London Midland/Northern EMU changes speculation

[Tetchytyke]

No, all rolling stock will have met the regulations in force at the time of their respective introduction. New (or heavily rebuilt) stock will need to meet the latest regulations.

The 350/1s have been uprated to operate at 110mph, so surely they met the "current crash regulations" when that work was done?

 

[Wolfie]

The 350/1s have been uprated to operate at 110mph, so surely they met the "current crash regulations" when that work was done?

Not necessarily... "grandfather rights" may apply.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Not necessarily... "grandfather rights" may apply.

How?

They were originally rated at 100 MPH. When they were uprated, new rules applied.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even with the 110mph issue now in play LM still don't seem to be too concerned about the right kind of stock on long-distance services. I had a 350/2 on a Crewe service on Wednesday while /1s are often on the MK stopper.

/2s on the Crewe services are very unusual - it would have been that or a cancellation in that case. You do get /1s and /3s on the stopping services - that's because some of the stopping services interwork with the Crewe services, so those diagrams will get /1s. There are also more /1s than there are Crewe diagrams!

Neil

 

[sd0733]

The /2s aren't that rare on Crewes at the moment. Worked a few of them recently on the Crewe fasts.

319s would be highly unlikely whatever variety they were to reach New Street, crew knowledge on them wouldnt be held by Coventry or New Street so wouldn't be sent so the 2+2 seats would just lead to a drop in seating capacity which considering they are used on peak runs from Euston would be a problem.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Is there any good reason why the 350/2s are only certified for 100mph operation? Surely unless there's any technical issues I'd have thought it would make sense for the /2s to have the same access arrangements as the /1s or /3s, in case they need to fill in on WCML diagrams.

 

[Bletchleyite]

sd0733: How much time do they lose?

 

[sd0733]

They dont lose vast amounts of time to be fair, we work them from Milton Keynes north and they seem to arrive around 2-3 mins late there and lose another minute or 2 to Rugby. Past there there is slack in the timetable with booked standing time at Lichfield and Rugeley and so arrival into Stafford would be on time and as theres no 110 running via Stoke that bits not a problem anyway.

 

[87015]

Whoever thinks a 350/2 to Crewe is very rare is believing LM's usual spin;
4x350/2 today, 2 friday, 1 thursday, 3 wednesday, 2 tuesday, they did only manage 1 on Monday in one of the evening 8 cars.

Be interesting how they attempt to spin the loss of capacity 319/4s will offer vs 321s. Makes a difference - if my 8-car from Sutton rocks up 2x319/3 its a comfortable wedge (all seats taken and some standing spare space), if its 2x319/4 its generally crush loaded (absolutely no standing space) and people left behind at Loughboro Jn...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Be interesting how they attempt to spin the loss of capacity 319/4s will offer vs 321s. Makes a difference - if my 8-car from Sutton rocks up 2x319/3 its a comfortable wedge (all seats taken and some standing spare space), if its 2x319/4 its generally crush loaded (absolutely no standing space) and people left behind at Loughboro Jn...

As it isn't the Brighton Express units we're talking about, isn't the only difference that the 3+2 seating has been converted to 2+2 by removing the third seat, i.e. the same narrow seats are used? If so, I'm not clear why that should be the case, because a person can easily stand in the space the third seat used to take up. First Class is 2+1 rather than 2+2, but that loses about 4 seats per unit?

There might be complaints at fewer seats = more standing, but I don't see why it should affect the number of people who can board.

Edit: Aha, 319/3 don't have first class at all - this probably makes a difference in terms of standing space on Thameslink. However, LM 321s do have First Class, so this doesn't compare in the same way.

Neil

 

[sprinterguy]

Is there any good reason why the 350/2s are only certified for 100mph operation? Surely unless there's any technical issues I'd have thought it would make sense for the /2s to have the same access arrangements as the /1s or /3s, in case they need to fill in on WCML diagrams.

The cost of modification: Strengthened traction motors, modified pantographs (reduced pan head weight and altered aerofoil settings) and altered lateral dampers are all required for 110mph running.

 

[Wolfie]

How?

They were originally rated at 100 MPH. When they were uprated, new rules applied.

Truthfully I am unsure BUT the 350/3s and /4s were bought under exactly such a rule and are 110mph capable...

 

[jopsuk]

I know that 317/319/321 are very similar in design, but can they and have they ever operated in multiple with each other?

 

[northwichcat]

I know that 317/319/321 are very similar in design, but can they and have they ever operated in multiple with each other?

According to Angel Trains the 317s-323s are all interoperable: http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/Products-Services/Regional-Passenger-Trains/13

 

[87015]

I know that 317/319/321 are very similar in design, but can they and have they ever operated in multiple with each other?

As built, certainly. Today, with the various TOC mods perhaps not quite so simply as banging them together and go without some attention beforehand.

317/321 was regular on the WCML, same place has seen 319/321 combos after a failure (resulting 8 car driven from front unit in effective multi but only rear unit powering) and of course 318/320 is booked around Glasgow.

 

[Class377/5]

Any news on this? The suspense is killing me!

Nothing yet but two units are sat in Cricklewood depot now.

 

[Techniquest]

If the 321s aren't heading north for a while, I suspect we will have a long wait to find out what's going on yet. Gotta give them all credit, they're generating interest by keeping us all in suspense

 

[40129]

Cl-350s on the Cross City would be a disaster IMO as their relative lack of acceleration in comparison to cl-323s means they would likely be unable to keep to time on an intensive service with stops every 2-4 minutes. Most drivers I've spoken with don't like cl-350s on WVH-WSL for that reason even though the stops are mostly that bit further apart.

In respect of crew training, it is not just BHM crews who would need to be trained on cl-319. WVH and COV also sign WSL-WVH and SHR and WVH also sign WSL-RGL (being electrified)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
PS to previous post. IIRC the publicity for Chase Line electrification (WSL-RGL) includes the mention of newer longer trains. Given that most trains on this line are cl-170 (some with cl-153 attached) this would seem to rule out using either cl-323 or cl-319

 

[Whistler40145]

How about 319s on Cross City services or do they have to be 323s?

 

[40129]

Haven't been on a cl-319 for over ten years so not 100% sure but I suspect they have slower acceleration than cl-323 which IIRC were designed specifically for the Cross City. Also IIRC there is a technological generation break between these two classes. Also, you would still need to train crews from three depots

 

[Whistler40145]

Maybe we'll see 319s cleared for London Euston and Watford Junction to St Albans Abbey?

 

[40129]

That would seem more sensible.

one other thing that IMO counts against cl-319 in the West Midlands is that their external and internal appearance makes them look distinctly older than the stock they would replace. Unless anyone wants to electrify BHM-HFD (tongue firmly in cheek BTW).

 

[Class 170101]

I thought it was already said the 350s were for the Walsall to Wolverhampton services with the displaced 323s for the extra services on the Cross City some of which have already started due to the increase in frequency on Redditch services and extra required for future Bromsgrove services.

Would have thought therefore 350s would be for Rugeley services too.

Class 321 to Class 319 isn't much of a conversion course for train crew is it? What would the conversion course be like for 319s from 323s be?

 

[sd0733]

Cl-350s on the Cross City would be a disaster IMO as their relative lack of acceleration in comparison to cl-323s means they would likely be unable to keep to time on an intensive service with stops every 2-4 minutes. Most drivers I've spoken with don't like cl-350s on WVH-WSL for that reason even though the stops are mostly that bit further apart.

In respect of crew training, it is not just BHM crews who would need to be trained on cl-319. WVH and COV also sign WSL-WVH and SHR and WVH also sign WSL-RGL

Crewe drivers also work a fair few Walsalls now its all 350s. Also a lot of the 350s on that route interwork. A couple come down from Crewe in the morning and 3 units from Walsalls end up in Liverpool at some point during the day so diagrams would need totally re-doing.

 

[Whistler40145]

So better idea for the 319s to work off Euston and St Albans Abbey branch.

 

[D365]

So better idea for the 319s to work off Euston and St Albans Abbey branch.

Which is what the existing 321s are doing anyway.

 

[northwichcat]

Doubt that they'd be happy to give up newer units with superior performance characteristics and all that. Though stranger things have happened...

They will be in talks with DfT over a Direct Award. Northern lost 156s they had to plans to redeploy on to other routes as part of their Direct Award, while TPE got 75mph 156s to replace 100mph 170s which meant they had to re-time services to be slower. TOCs don't always get exactly what they want when Direct Awards are being discussed.

 

[158722]

I still think the logical deployment of 319s is in the West Midlands, displacing 350s from Walsall-Wolves back to Euston services, including St Albans Abbey, with more 319s arriving to cover the Chase line. Increases the number of 323s for Cross-city, 350s for WCML and concentrates the 319s around Brum with only WM depot crews needing trained on them. OK, so issues to overcome such as clearance for the 350s on the Abbey branch (surely not impossible? can't recall any major structures which may be the cause of the issue) and crew training, but any redeployment of stock involves such matters and I can't see anything wildly complicated to prevent this.

 

[The Planner]

OK, so issues to overcome such as clearance for the 350s on the Abbey branch (surely not impossible? can't recall any major structures which may be the cause of the issue) and crew training, but any redeployment of stock involves such matters and I can't see anything wildly complicated to prevent this.

Would still have a cost that LM would need to stump up for.

Also far from convinced about 350s on Cross City routes, they aren't clear between New St and Redditch or Aston to Lichfield so some work to do there.

 

[158722]

Would still have a cost that LM would need to stump up for.

Also far from convinced about 350s on Cross City routes, they aren't clear between New St and Redditch or Aston to Lichfield so some work to do there.

I wasn't suggesting them for cross city - 323s only.

Whichever way, LM will need extra units for the Chase line soon, so what will they be and where will they come from? 319s would look the obvious choice, given their availability, or the frequently repeated option of a swap of some 323s with Northern, who get more 319s for Crewe, etc services. Costs involved all round, naturally....