Class 321 to Scotland?

[northwichcat]

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.

Could Manchester Oxford Rd take an 8 car 380? If the answer is yes then no issue at all.

If there was an issue at Oxford Rd then SDO was always available as an optional extra on Desiro orders.

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.

So basically two advantages which don't in any way benefit actual passengers and one that's your subjective opinion.

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.

Northern have 46 x 156s, so they have a lot more 156s than 144s, 153s, 155s, 321s, 322s, 323s or 333s. Certain services are guaranteed 156s currently as part of an agreement whereby Merseytravel secured 6 x 158s for the Northern franchise but Northern wanted to have a consistent fleet in Yorkshire so they swapped Merseytravel's 158s for 156s.

Agreed that a 172 would be better for loading/unloading but that's the price paid for Northern getting cast-offs rather than new trains ordered for the routes they'll be operating on.

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?)

Like I've said before the Liverpool-Airport service doesn't really suffer an overcrowding problem in the same way other lines do. It's going to be switched to larger trains just because it's on a line being electrified. In fact I think removing seats on the 156s and putting in an extra luggage rack would suit the Airport-Liverpool route more than extra seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So basically two advantages which don't in any way benefit actual passengers and one that's your subjective opinion.

Window alignment is a fact, not subjective. And in purchasing rolling stock, the passenger is not the only consideration.

Neil

 

[Class 170101]

I believe the industry cannot build anymore Class 350s as they don't meet the latest crashworthiness standards, they can of course remain in service. The Class 380s do though meet these latest standards, something to do with the slanted front to the cab I believe.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

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.

Not quite that simple; in pre-390 days the WCML Mk3 fleet all had 125mph on their data planels ( even though the locos and linespeed were 110mph ); when I asked about it the reply was that they were given a 125mph maintenance regime as that resulted in a slightly better ride quality. As a result of this regime, the vehicles were automatically passed for 125mph and hence that was what was on their data panel.

So the maintenance regime is a further factor in play.

 

[northwichcat]

Window alignment is a fact, not subjective.

If TPE had issued their own ITT they could have agreed the internal layout of the trains with the winning bidder.

And in purchasing rolling stock, the passenger is not the only consideration.

Neil

Agreed but it's the passenger who decides whether they are put off travelling (due to insufficient seating etc.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed but it's the passenger who decides whether they are put off travelling (due to insufficient seating etc.)

Where's the insufficient seating in an 8-car 350 set? Or a 12 car one, even? The one I went on this morning was a veritable people eater - everyone had a seat, but it took some time to escape the platform at Euston - and that was unbarriered platform 12.

As usual a very pleasant journey on a very pleasant class of unit, though sadly no /3s in evidence, just a pair of /1s and a /2.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Where's the insufficient seating in an 8-car 350 set? Or a 12 car one, even? The one I went on this morning was a veritable people eater - everyone had a seat, but it took some time to escape the platform at Euston - and that was unbarriered platform 12.

DfT wouldn't authorise TPE receiving enough 350s for all Scottish services to operate as 8 car. They would have been more likely to authorise longer carriage lengths than more carriages.

Do you realise the 17:00 Airport to Glasgow is scheduled to miss out Wigan because there isn't sufficient space for Wigan passengers? This means the Wigan passengers still have to cram on to the 4 car 17:06 Airport-Southport service along with all the Salford and Bolton passengers.

You also seem to be talking about Euston services not Manchester services - a different kettle of fish.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you realise the 17:00 Airport to Glasgow is scheduled to miss out Wigan because there isn't sufficient space for Wigan passengers? This means the Wigan passengers still have to cram on to the 4 car 17:06 Airport-Southport service along with all the Salford and Bolton passengers.

Justifying lengthening InterCity services to carry passengers on an intra-PTE local journey is utterly ludicrous. The best solution there is an extra 2 coaches on the Southport train, which wouldn't need to go all the way to Scotland.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Justifying lengthening InterCity services to carry passengers on an intra-PTE local journey is utterly ludicrous. The best solution there is an extra 2 coaches on the Southport train, which wouldn't need to go all the way to Scotland.

But that's DfT's motto!

Their proposed solution to the problem of reduction of TPE services via Bolton, was capacity would be freed up on Southport services as the Airport/Piccadilly/Oxford Rd to Wigan passengers would use TPE services instead. The Scottish services are even timetabled to run a few minutes ahead of the Southport services.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm still baffled as to why a 350 commuter train is being used for an intercity route that a 390 or dare I say it, cascaded 225 trains would be much better at - why has this happened ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm still baffled as to why a 350 commuter train is being used for an intercity route that a 390 or dare I say it, cascaded 225 trains would be much better at - why has this happened ?

Here we go again ... it's a commuter train in terms of door layout, but the interior is definitely InterCity. Have you been on one?

More to the point, what cascaded 225s (i.e. 91+Mk4)? There are none available.

Neil

 

[Haydn1971]

Here we go again ... it's a commuter train in terms of door layout, but the interior is definitely InterCity. Have you been on one?.

I've used the 185's to Glasgow, which wasn't "nice" but then I found the 390's quite oppressive on the return leg. The 350's appear similar inside to the 185's from a platform point of view.

More to the point, what cascaded 225s (i.e. 91+Mk4)? There are none available.

Post 800/801 introduction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've used the 185's to Glasgow, which wasn't "nice" but then I found the 390's quite oppressive on the return leg. The 350's appear similar inside to the 185's from a platform point of view.

They are near enough the same except for a slightly more sensible layout (such as not hiding one bog the wrong side of first class, and slightly more airline seating). They are near enough identical to the 350/1 in Standard, First Class is the same as the 185 in terms of the seating etc. Also a bit wider and 20 rather than 23m vehicles, but this isn't really noticeable unless you look for it.

Post 800/801 introduction.

The 350s are not a long-term solution - they were available for purchase now.

Neil

 

[Haydn1971]

They are near enough the same except for a slightly more sensible layout (such as not hiding one bog the wrong side of first class, and slightly more airline seating). They are near enough identical to the 350/1 in Standard, First Class is the same as the 185 in terms of the seating etc. Also a bit wider and 20 rather than 23m vehicles, but this isn't really noticeable unless you look for it.

So, pretty much like the commuter style 185's, great for short up to an hour trip, not so great for a long haul trip to Scotland.

The 350s are not a long-term solution - they were available for purchase now.

Not a long term solution reads - not really that suitable for the job. Adding the Scotland services in the TPE franchise just doesn't sit right either, seems that is should be more a Virgin or CrossCountry service, leaving TPE to provide the premium semi-fast services linking northern cities and towns.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why are the 185s, with their mainly table seating and generous seat pitch, commuter style?

 

[MCR247]

Probably the door positioning. IMO 185s/350s aren't that unsuitable for the services, the amount people go on about it on here you'd think it had 142s on it! The only problem for me is that lack of capacity

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. That door layout is surprisingly practical even for IC. People forget that Mk1 and early Mk2 stock had a centre door!

 

[Haydn1971]

Oh that's jolly then...

 

[Haydn1971]

Given this view, one wonders why in this "new world" why the new express trains (IEP) are being not being delivered with 1/3, 2/3 doors ?

 

[Aictos]

Justifying lengthening InterCity services to carry passengers on an intra-PTE local journey is utterly ludicrous. The best solution there is an extra 2 coaches on the Southport train, which wouldn't need to go all the way to Scotland.

Neil

You're forgetting that despite the introduction of the Class 319s would lead to strengthened DMU services like you have suggested and what I do agree on, some posters here would think that's a bad idea as they prefer brand new trains :roll:

319s be ideal to run Manchester/Liverpool to Preston via Bolton, would help provide much needed seats too but that's down to the DfT.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Given this view, one wonders why in this "new world" why the new express trains (IEP) are being not being delivered with 1/3, 2/3 doors ?

Good question, given that on both GW and EC they'll carry significant commuter traffic at both ends of their routes. Especially given that with 26m carriages, each portion could be pretty spacious. I don't recall the precise details for door location on the 800 series, but certainly they'll not be right in the corners (as seen on mk3s) due to the tapering at the ends.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just in from the corner a la 158, if I recall.

 

[Haydn1971]

Shall I remove my tongue from cheek yet !

 

[Class377/5]

Given this view, one wonders why in this "new world" why the new express trains (IEP) are being not being delivered with 1/3, 2/3 doors ?

Because the length of the units would be sub standard stepping distances. Don't forget an IEP carriages are 30% longer than a 350s.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Probably the door positioning. IMO 185s/350s aren't that unsuitable for the services, the amount people go on about it on here you'd think it had 142s on it! The only problem for me is that lack of capacity

The door positioning has benefits and negatives. In peak times it helps with loading and unloading, and allows more standing passengers on to the train. The disadvantage is that in winter, with the doors open, it lets a draught into the passenger cabin.

The only other problem with the 185s and 350s is that they're not big enough and that there's not enough of them.

Getting back on topic, I'll be sad to see the 321s go. They're good trains, and whilst they're not as comfortable as the 350/1s the 3+2 seating on a 321 is far bigger and more comfortable than on a 350/2. They need a bit of TLC- they still have NSE moquette and Silverlink route diagrams- but they're good trains. My morning commuter train is always a 321 and I prefer that to the sardine can 3x350/2 that operates before it.

I hope there is an intention to replace the 321s, but I fear that DafT are going to claim that the 350/3s are their replacement.

It makes you wonder why Scotrail let the 322s go if they need something back again now.

 

[jopsuk]

Letting the 322s go was a decision made in 2011 by the current franchisee as they felt they could adequately cover the services with other stock. Leasing the 321s is a decision by the incoming franchisee who feel they need them to provide the service they have agreed to.

 

[northwichcat]

Letting the 322s go was a decision made in 2011 by the current franchisee as they felt they could adequately cover the services with other stock. Leasing the 321s is a decision by the incoming franchisee who feel they need them to provide the service they have agreed to.

I wonder if Scotrail had kept the 322s whether the rolling stock strategy would have been different. It was originally proposed Northern would get 72 new EMU carriages and release their 323s to LM, but when the Scotrail 322s became available they got transferred to Northern and the new EMU order was quietly dropped.

 

[Altnabreac]

The door positioning has benefits and negatives. In peak times it helps with loading and unloading, and allows more standing passengers on to the train. The disadvantage is that in winter, with the doors open, it lets a draught into the passenger cabin.

The only other problem with the 185s and 350s is that they're not big enough and that there's not enough of them.

Getting back on topic, I'll be sad to see the 321s go. They're good trains, and whilst they're not as comfortable as the 350/1s the 3+2 seating on a 321 is far bigger and more comfortable than on a 350/2. They need a bit of TLC- they still have NSE moquette and Silverlink route diagrams- but they're good trains. My morning commuter train is always a 321 and I prefer that to the sardine can 3x350/2 that operates before it.

I hope there is an intention to replace the 321s, but I fear that DafT are going to claim that the 350/3s are their replacement.

It makes you wonder why Scotrail let the 322s go if they need something back again now.

Indeed one of the main complaints about 170s on Scottish Intercity routes was the temperature issue in the passenger cabin due to 1/3, 2/3 door layout, particularly in Highland winter conditions.

Proposals were made for intermediate saloon doors on 170s but that would have been high cost and reduced seating capacity. See this study for details:
http://www.hitrans.org.uk/documents/Turbo_Boost_-_Class_170_Refurbishment_Scoping_Project.pdf

In the end you can see why HSTs were chosen by Abellio as it's a tricky issue to solve on a 170.

 

[Kristofferson]

Artic Trail - you must be on my train then. Mornin'!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm still baffled as to why a 350 commuter train is being used for an intercity route that a 390 or dare I say it, cascaded 225 trains would be much better at - why has this happened ?

TPE is a Siemens outfit pretty much (just a few 170s and they are going soon).
It makes absolute sense for a small extra fleet of EMUs to be 350s, or you get into all the mess of split maintenance.
The build option was also available in the existing 350 contract with Siemens, avoiding the need for a new ITT, although only for 20 units (which were split between TPE and LM).

DfT also dislike tilting trains, as it pushes the costs up and skews procurement choice.
They put up with it on Euston routes because the timetable wouldn't work otherwise.