London Midland/Northern EMU changes speculation

[AM9]

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.

Maybe the gangway problem could be solved if some of the Northern 319s could be swapped for 317s. AGE would probably be quite happy to have 319s if they were cleared for their routes where 4-car trains are the norm.

 

[northwichcat]

Maybe the gangway problem could be solved if some of the Northern 319s could be swapped for 317s. AGE would probably be quite happy to have 319s if they were cleared for their routes where 4-car trains are the norm.

Would it be economically viable to fit 35 year old 317s with brand new interiors including air conditioning and plug sockets? If not then Northern can't use them for Regional Express routes, which are the ones most likely to need the longest trains.

 

[D365]

Maybe the gangway problem could be solved if some of the Northern 319s could be swapped for 317s. AGE would probably be quite happy to have 319s if they were cleared for their routes where 4-car trains are the norm.

Porterbrook have suggested in their Class 319 brochure that a revised cab end could be fitted with a gangway connector (P15), as has been done with the Class 458/5 conversions. However the economics of a major redesign to a 30 year old fleet have to be taken into account.

Would be more sensible to give AGA some more Class 321s and instead take the Class 317s which will be replaced on London Overground and Great Northern in a few years. Especially seeing as a refurbishment has been devised - see unit 317722.

 

[northwichcat]

Porterbrook have suggested in their Class 319 brochure that a revised cab end could be fitted with a gangway connector (P15), as has been done with the Class 458/5 conversions. However the economics of a major redesign to a 30 year old fleet have to be taken into account.

Porterbrook originally proposed those ideas when Lord Adonis (in announcing Chat Moss/Thames Valley electrification) said Chat Moss/Thames Valley would receive cascaded trains from Thameslink which will be fully refurbished including new seats and air conditioning. The idea was those trains would start to enter service on Chat Moss in December 2013, so would be refurbished when they were 23-26 years old. However, now it's looking like any full refurbishment will be done when the trains are around 30 years in age, so whether all those ideas are viable especially now EMUs are in more plentiful supply is another question.

 

[D365]

... especially now EMUs are in more plentiful supply.

Is that necessarily the case? The Class 387/1 and /3 builds, along with 21 Class 365s, have been claimed by GW post-Thameslink. The Class 377/5 and /2 fleets will be passed on to Great Northern and Southern. Unless the Class 350/2 speculation turns out to be true, we only have 20 DV Class 375/6s (allegedly to be replaced by 25 Class 377/1) up for grabs from the post-privatisation EMUs.

The PEP and Mk3-based fleets are getting on a bit in age, so any proposed refurbishment may end up not being as extensive as first hoped.

 

[chiltern trev]

Re (1) class 319 gangways (or not) and (2) 3+2 vs 2+2 seating

(1) Class 319 gangways.

The class 319 have end doors through the drivers cabs for emergency use only.

So what is the cost of changing the end emergency doors into a gangway end? This could be done at the refurb time.

And if adding gangways is perhaps more expensive than would be liked, consider partial gangwaying which would require a review of 4 car, 8 car and 12 car diagrams, i.e. how many of each. Thus you could:
- leave some units unchanged where soley 4 car diagrams are required
- convert one end on some units where 8 car or 12 car dagrams are required (the outer units on 12 car diagrams)
- convert both ends where 12 car diagrams are require - for centre units
If adding gangways is deemed ok then perhaps you also convert both ends on some units for spares/operational issues/benefits.

When the Met Line A class units were converted to OPO, only one end was changed on nearly all units. A small number of units had both ends converted for such as the Chesham shuttle and operational issues.

(2) re 3+2 vs 2+2
The Chiltern Line class 165 have both - 3+2 in the centre section and 2+2 in the outer section of every carriage. This was the result of consultation with passengers and the conversion of one 2 car unit with various seating arrangements which was in service for at least 3 months before a commitment was made to the full fleet refurbishment.
The passenger consultation revealed that at peak time, commuters preferred 2+2 and would rather stand than sit in a middle seat of the 3 (in the 3+2) - this was a very common observance even of a train with no spare standing room.
Off peak and at week-ends, families preferred the 3+2 facing 3+2 so the whole family could easily sit together.
Something to think about at refurb time?
a number o

 

[northwichcat]

Is that necessarily the case? The Class 387/1 and /3 builds, along with 21 Class 365s, have been claimed by GW post-Thameslink. The Class 377/5 and /2 fleets will be passed on to Great Northern and Southern. Unless the Class 350/2 speculation turns out to be true, we only have 20 DV Class 375/6s (allegedly to be replaced by 25 Class 377/1) up for grabs from the post-privatisation EMUs.

We now have more Electrostars and Desiros than we had in 2008, FGW didn't need to secure 319s as originally envisaged as 387s and 365s were available. LO, Scotrail, Gatwick Express, FGW and SWT are receiving/to receive brand new EMUs while c2c's franchise agreement allows them to order additional trains at a later date. At the same time electrification projects have been delayed. The end result is the remaining 319s aren't going to be snapped up like hot cakes.

The PEP and Mk3-based fleets are getting on a bit in age, so any proposed refurbishment may end up not being as extensive as first hoped.

Agreed. Which is why I questioned the viability of giving 35 year old 317s brand new interiors including air conditioning and plug sockets when AM9 suggested sending them to Northern. If it's decided that it's not viable to give 31xs that level of refurbishment then Northern will have to find alternative trains (either new or cascaded) for their Regional Express routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

(2) re 3+2 vs 2+2

Something to think about at refurb time?

For Northern's 150s, unless they are going to be in permanent 3 or 4 car formations I don't think going to 2+2 seating would be a good idea, despite how unpopular 3+2 seating can be with certain people, just because a 40m train with an accessible toilet and 2+2 seating would have far too few seats for most Northern services.

With EMUs if they use the same class on regional and commuter trains it may depend whether they decide it's easier to have one regional type interior to simplify diagramming or different regional and commuter interiors. With some of the electric lines out of Manchester serving affluent areas, having regional interiors on commuter services may help attract more custom.

 

[Peter Sarf]

While reading starmill's post number 599 it occurred to me that the 350/2s could even end up on South West trains. They are after all the same as 450s. Just have a pantograph and other AC equipment fitted. The 350s have worked on DC lines in the past on Southern services from East Croydon to Milton Keynes (or somwhere on the WCML) whilst there were no 377s available.

I still cannot see LM readily giving up many/all of their 350/2s though. Surely they would rather dispense with the 321/319s ?. After all only 7 319s is a bit non standard, the unit end gangway connections on 350s are useful and the 350s provide useful acceleration whilst sharing tracks with the Pendolinos. I am assuming they will get the 323s though.

 

[AM9]

Would it be economically viable to fit 35 year old 317s with brand new interiors including air conditioning and plug sockets? If not then Northern can't use them for Regional Express routes, which are the ones most likely to need the longest trains.

Wait and see if anything gets more than a 'Northern Refresh' irrespective of the spec. when the DfT have an economy drive. Post general election times are different to the heady days of 'Northern Powerhouse' political posturing.

 

[MCR247]

While reading starmill's post number 599 it occurred to me that the 350/2s could even end up on South West trains. They are after all the same as 450s. Just have a pantograph and other AC equipment fitted. The 350s have worked on DC lines in the past on Southern services from East Croydon to Milton Keynes (or somwhere on the WCML) whilst there were no 377s available.

350/2s aren't dual voltage though AFAIK and weren't built with DC in mind. Only 350/1s went on hire to Southern

 

[Domh245]

I think that to get the 350/2s to run on DC, you would *only* need to rebogie them with the shoegear fitted bogies, and then run a wire from the shoegear to the bus line.

 

[Class377/5]

I think that to get the 350/2s to run on DC, you would *only* need to rebogie them with the shoegear fitted bogies, and then run a wire from the shoegear to the bus line.

Mod the software plus getting the paperwork sorted (paperwork is often the hardest part). Costs start racking up.

 

[MCR247]

I think that to get the 350/2s to run on DC, you would *only* need to rebogie them with the shoegear fitted bogies, and then run a wire from the shoegear to the bus line.

I'm sure when they were first delivered one of the rail magazines did an article on them and specifically mentioned that they are the same as /1s (excl interior) except that they can't and won't be able to work on DC. I'm not sure whether that was that it was near enough impossible due to the costs, or if it would just require some changes

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Mod the software plus getting the paperwork sorted (paperwork is often the hardest part). Costs start racking up.

Would the same hold true for all 350s and 360s?

 

[Class377/5]

Would the same hold true for all 350s and 360s?

Depending on the software but the 350/2 the same paperwork add the rest of the 350s on the account of 110mph operation so they require own paperwork.

360 on the DC would require new paperwork too. Although there was one 360/2 was in the UK a dv 4 car. Unpowered of course.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Depending on the software but the 350/2 the same paperwork add the rest of the 350s on the account of 110mph operation so they require own paperwork.

360 on the DC would require new paperwork too. Although there was one 360/2 was in the UK a dv 4 car. Unpowered of course.

Would the paperwork involve a couple of thousand miles of testing in DC mode?

 

[northwichcat]

Wait and see if anything gets more than a 'Northern Refresh' irrespective of the spec. when the DfT have an economy drive. Post general election times are different to the heady days of 'Northern Powerhouse' political posturing.

There's some ambiguity in the spec regarding all trains having modern interiors. For instance, it's not clear whether the Sprinters which had new seats fitted around 15 years ago would need to have new seats to meet the 'modern interior' requirement. However, both DfT and Rail North saw 'Regional Express' requirements as very important because a significant number of objections were received to routes being transferred from TPE to Northern on the basis that they would lose their modern stock, so for that reason I doubt your idea of using unrefurbished 317s on Regional Express routes has any viability.

 

[Class377/5]

Would the paperwork involve a couple of thousand miles of testing in DC mode?

Not that much but I'm not completely sure of but new safety case on new software will be needed first prior to testing.

 

[FordFocus]

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.

Doubled up TPE 185s seem to manage okay. Still don't buy it on cost reasons for 319s over 350s overall though.

 

[northwichcat]

Doubled up TPE 185s seem to manage okay.

But you need a 7 car formation using 20m carriages to provide the same sort of length train, so if 6 car 185s manage OK replacing them with 4 car EMUs would be a capacity decrease, replacing them with 8 car EMUs would require additional infrastructure work, which may mean more needing schemes get delayed due to the money and workforce being sent to change Salford Crescent again.

 

[childwallblues]

While reading starmill's post number 599 it occurred to me that the 350/2s could even end up on South West trains. They are after all the same as 450s. Just have a pantograph and other AC equipment fitted. The 350s have worked on DC lines in the past on Southern services from East Croydon to Milton Keynes (or somwhere on the WCML) whilst there were no 377s available.

I still cannot see LM readily giving up many/all of their 350/2s though. Surely they would rather dispense with the 321/319s ?. After all only 7 319s is a bit non standard, the unit end gangway connections on 350s are useful and the 350s provide useful acceleration whilst sharing tracks with the Pendolinos. I am assuming they will get the 323s though.

SW Trains have 707s on order.

 

[northwichcat]

While reading starmill's post number 599 it occurred to me that the 350/2s could even end up on South West trains. They are after all the same as 450s. Just have a pantograph and other AC equipment fitted. The 350s have worked on DC lines in the past on Southern services from East Croydon to Milton Keynes (or somwhere on the WCML) whilst there were no 377s available.

I still cannot see LM readily giving up many/all of their 350/2s though. Surely they would rather dispense with the 321/319s ?. After all only 7 319s is a bit non standard, the unit end gangway connections on 350s are useful and the 350s provide useful acceleration whilst sharing tracks with the Pendolinos. I am assuming they will get the 323s though.

To throw another idea in to the mix. Apparently Siemens told SWT it would be an easy conversion if they wanted to start using 450s on overheads. Maybe if some SWT routes need extra capacity they could get more Desiro Cities and release some of their 450s.

 

[swt_passenger]

Maybe if some SWT routes need extra capacity they could get more Desiro Cities and release some of their 450s.

That's already why SWT ordered the Desiro Cities, a dedicated inner suburban high capacity train to release the 458/5s from the Windsor side inner suburbans back to the Reading services, which will release 450s to other mainline routes to provide extra capacity there.

 

[northwichcat]

That's already why SWT ordered the Desiro Cities, a dedicated inner suburban high capacity train to release the 458/5s from the Windsor side inner suburbans back to the Reading services, which will release 450s to other mainline routes to provide extra capacity there.

I meant release some altogether so they could join 350s at LM or another operator.

 

[swt_passenger]

I meant release some altogether so they could join 350s at LM or another operator.

What would be the point? SWT run a fleet of 127 x 450s, why would it make sense to reduce the number of outer suburban units, capable of operating in 12 car formation, with first class and gangways, in favour of more Desiro Cities?

Solution with no problem...

 

[northwichcat]

What would be the point? SWT run a fleet of 127 x 450s, why would it make sense to reduce the number of outer suburban units, capable of operating in 12 car formation, with first class and gangways, in favour of more Desiro Cities?

Solution with no problem...

You seem to be suggesting that there's no point to a cascade if it has potential disadvantages to an operator even if there are potential benefits to another operator. Have you not heard about 90% of cascades which have happened in recent years?

 

[swt_passenger]

Have you not heard about 90% of cascades which have happened in recent years?

It would be difficult not to notice with every one of them receiving your audit skills...

 

[FordFocus]

But you need a 7 car formation using 20m carriages to provide the same sort of length train, so if 6 car 185s manage OK replacing them with 4 car EMUs would be a capacity decrease, replacing them with 8 car EMUs would require additional infrastructure work, which may mean more needing schemes get delayed due to the money and workforce being sent to change Salford Crescent again.

Your solution to a tiny problem is to bring in 350s which is a more expensive stock to lease, probably can't be maintain as Allerton as they won't be able to do the work because of the amount of 319s going to Northern, so you have to look elsewhere. Have to train 5 depots worth of drivers on (2 of which already sign 319s) on yet another traction with chronic traincrew shortages as it will be so hard to release staff if RDW goes. All this pushes up huge costs on a franchise that is aiming to cut costs (mostly by cutting front line staff) just to satisfy the needs for ONE station on the network. Like I said before, doubled up 350s don't have proper SDO so it's still not the solution.

Eventually Salford Crescent will have to be remodelled as the current 2 platform arrangement will become a bottleneck if there are more services coming. Your better remodelling it sooner rather than later.

 

[northwichcat]

Your solution to a tiny problem is to bring in 350s which is a more expensive stock to lease

Much earlier I said there were advantages over using 350s over 319s after you dismissed any benefits of using 350s over 319s, that doesn't mean it's "my solution." It certainly wasn't me who started speculation about 350s going to Northern! For all we know it could be the ROSCOs themselves circulating stories as if TOCs think there's a lot of interest in the stock they currently have they might be willing to pay more to keep it.

I'm not sure why you repeated the same 319s vs 350s argument again when I was responding to your claim about 2 x 185s being ideal for the Bolton corridor! I actually think doubled up 323s would be the best solution for the Bolton corridor post-electrification. There's no reason why a 323 couldn't be refitted with a similar interior to a 185 or keep a commuter style layout, depending on the type of services they are used on. However, all this discussion is around Northern losing 323s opposed to Northern gaining 323s, so I didn't think it would be necessary to repeat what I've said in previous threads about the Bolton corridor when there now looks to be 0% chance of it happening.

Have to train 5 depots worth of drivers on (2 of which already sign 319s) on yet another traction with chronic traincrew shortages as it will be so hard to release staff if RDW goes.

Is it not probable that some TPE crews (who sign 185s and 350s) will transfer to Northern as work transfers which initially will include working 185 operated services?

As the Pacers go Northern are likely going to have to train more drivers on additional types of Sprinters, as well as Turbostars and a new type of DMU, so is EMU training really such a big deal in the grand scheme of things?

 

[zn1]

i have seen a couple of 319's in white assumed they were on trial/test running from wolverton, makes sense they are being operated by LM, I was told that Northamptons remaining 321 fleet are going to scotland, taking on 319's makes sense, as they are very cheaper to operate, have a good toe on acceleration in both modes, as for crew training its probably only a day/half day familiarisation with them, braking is the same etc, only difference is they are GTO operation, and have the GEC traction Package..
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
just to add the class 320 fleet is now uprated to 90mph so having the 321 augmentation will add to strengthen/lenghthen jobs