I feel you could be right: the trials being considered a failure (as far as we're aware, anyway) never made much sense. Or instead of changing the timetable, the 331s should be able to keep up with the 323s on that route (right?), so the 350s replace 331s on some routes, which are then cascaded onto the Hadfield/Glossop line.
You'd think that newer longer trains with air conditioning would offset the objections to such a thing. I wouldn't think the traffic between Hadfield and Glossop would amount to much in terms of value, and nobody else is likely to be inconvenienced. Though that wouldn't help with any of the other routes that they might operate on (would the 110mph top speed help on the Stoke/ Crewe runs?)
Would make sense to drop the frequency to hourly between hadfield and Glossop to keep timings if it'd work. Also, how unpopular would it be just to sever the direct connection entirely be? Could allow a more frequent service on the line if it's say run as every 30 minutes to each giving the core line a service every 15.
Or could it be the DfT who are blocking Northern from acquiring 350/2s? Maybe their thought process is, given the new fleet is technically on the horizon (though new units won't be in service for many years yet), they don't want Northern to be spending money procuring a replacement in the meantime. (To be clear, I don't agree with this logic, if so)
at some point 323s are going to have to be replaced by something, 331s door release times are still painfully slow at times, and it's not exactly speedy on 323s. I think you're right in the sense that the odds were artificially stacked against them before one had even run along there. The timing difference probably wouldn't even need to be that great overall.
They were also trialled on Liverpool - Airport, a route that is currently poor performing anyway and needs revision in some way. So most likely another example of failed the test before it started, despite the current fleet probably also failing said test
Nobody would be suggesting this if the 350/2s weren't homeless though. Indeed if someone did they'd probably get shouted down for adding another "microfleet".
It's not just to find a home for the 350s though, it'd be about replacing rolling stock which is nearly life expired with newer, (theoretically) higher quality/ capacity trains.
But if the replacements aren't suitable, they aren't suitable. It's a bit baffling that Glossop is always the "go-to" place to put them considering the constraints of that line. Stokes, Crewes etc. are more suited to 350s but AIUI all the West side electrics interwork to some extent.
Absolutely, but if the prize is an overall higher quality product then it's worth considering whether the requirement of doing exactly what we do now can be flexed a little to provide significant improvements for the vast majority of users - I'm not pre-determining the answer on that, perhaps it can't be made to fit.
Isn't one issue with the Stoke line is the bay platform is a very tight fit for a 350?
I'm in same thought camp, if new units were in process of being built then no, but as new units are still just at the paper appraisal and maybe one day an actual order stage, not taking what is available now seems bonkers.
It is, but some exploratory work has been carried out to move the signal in the bay and it is possible with some work by Network Rail.
I was under the impression the primary reason for ditching the /2s was their expensive leasing terms. They're owned by Porterbrook unlike the other subclasses which are owned by Angel Trains.
I think the problem with the 323 spares is the long wait times to get the spares in.
They are owned by different companies, so would be contractually difficult.
I haven’t heard of that but they probably wouldn’t want to do that as they’d be replacing 6 car sets (well, sometimes anyway) with 4 and it is quite a busy route unless they fitted the /2s with SDO/ASDO and ran them as 8 car (which would be a dream to be fair)
It would need another unit, Hadfield is nominally a 3 minute turnaround as is Glossop, Picc 8. It doesn't need much extra for that to become a problem at Picc, 2 minutes extra each way and you're in trouble.
The circular idea would deal with that problem.
Potentially you could split the Windermere to Manchester Airports into an Oxenholme - Man Airport and Windermere branch shuttle too, it might be unpopular but it would represent a great opportunity to add capacity on the busiest section and redeploy some 195s to see off the worst of the 15x units.
Couldn’t Windermere be 2tph if that was the case?
Considering Glossop is pretty much solo 323s, there isn't any 6 coach sets which will be replaced. I'm pretty sure the only Northern EMU line which sees 6 coach trains in the North West is Manchester Airport - Blackpool North with a couple 6 coach diagrammed for the Liverpool Lime Street - Manchester Airport stoppers
And a few Airport - Cumbria (double 195/1s)
It's 19 minutes end to end; is 11 minutes too tight for a turnaround at Windermere?
Oh d'oh yes - I forgot the return journey didn't I?!
Nah, as others have said, you'd need passing loops at least or preferably full doubling to allow that.