807s and 397s - a solution for LNER and TPE?

[Bletchleyite]

Had a thought and thought a dedicated thread better than going OT!

TPE's 397s are a bit short for what they do, but can't run ten car formations due to Manchester Airport platform lengths.

LNER want some new(er) stock to replace Mk4s. I don't believe they've ruled out CAF for this.

Avanti West Coast are very unlikely to be able to run the extra services they intended to run with the 807s any time soon if at all.

So how about this:
- 807s to TPE for Manchester Airport to Scotland. Optionally Avanti could run this instead with relevant staff TUPEd over. Bit of extra capacity too.
- 397s to LNER to operate in pairs and replace the Mk4 sets.

Any flaws in this other than it being a microfleet (which it is for TPE anyway)? It's not exactly what they went out to tender for, but given that cuts are likely 12 5-car sets may be enough.

 

[JonathanH]

- 807s to TPE for Manchester Airport to Scotland. Optionally Avanti could run this instead with relevant staff TUPEd over. Bit of extra capacity too.

I suspect that 7 x 26 doesn't fit at the Airport - eg 7 x 26 = 182 > 160 = 8 x 20

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It's not exactly what they went out to tender for, but given that cuts are likely 12 5-car sets may be enough.

6x 10 car trains isn't far off their fleet of IC225s anyway, and CAF would make sense seeing as the Hitachi depots will likely be full of IEP procured Azumas and CAF already look after 195s and 331s at Neville Hill.

I would transfer the West Coast service to Avanti. No extra stations to their network other than Bolton - or return it to via Wigan - (and St Helens if 3tpd Liverpool survives) and they have services and a staff presence at all other stations on the route. 807s are also longer versions of 805s which will be in Avanti's fleet and could cover if necessary, and anyway, TransPennine refers to crossing the route via Huddersfield which that (or the stupid truncated Edinburgh service) doesn't do. Avanti use the route via Castlefield for diversions already anyway.

The platform lengths at Man Apt may make it undoable as already mentioned though, and terminating at Picc is an operational nightmare on the through platforms of course. Having said that, you could terminate it at Stockport or run it through to Stoke/Crewe paths allowing.

S-T

 

[HSTEd]

I suspect that 7 x 26 doesn't fit at the Airport - eg 7 x 26 = 182 > 160 = 8 x 20

The Sectional Appendix entry for the Manchester Airport approach (section NW5007) has platform lengths of 196, 197, 200 and 201m. So 182m should, naively, fit.

 

[Chester1]

I suspect that 7 x 26 doesn't fit at the Airport - eg 7 x 26 = 182 > 160 = 8 x 20

I am sure someone here knows the exact length of each platform at the airport station. Seven coach 807s might just fit. 182m won't fit at Oxford Road. Double 350s at 160m fauled the points. Maybe stopping could work with SDO. The cheaper three platform redevelopment mentioned by well informed members is long over due. That is demolishing platforms 1 and 5 and widening and altering the island platform to make platform 3 a terminating platform.

6x 10 car trains isn't far off their fleet of IC225s anyway, and CAF would make sense seeing as the Hitachi depots will likely be full of IEP procured Azumas and CAF already look after 195s and 331s at Neville Hill.

I would transfer the West Coast service to Avanti. No extra stations to their network other than Bolton - or return it to via Wigan - (and St Helens if 3tpd Liverpool survives) and they have services and a staff presence at all other stations on the route. 807s are also longer versions of 805s which will be in Avanti's fleet and could cover if necessary, and anyway, TransPennine refers to crossing the route via Huddersfield which that (or the stupid truncated Edinburgh service) doesn't do. Avanti use the route via Castlefield for diversions already anyway.

The platform lengths at Man Apt may make it undoable as already mentioned though, and terminating at Picc is an operational nightmare on the through platforms of course. Having said that, you could terminate it at Stockport or run it through to Stoke/Crewe paths allowing.

805s are bi modes while 807s are EMUs.

Not serving Manchester Airport is likely a non starter. Services to the airport have a high political value.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect that 7 x 26 doesn't fit at the Airport - eg 7 x 26 = 182 > 160 = 8 x 20

It does, I have checked. Platforms are either 197m or 200m.

Could always not stop at Oxford Road, the Scottish InterCity service traditionally did not.

 

[Philip]

It does, I have checked. Platforms are either 197m or 200m.

Could always not stop at Oxford Road, the Scottish InterCity service traditionally did not.

Oxford Road is very well used; many people board the Scotland train at Oxford Road, rather than Piccadilly. Cutting it from the stopping pattern now and forcing everyone who works around there to walk up to the far end of Piccadilly would be silly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oxford Road is very well used; many people board the Scotland train at Oxford Road, rather than Piccadilly. Cutting it from the stopping pattern now and forcing everyone who works around there to walk up to the far end of Piccadilly would be silly.

Not siller than them having to stand due to the trains being too short for demand. And why would they walk? There's a train service!

Plus this is not a commuter train, it is primarily a long distance one. Other than Lancaster, commuters are mostly provided for by Northern's 2tph Blackpool EMU services.

 

[Philip]

Not siller than them having to stand due to the trains being too short for demand. And why would they walk? There's a train service!

Plus this is not a commuter train, it is primarily a long distance one. Other than Lancaster, commuters are mostly provided for by Northern's 2tph Blackpool EMU services.

There are still a lot of people who board/alight the Scotland train at Oxford Road; stopping here takes some pressure off the already crowded Piccadilly island platforms. If it starts missing Oxford Road then Piccadilly 13/14 would probably be dangerously overcrowded at certain times of day. If longer trains are needed then they will have to overhang and stop over the points until the redevelopment is complete.

 

[Huntergreed]

Wouldn’t the obvious solution just be to use SDO at Oxford Road?

I think the 807’s to TPE Scotland would actually be a good idea, would certainly help with the severe overcrowding at certain times of day.

Not so sure about 397’s on LNER (unless they retrofitted a buffet and really improved the first class coach!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Window alignment aside (because the windows are spaced for Standard) I would say 397 1st is vastly better than the rather poor 1st in the 80x myself!

 

[Huntergreed]

The main issue for me isn’t a lack of window alignment (although in 1st it is very poor) - but rather the lack of any catering facilities meaning there would either have to be:

A reduction in space in 1st class

or

A reduction in the catering offer

As well as that, reducing the number of first class seats on a set (presuming these will work in double) from 3 coaches of ~40 seats to 48 seats across both sets would vastly reduce the space and capacity available. LNER first is one of the busiest in the country (it would work on Avanti as they’re not half as busy due to overpricing)

 

[Bletchleyite]

As well as that, reducing the number of first class seats on a set (presuming these will work in double) from 3 coaches of ~40 seats to 48 seats across both sets would vastly reduce the space and capacity available. LNER first is one of the busiest in the country (it would work on Avanti as they’re not half as busy due to overpricing)

The sets could be diagrammed to work off peak slower services where demand for 1st is lower and catering is more basic. The off peak York semifast for instance is little more than the LNR service on the WCML but painted red and with end doors.

I suspect even if new units are procured they won't be the same as the existing 80x in this regard.

 

[DanNCL]

I think the better solution would be to send the 807s to LNER as it would remove any traction training requirements for LNER whilst still allowing the 91s to go, and would have the additional benefit of allowing all LNER electric sets to be used interchangeably - something that was previously possible until crew knowledge lapsed on the Mark 4 sets at Newcastle and Edinburgh.

I'm sure CAF would be happy to build additional centre carriages for the 397s if they were asked. The solution for the WCML would be to lengthen the existing 397s to 8 car (just fits at Airport).

CAF would make sense seeing as the Hitachi depots will likely be full of IEP procured Azumas and CAF already look after 195s and 331s at Neville Hill.

The Hitachi depots are full (and not just with IEP units!), but as with GWR's 802s there's nothing to say Hitachi have to maintain the sets themselves, indeed the contract Avanti awarded for the 805s and 807s had Alstom maintaining them. The 807s could be maintained at Heaton by Northern which already has the space and facilities required. Alternatively if they wished to keep Alstom as a contractor they could diagram them to work the daily Glasgow trip and rotate them through Polmadie for maintenance.

Northern look after the 195s and 331s themselves. The heavy maintenance facilities at Neville Hill used by LNER are the unelectrified HST/loco facilities - they get around this for the 91s by shunting them in and out with an 08, but that wouldn't be an option for an EMU.

The platform lengths at Man Apt may make it undoable as already mentioned though, and terminating at Picc is an operational nightmare on the through platforms of course. Having said that, you could terminate it at Stockport or run it through to Stoke/Crewe paths allowing.

Or divert to and terminate at Victoria, but that probably wouldn't be too popular!

Wouldn’t the obvious solution just be to use SDO at Oxford Road?

Yes!

The sets could be diagrammed to work off peak slower services where demand for 1st is lower and catering is more basic. The off peak York semifast for instance is little more than the LNR service on the WCML but painted red and with end doors.

The York stopper might in terms of distance and travel time be comparable to LNR's Crewe stopper but in terms of passenger demand and usage is vastly different. First class is well used on all LNER services apart from the early morning/late evening trips that don't serve London.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Or divert to and terminate at Victoria, but that probably wouldn't be too popular!

You lose the advantage of a nice single Avanti Manchester base then.
S-T

 

[route101]

I wonder why TPE ordered the 397s instead of more 802s or electric only for WCML services.-

 

[Chester1]

I think the better solution would be to send the 807s to LNER as it would remove any traction training requirements for LNER whilst still allowing the 91s to go, and would have the additional benefit of allowing all LNER electric sets to be used interchangeably - something that was previously possible until crew knowledge lapsed on the Mark 4 sets at Newcastle and Edinburgh.

I'm sure CAF would be happy to build additional centre carriages for the 397s if they were asked. The solution for the WCML would be to lengthen the existing 397s to 8 car (just fits at Airport).

I have suggested sending the 807s to LNER in another thread (and ordering two coach extensions). The issue is giving Birmingham to Scotland an adequate fast service (Birmingham - Edinburgh with XC is an hour slower). I am not sure how many Pendolinos would be spare if they exclusively ran London to Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool/Glasgow. The least important Avanti service is London-Chester and it could be dropped with maybe three North Wales services each day staying for political reasons (and TfW running a second Chester-Crewe Shuttle). Maybe the fleet could then just stretch once Pendolino refurbishment is completed.

Seven coaches on Manchester Airport to Scotland would be excessive. 397s to LNER could work in the long term e.g. 2 new 5 coach sets and extending 5 sets to 9 car or 7 new 5 coach sets.

I wonder why TPE ordered the 397s instead of more 802s or electric only for WCML services.-

Same reason they ordered Mark V sets. Hitachi couldn't deliver more units in the time frame they wanted them.

 

[jackot]

I wonder why TPE ordered the 397s instead of more 802s or electric only for WCML services.-

This thread goes into more detail about this. Suspected to be due to CAF offering a faster delivery timescale and potentially offering a better price to TPE.

 

[irish_rail]

I think the better solution would be to send the 807s to LNER as it would remove any traction training requirements for LNER whilst still allowing the 91s to go, and would have the additional benefit of allowing all LNER electric sets to be used interchangeably - something that was previously possible until crew knowledge lapsed on the Mark 4 sets at Newcastle and Edinburgh.

I'm sure CAF would be happy to build additional centre carriages for the 397s if they were asked. The solution for the WCML would be to lengthen the existing 397s to 8 car (just fits at Airport).


The Hitachi depots are full (and not just with IEP units!), but as with GWR's 802s there's nothing to say Hitachi have to maintain the sets themselves, indeed the contract Avanti awarded for the 805s and 807s had Alstom maintaining them. The 807s could be maintained at Heaton by Northern which already has the space and facilities required. Alternatively if they wished to keep Alstom as a contractor they could diagram them to work the daily Glasgow trip and rotate them through Polmadie for maintenance.

Northern look after the 195s and 331s themselves. The heavy maintenance facilities at Neville Hill used by LNER are the unelectrified HST/loco facilities - they get around this for the 91s by shunting them in and out with an 08, but that wouldn't be an option for an EMU.


Or divert to and terminate at Victoria, but that probably wouldn't be too popular!


Yes!


The York stopper might in terms of distance and travel time be comparable to LNR's Crewe stopper but in terms of passenger demand and usage is vastly different. First class is well used on all LNER services apart from the early morning/late evening trips that don't serve London.

Or, how about the 807s to GWR who desperately could do with some trains of that length for Cotswolds , Exeter semi fasts, Cheltenham etc , and GWR send an appropriate number of 5 cars to LNER. I think the East already has its fair share of proper length trains and its the Western desperately crying out for something of that (7 car) length.

 

[SuperLuke2334]

Or, how about the 807s to GWR who desperately could do with some trains of that length for Cotswolds , Exeter semi fasts, Cheltenham etc , and GWR send an appropriate number of 5 cars to LNER. I think the East already has its fair share of proper length trains and its the Western desperately crying out for something of that (7 car) length.

807s are electric only so they'd have to be a 7 car version of the 802s or 805s.

 

[Chester1]

807s are electric only so they'd have to be a 7 car version of the 802s or 805s.

They are close to completing manufacture of the first units, its too late to change the order to bi modes. 807s are a very awkward length. There isn't enough demand for 9 coaches on the two services they are intended for. Their ability to stop at the short platforms at Liverpool South Parkway is an added bonus.

Mark V coaches and driving vehicles are designed for 125mph running. They would need additional paper work but they could replace 397s (being hauled at 110mph by an electric loco). Their reliability issues would need to be sorted out and all 185s kept. The decision to keep all 185s was made to cover TRU diversions and that makes them vulnerable to cuts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They are close to completing manufacture of the first units, its too late to change the order to bi modes. 807s are a very awkward length. There isn't enough demand for 9 coaches on the two services they are intended for. Their ability to stop at the short platforms at Liverpool South Parkway is an added bonus.

The thing is, the services they are intended for look increasingly likely never to operate.

 

[Chester1]

The thing is, the services they are intended for look increasingly likely never to operate.

I agree. If you look at what has been ordered for Chester and North Wales services (13 x 5 coach units) it indicates that only about 7 voyagers were needed pre pandemic to run London - Birmingham - Scotland (alongside Pendolinos). A decent service can be provided by just Pendolinos and 805s if Chester services are significantly reduced. The hourly Chester service will likely go in 2029 or 2031 due to HS2 and could be cut next year instead. Three units rostered would be sufficient to continue the token North Wales services (which are too politically sensitive to cut). That would leave ten units to cover London - Birmingham - Scotland and spares.

I think your idea has merit but Oxford Road is a problem (and one that should have been fixed at least 5 years ago). The 225s look very vulnerable because they are old, their leases finish in the summer and there is an excess of 125mph stock post pandemic.

 

[Greybeard33]

TPE's 397s are a bit short for what they do, but can't run ten car formations due to Manchester Airport platform lengths.

The Manchester Task Force has a medium term plan to extend the Airport platforms to take 10-car trains.

TPE has put a lot of effort into traction training on the 397s. It would be perverse to now send them to LNER, where lots more traincrew and maintenance staff would need training on them.