Class 319 future

[Class377/5]

Really? If every operator did that we'd have hundreds of usable trains sat in sidings doing nothing so that operators have nice consistent fleets. For instance, Northern's fleet plan would probably be 150s for local diesel services and 195s for longer diesel services with no need for the 155s, 156s or 158s.

The post I was replying to was why isn't TL keeping 319s on basis it doesn't need new stock as it runs 4 cars in the Peak. Not having enough units to take advantage of a £5bn infrastructure change seems stupid.

Not to mention comparing GTR and Northern is very different beasts with GTR putting back more than the TLP infrastructures costs within its seven year contract where as Northern (and TPE if you add the two 'Northern" rail operators together) cannot hope to come close.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

SR widely recycled stock. [snip] Tadpoles (Hastings demu with SUB DT)

In fact the "head" of the Tadpoles were former EPB DTs. Not sure if some were from the former Tyneside units (who remembers them?!) [/pedant]

Fascinating stuff when you read into it all, who says units are boring?....

Totally agree!

 

[northwichcat]

The post I was replying to was why isn't TL keeping 319s on basis it doesn't need new stock as it runs 4 cars in the Peak. Not having enough units to take advantage of a £5bn infrastructure change seems stupid.

Not to mention comparing GTR and Northern is very different beasts with GTR putting back more than the TLP infrastructures costs within its seven year contract where as Northern (and TPE if you add the two 'Northern" rail operators together) cannot hope to come close.

Your previous post was over simplifying matters as it said not enough 319s was enough justification in itself for off-loading them. If someone was reading that who wasn't aware of the special features which the 700s will have, which the 319s don't have they could easily have seen your previous post as one rule for London and another for everywhere else.

Given 1290 vehicles are being ordered for Thameslink, while 501 are being ordered for Northern and TPE combined I would hope GTR will return a lot more money to DfT.

 

[Andrew1395]

Not wanting to keep a class because there isn't enough of them? Your question answers itself.

When we decided our house was no longer big enough we bought a bigger one, rather than renting out one of our existing rooms to a lodger. Seems to me that until you have enough new capacity in place to serve your core market, you should retain the resources you have had for 25 years. Once enough new space is in place, you can do what you want. At the moment there are not enough vehicles to provide an average quality service on the core Thameslink route, and that is likely to continue for many years. So to have 4 319s pootling along the WCML and up the Abbey branch seems a bit odd to some of us among the 800 people crushed into a 1 4 car train

 

[northwichcat]

When we decided our house was no longer big enough we bought a bigger one, rather than renting out one of our existing rooms to a lodger. Seems to me that until you have enough new capacity in place to serve your core market, you should retain the resources you have had for 25 years.

The problem is trains belong to leasing companies not operators.

With the 319s and 700s it's more like your tenancy agreement finished on 31st December and a new tenant has already agreed to move in on 1st April. However, your new house won't be ready by 31st December or even the 1st April, so while an extension to the original tenancy agreement could be negotiated, it's only a short term solution.

 

[AM9]

Given 1290 vehicles are being ordered for Thameslink, while 501 are being ordered for Northern and TPE combined I would hope GTR will return a lot more money to DfT.

GTR carries far more passengers over more KM than Northern.The 2015/6 Q3 figures reveal that GTR made 2.2 Billion passenger KM with 15.2 Million train KM. Northern only managed 0.6 Billion passenger KM with 11.5 Million train KM and TPE, 0.5 Billion passenger KM with 4.8 Million train KM.
Those figure indicated that the average train passenger loads are 144 for GTR, 52 for Northern and 104 for TPE. The GTR figure is despite its operation of a 24/7 service on Thameslink and some 4-car operating owing to lack of rolling stock. There are very few additional paths on GTR so the only way to address the trend of rising patronage is to:
a) provide enough trains of suitable stock that maximise passenger capacity and minimise dwell times
b) improve the routes' infrastructure to minimise headways, increase speeds, reduce dwelltimes and minimise conflicts at junctions.
The 700s and 710s together with various shuffling around of Electrostars deal with a) above and the Thameslink programme with the core provide most of the improvements listed in b). Providing infrastructure improvements (especially where additional land is required) in the home counties and London is extremely expensive, so maximising improvements with better trains can often be the most economical route.
It would seem that Northern do run a lot of short trains at higher frequencies than would be the case in the south-east. This must be a major driver of their less efficient operation that gives poor financial returns. Lengthening platforms is a one-off cost that enables capacity growth forever, - running more short trains always carries a high operating cost and uses paths inefficiently which will eventually run out.

 

[northwichcat]

It would seem that Northern do run a lot of short trains at higher frequencies than would be the case in the south-east. This must be a major driver of their less efficient operation that gives poor financial returns. Lengthening platforms is a one-off cost that enables capacity growth forever, - running more short trains always carries a high operating cost and uses paths inefficiently which will eventually run out.

Short trains - yes. Most Northern services are 2, 3 or 4 cars long.

Higher frequencies? hock:

In Buckinghamshire it seems annual usage of around 480,000 when you're over 20 miles by train from a city gets you 14 pre-9am departures (in both directions), while in Cheshire slightly higher usage when you are under 20 miles from a city gets you 7 pre-9am departures (in both directions)

If we move closer to the city and pick stations with around 310,000 journeys per annum - in Greater London that gets you around 50 pre-9am departures while in Greater Manchester you get 16 pre-9am departures.

So I think it's fair to say in the London commuter area the frequency is at least double what it is in the Manchester commuter area.

(The reason I picked lower usage stations closer to the city was because it was easier to find comparable figures.)

 

[Class377/5]

Your previous post was over simplifying matters as it said not enough 319s was enough justification in itself for off-loading them. If someone was reading that who wasn't aware of the special features which the 700s will have, which the 319s don't have they could easily have seen your previous post as one rule for London and another for everywhere else.

Given 1290 vehicles are being ordered for Thameslink, while 501 are being ordered for Northern and TPE combined I would hope GTR will return a lot more money to DfT.

It was over simplified for an over simplified initial post. Of course so is your post as your claiming Bedford, Brighton, Littlehampton, Cambridge and Peterbrough are now London. Let along places like Ashford, Kings Lynn, Southampton, Liverpool and Manchester all sharing in benefits created by the Thameslink project.

Well when GTR is returning more money to the DfT by over a factor of 10, of course one will see more investment. The figures already posted shows just how many more passengers will be affected. That's not saying one should benefit over the other but when your generating large sums of money after costs that line/franchise/route should get improvements.

When we decided our house was no longer big enough we bought a bigger one, rather than renting out one of our existing rooms to a lodger. Seems to me that until you have enough new capacity in place to serve your core market, you should retain the resources you have had for 25 years. Once enough new space is in place, you can do what you want. At the moment there are not enough vehicles to provide an average quality service on the core Thameslink route, and that is likely to continue for many years. So to have 4 319s pootling along the WCML and up the Abbey branch seems a bit odd to some of us among the 800 people crushed into a 1 4 car train

More trains have been ordered so so fits your suggestion. Note your comment of years before there are not enough vehicles ignores the fact that within a year all trains can be max length not years as you wrongly state.

And what does 319s up and down the WCML have to do with Thameslink? You do realise that the additional 319s aren't that useful as it won't allow that much more train lengthening as the longer trains are needs on 377/387 routes.

The problem is trains belong to leasing companies not operators.

With the 319s and 700s it's more like your tenancy agreement finished on 31st December and a new tenant has already agreed to move in on 1st April. However, your new house won't be ready by 31st December or even the 1st April, so while an extension to the original tenancy agreement could be negotiated, it's only a short term solution.

Not sure your example is all that relevant on the basis of slowly moving over from 319s/377/387 to 700s. There is no plan to change everything overnight so your example is worthless. I'm sure you'll now come up with a point that more relevant to the discussion now.

 

[AM9]

Short trains - yes. Most Northern services are 2, 3 or 4 cars long.

Higher frequencies? hock:

In Buckinghamshire it seems annual usage of around 480,000 when you're over 20 miles by train from a city gets you 14 pre-9am departures (in both directions), while in Cheshire slightly higher usage when you are under 20 miles from a city gets you 7 pre-9am departures (in both directions)

If we move closer to the city and pick stations with around 310,000 journeys per annum - in Greater London that gets you around 50 pre-9am departures while in Greater Manchester you get 16 pre-9am departures.

So I think it's fair to say in the London commuter area the frequency is at least double what it is in the Manchester commuter area.

(The reason I picked lower usage stations closer to the city was because it was easier to find comparable figures.)

The best place to look for peak-hour passenger figures are the ORR's 'Estimates of Station Usage' tables. At the moment, I only have 2014/15 to hand locally but they are good enough for comparison of peak passenger numbers.
For each route, the only practical way of judging total commuter traffic is to look at the 'work' end of the route where most passengers alight in the mornings and board in the evenings. The majority of home end journeys will be covered by these figures. The few stops with significant flows before/after the city centre terminii (or core stations for Thameslink and other 'crossrail' type services) are near enough as a proportion of total traffic in both Manchester and London for comparison purposes. Similarly, using the table's 'Entries_Season' and 'Exits_Season' figures account for the majority of true commuter traffic in each case.
OK, so taking the data from the two Manchester stations gives these figures of commuter exits/entries per year:
MAN 3.3 million
MVC 1.0 million
A sample of the London equivalents:
EUS 6.5 million
FST 4.8 million
LST 18.2 million
MYB 3.0 million
PAD 6.0 million
WAT 25.5 million
VIC 19.2 million

As you can see, most of the figures are in a different league. That's not surprising as the London commuter area has a residential population of about 20-25 million. I don't know the equivalent for Manchester, but I doubt that it exceeds 10 million, given that the equivalent commuter area for Liverpool probably has a large overlap.
Looking at the number of arrivals between 07:00 and 09:00 at some of these terminii, the difference between the Manchester and London terminal seem to explain the difference that I believe relative train size and frequency produces:

for Manchester:
MAN 87 arrivals
MVC 34 arrivals
and London:
EUS 44 arrivals
FST 39 arrivals
LST 106 arrivals
MYB 31 arrivals
PAD 54 arrivals
WAT 104 arrivals
VIC 85 arrivals

The difference is plain to see. Calculating the average number of passengers per train per 240 days arrivals gives:

for Manchester:
MAN 158
MVC 122
and London:
EUS 615
FST 512
LST 715
MYB 403
PAD 462
WAT 1021
VIC 941

These clear differences are indications of the length of the trains, notably Manchester where commuter services are often provided by 2/3-car trains whereas anything running on the maxed-out lines into London terminals would normally be in the order of 6-8 minimum. Other than during operational difficulties, the only places where there are a few 3-car trains run is into Paddington and Marylebone, both of which currently use predominately diesel rolling stock, (exclusively for MYB). The effect of this can be seen in the average loading figures.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I suspect that the cost basis of GTR (revenue to DfT) works against short term capacity fixes on GTR - I challnge anyone to travel on the 0714 slow off SAC to say it is not needed - and the long suffering Catford loop users would no doubt have something to say.

So how many 319's are now "spare" - and could be pressed into service to make commuters lives more bearable. Must be some coming up soon.?

 

[northwichcat]

AM9 you were arguing the frequency was high in the North, yet making a like for like comparison it's the London commuter routes which get a stupidly high level of service at some stations, give the ORR figures, some stations with a train every few minutes must only get a handful of passengers per service. Why should a station get a poor frequency of service compared to the demand just because the train isn't serving the biggest city in the UK?

Have you considered Liverpool and Leeds aren't much smaller than Manchester and 2 TPE trains per hour serve all 3 cities? TPE North has no counter-peak flow and it's very overcrowded 3 and 6 car trains in both directions. On the other hand some counter-peak London services get 8 cars and all the passengers would fit in to one. Transport Focus claim you've got more chance of getting a seat on LO than TPE so it's not surprising First won the TPE franchise with a bid saying they would introduce a large number of additional carriages.

On many Northern routes I'm not sure how longer trains at a reduced frequency would help as many final destinations only get a service every 30 or 60 minutes so halving the frequency would put people off using the train.

 

[Andrew1395]

It sounds to me that the problem is that there is not an effective strategic traction policy, that is alignment with the franchise model. In that context who owns the vehicles is irrelevant. In fact leasing is (to my mind) a more efficient model if the right trains are in the right places in the right numbers. The 319 is basically a 30 year old design that still has plenty of utility in it and matched to the tight timetable can still do a job somewhere. For all the debate on the new fleets the fact is a lot of people suffer a miserable journey on Thameslink crammed into peak hour trains of just 4 cars, so having an 2x 319 would be better in my mind until the new fleet is fully in place.

 

[AM9]

AM9 you were arguing the frequency was high in the North, yet making a like for like comparison it's the London commuter routes which get a stupidly high level of service at some stations, give the ORR figures, some stations with a train every few minutes must only get a handful of passengers per service. Why should a station get a poor frequency of service compared to the demand just because the train isn't serving the biggest city in the UK?

You don't seem to have understood what I was talking about in my last post. Forget anything about fairness, it's nothing to do with that. The lines into London are almost without exception, running the minimum headways that their respective signalling allows. So the only way of approaching the capacity needed is to run trains at the maximum length the stations and signalling allow. Even when the signalling is the best that can be bought, (as ERTMS is promised to be) the trains themselves have to be designed to minimise dwell times as in the case of Crossrail & Thameslink, (there are many posts here discussing the matter, plus complaints from passengers who feel that their only problem is that they haven't got the means to charge their inadequate smartphones' batteries nor armrests). There are very few trains going with the peak flow into London that have any seats when leaving the last stop before Central London. Many of them are so full of standing passengers that there are problems when passengers want to get off. The latest trains are designed to carry 1500+ passengers and be able to disgorge a large proportion of them in under 45 seconds, (I don't have the figure to hand but they have been quoted by those in the know here). That's the reson why they are so frequent. London passenger levels are completely different from any single city in the North, or even all of them put together. The comparison that I made was for the traffic into the north being three times more movement intensive, i.e. for 3.3 million commuter journeys into Piccadilly and another 1 million into Victoria, the total number of trains is over 120 between 07:00 and 09:00. Fenchurch St delivers over 10% more in the same time with less than a third that number. In addition it does it with just four platforms and just a pair of tracks for the last seven miles into FST. None of the luxury that is 6 through platforms and 14 terminal bays that the combined Manchester termini bring. Or take Marylebone, which you brought up. It also has a pair of tracks to deliver 3% less commuters that MAN into 6 terminal platforms. It does it with about one third of the train numbers too.

Have you considered Liverpool and Leeds aren't much smaller than Manchester and 2 TPE trains per hour serve all 3 cities? TPE North has no counter-peak flow and it's very overcrowded 3 and 6 car trains in both directions. On the other hand some counter-peak London services get 8 cars and all the passengers would fit in to one. Transport Focus claim you've got more chance of getting a seat on LO than TPE so it's not surprising First won the TPE franchise with a bid saying they would introduce a large number of additional carriages

Every peak train uses both a peak flow direction path and the corresponding counter-peak path. Land is now far too expensive to stable all unused trains near Central London and there certainly isn't time to split and join trains at most stations. So the only option is to run them to/from the country ends of the lines in the same formations so they might just as well carry passengers. That's why there are plenty of seats available, although London has a significant counter-flow in leisure travel anyway.

On many Northern routes I'm not sure how longer trains at a reduced frequency would help as many final destinations only get a service every 30 or 60 minutes so halving the frequency would put people off using the train.

There have been many complaints of unreliable running because of too many conflicts at the approaches to Manchester termini, (I seem to remember you specifically commenting on the numbers of trains clogging up Slade Lane junction which you said was the busiest/worst in Manchester). Since those days I have made a number of journeys through that junction, twice in what should have been peak hours.
As I see it from four separate visits to the NW last year, the problem of peak services is that there are too many trains providing a service from almost anywhere to almost anywhere else. That is not the way of the railway where cost is an issue and both trains and paths are at a premium. There are sufficient railheads and interchanges to ensure that more frequent services of sensible length trains can be justified with higher passenger flows. A properly organised timetable allows slick changes at these interchange points. The main difference between the railway geography of London and the NW is that virtually all the mainline commuter routes radiate from central London whereas in Manchester, there is a mix of through routes (e.g. Liverpool/Chat Moss/Manchester/Hebden Bridge/Leeds, Preston/Bolton/Manchester/MIA, and many other minor routes that may have peak flows, but not enough to justify a dedicated train more than one 2/3-car set per 30 or 60 minutes. If longer and more frequent trains would not be full, then the demand for them is not on the same scale as London's. The provision of services is made on the basis of equality of need, which is perfectly fair. Providing a level of service that is not warranted by actual need and not justified by receipts (in a commercial sense) but assuming some concept of 'fairness' where provision should be equal to somewhere else irrespective of genuine need has no place on a pseudo-privatised railway that we have today.

 

[northwichcat]

There have been many complaints of unreliable running because of too many conflicts at the approaches to Manchester termini, (I seem to remember you specifically commenting on the numbers of trains clogging up Slade Lane junction which you said was the busiest/worst in Manchester). Since those days I have made a number of journeys through that junction, twice in what should have been peak hours.
As I see it from four separate visits to the NW last year, the problem of peak services is that there are too many trains providing a service from almost anywhere to almost anywhere else. That is not the way of the railway where cost is an issue and both trains and paths are at a premium. There are sufficient railheads and interchanges to ensure that more frequent services of sensible length trains can be justified with higher passenger flows. A properly organised timetable allows slick changes at these interchange points. The main difference between the railway geography of London and the NW is that virtually all the mainline commuter routes radiate from central London whereas in Manchester, there is a mix of through routes (e.g. Liverpool/Chat Moss/Manchester/Hebden Bridge/Leeds, Preston/Bolton/Manchester/MIA, and many other minor routes that may have peak flows, but not enough to justify a dedicated train more than one 2/3-car set per 30 or 60 minutes. If longer and more frequent trains would not be full, then the demand for them is not on the same scale as London's. The provision of services is made on the basis of equality of need, which is perfectly fair. Providing a level of service that is not warranted by actual need and not justified by receipts (in a commercial sense) but assuming some concept of 'fairness' where provision should be equal to somewhere else irrespective of genuine need has no place on a pseudo-privatised railway that we have today.

There is already a recast planned for December 2017 to reduce the congestion east of Piccadilly and allow timetables to be recast to meet current demand.

The pathing problem occurred because DfT and Virgin decided 3tph between Manchester and London was needed and there wasn't a path so Virgin robbed the Northern Chester and Crewe paths but local usage has doubled at some stations in Cheshire so an hourly service to Manchester from Chester via Altrincham, even at peak times, doesn't meet demand. If you ignore First Class seats then the Northern 323s have more seats than the 9 car Pendolinos, so are the 9 car Pendolinos wasting paths?

At peak times there are more seats between Manchester and places such as Buxton, Preston and Bradford than between Manchester and Birmingham due to Voyagers not exactly having many seats for 4/5 car trains and a lot of doubled up Sprinters on Northern services on those corridors.

 

[AM9]

There is already a recast planned for December 2017 to reduce the congestion east of Piccadilly and allow timetables to be recast to meet current demand.

The pathing problem occurred because DfT and Virgin decided 3tph between Manchester and London was needed and there wasn't a path so Virgin robbed the Northern Chester and Crewe paths but local usage has doubled at some stations in Cheshire so an hourly service to Manchester from Chester via Altrincham, even at peak times, doesn't meet demand. If you ignore First Class seats then the Northern 323s have more seats than the 9 car Pendolinos, so are the 9 car Pendolinos wasting paths?

At peak times there are more seats between Manchester and places such as Buxton, Preston and Bradford than between Manchester and Birmingham due to Voyagers not exactly having many seats for 4/5 car trains and a lot of doubled up Sprinters on Northern services on those corridors.

Other than the Virgin trains using paths that help VTWC make a net contribution to overall rail costs, the rest of the above does not involve London services or the type of trains leased by TOCs in the SE. There will be quite a few more 319s available to TOCs with a real need so there shouldn't be a need to run 2-car 150/156s on the Manchester to Preston services when the wiring is done irrespective of any delivered new stock. That's assuming that Allerton can get the hang of looking after the 319s.

 

[northwichcat]

Other than the Virgin trains using paths that help VTWC make a net contribution to overall rail costs, the rest of the above does not involve London services or the type of trains leased by TOCs in the SE.

After Network Rail track access charges VTWC make a loss of 7.6p per passenger mile, that's a bigger loss than GWR and Virgin don't have any low usage branch line services - those Pendolinos put a lot of wear on the tracks which they have to pay for! We'll have to see what the subsidy/premium payments are for the next franchise but we already know TPE are moving to be a premium paying franchise.

There will be quite a few more 319s available to TOCs with a real need so there shouldn't be a need to run 2-car 150/156s on the Manchester to Preston services when the wiring is done irrespective of any delivered new stock. That's assuming that Allerton can get the hang of looking after the 319s.

Have you seen the Manchester-Preston corridor at peak times? Most services are very busy 4 car 150 or 4 car 156s already. Some services are even 6 car 185s or 8 car 350s and can have all seats occupied. 3 car trains are now a rarity as most former TPE services are now 4 car 156s. The only regular 3 car service via Bolton now is the Manchester to Clitheroe via Blackburn service.

319s will actually be a logistical nightmare on the Preston corridor. In single formation they'll provide no increase in capacity, while in double formation they can't stop at Salford Crescent and would probably provide too much capacity on the slow services. So the option of 3 car CAF EMUs doubled up was a very sensible move by Arriva, given Porterbrook didn't want to sign a long term 323 lease and there were no other 3 or 6 car EMUs available.

 

[AM9]

Have you seen the Manchester-Preston corridor at peak times? Most services are very busy 4 car 150 or 4 car 156s already. Some services are even 6 car 185s or 8 car 350s and can have all seats occupied. 3 car trains are now a rarity as most former TPE services are now 4 car 156s. The only regular 3 car service via Bolton now is the Manchester to Clitheroe via Blackburn service.

I was actually talking about the line that is being electrified so all those trains that use the Chat Moss line/WCML connection near Newton-le-Willows are irrelevant to my post.
I have travelled on all the routes used by 319s and the Chat Moss line specifically in the evening peak.
I can't say that either Lime Street or Piccadilly were busy in the middle of the rush, - more like a Saturday afternoon at Kins Cross. The trains were leaving full but not exactly overflowing so bearing out the difference in actual passenger numbers between the really heavy loading at all London terminii and Manchester's busiest station. Even the through platforms 13 & 14 were not as busy as St Albans on a normal morning. Manchester, nor the other northern cities just don't seem to have the same crowding problems as London despite so many trains being much shorter. If they spent some money making Salford Crescent suitable for at least 8-car trains, they could run a fast service to Preston stopping at Bolton which can handle longer trains.

319s will actually be a logistical nightmare on the Preston corridor. In single formation they'll provide no increase in capacity, while in double formation they can't stop at Salford Crescent and would probably provide too much capacity on the slow services. So the option of 3 car CAF EMUs doubled up was a very sensible move by Arriva, given Porterbrook didn't want to sign a long term 323 lease and there were no other 3 or 6 car EMUs available.

Any benefit from new trains will come, eventually, when they have been built and debbugged.

 

[northwichcat]

I was actually talking about the line that is being electrified so all those trains that use the Chat Moss line/WCML connection near Newton-le-Willows are irrelevant to my post.

All 1tph :roll: Manchester to Scotland services will be diverted via Bolton so it's not irrelevant when talking about the Bolton corridor post-electrification.

I have travelled on all the routes used by 319s and the Chat Moss line specifically in the evening peak.

Like I've said on numerous occasions before Liverpool-Manchester via Chat Moss route wasn't the line most in need of extra capacity but got the extra capacity because it got electrified first. It seems most Liverpool to Manchester passengers are happy to continue using TPE and EMT opposed to those 319s which some rail enthusiasts think are brilliant compared to any DMU.

The Bolton corridor is a completely different scenario which is why a fleet of 4 car 319s isn't a suitable option.

I can't say that either Lime Street or Piccadilly were busy in the middle of the rush, - more like a Saturday afternoon at Kins Cross.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at with all your London comparisons. If you want to judge whether London has a good public transport system you need to compare with cities like Paris, Moscow and Istanbul as there's no comparable cities within the UK. The comparison I made originally was if a consistent fleet is a good idea for an operator serving London, then it should also be a good idea for other operators outside of London, which you seemed to interpret as an anti-London post and went off on one.

BTW Liverpool Lime Street isn't even the busiest station in Liverpool, while the opening of Liverpool South Parkway has meant many people no longer have to change in the city centre.

 

[notlob.divad]

I'm quite lost with where this thread has been going so I would like to clarify a few points if possible.

1. How many Class 319 units are going to be free and do we know what variations/ages they will be?

2. Can they be reformed in any way? I am aware they effectively have two cab cars, a power car and an trailing middle car. Can they be turned into 3 car & 5 car units, or are they stuck at 4 car.

3. Are the 12 at London Midland only being seen as a Temporary measure until the next franchise or are they seen as a long term solution for commuter services in the West Midlands?

Personally I think given the reliability issues there have been up to now on the Northern Fleet, that they need to take on a few more than they are planning to, but clearly the whole fleet is not needed. However the model used of getting the wires up and quickly bringing in the new trains will surely be a method reused for future electrification around commuter areas. (Cardiff & the Valleys, West and South Yorkshire, West / East Midlands, North East.) The timescales of these and the usefulness of the 319s once they reach that age will be the key factors.

 

[Haywain]

2. Can they be reformed in any way? I am aware they effectively have two cab cars, a power car and an trailing middle car. Can they be turned into 3 car & 5 car units, or are they stuck at 4 car.

I can't recall the exact details, but equipment is carried on the TSOL vehicle that precludes forming these as shorter sets. They could probably be formed as 5 car sets, but that would be an astonishing waste of vehicles and would leave you with seriously underpowered trains.

 

[northwichcat]

I can't recall the exact details, but equipment is carried on the TSOL vehicle that precludes forming these as shorter sets. They could probably be formed as 5 car sets, but that would be an astonishing waste of vehicles and would leave you with seriously underpowered trains.

When Porterbrook realised the constraints of an all 319 fleet for all North West electric services they published some plans including rewiring the trains and reforming them in to 3 car sets (with improved acceleration), designing new front ends (including with corridor connectors) and more. However, as the release of 319s got delayed and manufacturers have released more EMU options (making it a more competitive market) it resulted in those ideas not being taken forward.

 

[notlob.divad]

When Porterbrook realised the constraints of an all 319 fleet for all North West electric services they published some plans including rewiring the trains and reforming them in to 3 car sets (with improved acceleration), designing new front ends (including with corridor connectors) and more. However, as the release of 319s got delayed and manufacturers have released more EMU options (making it a more competitive market) it resulted in those ideas not being taken forward.

Thanks for this, I am sure there must have been some plan. Someone mentioned up thread Merseyrail and the thought had occurred to me, but the tunneled 6 car platforms would mean you needed to shorten them to 3 car sets for them to be useable.

I do think some DfT bod would have been pushing for it to see them through until the 2028 end of the franchise but Merseytravel seem to have scuppered that plan announcing they will look to buy brand new trains much sooner.

I ride them quite regularly and I don't know why people have a bad idea of them, but then I am comparing to them to what we used to have up here (and still do on a Sunday)

 

[AM9]

Like I've said on numerous occasions before Liverpool-Manchester via Chat Moss route wasn't the line most in need of extra capacity but got the extra capacity because it got electrified first. It seems most Liverpool to Manchester passengers are happy to continue using TPE and EMT opposed to those 319s which some rail enthusiasts think are brilliant compared to any DMU.

Observing the 185s in the peak as well, they weren't exactly full, presumably because they weren't really appropriate for typical commuter trtaffic, i.e. from City centre to satellite towns, - because they didn't stop at the satellite
towns. What Chat moss did need was a local and semi-fast service that wouldn't get in the way of through trains. The 319s have satisfied that need as expected given their 25 year role doing similar in much more intensive conditions on Thameslink. I don't really care what enthusiast or ordinary passengers think of them, they are just functional outer-suburban/inter-urban trains. When visiting the NW, I used them as they were convenient and as fast as other trains on my journey.
On one visit, I did go LIV to MAN via Warrington on an EMT 158. It was not much more crowded than the 319s and it partially emptied out at Warrington and filled back up on it's way to MAN. Superficially, it seemed busier, but that was because the end-door layout was toally unsuitable for that service. Each dwell was extended by the stream of alighting and just boarded passengers squeezing past each to the very ends of the cars.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at with all your London comparisons. If you want to judge whether London has a good public transport system you need to compare with cities like Paris, Moscow and Istanbul as there's no comparable cities within the UK. The comparison I made originally was if a consistent fleet is a good idea for an operator serving London, then it should also be a good idea for other operators outside of London, which you seemed to interpret as an anti-London post and went off on one.

Your reply to Class377/5 in post #93 intorduced a comparison with London:

"Your previous post was over simplifying matters as it said not enough 319s was enough justification in itself for off-loading them. If someone was reading that who wasn't aware of the special features which the 700s will have, which the 319s don't have they could easily have seen your previous post as one rule for London and another for everywhere else.
"Given 1290 vehicles are being ordered for Thameslink, while 501 are being ordered for Northern and TPE combined I would hope GTR will return a lot more money to DfT."
was another failure to acknowledge the fact that SE commuter railway operations are in a different world to those in the NW, (or anywhere else in the UK). The 501 vs 1290 vehicles is a function of the relative traffic levels on Norther/TPE area basket of services for a train top-up vs the monolithic intensive service GTR on the fully loaded infrastructure of the MML, ECML, BML and the other supporting lines North of, through and South of London.
I presume that you have a more limited knowledge of London commuter operation than I do of the North West. That's not surprising as it would take several visits to the capital just to travel on each of the main routes just once. I suppose that's why you can't see what I and other posters are getting at when we talk of uniformity and reliability of stock, and capacity of infrastructure.
Even with whatever 'Northern Powerhouse' actually delivers, the rail infrastructure will only give a fraction of London's existing capacity so understanding the bigger picture down here before calling out the 'not fair' chant yet again would help you understand why you get the answers you do.

BTW Liverpool Lime Street isn't even the busiest station in Liverpool, while the opening of Liverpool South Parkway has meant many people no longer have to change in the city centre.

You need to check the figures* for Liverpool Stations. Lime St., has 6 times the number of season ticket travellers per year compared with South Parkway. Even the total number of passengers is twice that of Parkway, presumabley including all the leisure traffic to JL Airport. Central is the busiest station in Liverpool becuase it is the interchange for two 'underground' type metro lines.
Note: At the moment I am using 2014/15 figure but I think they are still indicative of current passenger levels.

 

[notlob.divad]

Observing the 185s in the peak as well, they weren't exactly full, presumably because they weren't really appropriate for typical commuter trtaffic, i.e. from City centre to satellite towns, - because they didn't stop at the satellite towns. What Chat moss did need was a local and semi-fast service that wouldn't get in the way of through trains. The 319s have satisfied that need as expected given their 25 year role doing similar in much more intensive conditions on Thameslink. I don't really care what enthusiast or ordinary passengers think of them, they are just functional outer-suburban/inter-urban trains. When visiting the NW, I used them as they were convenient and as fast as other trains on my journey.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. As JCollins was specifically referring to the Bolton commuter corridor not the Chat Moss / CLC Line. On the Chat Moss and Wigan lines they are currently a good fit, but the 4 car nature of them will cause future problems where platforms have been built for 6 car operation and this is particularly problem on the Bolton Line. Hence one reason why I asked if they could be reformed to doubled up 3 car or single 5 car units which maybe more appropriate on this section of line.

On one visit, I did go LIV to MAN via Warrington on an EMT 158. It was not much more crowded than the 319s and it partially emptied out at Warrington and filled back up on it's way to MAN. Superficially, it seemed busier, but that was because the end-door layout was toally unsuitable for that service. Each dwell was extended by the stream of alighting and just boarded passengers squeezing past each to the very ends of the cars.

I am sure if the CLC had been wired aswell/instead of chat moss we would have seen Class 319s running the stopping services here as well, but decisions have gone the other way. The new Northern connect will have the commuter style door arrangement but we will have to wait and see what happens to the East Midlands franchise to know if the problem you pick up is solved. In essence 319s cannot solve this, mainly because there are no wires.

Your reply to Class377/5 in post #93 intorduced a comparison with London:

"Your previous post was over simplifying matters as it said not enough 319s was enough justification in itself for off-loading them. If someone was reading that who wasn't aware of the special features which the 700s will have, which the 319s don't have they could easily have seen your previous post as one rule for London and another for everywhere else.
"Given 1290 vehicles are being ordered for Thameslink, while 501 are being ordered for Northern and TPE combined I would hope GTR will return a lot more money to DfT."
was another failure to acknowledge the fact that SE commuter railway operations are in a different world to those in the NW, (or anywhere else in the UK). The 501 vs 1290 vehicles is a function of the relative traffic levels on Norther/TPE area basket of services for a train top-up vs the monolithic intensive service GTR on the fully loaded infrastructure of the MML, ECML, BML and the other supporting lines North of, through and South of London.
I presume that you have a more limited knowledge of London commuter operation than I do of the North West. That's not surprising as it would take several visits to the capital just to travel on each of the main routes just once. I suppose that's why you can't see what I and other posters are getting at when we talk of uniformity and reliability of stock, and capacity of infrastructure.

Even with whatever 'Northern Powerhouse' actually delivers, the rail infrastructure will only give a fraction of London's existing capacity so understanding the bigger picture down here before calling out the 'not fair' chant yet again would help you understand why you get the answers you do.

I don't think anyone is directly comparing the unique and overly centric London commuter lines with those of the Northern cities. Up here we have a much more sensible model with bi-direction and even intercity commuting reducing the pressures on services at the peak times. That does not mean we don't have our own problems to address, some of which you have identified. 319s are clearly part of the solution to that at least in the medium term, but the differences between the Bolton corridor passenger flows and the Liverpool Corridor flows might mean that they do not solve the problem in a the optimum way for both.

 

[northwichcat]

Observing the 185s in the peak as well, they weren't exactly full, presumably because they weren't really appropriate for typical commuter trtaffic, i.e. from City centre to satellite towns, - because they didn't stop at the satellite
towns.

The 185s on Chat Moss get low loadings compared to the ones on the CLC line. Presumably as people haven't got used to the idea of fast services running from Victoria or because their connecting service is from Piccadilly. On Saturdays the 185s on the CLC are close to having every seat occupied on every service, except the very early and very late services. Even some off-peak middle of the day weekday services are full on the CLC. However, the Airport-Lime Street services (which serve Piccadilly) are avoided by a lot of people. You may recall I once posted that a Scottish man refused to travel on a Northern Airport-Liverpool service 'because the train was ****e' and instead waited for the next TPE service.

You need to check the figures* for Liverpool Stations. Lime St., has 6 times the number of season ticket travellers per year compared with South Parkway. Even the total number of passengers is twice that of Parkway, presumabley including all the leisure traffic to JL Airport. Central is the busiest station in Liverpool becuase it is the interchange for two 'underground' type metro lines.
Note: At the moment I am using 2014/15 figure but I think they are still indicative of current passenger levels.

You read two separate points as one. I was referring to Liverpool Lime Street not being the busiest station in Liverpool and also that Lime Street's figures went down when TPE and LM started stopping at Liverpool South Parkway. Liverpool Central has more entries and exits than Lime Street, so there's more people starting and ending their journeys there than at Lime Street.

was another failure to acknowledge the fact that SE commuter railway operations are in a different world to those in the NW

Again you misread something. I was agreeing with part of what Class377/5 said. My comment was similar to saying I hope Cameron achieves more as PM than Gordon Brown did as PM - Brown only had 2 years so logically that's what you would expect. You also seemed to have missed the fact I originally said something to hint there's a lot more reasons than just 'consistent stock' for Thameslink off-loading 319s.

I presume that you have a more limited knowledge of London commuter operation than I do of the North West. That's not surprising as it would take several visits to the capital just to travel on each of the main routes just once.

Correct. However, I have been at Kings Cross station on a Saturday late afternoon and it seemed to be quieter than you suggest it is, it was more like Manchester Piccadilly at 9pm on a weekday. I've also been to Cannon Street station on one Saturday - I've never seen a more deserted station in any city in any country, it even made Deansgate look busy! I'd guess it's only really used by commuters on weekdays.

 

[childwallblues]

As a regular 319 user in the North West I have no complaints about them. At least you can now get a seat most of the time.
A lot of supposed 319 failures are in fact nothing to do with the units. I was at Piccadilly on Saturday and noted that the 1255 (1240 ex MIA) to LIV was cancelled. A lot of people would think "another 319 failure" but the train had been terminated on its inward journey (1116 ex LIV) at Oxford Road and started its return journey there. The reason for the cancellation of the MCO-MIA-MCO parts of the journey was no crew caused by problems at Preston.

 

[DJH1971]

As a regular 319 user in the North West I have no complaints about them. At least you can now get a seat most of the time.
A lot of supposed 319 failures are in fact nothing to do with the units. I was at Piccadilly on Saturday and noted that the 1255 (1240 ex MIA) to LIV was cancelled. A lot of people would think "another 319 failure" but the train had been terminated on its inward journey (1116 ex LIV) at Oxford Road and started its return journey there. The reason for the cancellation of the MCO-MIA-MCO parts of the journey was no crew caused by problems at Preston.

The one real pet hate about the 319's at Northern is that dreadful automated announcement 'if you are boarding this train etc'.

A totally dreadful sounding voice, so bad some passengers have even started complaining.

 

[northwichcat]

As a regular 319 user in the North West I have no complaints about them. At least you can now get a seat most of the time.
A lot of supposed 319 failures are in fact nothing to do with the units. I was at Piccadilly on Saturday and noted that the 1255 (1240 ex MIA) to LIV was cancelled. A lot of people would think "another 319 failure" but the train had been terminated on its inward journey (1116 ex LIV) at Oxford Road and started its return journey there. The reason for the cancellation of the MCO-MIA-MCO parts of the journey was no crew caused by problems at Preston.

https://www.journeycheck.com/northernrail/ gives the reasons for cancellations and shows short formations. Unfortunately, the Chat Moss route does get a high number of cancellations/delays and short formations due to train faults than other routes. Just looking at it now it's showing the 09:30 Preston to Liverpool South Pw Hl due 10:52 is delayed to a train fault.

^^
And the train failed on the return working, which was terminated at Edge Hill. The subsequent southbound working is cancelled as a result. Posted on another forum that it was 319374 which has only been in service two days this year and has failed in service on both days :eek:

 

[notlob.divad]

https://www.journeycheck.com/northernrail/ gives the reasons for cancellations and shows short formations. Unfortunately, the Chat Moss route does get a high number of cancellations/delays and short formations due to train faults than other routes. Just looking at it now it's showing the 09:30 Preston to Liverpool South Pw Hl due 10:52 is delayed to a train fault.

^^
And the train failed on the return working, which was terminated at Edge Hill. The subsequent southbound working is cancelled as a result. Posted on another forum that it was 319374 which has only been in service two days this year and has failed in service on both days :eek:

What is the big issue with them? Or is it not one thing. The last I read it was related to the doors not opening/shutting properly, and then there was the driver who got an electric shock, which seemed to be something to do with the doors. Maybe Northern need to get some more Civities? Or someone mentioned some 350s where looking for a new home

 

[fowler9]

https://www.journeycheck.com/northernrail/ gives the reasons for cancellations and shows short formations. Unfortunately, the Chat Moss route does get a high number of cancellations/delays and short formations due to train faults than other routes. Just looking at it now it's showing the 09:30 Preston to Liverpool South Pw Hl due 10:52 is delayed to a train fault.

^^
And the train failed on the return working, which was terminated at Edge Hill. The subsequent southbound working is cancelled as a result. Posted on another forum that it was 319374 which has only been in service two days this year and has failed in service on both days :eek:

I got the return working this morning from Parkway as far as Lime Street, so it it made it at least that far. Lucky me.