Manchester - Scotland EMU stock

[Nym]

Why not just order some 8 car 390s to run the route?

They could have the same power as the 9 car one by dropping a trailer coach, so will still be pretty quick off the mark and be able to stop more often.

It all depends on if they want services to join/split or not. Personally I'd say to not have them joining and splitting, and have them run as 8 car 390 formations. Would fit into MIA fine and provide a much better quality of service, as it would be run by ICWC.

If they want it to be an intercity quality service: send it to ICWC, they can run it with 390s or Electrodiselified 221s (7 or 8 car) and introduce services beyond Manchester if using ED Stock. I do think that VT should retain their current level of 221s, but that they should have two more cars slotted in to take power from the OHL. And be fixed to be able to work in Multiple, could be a godsend for paths on the WCML, splitting at CRE.

But if they want a glorified commuter service, it should be with TPE in the hands of 4 car desiro 100mph units. If they want more than 100mph, then there needs to be EPS fitted, or it's an utter waste of time and ICWC could run it with 90 + Mk3 + DVT...

 

[rail-britain]

Why not just order some 8 car 390s to run the route?

There is not enough demand for 8 coach trains between Scotland and Manchester to be operated all the time
The sets need to be flexible between 150 and 350 passengers

Different story with the Scotland - Birmingham and such an increase would probably be recommended, to keep up with the increasing demand

 

[WatcherZero]

From the length perspective they want 8 car units on friday-Sunday, 6 car units in peaks and 4 car units offpeak.

The easy way to do it would be to have a mix of 4 car units and two car units, at weekends the two car units would be used to strengthen other services. while the 4 car units would work in multiple. However I doubt it would be practical to order a two car EMU set. Six and threes wouldnt work because it would require extra bay platform lengthening, and 5 and 3's wouldnt work because they would be too short for Mon-thur peak.

From their perspective the simplest would probably be a large order of 4 car units, during the week offpeak they operate or strengthen other services and at weekends they work in multiple. In peak they operate as 8 car which is slightly more capacity than required and costlier but then I doubt any of us would complain about it being easy to get a seat. They would have to arrange fridays to have the maximum unit availability with no regular maintence occuring.

 

[tbtc]

I would expect the design to be more like the Class 390 with traction motors spread along the unit
Furthermore, this same design may be used on Scotland - Birmingham
Thus giving a standard and tilt version (same as the Voyager and SuperVoyager)

...plus also London - Chester services.

I reckon a fleet of 30-35 125mph EMUs (six/seven coach) designed for longer distance travel would do well, plus be a template for GEML/ MML/ TPE electrification etc.

 

[The_Stig]

Class 320 units were built as 75mph

They were built being 90mph capable but set up to 75 mph as there was no need for the extra speed.

 

[rail-britain]

Six and threes wouldnt work because it would require extra bay platform lengthening

Most services already operate as a mix of 3 and 6 car, so which stations would be an issue for 6 car units?
If they can't cope with 6 car units, what hope is there for 8 car units?

Your suggestion for 4+2 sets is quite good
Off-peak this would allow 2+2 sets to operate, in leiu of a 4 set
This then gives a lot of flexibilty, 2+2, 4, 4+2, and 4+4
The next issue is where to place the First Class and Kitchen
If neither of the 2 car units has First Class, then 2+2 would not have First Class and/or catering
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They were built being 90mph capable but set up to 75 mph as there was no need for the extra speed.

I have checked photos and they did not have yaw dampers, so were never passed for 90mph
Equally, BREL never tested them above 80mph
The original design mirrors the Class 317/318/321 family
However, as I understand it the Class 320 has different gearing, compared to the others in the family

 

[ukrob]

2 car units is a daft idea. Think of all the space lost from two cabs plus a DDA toilet before you even start thinking about other things like catering.

 

[Nym]

The problem is, fixed formations are the only sensible thing for over 100mph running, too much space is wasted otherwise.

Personally I don't see what would be wrong with an 8 car 390. 2F 1F & Shop and 5S carrages. Yes, there would be too much for off peak travellers, but so? There is too much off peak on most services of fixed formation, thats why god gaveth us advance purchase tickets.

Also, 8 car units would fit perfectly on most platforms on the route, excluding Manchester OR (Theres a thread on how that can be fixed), and if they end up going that way again, Chorley.

Off peak is always going to present a problem, but in the hands of VT's marketing I don't think it would be that much of an issue, especially serving Manchester Airport with the proper advertising it could be a gold mine for the 10am - 2pm market (a lot of flight arrivals at that time)

 

[WatcherZero]

Man Airport platforms are to be extended for 8 car units (or 2x4 car). 9 car units would mess up the turnaround capacity.

There is the possibility that 2 car unidirectional could be used, since they would always be coupled to another 2 car or a 4 car they only need one cab (perhaps even a depot shunting console at other end). Still dont think the industry would order them though.

I support either large order of 4 car units (stick restaurant or toilets/luggage as crumple zones) or 8 car fixed sets.

 

[ukrob]

Oxford Road wouldn't be a problem - just don't stop long distance services there.

 

[Nym]

MIA's platforms are 197, 198 and 200m long... At my count that would fit an 8 car pendo...

That would be 193.6m long

 

[RichW1]

There is not enough demand for 8 coach trains between Scotland and Manchester to be operated all the time
The sets need to be flexible between 150 and 350 passengers

Different story with the Scotland - Birmingham and such an increase would probably be recommended, to keep up with the increasing demand

Yes the demand isn't so great because it's so damn slow! People use their brain and fly instead or even drive as you can do that quicker too. Always couldn't believe an intercity route was being operated by 3 or 4 car emus over more than 200 miles. Ridiculous. This route can't become ic stock again soon enough.

 

[northwichcat]

Why not just order some 8 car 390s to run the route?

It depends whether you want the future option of portion working for a Manchester Airport & Liverpool to Scotland service, which DfT have suggested may be implemented in 2019.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A couple of odd thoughts to be shot down in flames:

The current 100mph Desiro EMU design is the 380 (with its funny front ends) rather than the older 350.
Doesn't that make it more likely that an add-on order will be to Scotrail's design rather than LM's?

For the long term, commonality with the EGIP potential 125mph EMUs is no use on the WCML if they don't tilt, or they will be limited to 110.
The route is signed 110/EPS125 virtually all the way from Carlisle to Carstairs, and from Preston-Oxenholme. Any non-tilt solution is just wasting capacity.

 

[The_Stig]

I have checked photos and they did not have yaw dampers, so were never passed for 90mph
Equally, BREL never tested them above 80mph
The original design mirrors the Class 317/318/321 family

I never said they were passed to do 90mph. They were designed capable of 90mph. They were not set-up to do so, unlike now with dampers and the 90mph electronics.

However, as I understand it the Class 320 has different gearing, compared to the others in the family

They use the same motors as 318's so I don't think so.

 

[YorkshireBear]

A couple of odd thoughts to be shot down in flames:

The current 100mph Desiro EMU design is the 380 (with its funny front ends) rather than the older 350.
Doesn't that make it more likely that an add-on order will be to Scotrail's design rather than LM's?

For the long term, commonality with the EGIP potential 125mph EMUs is no use on the WCML if they don't tilt, or they will be limited to 110.
The route is signed 110/EPS125 virtually all the way from Carlisle to Carstairs, and from Preston-Oxenholme. Any non-tilt solution is just wasting capacity.

The 350's can now only be ordered as an add on due to no longer meeting crashworthiness standards. But the Manchester scotland EMUS will be a fill in before specific stock can be ordered. So when specific stock is ordered they want the infill units to head to LM so to keep a uniform fleet they will be 350's.

correct me someone if needed but that is my udnerstanding.

 

[Whistler40145]

A fleet of tilting Pendolino style trains would suffice, but with redesigned flat end cabs with corridor connections at each end, good for when splitting sets.

 

[MCR247]

Why have tilt if you are going to have a train with corridor connections?

 

[Whistler40145]

Will the units working Manchester Airport-Edinburgh/Glasgow also work the Blackpool North service?

Also, what is the most suitable stock as a stop-gap until the main order is delivered? e.g. 90+Mk 3+DVT?

 

[MCR247]

The line isn't electrified yet all of the way


And why would they work Blackpool services :?

 

[Whistler40145]

I was meaning when Manchester to Preston/Blackpool North is electrified.

The current timetable sees certain Glasgow/Edinburgh services with a Blackpool portion & wondered if this would continue after both lines are wired?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I was meaning when Manchester to Preston/Blackpool North is electrified.

The current timetable sees certain Glasgow/Edinburgh services with a Blackpool portion & wondered if this would continue after both lines are wired?

I dont think anyone quite knows whats happening on that one....

 

[Whistler40145]

We all know in the wonderful world of Railways that 'Never say Never' & anything can happen!

 

[rail-britain]

Will the units working Manchester Airport-Edinburgh/Glasgow also work the Blackpool North service?

Very unlikely that the same units / TOC would operate Manchester - Blackpool North
However, the same units / TOC may operate a limited Scotland - Blackpool North service, but only of the units are multi / corridor and this seems quite likely

 

[Whistler40145]

Does anyone know if Hitachi Javelin units have a tilt facility?

If yes, would they be suitable for Manchester Airport-Glasgow/Edinburgh?

 

[MCR247]

No on both counts

 

[northwichcat]

More seriously could a revised spec for a 395 be suitable for Manchester-Scotland i.e. no third rail?

The 51 x 3 car Desiros and the 29 x 6 car Javelin's both were both orders costing around £250 Million, so the cost of the Javelin's isn't poor value compared to the Desiros.

 

[Whistler40145]

MCR247, what in your opinion would be the best choice of EMU?

 

[Whistler40145]

I don't know how many of you will agree, I think a fleet of Siemens Desiros would be suitable, whether a modified Class 350 could be produced?

 

[sprinterguy]

More seriously could a revised spec for a 395 be suitable for Manchester-Scotland i.e. no third rail?

I think that future orders for high speed EMUs from Hitachi in the UK will take the form of IEP trains rather than them dusting off the blueprints for the 395s; if the production line is already up and running (I'm talking a couple of years down the line here) then it makes sense to add on some additional 5-car electric units for Manchester - Scotland, though I agree that the 395s would make good units for the route.

An AC electric version of the 444 for the Manchester to Scotland services, in five car format, would make me happiest, but I'd be fairly satisfied with four car standard Desiros.