Class 321 to Scotland?

[cjmillsnun]

You must have a great chiropractor to be able to sit in those seats every day!

Hmmm, if there's one thing I hate about Desiros it's the seats. That said, dusty seats are worse.. :/

 

[Kristofferson]

You must have a great chiropractor to be able to sit in those seats every day!

There's much more slouching room than on the Desiros... as long as you're friendly with the person sitting opposite!

Will be sad to see the LM 321s leave my neck of the woods

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 321s have character, but the seats are terrible.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

EDIT: That said, I see services are booked 31 mins from Piccadilly to Glossop or Hadfield, but either 36/37 mins on the return back into PIccadilly. A couple of 'charter' minutes could be removed perhaps to compensate for the slower 319s? Anyone care to comment on how much more time a 319 would require compared with a 323?

I've just looked at a couple of afternoon services and it's 35 back from Glossop, 37 would be Hadfield-Piccadilly via Glossop but not stopping: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y72005/2014/10/31/advanced

There is a Scarborough-Liverpool service passing through Ardwick 3 minutes before a Piccadilly-Glossop-Hadfield-Piccadilly service: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/ADK?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt so that'll likely prevent any reduction in journey time westbound at present.

It is a bit weird that at the stopping pattern changes for trains arriving in Glossop after 12:30: http://www.northernrail.org/pdfs/timetables/20141006/24.pdf

 

[158722]

I've just looked at a couple of afternoon services and it's 35 back from Glossop, 37 would be Hadfield-Piccadilly via Glossop but not stopping: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y72005/2014/10/31/advanced

There is a Scarborough-Liverpool service passing through Ardwick 3 minutes before a Piccadilly-Glossop-Hadfield-Piccadilly service: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/ADK?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt so that'll likely prevent any reduction in journey time westbound at present.

It is a bit weird that at the stopping pattern changes for trains arriving in Glossop after 12:30: http://www.northernrail.org/pdfs/timetables/20141006/24.pdf

Indeed, I'm sure pathing constraints come into the scheduling.

If the Hadfield line was interworked with the Stoke, Crewe, Airport and Alderley Edge services, there appears to be more slack in turn-arounds on these services - the xx20 arrivals from Alderley Edge not going back out until xx38, or xx44 from Crewe, back out at xx04.

As an aside, do the arrivals at Crewe at xx04, sit around for 30 mins before the xx34 return with Alderley Edge arrivals at xx08 only returning at xx49? Seems rather slack on lay-over times, so any re-jigging of times could be beneficial in compensating for the extra padding required for using 319s vice 323s. And yes, we all know that Northern come second fiddle to Virgin and everyone else in terms of timetable planning, which will be a factor...

 

[northwichcat]

As an aside, do the arrivals at Crewe at xx04, sit around for 30 mins before the xx34 return with Alderley Edge arrivals at xx08 only returning at xx49?

???

There's no arrival from Crewe at xx:04.

It looks like the xx:41 from Crewe (via Airport) arrives, forms the xx:46 to Crewe.

The xx:42 arrival from Crewe (via Stockport) forms the xx:04 to Crewe, the xx:19 from Alderley Edge forms the xx:38 to Alderley Edge.

It's the unit off the Stoke service which sits there for a while.

Note if a 323 fails on a Glossop/Stoke/Crewe service they take a 323 off an Alderley Edge service to fill in, with a DMU running the Alderley Edge service but it may result in a delay/cancellation on the Glossop/Stoke/Crewe line for the unit swap to occur.

 

[158722]

???

There's no arrival from Crewe at xx:04.

It looks like the xx:41 from Crewe (via Airport) arrives, forms the xx:46 to Crewe.

The xx:42 arrival from Crewe (via Stockport) forms the xx:04 to Crewe, the xx:19 from Alderley Edge forms the xx:38 to Alderley Edge.

It's the unit off the Stoke service which sits there for a while.

Note if a 323 fails on a Glossop/Stoke/Crewe service they take a 323 off an Alderley Edge service to fill in, with a DMU running the Alderley Edge service but it may result in a delay/cancellation on the Glossop/Stoke/Crewe line for the unit swap to occur.

Never said there was. xx04 arrival AT crewe, returning FROM crewe at xx34... I was on about the 'country' end layovers, not Picc.

 

[northwichcat]

Never said there was. xx04 arrival AT crewe, returning FROM crewe at xx34... I was on about the 'country' end layovers, not Picc.

Ah OK. I think normally Northern wouldn't want to have long layovers at the non-Manchester end unless they're unavoidable, given the crews are Manchester based. The Crewe-Airport-Piccadilly service seems to one that's difficult to path by the time it needs to fit around both the fast services between Crewe and Manchester and the fast services between the Airport and Manchester.

 

[Greybeard33]

If Northern loses the 323s, 313s/315s might be more suitable replacements than 319s for the Glossop/Hadfield line. They could also be used on the Piccadilly-Alderley Edge and Piccadilly-Airport stoppers.
Rationale:

• Better acceleration
• 75mph top speed is adequate for these services
• No need to lengthen the 75/76m platforms at Flowery Field, Godley and Gatley, which are too short for 4-car units
• Toilets not essential for these services

The drawback is that 60m long trains would be replacing 70m ones on services that are already overcrowded in the peak.

 

[cjmillsnun]

If Northern loses the 323s, 313s/315s might be more suitable replacements than 319s for the Glossop/Hadfield line. They could also be used on the Piccadilly-Alderley Edge and Piccadilly-Airport stoppers.
Rationale:

• Better acceleration
• 75mph top speed is adequate for these services
• No need to lengthen the 75/76m platforms at Flowery Field, Godley and Gatley, which are too short for 4-car units
• Toilets not essential for these services

The drawback is that 60m long trains would be replacing 70m ones on services that are already overcrowded in the peak.

Good god, imagine the uproar involved in sending the oldest stock on Network Rail up to Northern. They whine enough when they get brand new 350s

 

[northwichcat]

Good god, imagine the uproar involved in sending the oldest stock on Network Rail up to Northern. They whine enough when they get brand new 350s

?

Northern don't have any 350s.

TPE are using 350s on an Intercity route as long as Plymouth to London, which is why there are objections - an outdated design of regional EMU for one route and yet the latest Intercity trains being ordered for another route. How about IEP for Manchester Airport to Edinburgh/Glasgow and the 350s for Great Western post-electrification? I take it there won't be complaints from London if that happens?

 

[Bletchleyite]

an outdated design of regional EMU

You keep saying this. But the only thing that's "regional EMU" about a 350/4 is the door spacing. The seating layout is far more comfortable and spacious than that of a Virgin Pendolino, and the luggage rack is also bigger. The First Class is of equal standard, IMO.

And it's a newer design than the Virgin Pendolino. Might not be the latest Desiro (though TBH I think they are nicer than the Class 380s largely due to the spaciousness created by the near-vertical side walls) but "outdated" is very unfair.

Here in LM-land we really like ours.

Neil

 

[Starmill]

Outdated is an accurate description I'm afraid - next to an 800?

 

[Class377/5]

Outdated is an accurate description I'm afraid - next to an 800?

If a 350/4 is outdated then so is pretty every other train in the country. Out dated means its past its sell by date, the 350 design is not that. Its just an excuse to complain when getting new trains quickly rather than waiting a few more years for a new design to be tendered. Its petty at best.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In any case, who is to say TPE full electrification won't result in an IEP derivative?

 

[Aictos]

If a 350/4 is outdated then so is pretty every other train in the country. Out dated means its past its sell by date, the 350 design is not that. Its just an excuse to complain when getting new trains quickly rather than waiting a few more years for a new design to be tendered. Its petty at best.

BUT isn't that what most of this thread is about? The pettiness of some forum members who should be grateful they're getting EMUs to cascade DMUs in order to provide more trains which means a better service and more seats?

Look at Yorkshire and in particular the Wharfedale and Airedale lines in the West Riding of Yorkshire, England (between Leeds, Bradford Forster Square, Ilkley and Skipton) when these lines first got electrified as BR had not ordered any NEW trains they decided to use cascaded but refurbished Class 308s.

Then by the late 90s due to the fact that the trains were becoming more unreliable and expensive to maintain a order for 16 Class 333s to replace them being introduced as 3 car trains then in 2002 to 2003 the SRA and Metro funded them being extended to being 4 car trains due to the increasing passenger numbers.

Now onto the North West, You've been given cascaded but eventually refurbished EMUs on newly wired routes, it makes no sense to suddenly order brand new trains on a newly wired up route, you need to make do with the 319s and be grateful for them when there's other places which would welcome them with open arms who would love to have 319s replacing Sprinters which in turn could replace the 14Xs.

Take the A2B line in Scotland when that got electrified, Transport Scotland and Scotrail didn't go for a order of brand new trains, they went with the option of using cascaded trains which got freed up by the introduction of the Class 380s.

Now I'm not anti North West but sadly it's seems to be a minority here who play the role of the small child throwing all their toys out of their pram with a me me me attitude, it's been explained numerous times why the Class 319s CANNOT continue to be used on the Thameslink network as it won't meet the requirements needed but they are perfectly acceptable for use elsewhere like in the North West.

 

[Haydn1971]

Whilst I accept that the 319's are perfectly serviceable for another decade, what I can't accept is that they can be just dumped on us without anything more than a lick of paint - I also cannot accept this assertion that cascaded EMU's will be the saviour of the North, when the electrification programme won't be complete on the key routes in the north for at least another decade (assuming continued investment) - meanwhile, we continue to suffer crowded, poor quality stock on trips of 30-60 minutes plus, whilst ministers tell us it's unacceptable ! Well do something about it !

 

[Aictos]

Whilst I accept that the 319's are perfectly serviceable for another decade, what I can't accept is that they can be just dumped on us without anything more than a lick of paint - I also cannot accept this assertion that cascaded EMU's will be the saviour of the North, when the electrification programme won't be complete on the key routes in the north for at least another decade (assuming continued investment) - meanwhile, we continue to suffer crowded, poor quality stock on trips of 30-60 minutes plus, whilst ministers tell us it's unacceptable ! Well do something about it !

What's the difference then from the Class 308s being introduced? They were 4 car trains in the South East but when cascaded to the Yorkshire area they had a immediate trailer removed and made into 3 car EMUs with the only extra work being them being painted in the West Yorkshire Metro maroon and cream livery.

The introduction of the Class 319s will allow for the cascade of Class 15xs to increase capacity on other routes with longer trains being a possibility.

What about the ex LM Class 321s when they got "dumped" on the FCC franchise, all they had when they first got introduced was new seat covers and vinyls covering the LM livery, that's it.

 

[tbtc]

Unsurprising to see yet another unrelated thread turned into a moan about how hard done by north west England is... if only there were a "master thread" for such complaints (?)

To drag it briefly on topic, the situation north of the border is a confusing one. For all of the envy that some outside Scotland have (about this halcyon land where lines are re-opened on a regular basis and only the best modern stock is good enough) we are seeing a possible future of...

• 1960s Class 73s replacing 21st century Class 67s on the Sleepers
• 1970s HSTs replacing 21st century Class 170s on the longer distance daytime routes
• 1980s 321s moving up from London Midland (how come these don't get the "knackered London cast off" tag that the 319s are getting? could it be that Scots don't have the same chip on their shoulders that those in northern England do?)

...maybe the grass isn't greener?

Still, I suppose that a small fleet of seven 321s for the speeded up Lanark services makes sense, cascading 318s/320s/334s etc around so that there are a roughly similar number of spare EMUs for the newly electrified lines so that there are a roughly similar number of spare 158s to move to TPE (with some slight shuffling of Scottish DMUs, maybe the Shotts line being 100% 156 operated?).

(Oh, look, I've turned it into a discussion about northern England)

Outdated is an accurate description I'm afraid - next to an 800?

If a 350/4 is outdated then so is pretty every other train in the country. Out dated means its past its sell by date, the 350 design is not that. Its just an excuse to complain when getting new trains quickly rather than waiting a few more years for a new design to be tendered. Its petty at best.

I've seen someone claim recently on this Forum that the 350/4s were second hand, now I'm seeing that these trains (less than a year old, remember) are "outdated"?

So 350/4s are "outdated" compared to the 800s (trains that aren't even built yet)? You're complaining that new trains aren't as new as trains that won't even be in service for another three years? Is there no limit to the "hard done by" attitude?

BUT isn't that what most of this thread is about? The pettiness of some forum members who should be grateful they're getting EMUs to cascade DMUs in order to provide more trains which means a better service and more seats?

Look at Yorkshire and in particular the Wharfedale and Airedale lines in the West Riding of Yorkshire, England (between Leeds, Bradford Forster Square, Ilkley and Skipton) when these lines first got electrified as BR had not ordered any NEW trains they decided to use cascaded but refurbished Class 308s.

Then by the late 90s due to the fact that the trains were becoming more unreliable and expensive to maintain a order for 16 Class 333s to replace them being introduced as 3 car trains then in 2002 to 2003 the SRA and Metro funded them being extended to being 4 car trains due to the increasing passenger numbers.

Now onto the North West, You've been given cascaded but eventually refurbished EMUs on newly wired routes, it makes no sense to suddenly order brand new trains on a newly wired up route, you need to make do with the 319s and be grateful for them when there's other places which would welcome them with open arms who would love to have 319s replacing Sprinters which in turn could replace the 14Xs.

Take the A2B line in Scotland when that got electrified, Transport Scotland and Scotrail didn't go for a order of brand new trains, they went with the option of using cascaded trains which got freed up by the introduction of the Class 380s.

Now I'm not anti North West but sadly it's seems to be a minority here who play the role of the small child throwing all their toys out of their pram with a me me me attitude, it's been explained numerous times why the Class 319s CANNOT continue to be used on the Thameslink network as it won't meet the requirements needed but they are perfectly acceptable for use elsewhere like in the North West.

I've tried to explain a number of times on this Forum that examples of a line getting electrified *and* getting new EMUs from day one are incredibly rare (apart from examples of lines where there's been a specific reason why cascaded stock wouldn't be suitable - like HS1 - no chance of cascading older 140mph EMUs onto that route!).

It was the same in BR days (as you say, with the example above), so we can't even blame privatisation for it.

 

[northwichcat]

You keep saying this. But the only thing that's "regional EMU" about a 350/4 is the door spacing. The seating layout is far more comfortable and spacious than that of a Virgin Pendolino, and the luggage rack is also bigger. The First Class is of equal standard, IMO.

An Intercity train generally has a top speed of 125mph or greater (not that there's much running at over 125mph allowed in the UK.) The average speed of a regional train is 100mph.

The owners of the 350/4s are Angel Trains who list the 350/4s on their website as regional trains: http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/Products-Services/Regional-Passenger-Trains Yet on another page they refer to TPE operating an Intercity route between Manchester Airport and Scotland: http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/News/40 Therefore, the owners see them as a regional train running an Intercity route - case closed.

As for the 350/4 seating being better than the 390 seating, well maybe if you like seats being firm without any proper head support then you'd like the 350/4 seating more. The only advantage I can think of a 350 over a 390 is the bigger windows on a 350. I've not been in First Class so I can't compare.

 

[Haydn1971]

The introduction of the Class 319s will allow for the cascade of Class 15xs to increase capacity on other routes with longer trains being a possibility.

Yep, got that concept several years back - however, when the DMU's are knackered, that's cold comfort - currently we have no idea how many 319's will be cascaded, the rumour mill is that they will get a lick of paint and new seat covers, lovely. I'm so looking forward to knackered old 150's running hour long journeys, the direct lighting that scolds your eyes at 6am, the lack of decent heating, no air con, no wifi, no idea where you are until the train pulls into the stations (assuming you can see through the condensation on the windows), horrible seats, smelly toilets, noisy interiors... Nice

What about the ex LM Class 321s when they got "dumped" on the FCC franchise, all they had when they first got introduced was new seat covers and vinyls covering the LM livery, that's it.

What about it ? I'd say we would have them, but we are lacking overhead wires up here... That's why we need new DMU's

 

[northwichcat]

I've seen someone claim recently on this Forum that the 350/4s were second hand, now I'm seeing that these trains (less than a year old, remember) are "outdated"?

The 350/4s certainly aren't second hand but maybe TPE subleasing 350/3s (in LM livery) to cover strengthening for the Commonwealth Games and Edinburgh Festival has given the impression the new 350s are former LM trains.

In terms of outdated design, which is the newer design - 350s or 380s? What advantages do a 350 have over a newer design 380 if the operator doesn't have any 350s in their fleet already?

The 350 design is really over 10 years old now - given a 350 is an AC version of a 450 or a 360 with corridor connectors, if you prefer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In any case, who is to say TPE full electrification won't result in an IEP derivative?

IEP trains will have 26m carriages and all the planning for North West and North TPE infrastructure changes has been based on using standard length carriages. Industry experts seem to have narrowed down future trains for TPE to one or more of the following options:
1. Cascaded 365s.
2. Cascaded 387s.
3. New 4 car EMUs.

 

[Aictos]

Unsurprising to see yet another unrelated thread turned into a moan about how hard done by north west England is... if only there were a "master thread" for such complaints (?)

To drag it briefly on topic, the situation north of the border is a confusing one. For all of the envy that some outside Scotland have (about this halcyon land where lines are re-opened on a regular basis and only the best modern stock is good enough) we are seeing a possible future of...

• 1960s Class 73s replacing 21st century Class 67s on the Sleepers
• 1970s HSTs replacing 21st century Class 170s on the longer distance daytime routes
• 1980s 321s moving up from London Midland (how come these don't get the "knackered London cast off" tag that the 319s are getting? could it be that Scots don't have the same chip on their shoulders that those in northern England do?)

...maybe the grass isn't greener?

Still, I suppose that a small fleet of seven 321s for the speeded up Lanark services makes sense, cascading 318s/320s/334s etc around so that there are a roughly similar number of spare EMUs for the newly electrified lines so that there are a roughly similar number of spare 158s to move to TPE (with some slight shuffling of Scottish DMUs, maybe the Shotts line being 100% 156 operated?).

(Oh, look, I've turned it into a discussion about northern England)





I've seen someone claim recently on this Forum that the 350/4s were second hand, now I'm seeing that these trains (less than a year old, remember) are "outdated"?

So 350/4s are "outdated" compared to the 800s (trains that aren't even built yet)? You're complaining that new trains aren't as new as trains that won't even be in service for another three years? Is there no limit to the "hard done by" attitude?



I've tried to explain a number of times on this Forum that examples of a line getting electrified *and* getting new EMUs from day one are incredibly rare (apart from examples of lines where there's been a specific reason why cascaded stock wouldn't be suitable - like HS1 - no chance of cascading older 140mph EMUs onto that route!).

It was the same in BR days (as you say, with the example above), so we can't even blame privatisation for it.

Indeed but some seem to think they're hard done by when actually they ought to be grateful!

Yep, got that concept several years back - however, when the DMU's are knackered, that's cold comfort - currently we have no idea how many 319's will be cascaded, the rumour mill is that they will get a lick of paint and new seat covers, lovely. I'm so looking forward to knackered old 150's running hour long journeys, the direct lighting that scolds your eyes at 6am, the lack of decent heating, no air con, no wifi, no idea where you are until the train pulls into the stations (assuming you can see through the condensation on the windows), horrible seats, smelly toilets, noisy interiors... Nice

Really, so the North West is worse off then the Great Northern Suburban routes from Kings Cross/Moorgate to Hertford/Letchworth/Welwyn GC with the trains consisting of the OLDEST electric trains in passenger service on the UK Mainland with trains that don't have decent heating, no air con, def no wifi, no oboard CIS and literally falling apart :roll:

Yes we will be getting new trains but not until 2018 so have to cope with trains that need a decent refurb but isn't likely and you complain about trains which are newer then the 313s and what will provide better and faster services once they arrive in the North West.

The 319 may well go for a refurbishment you don't know the plans that Northern and the ROSCO have for them, so quit moaning and be grateful!

What about it ? I'd say we would have them, but we are lacking overhead wires up here... That's why we need new DMU's

As to demanding brand new DMUs I'm sorry to point out the obvious but it ain't going to happen, the closest you get if you're lucky is cascaded DMUs from London Overground or Scotrail but wait a second they're not brand new trains so they're not ideal

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yep, got that concept several years back - however, when the DMU's are knackered, that's cold comfort - currently we have no idea how many 319's will be cascaded, the rumour mill is that they will get a lick of paint and new seat covers, lovely. I'm so looking forward to knackered old 150's running hour long journeys, the direct lighting that scolds your eyes at 6am

Lighting doesn't always get better with a refurb. Have you ever used a fGW HST or 180? I'd rather go to the dentist's. Awful, awful, awful.

The classy way to do it is indirect low-level background lighting with halogen (or these days warm white LED) spots. The Pendolinos have it about spot on in my view, a real warm and homely feel when combined with the deep colours on the seating and end walls.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

An Intercity train generally has a top speed of 125mph or greater (not that there's much running at over 125mph allowed in the UK.) The average speed of a regional train is 100mph.

Locomotive hauled Mk3s are 110mph vehicles, and Mk2s 100mph. HST vehicles only get 125 because of the enhanced braking provided by the brakes being applied from both ends of the train rather than one. Does that make them not IC?

350s can run at 110mph with some modifications - I forget if the /4s have these, but the /3s and /1s do.

As for the 350/4 seating being better than the 390 seating, well maybe if you like seats being firm without any proper head support then you'd like the 350/4 seating more. The only advantage I can think of a 350 over a 390 is the bigger windows on a 350. I've not been in First Class so I can't compare.

Yes, I like firm seating. There are small headrest wings on it, which you can lean your head on (I commute regularly on 350/1s and they're quite nice for a quick doze, though I don't sleep well on any train). I don't like big headrest wings as I'm tall and so they tend just to hit the back of my shoulders meaning I have to slouch.

My favourite railway seats are the fGW "tombstones" as they have headrests I can properly rest my head on. The possibility of having these fitted to the Pendolinos made First West Coast not all that unattractive - but I'm aware I'm one of the few that likes them.

The first class, FWIW, is exactly the same as the 185s, but in a more sensible location. (Do you consider the 185s regional DMUs? What about the Class 444 EMU? A Class 444 differs from a 350 only in width, length and door position - the seating is identical)

Neil

 

[Aictos]

350s can run at 110mph with some modifications - I forget if the /4s have these, but the /3s and /1s do.

Neil

The Class 350/1s, 350/3s and 350/4s are all capable of 110mph, it's only the Class350/2s to date which have not had the modification to run at the higher speed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In terms of outdated design, which is the newer design - 350s or 380s? What advantages do a 350 have over a newer design 380 if the operator doesn't have any 350s in their fleet already?

What disadvantages do they have? The Class 350 is an excellent EMU and us South East commuters are very fond of them (except the 3+2 seated /2s, and even LM recognise these were a mistake[1] and have said they will not order any new 3+2 seated rolling stock, and have stuck to this in that the new Brum DMUs are 2+2). I'd happily travel 3 hours in one, and many people do (on the Crewe locals) on a daily basis.

[1] They have one advantage in that the 6-seat bays are quite popular for large families/family groups with children on the long-distance services, though as they aren't 110mph they are far more often used for commuters, where they are not very popular except on the most crowded trains.

IEP trains will have 26m carriages and all the planning for North West and North TPE infrastructure changes has been based on using standard length carriages. Industry experts seem to have narrowed down future trains for TPE to one or more of the following options:
1. Cascaded 365s.
2. Cascaded 387s.
3. New 4 car EMUs.

If IEP is successful, who says there won't be a middle-distance 20 or 23m 4-car derivative? The Mk3 spawned a whole range of DMUs and EMUs that kept BR in units for another 15 years.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Class 350/1s, 350/3s and 350/4s are all capable of 110mph, it's only the Class350/2s to date which have not had the modification to run at the higher speed.

A shame, really. The 3+2 seating slightly counterintuitively makes them well suited to the Crewe locals - because of the low fares these trains, particularly on weekends, are extremely popular with family groups with children, where the narrower seating is much less of an issue and the bays of 6 are well-suited to larger groups, while the 2 side is well suited for 2 children or an adult and a child, rather than 2 larger adult male commuters both with shoulders wider than the seat.

Neil

 

[NotATrainspott]

If IEP is successful, who says there won't be a middle-distance 20 or 23m 4-car derivative? The Mk3 spawned a whole range of DMUs and EMUs that kept BR in units for another 15 years.

The AT200 series that Hitachi are building for EGIP would probably suffice. The double doors appear to be very near to the ends of the 23m carriages so if you fitted interior doors, you could probably get a good compromise with a standing/crush load area between doors using the full-width gangways and an InterCity-standard seating area in the main cabin.

 

[FOH]

I don't really see what's wrong with the 319s anyway. I was on one last week and thought it was fine. The FCC colour scheme is pretty close to Northerns palette which makes me think average joe won't notice except they won't have a thumping engine under their feet anymore

 

[northwichcat]

I don't really see what's wrong with the 319s anyway. I was on one last week and thought it was fine. The FCC colour scheme is pretty close to Northerns palette which makes me think average joe won't notice except they won't have a thumping engine under their feet anymore

Given 319s will replace 156s (with 2+2 seating and tables) first and may even eventually replace 185s on Blackpool-Manchester Airport services*, I'm pretty sure average Joe will notice. Remember the SWT passengers made when they got brand new Desiros with 3+2 seating because they were used to 2+2 seating and tables?

* DfT are proposing to move that route to Northern and if new EMUs were to be obtained for the route then an ITT would need to be out around now, otherwise they won't be ready in time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What disadvantages do they have?

The 380s have an extra 3m of carriage, so room for about 12 extra seats in 2+2 formation in each carriage or 48 seats across 4 carriages. A huge advantage for the rail franchise with the highest seat occupancy level!

Longer term it's likely 380 parts will be viable for longer than 350 parts.

Now what were your advantages of 350s over 380s again? I don't think you've come up with one yet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given 319s will replace 156s (with 2+2 seating and tables) first and may even eventually replace 185s on Blackpool-Manchester Airport services*, I'm pretty sure average Joe will notice.

2 points there.

1: Class 156s are regional express units which are really not well suited to some of the services they are operating, taking far too long to load and unload. They've just ended up on those services because of the cascade.

2: Northern don't have many 156s and so those services also get Class 150s, which are basically identical to the 319 except having an engine under each coach and a lower top speed.

3: Northern has an overcrowding problem. Any seat is better than no seat.

4: Maybe a refurb and reseat to 2+2 could be carried out later. (Some of them, originally on the Brighton Express, are already 2+2 - are Northern getting those ones?)

The 380s have an extra 3m of carriage, so room for about 12 extra seats in 2+2 formation in each carriage or 48 seats across 4 carriages. A huge advantage for the rail franchise with the highest seat occupancy level!

Sort-of. Not if platform lengths and other similar factors would mean that they couldn't run 8-car sets. But I see that point.

Longer term it's likely 380 parts will be viable for longer than 350 parts.

I would bet on the current LM 350s being around for at least 30-40 years. HSTs aren't out of service for want of parts, nor are any of Northern's ageing DMU fleet. There are no issues obtaining parts for classic cars. This is a complete non-concern.

Now what were your advantages of 350s over 380s again? I don't think you've come up with one yet.

1. They were available as a tag-on order to LM's fleet.

2. I find they feel more spacious with the vertical sides, and they have better window alignment.

3. They can later move to LM giving them a consistent fleet when TPE get other/new EMUs.

But even so, there's nowt wrong with them! They are 2+2 seated, spacious, have big windows and big overhead luggage racks, a decent number of bogs, reasonable lighting and so on. They are fine for the job, provided TPE can muster enough stock to make most trains 8-car. I really don't see what you are moaning about. Pacers might be a valid moan, 350s are good rolling stock and we, as I keep saying, in LM land really quite like ours.

Actually, there you go, if you don't like them that much we'll happily take them now. Swap you some 323s, one unit for one unit?

Neil