London Midland/Northern EMU changes speculation

[swt_passenger]

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

Bromsgrove was already factored into the 350/3 order. (3 units for Bromsgrove by internal cascade, and 7 units for the main WCML) It shouldn't need to be included in your calculations.

 

[158722]

Bromsgrove was already factored into the 350/3 order. (3 units for Bromsgrove by internal cascade, and 7 units for the main WCML) It shouldn't need to be included in your calculations.

I know, but those extra units seem to have all be used up on Cross-city services, presumably an extra 6-car set or two, whilst they also had to cover the Redditch improvement in frequency. Presumably when Bromsgrove gets wired they will have to reduce those 6-car sets again or get some extra units...

 

[northwichcat]

The 319s are going to have to be split between 2 or more different operators and while certain people have been banging on about 319s being perfectly good for Northern, they quickly change their tune when there`s talk of LM or SE taking them on.

If LM can effectively use ALL the 323s and 350s then maybe it would be best for them to have them all if something can be found to operate alongside the 319s in the North West. I personally think the only other sensible cascade to Northern would be the dual voltage 375s, which were rumoured to be going to Corby services before MML electrification was put back.

 

[hwl]

I personally think the only other sensible cascade to Northern would be the dual voltage 375s, which were rumoured to be going to Corby services before MML electrification was put back.

But that would leave Southeastern short of units as they will need more units to cover the extra routes and services in 2018 when the London Bridge works are over which is why that rumour doesn't make sense and SE need to units to cope int he short term due to increasing passenger numbers.

That would also leave Northern with yet another different type of stock to worry about maintaining.

edit to add:

Page 177 of the SE Franchise document states the additional 377s have to be used to provide:
"Extra capacity demand to be met by 2018/19"
8,000 passengers in the peak hour (0800-0900) through London Bridge
and
400 in the peak hour (0800-0900) to Victoria Southeastern

Taking some 375s away as well won't help meet that target!

The units have to be ready for Dec '17 timetable change

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But that would leave Southeastern short of units as they will need more units to cover the extra routes and services in 2018 when the London Bridge works are over which is why that rumour doesn't make sense and SE need to units to cope int he short term due to increasing passenger numbers.

That would also leave Northern with yet another different type of stock to worry about maintaining.

Do I understand from your final paragraph that you would therefore wish to keep the status quo for the Class 323 units that are in the Northern franchise area at the present point of time?

 

[northwichcat]

As Paul`s mentioned Northern Rail West currently have 2 types of EMU and unless you want Northern to get one new type of versatile EMU, it`s unlikely that will change given Northern will need a total of 25-30 EMUs for the west side which are not 319s.

Presumably there would have been a plan for SE to receive something extra if they had released EMUs to EMT?

 

[Class377/5]

As Paul`s mentioned Northern Rail West currently have 2 types of EMU and unless you want Northern to get one new type of versatile EMU, it`s unlikely that will change given Northern will need a total of 25-30 EMUs for the west side which are not 319s.

Presumably there would have been a plan for SE to receive something extra if they had released EMUs to EMT?

Nope, it seems SE would have got 25x 377s but lose 20-ish 375s.

 

[D365]

Nope, it seems SE would have got 25x 377s but lose 20-ish 375s.

How many 4-car units will be required for an electric 'CorPan' service; surely not 20?!

 

[northwichcat]

How many 4-car units will be required for an electric 'CorPan' service; surely not 20?!

The plan included 12 car formations on Corby services and I think it also included service enhancements.

 

[D365]

The plan included 12 car formations on Corby services and I think it also included service enhancements.

Ah ok, I've read now that a second track is to be reinstated, which will presumably include a second platform at Corby. Sounds as if they've betting on restoring the service to a former glory.

 

[A0]

Ah ok, I've read now that a second track is to be reinstated, which will presumably include a second platform at Corby. Sounds as if they've betting on restoring the service to a former glory.

Not sure Corby will need a second platform - sensible timetabling will mean that probably won't be necessary on a 2 TPH service.

Wellingborough is due to get its 4th platform reinstated though - which will be needed when the development to the east of the station and the move of the main station building to the east side takes place.

 

[tbtc]

There’s various ways of shuffling round the numbers.

LM will need more EMUs for the Chase/ Nuneaton/ Bromsgrove electrification (as far as I am aware, whilst the TPE/ MML schemes are paused/ postponed/ kicked into the long grass, there’s no cancellation of schemes around Birmingham?)

Northern will need more EMUs for the various schemes around Manchester that are going ahead (too many to list).

Add in the issue that both fleets will have 319s and 323s (as well as other EMUs) and you didn’t need a jumbo sized box of Crayola to think that there’s merit in uniting the 323s in one fleet (before the suggestions started that the new Northern franchise won’t have any 323s).

However, the zeal for 350/2s around Manchester should be seen in light of complaints frequently made about 319s on this Forum (“these 319s are unsuitable for services around Manchester, they can’t accelerate as fast as a 323, their 4x20m carriages don’t make the most of Mancunian platforms, 3+2 seating is inappropriate for services to Manchester Airport...”), since the same could obviously be said about over 350/2s...

...still, the fact that we’re not seeing the same arguments about 350/2s being “London cast-offs” etc shows that some progress is being made. Similarly, contrast the general reluctant acceptance of 319s on the LM services (even when directly replacing younger 350s) from those who live on the southern end of the WCML – understanding the bigger picture, seeing some merits, especially if it means more seats due to longer services – with the shrill reaction from those around Manchester (insisting that any trains cascaded to their neck of the woods get a complete refurbishment, trotting out stuff about “rejects” and their age even when they are replacing 1980s DMUs around Manchester, using it as an excuse to play the victim card with the “north/ south” stuff).

On the subject, notice how the idea of 319s moving to SE (or LM) gets accepted on here like a natural transfer, but the idea of 319s moving to Northern is full of comments about how they’ll need a complete refurbishment and overhaul before they are good enough for Manchester?

When I last did the maths a few months ago, I estimated that Northern would be able to take on almost the entire 86x319s to deal with CP5 electrification whilst retaining the 333s (i.e. getting rid of all 321/ 322/ 323s).

However, this was based on electrified local services in Yorkshire (Huddersfield – Leeds, Leeds York etc) which aren’t now getting electrified any time soon...

... it was also based on assumptions about the timetable before the franchise was announced (e.g. many assumed that the Liverpool – Warrington BQ shorts being extended to Manchester to give three Northern EMUs per hour over Chat Moss from Liverpool to Manchester, when we now know there’ll be just one Northern EMU per hour over this route with the Manchester Airport service slowed down to replace the current Liverpool – Victoria “stopper”...

...and it was based on a reduction in Barrow – Manchester services (meaning a bigger proportion of Lancaster/ Preston – Manchester services being EMU operated, possibly a reintroduction of bi-hourly Windermere services to Manchester)... we now know that the new franchise will see an increase in direct diesel services from Manchester to Barrow whilst the Windermere electrification sees it still with only a token direct Manchester service in the baseline...

...i.e. the numbers will be a good bit lower now. As things stand, you could only consider taking all of the 319s if you got rid of all other Northern EMUs (whilst it’s easy to find a home for the 321/322s at Greater Anglia, the small fleet of 333s may be harder to relocate), and even then the poorly designed franchise (which will see a reduction in Northern EMUs on Chat Moss, rather than focussing them on newly electrified routes) may have a good few spare.

The “all 350/2s to leave LM” argument doesn’t make sense to me – they’d not be able to run 90mph 323s on the WCML services – giving LM some 319s to allow Northern to take some 350/2s alongside their 319s just creates more small fleets (especially as a 3+2 seated 350/2 is hardly a premium offering alongside 319s). The only point in doing this would be if you were the kind of person fixated with “number of post-privatisation EMUs” as a measure of the TOCs – it’s of little practical use and duplicates resources.

If a 3+2 seated 319 isn’t suitable for Manchester Airport – Blackpool (“which is a longer duration than Euston – New Street on a 390” etc etc) then how come there aren’t the same complaints about the 3+2 seated 350/2s potentially being used on Manchester Airport – Blackpool? If a 185 to a 319 is a downgrade on such a service, then surely a 185 to a 350/2 is a downgrade?

How come the 350/2s (not known for their nippy dwell times/ acceleration) aren’t getting the same criticism for not necessarily being able to keep to 323 times to Glossop/ Stoke that the 319s were getting a few months ago? Why is nobody worrying about the suitability for Manchester Airport, given how precious passengers there seem to be? Does the “London Cast Off” argument only get trotted out when the EMUs in question previously served St Pancras/ London Bridge but not apply to EMUs that were frequent visitors to Euston?

I suppose it placates the “Angry of Manchester” lobby, it gets LM out of the expensive/ awkward leasing contracts that they have for the 350/2s (which seem restrictive in terms of incentives/ costs for proactively doubling up services, if comments on this Forum are anything to go by), it unites one EMU class under one TOC (even if it spreads other fleets thinly between more than one), it juggles finite resources to let everyone think they’ve “won”?

 

[43074]

We're 582 (now 583...) posts into this, has anything actually been officially confirmed or is this all speculation? I saw the story in Modern Railways but I suspect there is more to it than we know at the moment.

It would be sensible for all 323s to be concentrated at London Midland, especially with the other electrification schemes in the Birmingham area, but I don't think there's an ''ideal'' replacement out there at the moment for the Manchester 323s. Even if these rumours do come to anything, surely 319s would do as a stop gap, even if not the ideal solution.

I don't think the 350/2s will have anything to do with these cascades, they were intended for the Euston lines, and I see no reason why they should move elsewhere especially as there are still many 319s to be allocated after the 700s enter service.

Regarding Corby (although off topic and not relevant for a few years now), the service could be run with 5 or 6 units at a half hourly frequency (or 3 on an hourly service) so I would think 14/15 units would be needed if we include a few 12-car workings and a spare. I also gather there were plans for Leicester to get a few EMU services at peak times, so I suspect that would explain the possible need for a fleet of 20.

 

[northwichcat]

However, the zeal for 350/2s around Manchester should be seen in light of complaints frequently made about 319s on this Forum (“these 319s are unsuitable for services around Manchester, they can’t accelerate as fast as a 323, their 4x20m carriages don’t make the most of Mancunian platforms, 3+2 seating is inappropriate for services to Manchester Airport...”), since the same could obviously be said about over 350/2s...

...still, the fact that we’re not seeing the same arguments about 350/2s being “London cast-offs” etc shows that some progress is being made. Similarly, contrast the general reluctant acceptance of 319s on the LM services (even when directly replacing younger 350s) from those who live on the southern end of the WCML – understanding the bigger picture, seeing some merits, especially if it means more seats due to longer services – with the shrill reaction from those around Manchester (insisting that any trains cascaded to their neck of the woods get a complete refurbishment, trotting out stuff about “rejects” and their age even when they are replacing 1980s DMUs around Manchester, using it as an excuse to play the victim card with the “north/ south” stuff).

One thing we do know for certain is the next Northern franchise will have to provide Regional Express services, for which 3+2 seating will not be permitted.

However, while Northern bidders are required to provide 'Regional Express' standard interiors on certain services they are permitted to:

1. Use DMUs under the wires on more than 90% of off-peak services which could be electric until December 2019. (From December 2019 a minimum of 90% of off-peak services which could be electric must be diagrammed to be operated by electric traction.) That allows the option of regional DMUs running the routes initially post-electrification until some appropriate EMUs are sourced/refurbished.
2. Introduce EMUs which don't have 'Regional Express' standard interiors on 'Regional Express' routes, as long as they are either given 'Regional Express' standard interiors or replace by trains which do by December 2019.

Northern bidders were also allowed to propose running other services as 'Regional Express.' Hypothetically a bidder may have proposed doing that with the Stoke services and offering Northern only fares in the hope of attracting some passengers to use Northern over Virgin and XC, similar to what we've seen with LM already. So if any bidders have proposed that or anything similar using new modern stock will help their idea in succeeding.

Moving on to lengths of 350s. Using 350s won't solve the problem at Salford Crescent. However, a number of posters seem to think the only solution is to remodel Salford Crescent yet again. 350s potentially would cause less issues than 319s currently due to:
1. Having corridor connections and unit deselect being available meaning it may be possible to stop a 8 car 350 at a station where it is not possible to stop a 8 car 319.
2. The 350s being good at stopping in the right place. Go to Winsford for an example of this. The platforms are shorter than the 350s yet the driver seems to be able to stop the train with all the passenger doors on the platform each time without fail.

On the subject, notice how the idea of 319s moving to SE (or LM) gets accepted on here like a natural transfer, but the idea of 319s moving to Northern is full of comments about how they’ll need a complete refurbishment and overhaul before they are good enough for Manchester?

You've obviously not seen many of the posts I have. The poster happiest to see 319s on LM is Neil Williams, whose originally from Merseyside and presumably knows all too well what can be done with an old train based on what Merseyrail have done with the 507s and 508s. Overall there's probably more complaints about 319s potentially replacing 350/2s on LM routes posted on here, than there are about 156s actually replacing 185s on TPE routes.

Some of the Southeastern/LM complaints:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2214142&postcount=5
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2038766&postcount=5
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2249675&postcount=527

If a 3+2 seated 319 isn’t suitable for Manchester Airport – Blackpool (“which is a longer duration than Euston – New Street on a 390” etc etc) then how come there aren’t the same complaints about the 3+2 seated 350/2s potentially being used on Manchester Airport – Blackpool? If a 185 to a 319 is a downgrade on such a service, then surely a 185 to a 350/2 is a downgrade?

Probably because of the assurance DfT/Rail North have given over it being a 'Regional Express' service meaning if 350/2s are used they will have to be given new interiors with 2+2 seating and tables. If that was to happen maybe the seats removed from the 350/2s could be inserted in to 319s to give them improved interiors?

How come the 350/2s (not known for their nippy dwell times/ acceleration) aren’t getting the same criticism for not necessarily being able to keep to 323 times to Glossop/ Stoke that the 319s were getting a few months ago?

It seems to be regarded that 350s can accelerate faster than 319s but they have the downside of the doors not being as quick to release.

Maybe the answer lies with 350s managing to run the Liverpool to Birmingham services which call at Acton Bridge/Hartford/Winsford, so why shouldn't they be able to manage Manchester-Stoke services calling at most stations?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We're 582 (now 583...) posts into this, has anything actually been officially confirmed or is this all speculation?

With the moderators merging threads, the early posts in this thread relate to the rumours of LM taking on 319s as class 321 replacement, something we now know is actually happening. There's around 170 posts before the mention of Porterbrook not leasing 323s to the next Northern franchise and some of the ones after that relate to the cascade of 319s to LM as 321 replacements.

One think I don't think has been suggested is what if LM secure all the 323s and loan a number back to Northern on a daily basis for up to a few years until Northern source suitable replacement stock, similar to what we saw when the Wales & Borders franchise initially took on the 175s?

 

[43074]

With the moderators merging threads, the early posts in this thread relate to the rumours of LM taking on 319s as class 321 replacement, something we now know is actually happening. There's around 170 posts before the mention of Porterbrook not leasing 323s to the next Northern franchise and some of the ones after that relate to the cascade of 319s to LM as 321 replacements.

Oops, sorry hadn't considered that It was the 323 posts I was referring to.

 

[FordFocus]

I don't see any real advantages of 350/2s coming North for all parties. They would have to maintain them somewhere, Ardwick under contract with Siemens (if there is space) is the only real logical place as Longsight have no experience with these trains and would have to be trained on them, Alstom charge Northern a large amount of money for 323s so a more complicated 350 would be pricey with TMS, HVAC and other systems. More 319s with heavy maintenance carried out in house at Allerton would be cheaper.

The length and layouts are very similar to 319s, 4 car 20m carriages, 3+2 seating. I'm unsure whether 350s have proper SDO as suggested for Salford Crescent. I thought Desiros only had unit deselect so only a complete unit could be deselected for door release. So no real advantage there.

Without going in for this North v South thing again, IHMO some posters in this thread are desperate for Northern to get some modern rolling stock so are coming up with pie in the sky ideas that are costly and hard to implement.. So far we've got 350/2, 375 and 377 going north when the DfT and ROSCO shortly have a large amount of 319s off lease.

Refurbishment of 319s including air con, possibly more comfortable seats, luggage racks, DDA modifications, the modifications for a sub fleet of 2+2 seating for the Barrow &Windermere should be on the cards in the next franchise.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm unsure whether 350s have proper SDO as suggested for Salford Crescent. I thought Desiros only had unit deselect so only a complete unit could be deselected for door release. So no real advantage there.

The corridor connections allowing people to moved between units would be an advantage over a 319 in my opinion if it wasn't for the problem that trains can't overhang the end of the platforms at Salford Crescent with the layout being altered.

When Northern had the 180s the SDO only worked if the driver released the doors. So with the RMT threatening strikes if the SDO was used Northern did local door release at Woodsmoor (with the platform being too short.) That was far from an ideal situation but if it had been a formation consisting of 2 x 150/1s and a 153, it would have been far worse. I think comparing 2 x 350s and 2 x 319s at short platforms is similar - 350s are far from ideal but 319s are far worse.

 

[FordFocus]

Stopping an 8 car 350 and only opening the front 4 carriages because of the short platform and the limitations of the unit deselect equipment would virtually ruin the peak timetable with the dwell time by people moving through the carriages to the front 4. That destroys any advantages of 350s stopping there.

Salford Crescent will have to be extended and remodelled at some point. The passenger numbers keep rising.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

This speculation will go on until the Northern and TPE winners are announced, together with their plans - ie potentially several months off.
While the TPE bids (tabled 9 weeks ago) will probably have been fully analysed by DfT, the Northern bids (tabled 5 weeks ago) will only be partially analysed.
They will still be number crunching and optioneering, and maybe relating the TPE bids to the Northern ones to get an optimum joint solution.
None of this will be resolved quickly, and maybe some more "creative solutions" will turn up.
Rail North will also have its say at some point, and will have to manage its implementation from next year.
Best not assume too much from rumours - it's too early for anything to have been finally decided.

 

[swt_passenger]

Stopping an 8 car 350 and only opening the front 4 carriages because of the short platform and the limitations of the unit deselect equipment would virtually ruin the peak timetable with the dwell time by people moving through the carriages to the front 4.

Lack of carriage level SDO is a solvable problem, allegedly.

Only a year late on SWT now though...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This speculation will go on until the Northern and TPE winners are announced, together with their plans - ie potentially several months off. Rail North will also have its say at some point, and will have to manage its implementation from next year.

Best not assume too much from rumours - it's too early for anything to have been finally decided.

Some gems of common sense are scattered like diamonds in this posting.

 

[sd0733]

I was fairly sceptical on this 350/2 thing until today but heard from someone pretty reliable today that the LM /2 fleet will start being 'depleted' during 2016

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think that it probably comes down to how much each TOC (Train Operating Company) will offer the ROSCO (Rolling Stock Company) for each class of EMU. Did Southern get the extra 170s from Scotrail because they were prepared to pay more for them or was it because of DFT interference ?. I doubt if Northern would be able to outbid another TOC so if I am right then the highest bidder wins. That would mean Northern getting all the 319s and losing some/all 323s. I am not saying it is fair or logical but if LM have their eyes on more 323s then I suspect they will be able to get them.

Hang on though LM have just let seven 321s slip out of their grip !.

Then again perhaps LM would like to get more 323s to strengthen services around Birmingham and cascade 350s from Birmingham to the WCML to get rid of the 319s. Result is only two classes of EMU to look after.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think that it probably comes down to how much each TOC (Train Operating Company) will offer the ROSCO (Rolling Stock Company) for each class of EMU. Did Southern get the extra 170s from Scotrail because they were prepared to pay more for them or was it because of DFT interference ?.

I think the main reason was that electrification makes them surplus to Scotrail's requirements. No-one has really mentioned some sort of auction going on, whether DfT inspired or not.

 

[broadbander]

I spotted 1/3 of a Northern 323 on the move today... Vehicle 65032 was heading north just before J3A of the M6 around 15:00.

 

[158722]

I was fairly sceptical on this 350/2 thing until today but heard from someone pretty reliable today that the LMn /2 fleet will start being 'depleted' during 2016

There seems to be several sceptical posters, but despite protestations, I have a feeling we are going to see much of what has been theorized coming to bear fruit...

 

[Bevan Price]

Second hand information is not always reliable. However, one rail worker said to me that he was told very recently by a senior manager at Northern that their 323s are definitely to be replaced by 319s. Guess we will have to wait & see what happens......

Regarding other points made - if 350/2 are considered acceptable for Birmingham - Liverpool (effectively a regional express), then DfT will probably consider 3+2 seating on 319s as suitable for Manchester Airport / Blackpool, etc.

 

[WatcherZero]

No, the routes part of the regional express specification which requires 2+2 so you couldn't use 3+2 on it. Its also part of the specification that all trains used must be extensively refurbed so converting 3+2 to 2+2 could be done at the same time.

Actually that's getting me thinking, perhaps this rolling stock cascade is because of the refurbishment requirement.

 

[Starmill]

If a 3+2 seated 319 isn’t suitable for Manchester Airport – Blackpool (“which is a longer duration than Euston – New Street on a 390” etc etc) then how come there aren’t the same complaints about the 3+2 seated 350/2s potentially being used on Manchester Airport – Blackpool? If a 185 to a 319 is a downgrade on such a service, then surely a 185 to a 350/2 is a downgrade?

A 350/2 doesn't have any luggage racks or any tables, and it has horribly uncomfortable 3+2 seating - worse even than a 319. They also lack the luxuries that trains as new as those are now expected to be getting - sockets and wifi. The only thing it has that 319s lack are carpet and air conditioning.

Neither type of stock is at all appropriate for Manchester Airport - Liverpool Lime Street/Blackpool North. In terms of stock appropriateness, a even 156 does a better job than either, but they're operationally inferior. There's also a strong case that 1/3 2/3 doors are better for these routes as although they need to be comfortable, end-door vehicles don't offer that much of an increase in comfort for the huge increase in dwell time that results. A specification similar to the 380 is an excellent model for these routes.

For those unfamiliar:

1/3 2/3 doors in 23m coaches, 2+2 seating arranged in many bays of 4 with a half-table, and seat-back tables elsewhere, 2 sockets under the half-table, air conditioning, 2 toilets per 4 car set one accessible one space-saving, free wifi, luggage racks, bike spaces with tip-up seats, standing space abundant around doors and with wide aisles which invite people to move down, but maintaining a gap and an armrest between the two seats. I would perhaps replace the plastic floor with carpet and add sockets to airline seats but we really are nit-picking there.

About as different as it gets from a 350/2. A good hybrid between a commuter unit such as that and a long-distance focussed one such as a 350/4.

Finally, 350s are known for nippy acceleration. Certainly compared to a 319 that is. If they can match a 323 is a matter nobody has quite come to a conclusion about.

A 350 isn't a cast-off because it isn't almost at the end of its sensible operational life. That doesn't make it any more appropriate than a Northern 'Oh-it's-fine-we'll-just-refurbish-this-Airport-serving-train-and-not-bother-to-install-a-single-luggage-rack' 319/3.

 

[northwichcat]

Stopping an 8 car 350 and only opening the front 4 carriages because of the short platform and the limitations of the unit deselect equipment would virtually ruin the peak timetable with the dwell time by people moving through the carriages to the front 4. That destroys any advantages of 350s stopping there.

But it does have advantages over 8 car 319s.

• As Regional Express services will have to provide catering services, dwell times can be reduced by using 8 car 350s as the trolley doesn't have to be constantly moved between trains.
• If passengers board the wrong train, they can move through to the correct portion to alight at Salford Crescent. I was presuming they would do that in good time, with announcements/staff reminding passengers a few minutes before arrival at Salford Crescent, not waiting until Salford Crescent to discover they are on the wrong train.
• Additionally passengers who only just make the train in Manchester can be told to board through the nearest door and walk through to the right section, opposed to either delaying the train by 30 seconds or annoying someone by closing the door seconds before they get to them.
• If the service is a portion working - say it's Manchester Airport to Blackpool and Windermere, with the Blackpool portion the one which opens it's doors at Salford Crescent and a passenger boarding at Salford Crescent wants Windermere, they can moved through to the other train without having to alight and re-board at another station.
• If the train which opens it's doors at Salford Crescent has no working toilet then passengers can walk through to the other train to find one.

I'm not saying 350s are ideal at present but they are less bad for Regional Express services than 319s.

Out of interest given there are 5 car 360s, would it be possible to reform 350s in to 3 or 6 car formations without wasting carriages? If so what about 3 and 4 car 350s for Northern to allow 7 car formations (around the same length as a 6 car 185) and lengthening some LM 350s to 6 car using the spare carriages?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I spotted 1/3 of a Northern 323 on the move today... Vehicle 65032 was heading north just before J3A of the M6 around 15:00.

Is that the one which the pantograph snapped on just outside Manchester just before the evening peak, a few weeks back?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Second hand information is not always reliable. However, one rail worker said to me that he was told very recently by a senior manager at Northern that their 323s are definitely to be replaced by 319s. Guess we will have to wait & see what happens......

That's the problem when we get part of the story.

When we had the "Chiltern have secured the 170/3s" part of the story and not the what TPE are going to get as replacement there was a rumour circulating that TPE would get 8 x 158s from Northern, in the end they got 6 x 156s from Northern. Even now there's a missing piece as the TPE ITT refers to acquiring 4 trains similar in capacity and performance to the remaining Chiltern bound 170s as a loan.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Did Southern get the extra 170s from Scotrail because they were prepared to pay more for them or was it because of DFT interference ?
...
Hang on though LM have just let seven 321s slip out of their grip !.

Both were down to franchise end dates.

The LM 321s were originally leased to them until April 2016. However, the new Scotrail franchise were able to secure 7 x 321s from FCC routes due to them being off-lease at the end of the FCC franchise. As Govia secured the new franchise they thought it would be easier to renegotiate and send the LM 321s to Scotrail, than to have a mix of 319s and 321s on Great Northern routes.

On the other hand Southern needed more Turbostars and had hoped to get the TPE ones in the future but with Chiltern doing a deal for them, Southern approached Eversholt for their off-lease 170s (which were being used by Scotrail.)

I doubt if Northern would be able to outbid another TOC so if I am right then the highest bidder wins. That would mean Northern getting all the 319s and losing some/all 323s. I am not saying it is fair or logical but if LM have their eyes on more 323s then I suspect they will be able to get them.

As the LM Direct Award starts next April and LM are currently in talks with DfT they couldn't have signed a deal for 17 more 323s without DfT approval. As the Northern franchise hasn't been awarded yet bidders can't formally sign leases until DfT awards the franchise. It sounds very much like the 323 rumour is down to what Porterbrook want opposed to what Govia or the other 2 Northern bidders want.