More units for Northern

[JonathanH]

Why when they are 9-10 years old compared to 20 year old 333's?

Why is 20 years an appropriate time to be scrapping 333s? Why is there an obsession about using 379s, nice as they are?

 

[Hey 3]

Why is 20 years an appropriate time to be scrapping 333s? Why is there an obsession about using 379s, nice as they are?

Because the 379's are perfectly modern trains that will be left without a home.

 

[JonathanH]

Because the 379's are perfectly modern trains that will be left without a home.

What are 333s in that context? They are also perfectly modern trains that will be left without a home.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What are 333s in that context? They are also perfectly modern trains that will be left without a home.

There's presently a glut of EMUs, so keeping the newer ones makes more sense.

 

[Neptune]

Because the 379's are perfectly modern trains that will be left without a home.

I can’t believe the circles that are being created here.

Why would you replace 16 x 20 year old (half life) high capacity units that were purpose built for the routes they operate on with 30 shorter, lower capacity units just because they will be homeless. Just because GA didn’t want them doesn’t mean that Northern does. It would mean yet another traction type with all the training that goes with it (train crew and engineers) and all this costs unnecessary money at a time when it is tight within the industry.

It’s not long ago that people wanted the 332’s to go to Northern alongside the 333’s, now they’ve gone too many people seem to think the 333’s should go with them. Unbelievable.

 

[JonathanH]

There's presently a glut of EMUs, so keeping the newer ones makes more sense.

Do you think Akiem are pestering Northern on that basis saying, please, please use our 379s. We are really desparate they continue to be used as we feel sorry for them and if you don't take them we'll scrap them.

This thread is just nonsense as 'Neptune' keeps pointing out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't overtalk the 333s. They are nice, but they are just generic 4 x 23m 3+2-seated outersuburban EMUs, basically a very similar thing to the 331s. They aren't really "purpose built" for anything specific.

 

[Energy]

I can’t believe the circles that are being created here.

Why would you replace 16 x 20 year old (half life) high capacity units that were purpose built for the routes they operate on with 30 shorter, lower capacity units just because they will be homeless. Just because GA didn’t want them doesn’t mean that Northern does. It would mean yet another traction type with all the training that goes with it (train crew and engineers) and all this costs unnecessary money at a time when it is tight within the industry.

It’s not long ago that people wanted the 332’s to go to Northern alongside the 333’s, now they’ve gone too many people seem to think the 333’s should go with them. Unbelievable.

The other suggested use of sending the 379s to Great Northern makes far more sense. Northern is an odd choice for them, it doesn't have any electrostars already and if it wants to replace the 333s (apparently they have some problems underneath) then ordering more 331s makes far more sense.

 

[Whistler40145]

I was under the impression that Northern wanted a streamlined fleet both sides of the Pennines with 331s and 323s as the EMU fleet?

 

[Neptune]

I wouldn't overtalk the 333s. They are nice, but they are just generic 4 x 23m 3+2-seated outersuburban EMUs, basically a very similar thing to the 331s. They aren't really "purpose built" for anything specific.

They were purchased as an off the shelf EMU which is correct. However this CAF/Siemens product was purchased over the Electrostars (oh yes which is what a 379 is) and Junipers due to the 23m bodyshell allowing a higher capacity interior which was specified for the services they worked. So yes they were purpose built for the North West Triangle services from that point of view.

If Northern do decide that the 333’s are to be retired due to either the underframe issues (they are regularly monitored and it appears to be under control) or because they want to streamline the fleet into less classes then they will purchase 331’s as the company has already stated.

I have said it so many times, the off lease EMU’s are the leasing company’s problem. Maybe they should be looking at why relatively modern EMU’s are being sent off lease.

 

[py_megapixel]

If I was the owner of the 379s I'd probably be trying to lease them to GTR not Northern; they after all have some use for Electrostars, to replace units which are actually at the end of their life. But in reality even that probably won't happen.

It's a bit unfortunate to see perfectly good trains go to waste - but Northern isn't the RSPCMU*. Adding to their operational complexity by taking on completely unfamiliar units just to stop them from going unused is the last thing they want.

* Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Multiple-Units. No, that doesn't really exist.

 

[Energy]

Adding to their operational complexity by taking on completely unfamiliar units just to stop them from going unused is the last thing they want.

They are trying to reduce the amount of different classes, EMU is ok with 331, 323 and 333 (the last could easily be replaced by more 331s) although their DMU fleet isn't great with 195s, 170s, 156, 155s, 153s (soon to be replaced by more 156s) and 150s although 195, 170s, 158 and 156 is definitely possible in the not too far future.

 

[Greybeard33]

Given that these units have "DOO" cameras, would a solution to this not be to provide* a means of a guard using them to dispatch from such stations instead of the Mk1 eyeball, i.e. by enabling them in the rear or intermediate cab when not keyed in as a driver? If there were visibility issues or they didn't work the traditional approach could still be used.

* And fix the things given that they are typical CAF quality and don't work.

I was referring to the use of 6-car 323s, without cameras, at Cheadle Hulme. The guard would have to walk at least half the length of the train after closing the doors, to check for PTI issues.

 

[py_megapixel]

I was referring to the use of 6-car 323s, without cameras, at Cheadle Hulme. The guard would have to walk at least half the length of the train after closing the doors, to check for PTI issues.

Would mirrors or monitors on the platform be a practical solution? Alternatively would it solve the problem for a guard to dispatch from the cabs at the front of the rear unit or the rear of the front unit? (I'm assuming this kind of thing has already been thought of and dismissed for whatever reason though, and not being familiar with the exact circumstances at Cheadle Hulme I can't really make any specific points)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was referring to the use of 6-car 323s, without cameras, at Cheadle Hulme. The guard would have to walk at least half the length of the train after closing the doors, to check for PTI issues.

The post I replied to referred to 331s which are fitted with cameras.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Apr 2021 ==

Would mirrors or monitors on the platform be a practical solution?

Berkhamsted has these, but I don't recall ever seeing a guard use them. I believe some Merseyrail stations do too.

 

[skyhigh]

Would mirrors or monitors on the platform be a practical solution? Alternatively would it solve the problem for a guard to dispatch from the cabs at the front of the rear unit or the rear of the front unit? (I'm assuming this kind of thing has already been thought of and dismissed for whatever reason though, and not being familiar with the exact circumstances at Cheadle Hulme I can't really make any specific points)

Mirrors are no longer allowed to be installed, and Network Rail won't install new monitors due to the cost. Northern's policy is also that the guard must remain in the rear set if non-gangway units are coupled, so the only real option would be dispatch from the rear unit (I've never signed 323s so don't know if they can be worked from the cab).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Apr 2021 ==

The post I replied to referred to 331s which are fitted with cameras.

Doors can't be worked from the cab on a 331. You'd need to modify them to add door controls the guard could use, and I really don't know if there's space for them (the controls on the driver's desk are not well suited for guard operation. In addition, the step down/up from the cab door is greater than that from passenger doors, and I'm not sure the additional step would be acceptable for a risk assessment on guard operation from the cab.

 

[py_megapixel]

Mirrors are no longer allowed to be installed, and Network Rail won't install new monitors due to the cost. Northern's policy is also that the guard must remain in the rear set if non-gangway units are coupled, so the only real option would be dispatch from the rear unit (I've never signed 323s so don't know if they can be worked from the cab).

They can definitely be worked from the rear cab; in fact, that seems to be the preferred way of doing things on 323s from what I've seen.
Whether they can be worked from an intermediate cab though I have no idea.

What's wrong with mirrors? Assuming they're angled to show the right thing I can't really see what safety issues they could have that monitors couldn't.

 

[skyhigh]

What's wrong with mirrors? Assuming they're angled to show the right thing I can't really see what safety issues they could have that monitors couldn't.

I believe that the ORR have ruled out any further installations of mirrors.

 

[py_megapixel]

I believe that the ORR have ruled out any further installations of mirrors.

Aah fair enough. Do you happen to know what their justification for this was (presumably something safety-related), or was it just that they were considered to be superseded by monitors?

 

[Purple Orange]

I was referring to the use of 6-car 323s, without cameras, at Cheadle Hulme. The guard would have to walk at least half the length of the train after closing the doors, to check for PTI issues.

If the guard was in the 3rd or 4th carriage, would this be much of an issue?

 

[Greybeard33]

They can definitely be worked from the rear cab; in fact, that seems to be the preferred way of doing things on 323s from what I've seen.
Whether they can be worked from an intermediate cab though I have no idea.

The normal procedure at Cheadle Hulme is for the guard to use the door panel in the centre car of the (single) 323. From there it is just possible to see all the doors by stepping back to the far edge of the platform. From an end cab it would not be possible to see the doors at the far end of the unit. The platform is not wide enough to see round the curve.

 

[Purple Orange]

Therefore the solution here is 6-car 331s on the Stoke line, rather than 323s.

 

[skyhigh]

Aah fair enough. Do you happen to know what their justification for this was (presumably something safety-related), or was it just that they were considered to be superseded by monitors?

I suspect it's a combination of the fact that monitors have superseded mirrors, and that monitors can sometimes provide a better view (for example in low light, or the extreme ends of the unit).

 

[Greybeard33]

Therefore the solution here is 6-car 331s on the Stoke line, rather than 323s.

But still problematic at Stoke, where the bay platform is only 3-car length, but terminating in Platform 1 will delay the following southbound express, which arrives hard on the heels of the stopper.

 

[Philip 34002]

I have it from a very reliable source that, following urgent safety checks carried out in conjunction with CAF engineers, Northern have since Easter Sunday temporarily withdrawn 22 units (16 x 195 and 8 x 331), as a result of bogie yaw dampers becoming detached from the bodywork/underframes. Therefore they may well need some extra units - if only for a short time.

For further information on the yaw damper brackets please see attached link:-

Northern withdraws CAF multiple-units after damper bracket failures

UK: A significant number of CAF multiple units operated by Northern were taken out of service at the beginning of April after the failure of a yaw damper mounting bracket. Sections of the vehicle’s structure were broken away completely in the incident. Source: RSSB An urgent National Incident...

www.railwaygazette.com

 

[Hey 3]

I have it from a very reliable source that, following urgent safety checks carried out in conjunction with CAF engineers, Northern have since Easter Sunday temporarily withdrawn 22 units (16 x 195 and 8 x 331), as a result of bogie yaw dampers becoming detached from the bodywork/underframes. Therefore they may well need some extra units - if only for a short time.

Well there are spare 323's(the ones in storage) plus 350/2 and 379's and dare I say it, pacers(as a stop gap) for DMU's.

 

[py_megapixel]

Well there are spare 323's(the ones in storage)

They are not in storage yet, they're still with WMT.

plus 350/2 and 379's

That would require extra staff training and probably route clearance as well and would add to Northern's operational complexity. And they have already said they don't want that.

and dare I say it, pacers for DMU's.

Pacers are never coming back. Quite aside from the fact that they are falling apart, horribly uncomfortable, hugely economical to make compliant with modern accessibility regulations, and guaranteed political suicide for whoever has to make the decision to put them into service, I'm fairly sure a substantial number of them - probably a majority - have already been sent for scrap or preservation.

 

[43096]

dare I say it, pacers(as a stop gap) for DMU's.

That's a new one on me, suggesting using trains that have already been turned into razor blades (or sold to some mug in preservation).

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Northern were really stuck, there are plenty of under-the-wires DMU services that could be split into separate DMU and EMU services and run using spare EMUs. Not ideal to have to change, but better, in the era of COVID, than substantial short-forms. The most obvious would be to truncate Windermere to Oxenholme and Barrow to Lancaster (running a separate hourly EMU service to Lancaster, with Avanti/TPE being used to connect to Oxenholme) but there are others e.g. Buxton that could be done as a short term emergency measure.

 

[skyhigh]

That's a new one on me, suggesting using trains that have already been turned into razor blades (or sold to some mug in preservation).

And the ones that have gone into preservation will have had GSMR/OTMR etc removed and be unfit to run on the mainline. In addition, crew competence will be running out. It's never ever going to happen.

Well there are spare 323's(the ones in storage) plus 350/2 and 379's and dare I say it, pacers(as a stop gap) for DMU's.

Please, no. They will run services shortformed if necessary rather than go to the incredible expense of bringing in 350s or 379s, making sure they're gauged, checking platform train interfaces, training crew, training fitters and bringing spares in. I believe they're only 4 331s down currently, so the electric fleet is not the real issue here.

Some posts here aren't "speculation", but pure fantasy. Same with the 333s - if they are replaced (and that's a big if), it will be because they are uneconomic to repair and they will be replaced by 331s. They will never replace them with 365/350/379s or additional 323/319 simply because they're going spare.