London Midland/Northern EMU changes speculation

[SpacePhoenix]

What type(s) of couplings do the existing LM fleet have?

 

[Domh245]

319 (+321) Tightlock
323 - Tightlock
350s - Dellner

Diesels are all BSI

 

[AM9]

Sadly, the northern chip on your shoulder trick wont work with me.

Given that I live in St Albans and have never lived north of Colchester, I just cannot understand the point of that comment.

 

[MK Tom]

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.

Thought that was the 319/0?

 

[railhead56]

Porterbrook lease 17x323 units and 20x319 units to Northern. 37 in total. They lease 37x350/2 units to LM. The same LM that is now getting some 319s. Perhaps Northern will get all the 350/2 units and LM those 319/3s and 323s in the new franchises? Maybe?

 

[MK Tom]

Isn't that exactly the theory we've been discussing?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

319 (+321) Tightlock
323 - Tightlock
350s - Dellner

Diesels are all BSI

How difficult (and what's the costs like) of converting units with BSI and Tightlock couplings over to using Dellner couplings?

 

[sprinterguy]

How difficult (and what's the costs like) of converting units with BSI and Tightlock couplings over to using Dellner couplings?

Some of Southern's Turbostars have been converted from BSI to Dellner, and further former Scotrail examples are currently being converted, so in some cases it can be done. I've no idea as to the viability of converting an entire class of older stock however, and any electrical mods that are probably necessary.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If it is the intention of Porterbrook to withdraw all 17 of their Class 323 leased units from the current Northern franchise area, will they have had to issue formal notification to bodies involved with the tendering process for the new franchise, as there will be 17 less available units to use in that new franchise which will need replacing?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Thinking about this last night

According to Wikipedia the current LM fleet consists of

• 2x 139 Parry people movers
• 3x150/1 (2 car)
• 8x 153
• 17x 170/5 (2 car)
• 6x 170/6 (3 car)
• 12x 172/2 (2 car)
• 15x 172/3 (3 car)
• 7x 321 (to be replaced by 7x 319)
• 26x 323 (+ another 17 from Northern)
• 30x 350/1
• 37x 350/2
• 10x 350/3

The Class 323s are maintained at Soho depot in Birmingham and the Class 321 and 350s by Siemens at Kings Heath depot in Northampton.

Thinking about the potential split of LM into the West Midlands local services and the West Coast Connect franchises the obvious way to split the EMU fleet would be the 323's for all local services around Birmingham and the 350's plus 319's and 150's for Marston Vale services to WCC.

So how many 350's would LM/WCC need for services on the WCML? If some of the 350's were to be sent to Northern were would they be maintained?

Also if LM/West Midlands successor franchise take on the 8 ex London over ground 172/0 they could release the 8 153's. However the only potential issue is the LO 172 don't have inter unit gangways like the LM units.

 

[158722]

Also if LM/West Midlands successor franchise take on the 8 ex London over ground 172/0 they could release the 8 153's. However the only potential issue is the LO 172 don't have inter unit gangways like the LM units.

Chase line electrification will see 4 DMU diagrams replaced, namely 2 diagrams of 153/170 combos & 2x 170/6 in peak (only 3 diagrams off-peak). Cascade within LM with 2x 170/6 replacing 1x 153+170/5 Hereford & 1x 153+170/5 Snow Hill, then 2x 170/5 replace 2x 150 (one on Bedford-Bletchley & one Hereford). Other 2x 170/5 replace 2x 153 diagrams, one Bedford-Bletchley & one Coventry-Nuneaton. Result, in theory, is that LM release 3x 150s and 8x 153s, the only issue being platform lengths on Bedford-Bletchley for the 170s...

I don't see why LM need the LO 172s, unless significant growth needs to be covered on the Snow Hill lines.

 

[The Planner]

You are forgetting Kenilworth.....

 

[northwichcat]

Porterbrook lease 17x323 units and 20x319 units to Northern. 37 in total. They lease 37x350/2 units to LM. The same LM that is now getting some 319s. Perhaps Northern will get all the 350/2 units and LM those 319/3s and 323s in the new franchises? Maybe?

Currently Northern have 20 x 319s and 17 x 323s so for the May 2016 timetable change (the first one in the new franchise) they could swap those for all the 350/2s. However, from late 2016/early 2017 they should be able utilise additional EMUs.

Also it's worth noting maintenance for the Yorkshire EMUs and the North West EMUs will have to remain completely separate for the next franchise, with the delay to Manchester-Leeds electrification. It wouldn't be less logical to send 350s based in the Manchester area to Northampton for maintenance, than it would be to send them to Leeds, considering a trip between Manchester and Leeds using overheads would require you to go via Scotland.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also if LM/West Midlands successor franchise take on the 8 ex London over ground 172/0 they could release the 8 153's. However the only potential issue is the LO 172 don't have inter unit gangways like the LM units.

Just a thought for consistent fleets why not give the Angel Trains 172s (LO and Chiltern) to Anglia alongside the released Scotrail 156s. Then Anglia can release their 153s and 170s. The 170s (Porterbrook owned) could be split between LM (who have Porterbrook owned 170s and 172s) and Chiltern (who have Porterbrook owned 168s.)

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Chase line electrification will see 4 DMU diagrams replaced, namely 2 diagrams of 153/170 combos & 2x 170/6 in peak (only 3 diagrams off-peak). Cascade within LM with 2x 170/6 replacing 1x 153+170/5 Hereford & 1x 153+170/5 Snow Hill, then 2x 170/5 replace 2x 150 (one on Bedford-Bletchley & one Hereford). Other 2x 170/5 replace 2x 153 diagrams, one Bedford-Bletchley & one Coventry-Nuneaton. Result, in theory, is that LM release 3x 150s and 8x 153s, the only issue being platform lengths on Bedford-Bletchley for the 170s...

I don't see why LM need the LO 172s, unless significant growth needs to be covered on the Snow Hill lines.

You are forgetting Kenilworth.....

Interesting thanks, assuming Kenilworth would need 2x 170/5 shuttling back and forth then Chase line electrification should allow LM to dispose of the 153's, without any extra stock. The 3x 150's would still be need for Bedford-Bletchley which given the platform issues mentioned makes sense, 2 would be in service and 1 spare undergoing maintenance. Would it be possible to base the fleet at Bletchley or would they still need to go to Tyseley for maintenance?

 

[swt_passenger]

How difficult (and what's the costs like) of converting units with BSI and Tightlock couplings over to using Dellner couplings?

458/5s have been done, as well as others mentioned. I expect it is a fairly predictable cost.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If it is the intention of Porterbrook to withdraw all 17 of their Class 323 leased units from the current Northern franchise area, will they have had to issue formal notification to bodies involved with the tendering process for the new franchise, as there will be 17 less available units to use in that new franchise which will need replacing?

The way Modern Railways puts it, Porterbrook "declined to offer" the Northern 323s to the bidders for the new franchise.
So whatever went in the bids, it wasn't 323s.
In the end, the DfT has to approve all the rolling stock, so maybe the issue is not finalised yet, pending new Northern and LM contracts.

EMUs, especially recent or new ones, require specialist depots.
In the north, anything with the Desiro name on it would go to Siemens at Ardwick.
323s (if moving) would go to Soho, leaving EMU capacity at Longsight (Alstom).
Crewe (Arriva-ex LNWR) also does work on 350s for LM.

 

[northwichcat]

The way Modern Railways puts it, Porterbrook "declined to offer" the Northern 323s to the bidders for the new franchise.
So whatever went in the bids, it wasn't 323s.

I wonder when it's envisaged the 323s will leave Northern, given the franchise ends on 31st March, significant crews will have to be trained on the replacement stock and the replacement stock may require timetabling changes depending on it's top speed and acceleration (which would ideally be done in December or May.)

In the north, anything with the Desiro name on it would go to Siemens at Ardwick.

If any Siemens trains head on to the Yorkshire routes then Siemens also have maintenance facilities in Leeds where they handle the 333s (which were a joint Siemens/CAF product.)

 

[158722]

Interesting thanks, assuming Kenilworth would need 2x 170/5 shuttling back and forth then Chase line electrification should allow LM to dispose of the 153's, without any extra stock. The 3x 150's would still be need for Bedford-Bletchley which given the platform issues mentioned makes sense, 2 would be in service and 1 spare undergoing maintenance. Would it be possible to base the fleet at Bletchley or would they still need to go to Tyseley for maintenance?

True enough, not sure Kenilworth will need two units, but wasn't there an intention to increase Coventry-Nuneaton service frequency? In which case 3 170/5s on 'Coventry' locals with the 150s at Bedford. 8x 153s up for grabs still...

 

[The Planner]

LM will stick a 153 on Kenilworth.

 

[theblackwatch]

A lot of the posts in this thread had drifted totally into the subject of LM fleet plans and the LM 319 cascade. All these have been moved into the thread at http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=110701 which covers this.

 

[FordFocus]

Porterbrook's 319 brochure indicates to improve acceleration the units will have to be reduced to 3 car and completely rewired. As the 319s have 20m carriages, a 3 car 319 will be around 25% shorter than a 3 car 323.

Indeed this is why the 3 car project should be a non starter. A complete new traction package that's been fitted to various third rail EMUs should be considered if acceleration was an issue.

Northern can't just timetable their services at any time they want. They are heavily restricted by Virgin and that's exactly why slower accelerating trains on Stoke services could be an issue.

There's going to have to be a timetable recast at some point with all these proposed additional Northern services and the rumoured Virgin 4tph Euston to Man Picc.

The 170 fiasco was the biggest one because DfT kept bleating on about no new DMUs being required when anyone with a realistic view on electrification plans knew that was rubbish.

Agreed. Adonis going back on the DMU over electrification was half a mistake here although I raise my hat on him pumping the electrification project through. Yet again the DfT cannot project passenger numbers anywhere near what they are. There should be more input from current and prospective bidders on what rolling stock is required, when and projected passenger numbers.

 

[Qwerty133]

Personally I'd like to see the 350/4s going to LM along with the remaining 323s. This would allow LM to not take on 319s as the 350/4s could replace 350/2s on longer diagrams, and the 2s going on current 321 diagrams.
319s could be refurbished for TPE and Northern, or maybe even Man Airport- Scotland services transferring to Northern to allow them all to be with one operator.

This would allow for all 323s and 350s to be with 1 operator, which should always be aimed for if possible, and also consolidates the units needed by each TOC, reducing staff training, and increasing diagramming flexibility.

 

[CC 72100]

319s on Manchester - Scotland?!

 

[Qwerty133]

319s on Manchester - Scotland?!

No different to Birmingham-London really...

 

[CC 72100]

No different to Birmingham-London really...

Apart from the fact that Manchester - Edinburgh is about 3 and a half hours while London - Birmingham is 2 hours.

So you'd use 319s on the former and 350s on the latter?

This sounds like a 'I want nice trains on my local line' type of plan, I honestly cannot think of any other reason why anybody would propose it.

 

[FordFocus]

Personally I'd like to see the 350/4s going to LM along with the remaining 323s. This would allow LM to not take on 319s as the 350/4s could replace 350/2s on longer diagrams, and the 2s going on current 321 diagrams.
319s could be refurbished for TPE and Northern, or maybe even Man Airport- Scotland services transferring to Northern to allow them all to be with one operator.

This would allow for all 323s and 350s to be with 1 operator, which should always be aimed for if possible, and also consolidates the units needed by each TOC, reducing staff training, and increasing diagramming flexibility.

That just benefits LM both in unit quality and financially. You've just created a lot of expense for TPE and Northern in training costs alone before you've accounted into more stabling space and other items.

I always question what a refurbishment is these days. Some TOCs think it's a repaint internally, new seat covers and possibly a PIS system. 319s are not suitable for Manchester - Scotland and yes, it is different to London - Birmingham... :roll:

 

[northwichcat]

No different to Birmingham-London really...

Funniest post I've seen in a long time.

Passengers travelling between Birmingham and London have the option of a fast Virgin Pendolino service or slower services operated by LM and Chiltern.

Manchester/Manchester Airport to Scotland passengers only have TPE offering direct services. Manchester Airport to Edinburgh takes around 90 minutes longer than Birmingham to Euston does on the slow LM service.

Maybe if the routes are similar TPE should offer £6 Advance fares for Manchester Airport to Scotland like LM offer for Manchester to Birmingham? The cheapest TPE Advance fare for Manchester Airport to Edinburgh is £20.40.

 

[Qwerty133]

That just benefits LM both in unit quality and financially. You've just created a lot of expense for TPE and Northern in training costs alone before you've accounted into more stabling space and other items.

I always question what a refurbishment is these days. Some TOCs think it's a repaint internally, new seat covers and possibly a PIS system. 319s are not suitable for Manchester - Scotland and yes, it is different to London - Birmingham... :roll:

Northern's training costs will be the same whatever EMUs they get, in fact they'll be slightly lower if they had 319s than 350s, based on the fact that some staff are already trained on 319s.
Whatever some people may think 319s and 350s take up the same amount of space so if there's space for one there's space for the other.
I'd also imangine that 350s were more expensive to lease than 319s so I'm not sure how exactly it would financially benefir LM.
In the long run it may also be cheaper for TPE to get 319s as there are no more 350s for them after further electrifacation but more 319s are becoming available.
Lastly I don't use either route so if both were suddenly ran by 153s I wouldn't care, meaning that I've looked at it without bias with the aim of consolidating stock, and minimising the number of services that recieve inferior stock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Funniest post I've seen in a long time.

Passengers travelling between Birmingham and London have the option of a fast Virgin Pendolino service or slower services operated by LM and Chiltern.

Manchester/Manchester Airport to Scotland passengers only have TPE offering direct services. Manchester Airport to Edinburgh takes around 90 minutes longer than Birmingham to Euston does on the slow LM service.

Maybe if the routes are similar TPE should offer £6 Advance fares for Manchester Airport to Scotland like LM offer for Manchester to Birmingham? The cheapest TPE Advance fare for Manchester Airport to Edinburgh is £20.40.

LM don't offer any advance fares for Manchester to Birmingham considering XC run the service, and from memory tickets are much more than £6.
And if you consider that post sillier than the most claiming that 3+2 seating is better on a regional service taking almost 3 hours than on a stopping commuter service I think that you clearly over estimate Manchester to Scotland services.
Oh and as you've been told before no one travels end to end on the TPE service...

 

[northwichcat]

LM don't offer any advance fares for Manchester to Birmingham considering XC run the service, and from memory tickets are much more than £6.

I meant Birmingham-London, the LM route you said was comparable to Manchester Airport to Scotland and LM's Advance tickets for Birmingham to Euston start at less than 25% of the price of TPE's Advances for Manchester Airport to Edinburgh.

And if you consider that post sillier than the most claiming that 3+2 seating is better on a regional service taking almost 3 hours than on a stopping commuter service I think that you clearly over estimate Manchester to Scotland services.

I don't follow. Which regional service are you referring to? The only one I can think you're referring to is Crewe to Euston and I've not seen any one post that those services should get 319s retaining 3+2 seating.

Oh and as you've been told before no one travels end to end on the TPE service...

No-one? TPE used to have people from Scotland travelling to Manchester Airport as recently as a couple of months ago, when I spoke to some making the journey from Scotland to Manchester Airport by train. Has word spread about the unsuitable 4 car EMUs running the service spread and put off the Scottish travellers? When did you last talk to Scottish people who use Manchester Airport?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Northern's training costs will be the same whatever EMUs they get, in fact they'll be slightly lower if they had 319s than 350s, based on the fact that some staff are already trained on 319s.

Not that many staff are trained on 319s and AFAIK none of the staff sign both 319s and 323s. Some North West TPE staff will likely transfer to Northern as a result of the route reorganisation meaning Northern will finish up with some staff who sign the Blackpool/Windermere routes who sign 350s but not 319s. Also the staff who sign 319s already won't sign Windermere.

 

[FordFocus]

Northern's training costs will be the same whatever EMUs they get, in fact they'll be slightly lower if they had 319s than 350s, based on the fact that some staff are already trained on 319s.

If 323s remain in Manchester there is no increase in training costs as the relevant depot signs them.

319 and 323 operations at Northern are completely different with regards to maintenance and traincrew.

TPE on the other hand just spent a few thousand introducing 350 in training costs, even had a dedicated project manager and I believe a simulator built for them. Replacing it with 319 units just so LM can have them all seems very wasteful and costly for the new TPE franchise. Not to mention this refurbishment to get it up to any decent standard. ££££.

In the long run it may also be cheaper for TPE to get 319s as there are no more 350s for them after further electrifacation but more 319s are becoming available.
Lastly I don't use either route so if both were suddenly ran by 153s I wouldn't care, meaning that I've looked at it without bias with the aim of consolidating stock, and minimising the number of services that recieve inferior stock.

Debatable, 319s are getting expensive to run, unreliable as now seen with Northern with 350s been in a common spare parts pool as the main 185 fleet. Once TPE is eventually electrified in whatever year then a different scenario for rolling stock for all classes would be looked at by this time 319s are probably finished.

I've looked at it in an unbiased way taking into consideration of comfort for all TOCs and cost (especially for training which costs more than you think). All you've shown interest in so far is LM having a standardised fleet of 323s and 350s with TPE and Northern having to mess about altering their fleets and services to suit LM. You've not minimised the number of services receiving inferior stock as you've just downgraded an hour core route from Manchester to Scotland from air conditioned 2+2 trains to 3+2 commuter trains.