Northern franchise awarded to Arriva.

[andyb2706]

The 158 is an excellent regional express unit in many ways, and some of the refurbs have made it even better - the ATW one, which I would expect will be what the Northern Connect ones will look like, is particularly good, as is the ScotRail Inverness one (which is now being applied to all of them).

I have to agree with you on the 158 unit. Even though it is now 25 years old it is still a very good regional express train. 158 over a Voyager any day, however (you knew that was coming ) Northern has some of the dreariest interiors around and are in a much need for freshening up IMO, specially compared to the light and bright interiors of Arriva Trains Wales......so we may be in for a chance then.

 

[geoffk]

With Chase and Bromsgrove electrification, the replacement for the 150s will be internally cascaded Turbostars which will be replaced by EMUs - the Manchester 323s, possibly among others.

Isn't there a problem though with platform lengths on the Bletchley - Bedford line, which is why LM has kept the 150s?

 

[ianhr]

A service entering Leeds from Wakefield and departing to Bradford Interchange travels to Holbeck Junction in both directions. It is just equivalent to all the services from the west that terminate at Leeds. If anything, a lower dwell time should be an improvement on a terminator, as long as it is routed to a suitable platform!

The South Kirby Jct-Holbeck section is also congested at present and inherently unreliable. The only loops are at Hemsworth and the down loop at Wakefield Westgate, which is not a platform road so normally only used for non passenger trains. Most long distance and stopping trains run late and on time arrivals at Leeds are often only achieved by the operators allowing generous recovery time. I find it difficult to see how more trains can be diagrammed without a further deterioration in reliability unless money is spent to increase capacity. It is all very well for TOCs to enhance their bids with these expansive plans but unless NR can match them with investment in track, signalling and station capacity I doubt that performance will show any improvement. In my view it would be better to leave the Nottingham trains on the Barnsley/Wakefield Kirkgate route and try to provide cross polatform connections at Leeds for Bradford.

 

[47802]

There is a risk that not all the GW units will be quite as available as planned depending on how the electrification goes. If it's late then either GW will be trying to retain the units they currently have or will be looking to take on anything else spare to plug the gaps if others have leased their units. My guess I'd that GW (being an incumbent franchise) has been able to sort and sign agreements by now (I.e. before Northern is able to)

I suspect the GW franchise may well be subject to some change and there are a number clauses in it which might change things such as the D train trial and the possible alternate rolling stock strategy for Portsmouth - Cardiff instead of using 16x. As things stand at the moment we appear to have a lot of spare 170's and 185's with no where to go

 

[Greybeard33]

The strong industry rumour doing the rounds this week is that CAF is the preferred builder for all 281 vehicles. We shall see in due course.

If the 281 new carriages are all in articulated units like the CAF Civity or the Stadler FLIRT, the capacity will be less than provided by the same number of conventional carriages.

A 2-car Civity is 43m long, but the sloping cab ends reduce saloon space, so the capacity would be similar to a 150 and significantly less than a 2-car 155/156/158.

The intermediate cars of a 3- or 4-car Civity are only 16m long, similar to a Pacer. A 4-car Civity is 75m long, so capacity would be significantly reduced when they replaced 80m 319s. Doubled up 3-car Civitys would be 118m, so significantly longer than a 95m 4-car 333, but several metres would be taken up by the extra two cabs, so only about a 20% increase in capacity.

http://www.caf.es/en/productos-servicios/familia/civity/descripcion/modularidad.php

I fear these units could end up as overcrowded as Arriva's Voyagers and Coradias are today.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't there a problem though with platform lengths on the Bletchley - Bedford line, which is why LM has kept the 150s?

I believe so, 2x20m fits but 2x23m not, and a 153 would leave people behind on the school trains. But if East West Rail is coming, it might be time to do the platform extending work in advance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As for the Civity I wouldn't assume a sloping cab end just because the Euro version has one. UK Desiros don't have heavily raked cab ends even though the Euro version does.

 

[lejog]

The South Kirby Jct-Holbeck section is also congested at present and inherently unreliable. The only loops are at Hemsworth and the down loop at Wakefield Westgate, which is not a platform road so normally only used for non passenger trains. Most long distance and stopping trains run late and on time arrivals at Leeds are often only achieved by the operators allowing generous recovery time. I find it difficult to see how more trains can be diagrammed without a further deterioration in reliability unless money is spent to increase capacity. It is all very well for TOCs to enhance their bids with these expansive plans but unless NR can match them with investment in track, signalling and station capacity I doubt that performance will show any improvement. In my view it would be better to leave the Nottingham trains on the Barnsley/Wakefield Kirkgate route and try to provide cross polatform connections at Leeds for Bradford.

Having spent far too much of my life on stationary trains awaiting a path at Holbeck, I am only too aware of the problems there.

However I am also aware that Network Rail have bought into improving capacity on Calder Valley services - hence the improvements for Bradford Interchange that appear in the CP5 plan and the building of a new platform at Halifax (funded via the WYCA) and other undefined improvements (funded via the WYCA). Presumably they would not have done this without at least a plan for Holbeck and Leeds.

While the franchise announcement has been very clear on the extensions of Calder Valley services through Manchester Victoria, necessary for capacity improvements at Manchester, there seem to be no announcements on how capacity improvements at Leeds will be achieved and I don't expect there will be until a decision is announced on East Leeds Parkway next year. However an extra Halifax to Leeds service is specified in the interactive maps along with the Bradford-Nottingham service. A Bradford to Hull service is also mentioned in the DfT press release. On the other hand, there is no commitment at the moment to route the extra train from Victoria any further than Bradford.

No doubt we will find out more details next year, but one thing is certain there will be changes.

Edit: If capacity at Holbeck is a constraint, there is nothing in the announcement that rules out the Nottingham train being an extension of an existing Calder Valley services from Bradford. Announcements of services to Bradford from Northern Hub days have been made for very good PR reasons (who wants to know of extra Manchester to Leeds services?) and need not be taken literally as the final destination.

 

[Surreyman]

I suspect the GW franchise may well be subject to some change and there are a number clauses in it which might change things such as the D train trial and the possible alternate rolling stock strategy for Portsmouth - Cardiff instead of using 16x. As things stand at the moment we appear to have a lot of spare 170's and 185's with no where to go

185s on Cardiff - Portsmouth?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the 281 new carriages are all in articulated units like the CAF Civity or the Stadler FLIRT, the capacity will be less than provided by the same number of conventional carriages.

Quite. Notably SBB are having the same problem with their 4-"car" Stadler FLIRTs - these have replaced 4-car (or longer) EW I/II LHCS sets which have a significantly higher capacity, and as a result people end up standing. Ludicrously, there are a number of diagrams with a second set but locked out, with people standing in the one that is open. I might be wrong, but I'm not aware of any short platforms that would necessitate this.

If they are 2x16m, the Northern overcrowding problem will not be solved. 2 isn't adequate for anything other than the branch lines (on which these won't operate anyway), but it only comes close if it's 2x23 or 26m.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Extending the Nottingham services to Bradford will likely take some thought... But if the services continued to run via Woodlesford then extending to Bradford would be a complete non-starter as they'd have to cross most of the throat both on arrival and departure in both directions. That's why the Nottingham to Carlisle is just a single service on a Sunday!
Running the Nottingham services via Moorthorpe does add to congestion on that route, though presumably the service will (like the XC ones) only call at Westgate so if flighted behind a VTEC up service it shouldn't cause much trouble.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

I was just wondering about what would happen if, come December 31st 2019, there are not enough units or trains to replace the pacers - could some be granted dispensation?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was just wondering about what would happen if, come December 31st 2019, there are not enough units or trains to replace the pacers - could some be granted dispensation?

I would imagine so. It's happened for other stock, it could happen for Pacers as well.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Would it be worth converting a few more 144s into e-pacers just in case this turns out to be the situation? Better to spend the money and not need them then to not spend it and need them

 

[WatcherZero]

Probably not, their refurbishment cost is now up to half that of a new build so it wouldn't be cost effective to convert some just in case when you could give a few months longer temporary derogation to the regulations instead which would be pretty much free.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would it be worth converting a few more 144s into e-pacers just in case this turns out to be the situation? Better to spend the money and not need them then to not spend it and need them

Or it might be viable to give short-term dispensation for Pacers if they only run in multiple with RVAR compliant 15x.

 

[47802]

185s on Cardiff - Portsmouth?

Well who knows, although where would you maintain them away from their current Siemens maintenance base?

But on the other hand it doesn't look as though Northern will be taking them so they are going to have to go somewhere.

It looks to me that OK there are the new DMU's which they didn't have much choice on, would anybody like to put money on there being only 10 3 car DMU's to take it up to the 120 minimum, then they have looked around for the next cheapest option of taking all the 15x they can get their hands on, except they may be waiting quite a while to get some of these 15x units, plus I'm still waiting for a few D trains to slipped in

 

[Haydn1971]

Can't help feeling that 2-car DMUs are going to be inadequate for the Northern Connect services they will workl.

I'd expect that this is to enable doubled up units, essentially 3+3, 3+2 & 2+2 in peak, dropping to 3 & 2 car units off peak. Many off peak services struggle to fill a 2 car train.

Hopefully there will be scope to extend them at some future date.

Hopefully yes

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd expect that this is to enable doubled up units, essentially 3+3, 3+2 & 2+2 in peak, dropping to 3 & 2 car units off peak. Many off peak services struggle to fill a 2 car train.

Really? That isn't my observation of the routes concerned, most of which are severely overcrowded off-peak with 2 or even 3-car (185) units. I see no justification for 2-car units whatsoever unless 5-car is seen to be a useful length because of some specific platforms, or unless (as someone else said) it is the only way the ROSCOs will agree to them because of possible future branchline use.

Not to mention that once they stop using Pacers there is likely to be a significant diesel version of the "sparks effect", like VXC encountered and never really recovered from.

I think they have seriously underestimated here. D-trains anyone?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Really? That isn't my observation of the routes concerned, most of which are severely overcrowded off-peak with 2 or even 3-car (185) units. I see no justification for 2-car units whatsoever unless 5-car is seen to be a useful length because of some specific platforms, or unless (as someone else said) it is the only way the ROSCOs will agree to them because of possible future branchline use.

Not to mention that once they stop using Pacers there is likely to be a significant diesel version of the "sparks effect", like VXC encountered and never really recovered from.

I think they have seriously underestimated here. D-trains anyone?

If additional stock is needed, additional stock can be ordered, there's no shame to driving demand and needing to add more units or extend your existing fleet by one or more carriages.

 

[lejog]

Extending the Nottingham services to Bradford will likely take some thought... But if the services continued to run via Woodlesford then extending to Bradford would be a complete non-starter as they'd have to cross most of the throat both on arrival and departure in both directions. That's why the Nottingham to Carlisle is just a single service on a Sunday!
Running the Nottingham services via Moorthorpe does add to congestion on that route, though presumably the service will (like the XC ones) only call at Westgate so if flighted behind a VTEC up service it shouldn't cause much trouble.

Absolutely, thats why I shrieked when there was a post recently suggesting HS2 compatible services running from a spur onto the Hallam line to Leeds then onwards to Harrogate, Skipton and Forster Square.

However as far as I've heard, I think you can safely say that you can substititute "has" for "will" in your first line. It didn't help that both Leeds capacity and Calder Valley improvements were planned as sub-projects of Manchester-York electrification because of identified cost savings, but I understand that it has now been confirmed that they will go ahead to planned timescales. With the delay in electrification, it does mean that the services to be run through to the east will (at least at first) be diesel though, so likely Harrogate or Calder Valley services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If additional stock is needed, additional stock can be ordered, there's no shame to driving demand and needing to add more units or extend your existing fleet by one or more carriages.

As long as Northern are offered that option. TPE needed to and weren't.

 

[Haydn1971]

But of course they hardly ever run together and we end up with 2-car on Manchester-Cardiff.

The 175's that pass through Oxford Road at evening peak are nearly always a doubled up unit, very occasionally a three car unit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Really? That isn't my observation of the routes concerned, most of which are severely overcrowded off-peak with 2 or even 3-car (185) units.

You are confusing this Northern thread with the TPE thread, clearly you don't travel on Northern off peak, in particular the first couple of services of the day and anything after 7pm - there's plenty of room on the current two car units.

Related, I was on the 9:20pm TPE from Manchester to Sheffield last night, about half the seats were empty in the two standard class units - perhaps too many for a single car, but certainly a two car unit would have been sufficient on this service - to say two cars aren't enough off peak is nonsense.

I see no justification for 2-car units whatsoever unless 5-car is seen to be a useful length because of some specific platforms, or unless (as someone else said) it is the only way the ROSCOs will agree to them because of possible future branchline use.

It's clear that in the high peak, 2 & 3 car units are not enough. As explained above, we don't need 3 & 4 car units off peak (yet), so the plan for 2 & 3 car units seems ideal.

I think they have seriously underestimated here.

Clearly with your claims that 3 & 4 car units in the off peak you are out of touch with the economics of rail travel in the north.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You are confusing this Northern thread with the TPE thread, clearly you don't travel on Northern off peak, in particular the first couple of services of the day and anything after 7pm - there's plenty of room on the current two car units.

No. Don't forget that a number of these "Northern Connect" routes are former TPE routes moved to Northern. These ones are the most overcrowded.

Related, I was on the 9:20pm TPE from Manchester to Sheffield last night, about half the seats were empty in the two standard class units - perhaps too many for a single car, but certainly a two car unit would have been sufficient on this service - to say two cars aren't enough off peak is nonsense.

It depends, I suppose, on your definition of off-peak. It might well be the case that a 2120 Tring stopper from Euston (if there was one, they're xx10/40, to be pedantic ) would be fine as a 4-car. But try a Sunday afternoon, traditionally "off-peak", and it'd be rammed and standing.

Clearly with your claims that 3 & 4 car units in the off peak you are out of touch with the economics of rail travel in the north.

The economics of rail operation in the North might dictate shorter units, but economics are not the only issue; if they were it would have been another 9 years of Pacers.

 

[Roose]

I think a continuation of the current company is the exact opposite of what many passengers want!

The majority of passengers will realise that the present incumbents are operating based on the foolish "no growth" minimum cost specification set by the last government but one. Silk purses and sows' ears come to mind.

They will have noted the steady improvements by Northern made in operation, customer relations and image made over the last eighteen months or so (since the arrival of Alex Hynes as MD?).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unless of course Arriva are required by franchise agreement to improve the catering then Arriva may have to run it directly instead of using the said volunteers.

At least some of the catering staff are employees of the Settle Carlisle Line Development Company quango who had a spat with the RMT earlier in the year over the proposed compulsory redundancy on one of the employees.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-30463382

It was ultimately resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.

 

[Haydn1971]

No. Don't forget that a number of these "Northern Connect" routes are former TPE routes moved to Northern. These ones are the most overcrowded.

Again, your building that straw man argument - I don't believe for a minute that anyone at Arriva is suggesting replacing the 2.3 carriages of standard class 185 with a two carriage new unit - there's been no mention so far of Northern Connect having a First class section, that alone is a real bonus.

To say there's a whole day need for 3 or 4 car units is simply not true - given the cost of new trains, the new units will have to operate at 90-100% capacity as much as possible, sadly, I'm still expecting standing on some services after the new fleets are introduced, hopefully this will be for just the last links into major destinations.

It depends, I suppose, on your definition of off-peak. It might well be the case that a 2120 Tring stopper from Euston (if there was one, they're xx10/40, to be pedantic ) would be fine as a 4-car. But try a Sunday afternoon, traditionally "off-peak", and it'd be rammed and standing.

Perhaps you should clarify my definition of off peak before engaging in a put down based upon your own experiences of a service that goes nowhere near the Northern Franchise.

The economics of rail operation in the North might dictate shorter units, but economics are not the only issue; if they were it would have been another 9 years of Pacers.

The Pacer replacement is clearly one pillar of George Osborne's 2020 election campaign in the north. Fair play to him !

 

[lejog]

No. Don't forget that a number of these "Northern Connect" routes are former TPE routes moved to Northern. These ones are the most overcrowded.

That number IIRC correctly is 3. Out of 12.

Sorry for mentioning my local line yet again, but the line through Halifax that will receive 4 Northern Connect services currently runs 2/4 car services. 3 car trains will be under capacity at rush hour, greater than 4 will need platform lengthening at most stations.

If posts on this forum are correct, rather than lengthening, the southbound platform at Rochdale is currently being split into 2.

 

[Haydn1971]

To add, I'm really rather pleased to be proven correct on the need for new DMU's - something the armchair experts in here got so badly wrong. For nearly two years we've had this closed mind by several members that new DMU's aren't required due to the 100's of cascaded 80's and 90's EMU's that we're going to save the day !

 

[Class 170101]

A service entering Leeds from Wakefield and departing to Bradford Interchange travels to Holbeck Junction in both directions. It is just equivalent to all the services from the west that terminate at Leeds. If anything, a lower dwell time should be an improvement on a terminator, as long as it is routed to a suitable platform!

However any new service to Bradford Interchange will cross incoming VTEC and XC trains at Holbeck.

Unless the train was then routed via Woodlesford and Brighouse.

Would it be worth converting a few more 144s into e-pacers just in case this turns out to be the situation? Better to spend the money and not need them then to not spend it and need them

Or it might be viable to give short-term dispensation for Pacers if they only run in multiple with RVAR compliant 15x.

I have suggested this before and haven't exactly received a positive response. If capacity becomes an issue I believe this option should be pursued however I believe political dogma may win out

 

[yorksrob]

I have suggested this before and haven't exactly received a positive response. If capacity becomes an issue I believe this option should be pursued however I believe political dogma may win out

Absolutely. If all pacers are officially to be removed from the specified diagrams, it would make sense to use, or at least store the 144's for strengthening and maybe growth.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To say there's a whole day need for 3 or 4 car units is simply not true - given the cost of new trains, the new units will have to operate at 90-100% capacity as much as possible, sadly, I'm still expecting standing on some services after the new fleets are introduced, hopefully this will be for just the last links into major destinations.

Which makes Arriva's bid nice and glossy but *actually* worse than a load of e144s, 319s and D-trains, which are cheap, so sufficient capacity for everyone to get a seat could be provided, at least outside traditional commuter hours where some standing is to be expected (but don't forget that as a LM commuter it is perfectly possible to get a seat near 100% of the time, only not when there is disruption, by a bit of simple use of the timetable and rough loading stats which are published on posters and online by LM).

In the end, it's better to have a seat in a less posh train such as a 319 than to stand in a posh train.

Perhaps you should clarify my definition of off peak before engaging in a put down based upon your own experiences of a service that goes nowhere near the Northern Franchise.

Perhaps you should be clearer in your definition of off-peak, which traditionally means "the time when an Anytime ticket is not required". Of course trains in the mid-late evening (in a 2-3 hour window) on a weekday are going to be quiet, but as this makes up a small portion of the day it seems nonsensical to specify your fleet based on that alone.

The Pacer replacement is clearly one pillar of George Osborne's 2020 election campaign in the north. Fair play to him !

Only if there is not one standing passenger on a single diesel Northern service once they are gone. If there is, the concept was an utter failure. To scrap a single Pacer (certainly classes 143/144, as I accept some 142s may not be long for the world due to not being economic to keep running) when there is a single passenger without a seat on services where the *only* constraint is rolling stock is total politicised madness.

And to go further on that, yes, I would welcome additional rolling stock to London Midland, whatever the type it was, even though I am a self-confessed 350 fan. More seats are good. *Any* seats.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have suggested this before and haven't exactly received a positive response. If capacity becomes an issue I believe this option should be pursued however I believe political dogma may win out

I think political dogma has won out, just like it did in the West Midlands where the very nice 172s, when not catching fire, are still running around full and standing. New trains are good, but there need to be enough of them, or more sensibly enough old trains need to be retained to provide the required capacity.