London Midland/Northern EMU changes speculation

[northwichcat]

Reading the actual magazine article rather than just email alert it doesn't seem to be a done deal that they are going to LM but rather an initiative by the ROSCO to make them unavailable to Northern Bidders to try and get them to LM to reduce the supply chain and qualified maintenance staff required by concentrating them at one operator.

And of course there's also be a suggestion Angel want one operator to have the 350/1s, /3s and /4s. While some people are arguing that LM can easily take on an additional 23-27 electric trains I wonder if DfT see it the same way, I suspect not.

 

[A0]

The 375/377 is 100mph, so I don't see how this could operate Corby services.

Might depend on the infrastructure - if the slows were fully reinstated between Bedford and Kettering then they wouldn't be getting in the way of the Meridians / 125s.

That then leaves the run from Bedford - Luton (where there will be a stop) and Luton - London - and I'm not sure 100 vs 110 makes that much difference given the volume of traffic already on those lines. There are already TL services which use the fasts and 100mph units.

Alternatively, could something be done to the 375/377s in the same way LM have for the 350/1s to make them 110 mph compliant.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Looking at the Stoke "issue" again - what happened to the proposal that was doing the rounds a while back for LM to operate a Birmingham - Manchester service using 350s?

That could sort the intermediate stops between Stoke and Macclesfield without impacting Virgin & XC, particularly if the 350s could be 110 ones....

 

[northwichcat]

Looking at the Stoke "issue" again - what happened to the proposal that was doing the rounds a while back for LM to operate a Birmingham - Manchester service using 350s?

LM wanted to do a service revision whereby:
* The Birmingham-Liverpool service which calls at Hartford would be diverted to Preston, retaining a call at Hartford but not at Winsford or Acton Bridge.
* The Euston-Crewe service would be extended to Liverpool calling at Hartford and Winsford (as well as Acton Bridge on selected services.)

They said that could be achieved without receiving any additional rolling stock. They had Network Rail support but the ORR said "No. Come back when the next WCML recast happens."

Network Rail in their West Coast RUS then proposed an amended version of the above:
* Birmingham-Preston as per the LM proposal.
* The new Liverpool-Euston service should be routed away from Stone.
* Manchester-Stoke services transferred to LM and extended to Birmingham via Stone.
* Alternate XC Manchester-Birmingham services re-routed via Crewe.

Since then we've heard nothing. The inclusion of the Manchester-Stoke in the December 19 minimum service provision in the Northern ITT suggests the transfer to LM won't happen any time soon, if at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Neither of these sounds a terrible idea, but the latter would require more stock, so would suggest against the idea of LM losing 350/2s, but might mean they'd need more 319s as well to maintain capacity on the south WCML.

 

[A0]

Neither of these sounds a terrible idea, but the latter would require more stock, so would suggest against the idea of LM losing 350/2s, but might mean they'd need more 319s as well to maintain capacity on the south WCML.

As I and others keep pointing out to you - LM will have a serious problem if they start replacing 350s with 319s.

The Northampton - MK - London corridor is growing and has relatively high season ticket prices already - to see services diminished by having sub 10 year old stock replaced with 30 year old stock will be a PR nightmare and send all the wrong messages.

If LM need additional stock that will need to be over and above the existing 350 contingent - not instead of, if it is anything other than comparable stock.

I guess the question is why are you so intent on talking up the idea of LM taking on 30 year old stock to replace 10 year old stock?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's bound to be a shake-up of services and franchise boundaries when the West Midlands franchise is split into main line and WM local services.
Also when the Wales & Borders franchise is rebid in 2017, with a likely reduction of the "Wales" operation in England.
XC via Stafford is a bit harder to judge, as it might not change till 2019.
I also see from Modern Railways that the Welsh Government is considering the possibility of extending the new Chester-Victoria-Leeds service westwards into Wales.
The LM Preston service depended on the WCML timetable rewrite, which itself depended on the Norton Bridge flyover.
Currently it looks like the flyover will be complete next year without any plans to utilise the new capacity.

 

[northwichcat]

taking on 30 year old stock to replace 10 year old stock?

The 350/1s are around 10 years older than the 350/3s and around 4 years older than the 350/2s. I wonder how many people board the /1s and think "Oh. They've put one of the old trains on this service."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's bound to be a shake-up of services and franchise boundaries when the West Midlands franchise is split into main line and WM local services.

Not guaranteed to happen yet. At one stage everyone expected TPE to disappear as the routes were merged in to other franchises (Northern, EMT and XC or EC) but then DfT said it would be re-letting TPE with some route revisions.

 

[DarloRich]

The 350/1s are around 10 years older than the 350/3s and around 4 years older than the 350/2s. I wonder how many people board the /1s and think "Oh. They've put one of the old trains on this service.

None - because they all look the same and the LM ones operate ( almost) in a common user pool.

You might get the oh we have a green three seater not a blue ( plus now green!) 2 seater comment but that is about it - you will know about it if a 321 is substituted just as a 319 turning up wont go down well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that all depends on what seats 319s get if they were substituted. The Brighton Express units would I think be very popular. I really hope that one isn't the spare.

 

[AM9]

But that all depends on what seats 319s get if they were substituted. The Brighton Express units would I think be very popular. I really hope that one isn't the spare.

Wouldn't the spare be rotated?

 

[sprinterguy]

The 350/1s are around 10 years older than the 350/3s and around 4 years older than the 350/2s. I wonder how many people board the /1s and think "Oh. They've put one of the old trains on this service."

Passengers aren’t going to notice an arbitrary difference in age between similar stock, but will notice when the interiors and amenities are notably different. If London Midland were going to take on class 319s “in bulk” however, does it not seem more likely that they would undergo a heavy refurbishment first? There are a great many improvements that could be made, not least to meet DDA compliance regulations, that would do much to improve the passenger environment, and at the very least bring them up to the spec of the refurbished 455s, for instance. The Porterbrook brochure suggests that even features such as air conditioning are not beyond the realms of possibility.

Mind you, last time I heard anything, additional rolling stock initiatives were thin on the ground within the London Midland direct award proposal (Beyond the obvious provisions for relatively small scale initiatives such as the Bromsgrove and Chase Line electrification). Things might have changed but I wouldn’t expect to see a sizeable turnover of part of the train fleet before the new West Midlands franchise, in whatever form that might be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But that all depends on what seats 319s get if they were substituted. The Brighton Express units would I think be very popular. I really hope that one isn't the spare.

Though as has been noted there are only seven of these units, which wouldn’t go very far in terms of covering all of the Tring and Milton Keynes diagrams.

 

[DarloRich]

But that all depends on what seats 319s get if they were substituted. The Brighton Express units would I think be very popular. I really hope that one isn't the spare.

if you think any 319 as a permanent replacement for a 350 would be popular you are on a other planet. Sorry but it is a silly idea.

 

[Bletchleyite]

if you think any 319 as a permanent replacement for a 350 would be popular you are on a other planet. Sorry but it is a silly idea.

You'd choose a 3+2 seated Desiro over a 2+2 seated 319? Really? I wouldn't. Are you quite skinny or short, perhaps? Seat comfort is my primary concern, not the age of the metal box containing the seating.

I don't mind 321s so long as I get one of the 4 well-spaced airline seats next to first class. 319s have more such airline seating in most layouts.

 

[A0]

You'd choose a 3+2 seated Desiro over a 2+2 seated 319? Really? I wouldn't. Are you quite skinny or short, perhaps? Seat comfort is my primary concern, not the age of the metal box containing the seating.

I don't mind 321s so long as I get one of the 4 well-spaced airline seats next to first class. 319s have more such airline seating in most layouts.

Yes - to answer your question and no, I'm neither skinny nor short.

The fact is if the service is busy then fewer people standing makes it a more pleasant experience. If it's quiet then then 3+2 seats aren't a problem.

Add to that the Desiros ride is much better than a 319, they're air-conditioned and they're much quieter, both from the motors and the fact they've got plug doors. You're evidently less choosy.

 

[AM9]

if you think any 319 as a permanent replacement for a 350 would be popular you are on a other planet. Sorry but it is a silly idea.

Permanent in respect of until something else comes along. The 319s probably have a maximum of 10-15 years mainstream service left in them. Would you rather they were scrapped, or sent somewhere other than where you may travel on them?

 

[A0]

Permanent in respect of until something else comes along. The 319s probably have a maximum of 10-15 years mainstream service left in them. Would you rather they were scrapped, or sent somewhere other than where you may travel on them?

I think the issue is that the proposals have revolved around replacing new stock with much older stock for no tangible benefit to the users.

Where 319s are heading north, they are replacing DMUs as a result of electrification - so offer a better overall experience to that given by a Pacer or class 150/156.

It's not even about second hand stock particularly - I think if 377s were to turn up with LM, that would probably not attract any comment as they are comparable to the 350s in terms of age and comfort.

Whereas moving from 350s to 319s is a noticeable step down.

 

[AM9]

Yes - to answer your question and no, I'm neither skinny nor short.

The fact is if the service is busy then fewer people standing makes it a more pleasant experience. If it's quiet then then 3+2 seats aren't a problem.

Add to that the Desiros ride is much better than a 319, they're air-conditioned and they're much quieter, both from the motors and the fact they've got plug doors. You're evidently less choosy.

Well in future for some LM passengers, the choice between standing on a 4 or 8 car 350/x or sitting on a 'refreshed and DDA compliant' 321 or 319 may be made for you. Then you can decide how choosy you want to be. The M1 will still be there of course should you choose that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the issue is that the proposals have revolved around replacing new stock with much older stock for no tangible benefit to the users.

Where 319s are heading north, they are replacing DMUs as a result of electrification - so offer a better overall experience to that given by a Pacer or class 150/156.

It's not even about second hand stock particularly - I think if 377s were to turn up with LM, that would probably not attract any comment as they are comparable to the 350s in terms of age and comfort.

Whereas moving from 350s to 319s is a noticeable step down.

It happens, 156s in place of 170s (TPE), 700s in place of 387s (GTR), 319s in place of 323s (Northern maybe) etc..If I had more time, I could cite a few more. Why should LM passengers be different?

 

[DarloRich]

Permanent in respect of until something else comes along. The 319s probably have a maximum of 10-15 years mainstream service left in them. Would you rather they were scrapped, or sent somewhere other than where you may travel on them?

Id rather they were sent somewhere they offer a step up in service provision rather than a step down.

Permanent in respect of until something else comes along. The 319s probably have a maximum of 10-15 years mainstream service left in them. Would you rather they were scrapped, or sent somewhere other than where you may travel on them?

Sadly, the northern chip on your shoulder trick wont work with me. I come from the North East and have spent far too many years rolling around on a pacer.

A0wen sums up my views on this point

You'd choose a 3+2 seated Desiro over a 2+2 seated 319? Really? I wouldn't. Are you quite skinny or short, perhaps? Seat comfort is my primary concern, not the age of the metal box containing the seating.

I don't mind 321s so long as I get one of the 4 well-spaced airline seats next to first class. 319s have more such airline seating in most layouts.

The 350's are a much superior train, even in 3+2 layout, so yes i would choose one. Getting on at MK or Bletchley means i almost always get a seat in any event

 

[A0]

It happens, 156s in place of 170s (TPE), 700s in place of 387s (GTR), 319s in place of 323s (Northern maybe) etc..If I had more time, I could cite a few more. Why should LM passengers be different?

And of those - the 156s in place of 170s is a stop-gap in two respects. Firstly the service Manchester-Blackpool is being handed to Northern (who already operate 156s but not 170s) and secondly is due for electrification by the end of 2017, which will replace the DMUs outright.

700s in place of 387s ? Surely that's newer stock of equivalent quality?

319s in place of 323s is not confirmed - that's assumed on the basis of this thread. Either way they are a similar age (323s 5 years younger) non air-con 3+2 seated EMUs. The issue is that 323s have better acceleration than 319s and are currently deployed on routes where that acceleration is needed owing to other services.

 

[D365]

And of those - the 156s in place of 170s is a stop-gap in two respects. Firstly the service Manchester-Blackpool is being handed to Northern (who already operate 156s but not 170s) and secondly is due for electrification by the end of 2017, which will replace the DMUs outright.

That's a service that will end up with more 319s as it stands..?

700s in place of 387s ? Surely that's newer stock of equivalent quality?

The interior layout of the Class 700 is considered inferior for passengers travelling to London from further afield.

 

[158722]

Discussion as to whether a 319 is significantly worse to travel on than a 350 is, IMHO, not all that relevant as since when did passenger comfort and satisfaction really, honestly and truly, become a factor in deciding what stock gets shuffled where? Money and costs, thats what will be considered.

One post has highlighted a very important point - the type of lease the 319s and 350s are on - the latter usage/mileage based, the former seeming to be fixed fees. Such a difference could well have a significant bearing on decisions to deploy 319s vice 350s.

This could also be linked with what is the most effective (and cheaper!) option for the railway as a whole - expensive refurbishment of 319s to fit AC, improve performance, etc to allow them to keep up with 323s and/or meet the required Northern Express criteria OR just refresh the 319s and deploy them on the shortest LM turns (even just the 45 minute Tring services look as if they need 4 OP diagrams, possibly 6 at peak time) thus allowing some 350/2s to go to Northern with less expensive modifications needed. Yes, some LM services could be seen as being downgraded, but the compensation could be 12-car sets in place of 8-cars. Given the lease charges, it might even be possible that a 12-car 319 set comes in cheaper than an 8-car 350 - an issue that will play heavily on any decisions, I'd have thought.

One option I've not seen mentioned is just SOME of the 350/2s going to Northern - perhaps just enough to cover 323 turns to Hadfield and Stoke, along with Northern Express services with 319s used vice 323s on the Manchester-Crewe, Wilmslow, Airport, for which there seem to fewer performance related issues with 319s vice 323s. This would allow LM to retain 350/2s on the longer Northampton diagrams (thus placating a few posters here...)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Worth noting that LM's diagrams are not self-contained (except the 110mph Crewe ones), so if they split the Tring services off they'd need more 319s than they presently need 350s to work them.

Here's another theory for releasing 350s - if the Trings went onto Crossrail, they would surely be run using Crossrail units? Are there enough of these?

 

[northwichcat]

And of those - the 156s in place of 170s is a stop-gap in two respects. Firstly the service Manchester-Blackpool is being handed to Northern (who already operate 156s but not 170s) and secondly is due for electrification by the end of 2017, which will replace the DMUs outright.

156s have replaced 185s (not 170s) on some Manchester Airport to Blackpool and Barrow services. The released 185s have then been used to replace the 170s which were operating Manchester to Hull and Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes services.

Given your reasoning of "it's only temporary" would you be happier with
a) Replacing 350/2s with a greater number of refreshed 319s for a couple of years and then an order for new trains being placed when the next LM franchise is let
b) Replacing 350/2s with a greater number of fully refurbished 319s including 2+2 seating and tables, with new fronts including corridor connections
?

Either way they are a similar age (323s 5 years younger) non air-con 3+2 seated EMUs.

The 323s were effectively the first of the next generation of new improved EMUs. Comparing 323s to 319s is a bit like comparing 165s to 150s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One option I've not seen mentioned is just SOME of the 350/2s going to Northern - perhaps just enough to cover 323 turns to Hadfield and Stoke, along with Northern Express services with 319s used vice 323s on the Manchester-Crewe, Wilmslow, Airport, for which there seem to fewer performance related issues with 319s vice 323s. This would allow LM to retain 350/2s on the longer Northampton diagrams (thus placating a few posters here...)

WatcherZero suggested earlier about Porterbrook taking the decision to not lease 323s to the winning Northern bidder because they want all their 323s with the same franchise as that works better for the ROSCO. If that is the case I can't see Porterbrook wanting to split their 350/2s between operators (the 350/2s being the only 350s which Porterbrook own.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wouldn't the spare be rotated?

Hopefully, though I believe the 319/4 is (as it doesn't have First Class) to be a dedicated unit on the St Albans line, unless of course it breaks.

 

[swt_passenger]

Here's another theory for releasing 350s - if the Trings went onto Crossrail, they would surely be run using Crossrail units? Are there enough of these?

No, but the 345 announcement did report that options existed for 18 additional trains, generally assumed to be for future extensions such as the WCML. They had already increased the original order to allow for Reading and the Shenfield - Liverpool St HL peak extras: http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/art...nd-depot-contract-to-be-awarded-to-bombardier

BTW - I see that the WNXX forum today is discussing that LM are getting 7 x 319s to replace the 321s after all; just that it was arranged as 4 with an option for 3 more...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Phew, I was getting concerned about short formings etc. Hopefully more 319/2s!

 

[swt_passenger]

7x319 you mean? Phew, I was getting concerned about short formings etc. Hopefully more 319/2s!

I'll amend/expand the above typo...

 

[158722]

WatcherZero suggested earlier about Porterbrook taking the decision to not lease 323s to the winning Northern bidder because they want all their 323s with the same franchise as that works better for the ROSCO. If that is the case I can't see Porterbrook wanting to split their 350/2s between operators (the 350/2s being the only 350s which Porterbrook own.)

Very true, forgot that point. All or nothing...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If the 319s are to get corridor connections will they possibly do similar to what SWTs have had done with their 458s - having compatible fronts to allow them to work with 350s, even if it's just for ECS moves or emergencies?

 

[D365]

If the 319s are to get corridor connections will they possibly do similar to what SWTs have had done with their 458s - having compatible fronts to allow them to work with 350s, even if it's just for ECS moves or emergencies?

However which way you might plan for units to couple, you'd have to fit Dellner couplings to the 319 fleet...