Class 319 future

[47271]

Speaking as someone who travelled on one last week at 100mph accidentally sat under the pantograph, and having made the same journey in the opposite direction on a 387 the night before, I'd suggest that whatever happens to them doesn't involve sustained main line speed. The OP's word 'thrash' describes my experience very well.

 

[urpert]

Speaking as someone who travelled on one last week at 100mph accidentally sat under the pantograph, and having made the same journey in the opposite direction on a 387 the night before, I'd suggest that whatever happens to them doesn't involve sustained main line speed. The OP's word 'thrash' describes my experience very well.

Yeah, they're pretty noisy at any speed. And I always seem to end up in the motor coach.

Personally I'll be quite glad to see the back of them, though I wouldn't mind it if Southeastern refurbished the Networkers to a similar standard as First did to the 319s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Basically, all Victoria services which aren't mainline long distance could go 319s. Maybe even Ashford services too?

Poor Maidstone - it always seems to miss out on the decent stock...

 

[Haydn1971]

I think we could be in a worse situation at the end of the next franchise. Northern are set to get all the 150/1s, as well as the majority of the 150/2s and they'll be significant numbers of 156s and 158s which will all be quite old come the end of the next franchise.

I shudder to think, the 150's will be what, 37-40 years old... There's gonna have to be something more in the latter end of the 2016-2024 Northern franchise

 

[northwichcat]

I shudder to think, the 150's will be what, 37-40 years old... There's gonna have to be something more in the latter end of the 2016-2024 Northern franchise

I was wondering if some released 185s could indirectly result in some 150s being withdrawn pre-North TPE electrification. However, on hearing that Scotrail are now releasing 16 x 170s opposed to 29 x 170s and 5 of the 10 x 156s released by Scotrail are not going to Northern, I think Northern are going to need either 185s or something released as a result of another operator getting 185s to have enough diesel stock.

 

[Sparks807Evo]

I think Northern are going to need either 185s or something released as a result of another operator getting 185s to have enough diesel stock.

185s at Northern would be a good possibility - the only thing of course is that they'd be less flexible in regards to diagramming due to their weight restricting their line speed/use on certain lines. Don't know the extent of that so someone please correct me if I'm mistaken!

Really am intrigued as to where the 185s go, if not Northern, as they'd need to be near a Siemens depot for maintenance IIRC.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

185s at Northern would be a good possibility - the only thing of course is that they'd be less flexible in regards to diagramming due to their weight restricting their line speed/use on certain lines. Don't know the extent of that so someone please correct me if I'm mistaken!

Really am intrigued as to where the 185s go, if not Northern, as they'd need to be near a Siemens depot for maintenance IIRC.

It it wasn't for the fact that the 165/6s are going there, Cardiff to Portsmouth would make sense as they could use the Siemens facility at Northam. That route probably doesn't need such high powered units though.

 

[northwichcat]

185s at Northern would be a good possibility - the only thing of course is that they'd be less flexible in regards to diagramming due to their weight restricting their line speed/use on certain lines. Don't know the extent of that so someone please correct me if I'm mistaken!

Really am intrigued as to where the 185s go, if not Northern, as they'd need to be near a Siemens depot for maintenance IIRC.

Well until at least 2022 TPE will be keeping 29 of the 185s so it would probably make sense to keep the other 22 at Ardwick.

I'd personally suggest for Northern's Manchester area routes a mix of 150s, 156s and 185s. 150s for Marple, New Mills Central, Liverpool via Warrington stoppers and a mix of 156s and 185s for other routes. I'm not suggesting any route should get all 185s due to them being all 3 car while 156s being able to run in formations of 2, 4 and 6 cars. For instance, putting 185s on all Buxton services wouldn't work as some need 4 cars due to demand and platform lengths but a mix of 156s and 185s would 4 car operation.

 

[Sparks807Evo]

That sounds sensible to me - might be worth removing the First Class Area if they did end up doing that considering the restraint on capacity the First Class area would have.

 

[northwichcat]

That sounds sensible to me - might be worth removing the First Class Area if they did end up doing that considering the restraint on capacity the First Class area would have.

Well TPE are supposed to be fully refurbishing the 185s they are keeping so it might be the others can get a high density standard only interior for a relatively cheap price if they can reuse seats TPE are getting rid of.

 

[Sparks807Evo]

Hopefully they can as you say - those seats are in pretty good condition still - just need reupholstering. Would increase their capacity at a relative low cost.

 

[edwin_m]

185s would be better replacing 170s on XC or Chiltern, which could then go to Northern.

 

[northwichcat]

185s would be better replacing 170s on XC or Chiltern, which could then go to Northern.

So do XC not need any 2, 4 or 5 car formations on routes they use 170s on? Fixed 3 car formations doesn't offer much flexibility which is why I suggested if Northern have them they should be used on lines alongside 156s.

 

[Sparks807Evo]

185s would be better replacing 170s on XC or Chiltern, which could then go to Northern.

The 168s at Chiltern very unlikely to ever move to Northern, if at all. Just been through a heavy refurbishment, have a couple of technical differences to the 170s (ATP fitted, Coupling configuration set up for 165/166 compatible) and believe some will now be maintained at Tyseley who are very competent and knowledgable in regards to Bombardier products.

Also a lack of suitable Siemens depot in the West Midlands area currently so would be unfeasible for XC, LM or CR to obtain them.

 

[D365]

Also a lack of suitable Siemens depot in the West Midlands area currently so would be unfeasible for XC, LM or CR to obtain them.

Though unlikely it is, I don't see why that would rule out transfer of a number of Class 185s. New maintenance contracts would be set up instead.

 

[northwichcat]

Though unlikely it is, I don't see why that would rule out transfer of a number of Class 185s. New maintenance contracts would be set up instead.

At present there's a Siemens facility in Ardwick which is large enough to handle the 185s and 350/4s. TPE are planning to keep 29 x 185s but release 22 x 185s and 10 x 350s.

The possible scenarios I can think of for Ardwick are:
1. Siemens sell the facility and build a new smaller one.
2. Siemens maintain just the 29 x 185s there, meaning the facility is underused.
3. Siemens maintain the 29 x 185s there on behalf of TPE and the 22 x 185s on behalf of someone else.

 

[D365]

Would the Ardwick facility be suitable for Northern's new rolling stock, if Siemens were to bid for maintenance contracts under the new franchise?

 

[northwichcat]

Would the Ardwick facility be suitable for Northern's new rolling stock, if Siemens were to bid for maintenance contracts under the new franchise?

I thought it was reported the contract between CAF and Arriva included a maintenance contract. Unless you think Siemens would want one for refurbished Sprinters or 319s? Maybe getting Siemens to look after the 319s would improve their reliability!

 

[D365]

I thought it was reported the contract between CAF and Arriva included a maintenance contract.

Perhaps CAF fancy subcontracting to Siemens again. Or indeed, either could be made responsible for Northern's existing/additional stock?

As an aside, isn't Siemens accountable for London Midland's Class 319 allocation?

 

[ScotGG]

You could be closer to the answer than everyone else...
That's all I can say at the moment, as things change every week!

If 319s approved for Southeastern some would be ready by the December timetable I presume? Badly needed. Not great as that means 3 months of hassle with no Cannon Street trains stopping at London Bridge causing further problems from August but it will help a lot.

I do find it amusing how some seem to sneer at 319s and claim to only want new stock. They can't have it too badly. For those travelling through London Bridge and to Victoria ANY extra stock is welcome. Most wont complain about a 319 if they can get on. And there's also those that think services are frequent like the tube and some other metro routes. No - it's 2 an hour on many Victoria routes and 4 car trains are leaving people behind so for some its more like one an hour. Bring on 8 car 319s.

 

[AM9]

... I do find it amusing how some seem to sneer at 319s and claim to only want new stock. They can't have it too badly. For those travelling through London Bridge and to Victoria ANY extra stock is welcome. Most wont complain about a 319 if they can get on. And there's also those that think services are frequent like the tube and some other metro routes. No - it's 2 an hour on many Victoria routes and 4 car trains are leaving people behind so for some its more like one an hour. Bring on 8 car 319s.

I believe that some posters here think that repeated complaints about less than brand new stock will persuade TOCs to lease new ones at the earliest opportunity. It was never that way with the best days of BR, so why do they think that complaints on an enthusiast forum will sway hard-nosed commercial operators to do anything that would eat into whatever profit that they could make to keep their shareholders at bay.
Most real passengers (on any overly busy commuter route) would generally be satisfied with trains that turn up on time, are reasonably clean and have sufficient capacity. If the many local newspaper hacks trying to make issue out of 'disgusted' passengers' apochryphal complaints asked their sources if they would be prepared for higher fares to pay for these shiny new trains, it would be a different story.

 

[hwl]

Not great as that means 3 months of hassle with no Cannon Street trains stopping at London Bridge causing further problems from August but it will help a lot.

Not stopping at LBG is a bit longer than 3 months try 16...

The big issue is where to store and maintain any additional stock.

Additional stock wouldn't necessarily need a TT change as you could swap 319s for 465/466s on the VIC via Herne Hill which would allow longer services to run elsewhere.

 

[edwin_m]

Not stopping at LBG is a bit longer than 3 months try 16...

The big issue is where to store and maintain any additional stock.

Additional stock wouldn't necessarily need a TT change as you could swap 319s for 465/466s on the VIC via Herne Hill which would allow longer services to run elsewhere.

But could 319s keep to the timings of a newer and better-accelerating unit? (unless the route is still on old timings anyway?). Last thing anyone wants is every train on a busy route losing a minute or two on each journey.

 

[ScotGG]

Not stopping at LBG is a bit longer than 3 months try 16...

The big issue is where to store and maintain any additional stock.

Additional stock wouldn't necessarily need a TT change as you could swap 319s for 465/466s on the VIC via Herne Hill which would allow longer services to run elsewhere.

I meant 3 months of disruption and altered/reduced paths until relief comes in the form of more 319s to in turn free up the networkers, allowing more 12 cars to mitigate pressure.

edwin_m - 319s shouldn't mean any changes in timings on metro routes or mid distance from Victoria currently served by Networkers.

 

[urpert]

But could 319s keep to the timings of a newer and better-accelerating unit? (unless the route is still on old timings anyway?). Last thing anyone wants is every train on a busy route losing a minute or two on each journey.

I asked the same question a while back as my perception is certainly that 319s are much slower accelerating than Networkers (and Shortlands-Herne Hill is a very busy section of 2 track railway). Though the peak hour Beckenham Jn/Orpington - Bedfords are mostly worked by 319s and that doesn't seem to cause a problem.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

With regard to the 185s that become surplus on TPE (and I appreciate this is supposed to be a 319 thread, but as there was discussion of 185s earlier and it doesn't seem worth its own thread!) would ATW be a possible home for them? Whilst they aren't quite as "intercity" as the 175s they could perhaps run Marches or North Wales services (to allow more 175s to run as 4/5/6-car services) and continue to be based from the Siemens depot at Ardwick. The first-class section would pose the same issues as with Northern though.

 

[Wivenswold]

Give them the Renatus treatment, kit them out for longer journeys (2+2 seating, some with refreshment facilities) and get them on the Norwich trains. 12 cars instead of 9 would soak up those who often have to stand.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Give them the Renatus treatment, kit them out for longer journeys (2+2 seating, some with refreshment facilities) and get them on the Norwich trains. 12 cars instead of 9 would soak up those who often have to stand.

Refit the old Brighton Express "Puccino's" coffee lounge with pod seats too... Brilliant!

 

[Y961 XBU]

As a very regular user of Northerns 319s they are awful, always breaking down, would rather have a double 156...

 

[northwichcat]

With regard to the 185s that become surplus on TPE (and I appreciate this is supposed to be a 319 thread, but as there was discussion of 185s earlier and it doesn't seem worth its own thread!) would ATW be a possible home for them?

But then there's discussion regarding whether a devolved not-for-profit Wales franchise would be allowed to operate in England. If not then we could see services transferring to LM, Northern, XC and/or other operators.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps CAF fancy subcontracting to Siemens again. Or indeed, either could be made responsible for Northern's existing/additional stock?

The 332s and 333s were a joint project between CAF and Siemens before Siemens had started their own line of train building. The two might not be as willing to work with each other now Siemens have established themselves as a company who can build trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The possible scenarios I can think of for Ardwick are:
1. Siemens sell the facility and build a new smaller one.
2. Siemens maintain just the 29 x 185s there, meaning the facility is underused.
3. Siemens maintain the 29 x 185s there on behalf of TPE and the 22 x 185s on behalf of someone else.

I like the look of option 3 above, as it makes commercial sense.