying no growth and no new trains for Northern. However, it was them who extended it twice without revising those terms, any more than Labour had already done when they let Northern take on cascaded Sprinters as additional stock.

Not to put too fine a point on it, since there is an existing LM thread dealing with the matter of LM services, why are such postings once again appearing upon this Northern thread...:roll

The LM thread was originally relating to the 319s transferring to LM as 321 replacement, it then diverted off-topic after this thread was created and the moderators renamed it. Hence, the overlap in postings.

 

[The Planner]

Will Crewe-Stafford via Stone remain part of a Crewe-Euston service? There's been suggestions both from Network Rail and the ORR that it won't remain that way forever, with ORR saying it's path isn't guaranteed beyond the next West Coast recast and Network Rail suggesting Stone could be served by the extension of the Manchester-Stoke stopper. If that service is split then it changes the requirements for 350s.

Doubt it, Trent Valley will go 8 car and direct to Crewe from Stafford, extend the Wolves terminator to Crewe via Stoke, job done.

 

[WatcherZero]

Majority of funding for the expansion of which came from raising council tax and regular Dft national per capita transport allocation, as well as borrowing against future revenues.

 

[158722]

Doubt it, Trent Valley will go 8 car and direct to Crewe from Stafford, extend the Wolves terminator to Crewe via Stoke, job done.

Those extended Wolves - Crewe services being a useful home for some of LM's extra 323s?

 

[IanXC]

I have split/merged 3 threads to create:

London Midland/Northern EMU changes speculation for discussion of possible changes, rumours and consequences of these, for the linked matters of LM and NT.
LM 319 cascade progress for specific discussion of actual events pertaining to the introduction of 319s into LM service.

Please ensure both threads remain on topic.

Thanks

 

[causton]

Those extended Wolves - Crewe services being a useful home for some of LM's extra 323s?

If there are any spare and not being used on the Cross City line!

 

[158722]

If there are any spare and not being used on the Cross City line!

Have you missed the discussion about the possibility of some/all of Northern's fleet moving to LM?

 

[causton]

Have you missed the discussion about the possibility of some/all of Northern's fleet moving to LM?

It does depend how much (as you said, could be "some", could be "all") and how many are actually needed, ideally to make a lot more 6 car trains than there are these days at the new frequencies needed!

 

[158722]

It does depend how much (as you said, could be "some", could be "all") and how many are actually needed, ideally to make a lot more 6 car trains than there are these days at the new frequencies needed!

LM currently have 26 323s, of which 22x appear to be on Cross-city turns, 1 on the International shuttle and 1 on Walsall-Wolves - total 24.

A further 2 units will be required for the Bromsgrove extension of existing Longbridge turns (assuming all LB terminators run through) from May 2017?

A further 4 units will be required when the Chase line when that is electrified from Dec 2017?

A further 4 units could replace the 4 350/2s currently used on the Walsall-Wolves services.

That is 10 'extra' units so far from Northern's 17 accounted for, which for diagramming purposes, probably means 15. As for those other 5 and as you commented, an extra 2 sets made up to 6-car on the Cross-city will no doubt be welcome, whilst comment has been made about potential alternations to the Euston-Crewe service no longer going via Stone, but with the Walsall-Wolves locals extended to Crewe. That would seem to require an extra 3x units (presumably 323s), but would save at least 1x 350 diagram given the shorter Euston-Crewe timings.

 

[evergreenadam]

LM currently have 26 323s, of which 22x appear to be on Cross-city turns, 1 on the International shuttle and 1 on Walsall-Wolves - total 24.

A further 2 units will be required for the Bromsgrove extension of existing Longbridge turns (assuming all LB terminators run through) from May 2017?

A further 4 units will be required when the Chase line when that is electrified from Dec 2017?

A further 4 units could replace the 4 350/2s currently used on the Walsall-Wolves services.

That is 10 'extra' units so far from Northern's 17 accounted for, which for diagramming purposes, probably means 15. As for those other 5 and as you commented, an extra 2 sets made up to 6-car on the Cross-city will no doubt be welcome, whilst comment has been made about potential alternations to the Euston-Crewe service no longer going via Stone, but with the Walsall-Wolves locals extended to Crewe. That would seem to require an extra 3x units (presumably 323s), but would save at least 1x 350 diagram given the shorter Euston-Crewe timings.

And presumably the 5 350s released would help to strengthen some Crewe-Euston services to 8 cars. Not sure how many would be required to strengthen all services to 8 cars.

 

[northwichcat]

And presumably the 5 350s released would help to strengthen some Crewe-Euston services to 8 cars. Not sure how many would be required to strengthen all services to 8 cars.

At the moment the problem is Northern have nothing to replace the 323s. While some 323 services could possibly be operated by 319s, for others it would cause problems due to tight pathing and the 319s not having the rapid acceleration that the 323s have.

One option being mooted is for Northern to receive some 350s in lieu. The TPE ITT indicates the 350/4s will remain on Scottish services until at least September 2018. However, with the suggestion that LM will get an additional 11 x 319s when the Direct Award is let, it leaves the possibly of LM losing around 17 x 350/2s looking like a logical solution if they take on the Northern 323s.

Then maybe at a later date LM could receive the 10 x 350/4s plus at least 10 more 319s and release the rest of the 350/2s? That would put all the Porterbrook (100mph) 350s with one operator and all the Angel Trains (110mph) 350s with one operator.

 

[158722]

And presumably the 5 350s released would help to strengthen some Crewe-Euston services to 8 cars. Not sure how many would be required to strengthen all services to 8 cars.

With accelerated timings not via Stone of around 2h40 possible, Crewe-Euston would take 6 diagrams to cover, so 12 units.

 

[Qwerty133]

At the moment the problem is Northern have nothing to replace the 323s. While some 323 services could possibly be operated by 319s, for others it would cause problems due to tight pathing and the 319s not having the rapid acceleration that the 323s have.

One option being mooted is for Northern to receive some 350s in lieu. The TPE ITT indicates the 350/4s will remain on Scottish services until at least September 2018. However, with the suggestion that LM will get an additional 11 x 319s when the Direct Award is let, it leaves the possibly of LM losing around 17 x 350/2s looking like a logical solution if they take on the Northern 323s.

Then maybe at a later date LM could receive the 10 x 350/4s plus at least 10 more 319s and release the rest of the 350/2s? That would put all the Porterbrook (100mph) 350s with one operator and all the Angel Trains (110mph) 350s with one operator.

319s would be unsuitable north of Rugby.
323s would be unsuitable anywhere on the WCML, where 100mph speeds are necessary.

 

[40129]

Extending Walsall - Wolverhampton locals to Crewe via Stone using cl-323s would be problematic for several reasons.

AFAIK Wolverhampton and New Street traincrew don't sign Stafford - Crewe via Stone

Crewe traincrew don't sign cl-323s

Cl-323s would not be able to keep pace with other trains as their maximum speed is 90mph

Also, not convinced that replacing cl-323s with cl-350s o Hadfield/Glossop services would work too well as cl-323s have better acceleration than cl-350s and on this route the higher top speed of cl-350s would not provide compensation

 

[Bevan Price]

Extending Walsall - Wolverhampton locals to Crewe via Stone using cl-323s would be problematic for several reasons.

AFAIK Wolverhampton and New Street traincrew don't sign Stafford - Crewe via Stone

Crewe traincrew don't sign cl-323s

Cl-323s would not be able to keep pace with other trains as their maximum speed is 90mph

Also, not convinced that replacing cl-323s with cl-350s o Hadfield/Glossop services would work too well as cl-323s have better acceleration than cl-350s and on this route the higher top speed of cl-350s would not provide compensation

1. An alternative might be to extend some of the Northern Manchester - Stoke locals to Stafford ?? Of course that was easier when we had a unified network.

2. Apart from the Wolverhampton - Stafford section, a 90 mph limit is no problem - 350s rarely exceed 85 - 90 mph between Stafford, Stoke & Kidsgrove.

3. Might they contemplate Crewe - Stoke reverting to being served only by EM Crewe - Derby services ??

 

[The Planner]

Extending Walsall - Wolverhampton locals to Crewe via Stone using cl-323s would be problematic for several reasons.

AFAIK Wolverhampton and New Street traincrew don't sign Stafford - Crewe via Stone

Crewe traincrew don't sign cl-323s

Cl-323s would not be able to keep pace with other trains as their maximum speed is 90mph

None of which is insurmountable? someone pays and cogs start to turn. Not sure the speed issue is that much of a problem either considering the routes used.

 

[sd0733]

The route/traction knowledge issue is fairly easy to pass as otherwise the 319s wouldnt be coming at all.
But yes youre right New Street and wolves dont sign Stone, only Crewe and link 1 at Northampton sign it.
As regards to changes to existing services personally id extend the Chase line once electrified upto crewe via Stafford and stoke rather than the Wolves terminators as it would reintroduce all the chase line stations to Stafford, dependant on getting a path through Colwich anyway

 

[the sniper]

This idea is interesting as it fits well with the West Midlands Rail proposal, in which Staffordshire County Council is a participant. It could bring all those stations into the scope of the local 'West Midlands Business Unit'.

Are these just your own ideas Planner, or is there something to these plans?