London Midland/Northern EMU changes speculation

[Class 170101]

Buxton isn't just a remote location, there's also a restriction on which Classes of DMU can work this line.

Same now though for Machynlleth due to ERTMS - all Class 158s.

 

[northwichcat]

Buxton isn't just a remote location, there's also a restriction on which Classes of DMU can work this line.

Yes out of the North West DMUs only 150s and 156s can get to Buxton. Pacers and 153s are definitely ruled out. There's some debate about whether 158s are now cleared for Buxton or not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well early on the Ordsall Chord was only going to support 6x23m now thankfully it will support 8x20m max length formations.

Which is good but it doesn't answer the question if longer than 6 car will be supported on the Bolton line.

If 4 years ago Network Rail were saying trains as long as 7 x class 319 carriages would be sufficient for the Bolton corridor that might be out-of-date but if it is then it wouldn't be too optimistic to think in another 4 years that 8 x class 319 carriages may be seen an insufficient and 10 x 20m should be allowed for at the main stations.

 

[387star]

what's happening to the redundant class 321 coaches as scotrail reforming them as three car?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If 4 years ago Network Rail were saying trains as long as 7 x class 319 carriages would be sufficient for the Bolton corridor that might be out-of-date but if it is then it wouldn't be too optimistic to think in another 4 years that 8 x class 319 carriages may be seen an insufficient and 10 x 20m should be allowed for at the main stations.

12x20m (3x4) seems to be the standard aspiration down South, I'd suggest the North might as well look the same way.

Unlike the South East and in particular London commuter services, I think there is a huge pent-up demand that is not travelling by rail in the North because the service is seen as inadequate and overcrowded. Improve that and they will come and use it - so whatever size is specified soon becomes too short.

 

[swt_passenger]

12x20m (3x4) seems to be the standard aspiration down South, I'd suggest the North might as well look the same way.

Longer distances, yes, but NR are just getting to the end of a programme to standardise SWT and 'Southern' suburban routes as 10 x 20m, hence all the 5 car trains either converted, (458/5) delivered (377/?) or on order (707).

 

[jopsuk]

London seems to be heading for a mix of 200m and 240m routes (plus 100-120m on LU and LO)- eg on SWT it'll be 200m on all inner suburban (707, 455+455+456), 200m on Reading outer suburban (458/5 once the 707 fleet is in), 240m on SWML outer suburban (class 450) and 230m on SWML long distance (class 444). There will still be some 160m- the shorter Thameslink stock for example, London Overground West Anglia- and some shorter- LO GOBLIN will be 80m when electric, LO Watford will stay at 80m, LO NLL/ELL/WLL/SLL is currently 100m with plans for 120m.

There's quite a range around London, really- based on (predicted) demand and practicality of adapting infrastructure

 

[swt_passenger]

, LO NLL/ELL/WLL/SLL is currently 100m with plans for 120m.

They go further in the Sussex route study (published a few days ago), it now even refers to running 8 car services on the NLL from the WLL.

They start by considering the changes needed at Clapham Jn to allow 8 car LO services on the WLL only, including a longer turn back at Kensal Rise; but then add that if they are to continue with through running to the NLL they would have to extend platforms all the way to Stratford.

Unfortunately this is drifting away from the thread topic quite a bit...

 

[Philip Phlopp]

They go further in the Sussex route study (published a few days ago), it now even refers to running 8 car services on the NLL from the WLL.

They start by considering the changes needed at Clapham Jn to allow 8 car LO services on the WLL only, including a longer turn back at Kensal Rise; but then add that if they are to continue with through running to the NLL they would have to extend platforms all the way to Stratford.

Unfortunately this is drifting away from the thread topic quite a bit...

The route study you mention reminds me - the new Northern route study starts early 2016 with publication due mid 2017. That's very likely to conclude 12 x 20m units (or 10 x 23m) will need to operate in and around Manchester by CP8 and onto 2043.

 

[jopsuk]

My point was that even around London it's not a simple case of "run everything at 240m"- as with London, around Manchester the lengths specified for the future will take into account demand and feasibility. But it wouldn't surprise me to see key routes given 250m platforms if possible.

 

[swt_passenger]

My point was that even around London it's not a simple case of "run everything at 240m"- as with London, around Manchester the lengths specified for the future will take into account demand and feasibility. But it wouldn't surprise me to see key routes given 250m platforms if possible.

I agree, hence my earlier post just before your previous one.

 

[Shunter_69]

LM 321413/4 are currently at Ilford being readied to replace the existing 317's on London Overground's Romford to Upminster service

 

[D365]

LM 321413/4 are currently at Ilford being readied to replace the existing 317's on London Overground's Romford to Upminster service

Surely they could just hire a unit from GA, rather than needing their own fleet? The micro-fleet conundrum is surely only going to continue with the replacement Aventra stock...

 

[FordFocus]

To be honest, I'm not at all sure what business it is of the train owners to be deciding on what represents "value for money". The DfT funds the railway and it is up to them to pay for whatever unit allocations they deem appropriate.

It's entirely possible, of course, that the department wishes to make the change but is continuing to pretend that rolling-stock allocations are nothing to do with them and so hides behind the apparently "independent" decisions of the railway industry.

Ultimately they are Porterbrook's trains and they can lease them out to whoever. The TPE 170s going to Chiltern proved that they can move units about with the DfT having much say or involvement in it.

In theory, once a lease expires the ROSCO could ship units abroad if the money was right.

 

[Wolfie]

Ultimately they are Porterbrook's trains and they can lease them out to whoever. The TPE 170s going to Chiltern proved that they can move units about with the DfT having much say or involvement in it.

In theory, once a lease expires the ROSCO could ship units abroad if the money was right.

Absolutely correct. DfT have zero power to compel a ROSCO to do anything....

They could, of course, either make it financially worth the ROSCO's while or buy the stock back... ahh, sorry, the last option is more like the policy of the other party....

 

[sd0733]

The 319 on the St Albans abbey failed this afternoon due to overheating. A few trips have been replaced by a bus.

 

[Class377/5]

Longer distances, yes, but NR are just getting to the end of a programme to standardise SWT and 'Southern' suburban routes as 10 x 20m, hence all the 5 car trains either converted, (458/5) delivered (377/?) or on order (707).

And some of 10 car routes may see the original plan of 12 cars reinstated.

As for the north west, I'd suggest aiming for 8x20m on busiest routes with passive provision other busy routes. The idea being that you can simply buy off the shelf 20m EMU designs.

 

[northwichcat]

The 319 on the St Albans abbey failed this afternoon due to overheating. A few trips have been replaced by a bus.

This point made in the Northern 319 thread may be relevant to LM as well:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2305274&postcount=3776

 

[Class 170101]

Absolutely correct. DfT have zero power to compel a ROSCO to do anything....

They could, of course, either make it financially worth the ROSCO's while or buy the stock back... ahh, sorry, the last option is more like the policy of the other party....

But the DfT could tell the franchises they cannot lease the available stock - to influence prices.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

But the DfT could tell the franchises they cannot lease the available stock - to influence prices.

Would the DfT be able to do that without ending up having to pay for the stock themselves?

 

[Class 170101]

Would the DfT be able to do that without ending up having to pay for the stock themselves?

Didn't they do that with the Class 317/7s?

 

[D365]

Didn't they do that with the Class 317/7s?

Abellio's withdrawal of the nine Class 317/7 units was of their own 'cost-cutting' initiative.

 

[Class 170101]

Abellio's withdrawal of the nine Class 317/7 units was of their own 'cost-cutting' initiative.

Yes but the leasor wasn't able to move them onto anyone else quickly were they?

 

[Dstock7080]

Today 29/9 321.413 in London Midland livery on Romford-Upminster shuttle

 

[Mojo]

Today 29/9 321.413 in London Midland livery on Romford-Upminster shuttle

And it's still bearing London Midland names on the front and sides!

 

[northwichcat]

And it's still bearing London Midland names on the front and sides!

Hopefully there's some internal notices about it being a train being used by LO.

 

[childwallblues]

Today 29/9 321.413 in London Midland livery on Romford-Upminster shuttle

And 321414 was seen in service at Romford on Monday.

 

[387star]

Can the seven redundant 321 coaches from LM be used to strengthen their AGA classmates especially while AGA units go for major refurb?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Can the seven redundant 321 coaches from LM be used to strengthen their AGA classmates especially while AGA units go for major refurb?

That would probably ruin acceleration, presuming the seven redundant coaches must be trailers ?. One extra coach is going add 25% weight to the original 4-car unit. Also one extra coach is not going to be enough to replace one whole 4-car unit. I suppose one AGA 4-car unit from a 12-car service could be replaced by two coaches added to each of the other two 4-car units to keep the train length unchanged at 12-car. So the result would be two 6-car units. But that is a 33% reduction in power to weight ratio !.

 

[swt_passenger]

Can the seven redundant 321 coaches from LM be used to strengthen their AGA classmates especially while AGA units go for major refurb?

Not likely at all for the reasons given by Peter just above, but also in various other threads about LM 321s...

 

[ash39]

That would probably ruin acceleration, presuming the seven redundant coaches must be trailers ?. One extra coach is going add 25% weight to the original 4-car unit. Also one extra coach is not going to be enough to replace one whole 4-car unit. I suppose one AGA 4-car unit from a 12-car service could be replaced by two coaches added to each of the other two 4-car units to keep the train length unchanged at 12-car. So the result would be two 6-car units. But that is a 33% reduction in power to weight ratio !.

You're working on the assumption that all 4 vehicles weigh the same. I suspect the trailers are a fair bit lighter.