Manchester - Scotland EMU stock

[northwichcat]

I dont think any operator could cover for a major recall on its long distance stock from within its own resources. Better for its own resources to therefore be concentrated into a centre of excellence on its particular stock.

I think the last major problem was relating to the mk4s and meant 321s were running East Coast mainline services.

I actually think it would be easier for an intercity operator to cover a stock grounding than a local one, as there are usually alternative slower routes to the intercity service, which doesn't apply to the local routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

350s on Manchester - Reading and Voyagers for doubling up.

350s on Manchester to Reading?! Whatever next Pacers on Edinburgh to Aberdeen?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Manchester - Scotland I can understand, but Birmingham - Scotland should have stayed XC

That's an interesting viewpoint.

Birmingham-Scotland is interworked with London-Scotland.

Manchester-Scotland wasn't interworked with anything until DfT decided the Windemere service should be cut back and the Scottish service should run in it's place using 185s instead of Voyagers.

 

[Whistler40145]

Build a new electrified chord linking Birmingham Snow Hill to either the main Wolverhampton-Birmingham New Street line or the Soho loop, thus taking pressure off New Street & providing Snow Hill & Moor St stations with better services.

 

[tbtc]

350s on Manchester to Reading?! Whatever next Pacers on Edinburgh to Aberdeen?

I thought you were happy with 350s on Manchester - Birmingham (and the proposed LM Liverpool - London service)?

Since a minority of people use the service from one side of Birmingham to the other its not like everyone would be sat on them for three hours
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's interesting

So a massive spend on New Street to bring it up to standard - yet still scuppered with pathing.

What would it take to introduce, say, a further 2 paths south of Birmingham?

Or should some services be routed via Moor Street?

Yup, pathing is going to be a problem (e.g. enough bother already with Cross City LM services through Longbridge)

There's also the "balance" of services. There seems to be a lot more demand between Birmingham and places to the north (Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham etc) than between Birmingham and places to the south (Bristol, Reading etc)

 

[YorkshireBear]

350s on Manchester to Reading?! Whatever next Pacers on Edinburgh to Aberdeen?

no. Pacers run routes of 2 hours long i think manchester reading on a 350 is a pretty good deal.

 

[Failed Unit]

no. Pacers run routes of 2 hours long i think manchester reading on a 350 is a pretty good deal.

Only 2 hours

Back in the day Lincoln - Huddersfield was much longer. Middleborough - Carlisle I think is the longest run you can get on a Pacer which is over 3 hours! Longer than Edinburgh - Aberdeen

 

[northwichcat]

I thought you were happy with 350s on Manchester - Birmingham (and the proposed LM Liverpool - London service)?

Since a minority of people use the service from one side of Birmingham to the other its not like everyone would be sat on them for three hours

I've pointed out before what that the plan is for 350s on:
Manchester-Stoke-Stone-Birmingham (replacing Manchester-Stoke stopper)
Preston-Birmingham
Liverpool-Crewe-Rugley-London (not via Stone)

All those routes have faster services via alternative more longer distance rolling stock. There are some advantages to all these services.

If Voyagers were placed by 350s on Manchester-Reading it would mean the only direct service between Manchester and Oxford/Reading would be run by Desiro commuter compromised stock and there isn't a faster alternative to change in to for intermediate stations. For a journey like Liverpool South Parkway to London Euston, while it will have a direct train there will be a faster option available by changing at Crewe/Stafford, opposed to a direct 350.

Another problem with 350s on Manchester-Reading is the size of them, unless you make a new 6 car option but then why would a 6 car 350 be better than a 6 car 390?

 

[Failed Unit]

Another problem with 350s on Manchester-Reading is the size of them, unless you make a new 6 car option but then why would a 6 car 350 be better than a 6 car 390?

None at all, if the extra expense of a tilting train can be justiified because of speed improvements, not sure if it could with the short distance between stops, maybe we should be looking at a 395?

One thing I would point out about the 350 is if they are OK as the only way of doing Liverpool - Birmingham than where do you join the line. The 350/1s seating wise are as good as many other simular distance routes such as the 185s on TPE North / Scotland, 170s on Nottingham - Cardiff, Birmingham - Stansted and Edinburgh / Glasgow - The north.

I would of course prefer to see a 444 style build of EMU - unless someone knows for a fact that the 100MPH EMU would not keep time on these frequent stop journeys of course, which in this case the Pendo would be the better option.

 

[sprinterguy]

I would of course prefer to see a 444 style build of EMU - unless someone knows for a fact that the 100MPH EMU would not keep time on these frequent stop journeys of course, which in this case the Pendo would be the better option.

Given that the XC Voyagers can't use EPS speeds between Manchester and Birmingham due to them having their tilt isolated, and that Desiros would offer quicker acceleration than the already quick Voyagers, then I think they could keep time (South of Birmingham on the Chiltern line is 100mph max anyway).

I think I have been conditioned to the use of ridiculously short trains on Crosscountry, and to the use of suburban layout units on routes like Chiltern, Transpennine and the other routes you have listed, but I don't see why use of Desiros on Manchester to Oxford would be any worse than Voyagers, though of course I'd most like to see a five car 444 style unit on such a service.

 

[87015]

The skoda & Mk2 set that VXC often used on Birmingham-Manchester turns kept time perfectly well.

 

[tbtc]

I've pointed out before what that the plan is for 350s on:
Manchester-Stoke-Stone-Birmingham (replacing Manchester-Stoke stopper)
Preston-Birmingham
Liverpool-Crewe-Rugley-London (not via Stone)

All those routes have faster services via alternative more longer distance rolling stock. There are some advantages to all these services.

If Voyagers were placed by 350s on Manchester-Reading it would mean the only direct service between Manchester and Oxford/Reading would be run by Desiro commuter compromised stock and there isn't a faster alternative to change in to for intermediate stations. For a journey like Liverpool South Parkway to London Euston, while it will have a direct train there will be a faster option available by changing at Crewe/Stafford, opposed to a direct 350.

Another problem with 350s on Manchester-Reading is the size of them, unless you make a new 6 car option but then why would a 6 car 350 be better than a 6 car 390?

Given the number of four car Voyagers on Manchester turns, a four car 350 should have more seats (no crumple zones as not running over 100mph, only one disabled toilet?).

Whilst there will be some passengers going from Manchester to Reading, many more will be doing journeys which don't cross Birmingham; the 350 seems to cope with journey lengths of that length (these are the same 350s people are saying will move to Manchester Airport - Glasgow/Edinburgh).

 

[northwichcat]

One thing I would point out about the 350 is if they are OK as the only way of doing Liverpool - Birmingham than where do you join the line. The 350/1s seating wise are as good as many other simular distance routes such as the 185s on TPE North / Scotland, 170s on Nottingham - Cardiff, Birmingham - Stansted and Edinburgh / Glasgow - The north.

I think a lot of people would disagree with you there. The 170s have superior seating to the 185s and 350s. Have you ever spent 2 hours+ on a 185/350/450?

Birmingham-Liverpool is around 2 hours.

the 350 seems to cope with journey lengths of that length (these are the same 350s people are saying will move to Manchester Airport - Glasgow/Edinburgh).

But are they? The previous government's electrification plan implied 350s used on commuter services from Euston would be released to allow them to operate on Manchester Airport-Scotland. When questioned as to how that would work they said Northampton-London would get 5 car IEP as replacement, which would cascade 350/2s to replace 350/1s, to release the 350/1s. However, Northampton-London was not mentioned in the report reviewing IEP and the review in to electrification mentioned a new unspecified type of EMU would be ordered for Manchester Airport to Scotland.

Given the number of four car Voyagers on Manchester turns, a four car 350 should have more seats (no crumple zones as not running over 100mph, only one disabled toilet?).

I just tried to add figures in but my session expired and I lost the exact numbers. If a 4 car 350 with 2+2 seating had the same number of FC seats as a Voyager then it would have around 20 seats more than a 4 car Voyager and around 45 less than a 5 car Voyager (estimates.)

You mention 4 car Voyagers running on Manchester services but the option is there to use 5 car Voyagers on 4 car diagrams for special events e.g. Aston Villa playing in Manchester, which would not exist with 350s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

no. Pacers run routes of 2 hours long

I know they do but they shouldn't.

i think manchester reading on a 350 is a pretty good deal.

So would you be equally happy with XC terminating all Voyager services at Sheffield and a 4 car Desiro running Sheffield-Edinburgh?

 

[Failed Unit]

I think a lot of people would disagree with you there. The 170s have superior seating to the 185s and 350s. Have you ever spent 2 hours+ on a 185/350/450?

Birmingham-Liverpool is around 2 hours.

Yes I have done Heald Green - Edinburgh many times, better than a Voyager for the journey.

Sure they simple solution is to put better seats in the 185, the same ones as the 170s maybe. It is like saying 158s are unsuitable because you don't like a certain type of seat. The pacers will be unfortable no matter what seats you put in. Just like a pendo will have limited views even if you put ic70 seats in it!

 

[tbtc]

So would you be equally happy with XC terminating all Voyager services at Sheffield and a 4 car Desiro running Sheffield-Edinburgh?

I'd be happy if Sheffield was electrified, yes.

 

[northwichcat]

I'd be happy if Sheffield was electrified, yes.

I was actually asking jimmyowl1992 that. I know you're very pro-electrification projects.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I was actually asking jimmyowl1992 that. I know you're very pro-electrification projects.

Presume my answer to be the same as tbtc's on electrification we sing off similar hym sheets on that one.

I would very happily spend 4 hours on a 350 over a voyager. Now i dont despise the voyagers but id take the wider space and no noise and vibrations anyday. But i dont think this will take our discussion any further at the end of the day opinion is opinion

 

[IanXC]

That's interesting

So a massive spend on New Street to bring it up to standard - yet still scuppered with pathing.

What would it take to introduce, say, a further 2 paths south of Birmingham?

Or should some services be routed via Moor Street?

If the Stratford-Long Marston reinstatement were to go ahead (and potentially a new chord from the Cotswold line to the Birmingham-Bristol route) then I would have thought there would be capacity to add extra services via this route.

It avoids the Cross City line, but then it would include Bordesley Junction to Tysley Junction so I'm not sure thats much of an improvement!

 

[RobShipway]

Wouldn't going via Bordesley Junction to Tysley Junction mean that you are adding 15 - 20 minutes to the journey time?

What effect does HS2 have if routed to an alternative station built close to both New Street and Moor Street have, if some trains where routed there instead of New Street?

 

[Whistler40145]

Another idea is the following:-

Reopen the Freight Only line from Bescot to Stourbridge Jn.

Build two new spurs, the 1st connecting the line from Oxley Junction to Bescot onto the Round Oak Freight line & the 2nd connecting the Round Oak line to the line through Snow Hill.

 

[WatcherZero]

Article in RAIL about the order, will be 18 four car class 350/3's with 2x2 standard seating if a small eletrification scheme in Birmingham goes ahead, if not the order will be reduced to 15. Was to be announced in June but now delayed until September.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Given that the XC Voyagers can't use EPS speeds between Manchester and Birmingham due to them having their tilt isolated, and that Desiros would offer quicker acceleration than the already quick Voyagers, then I think they could keep time (South of Birmingham on the Chiltern line is 100mph max anyway).

I think I have been conditioned to the use of ridiculously short trains on Crosscountry, and to the use of suburban layout units on routes like Chiltern, Transpennine and the other routes you have listed, but I don't see why use of Desiros on Manchester to Oxford would be any worse than Voyagers, though of course I'd most like to see a five car 444 style unit on such a service.

Remind me... Why is the tilt isolated on 221s?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Given the number of four car Voyagers on Manchester turns, a four car 350 should have more seats (no crumple zones as not running over 100mph, only one disabled toilet?).

Whilst there will be some passengers going from Manchester to Reading, many more will be doing journeys which don't cross Birmingham; the 350 seems to cope with journey lengths of that length (these are the same 350s people are saying will move to Manchester Airport - Glasgow/Edinburgh).

But, aren't the 350s 20 metres long, whereas the Voyagers are 23 metres?

 

[swt_passenger]

Remind me... Why is the tilt isolated on 221s?

Because the timetable is written for 220s, there is no major benefit from 221s reaching the next station 2 mins early...

 

[sprinterguy]

Remind me... Why is the tilt isolated on 221s??

To save on maintenance costs, presumably, as the tilt capability is unnecessary when over half of XCs' Voyager fleet is unable to do in the first place.

But, aren't the 350s 20 metres long, whereas the Voyagers are 23 metres?

The 350/1s (With 2+2 seating) offer 202 standard class (plus 9 tip-up seats) and 24 first class seats. A four car 220 offers 154 standard class and 26 first class seats, so the poor internal layout of the Voyagers and the requirement to have crumple zones for travelling at over 100mph really does stack up against them, though of course a 350 doesn't have full kitchen facilities: If all they were asked to perform was regional duties such as Manchester/Birmingham to Oxford, and more Intercity-like trains were left to perform the long distance duties stretching beyond these points then I don't see that being a problem.

 

[ainsworth74]

though of course a 350 doesn't have full kitchen facilities

Neither does a 220 or 221. I believe all they have (at least on XC) is a microwave.

 

[tbtc]

The 350/1s (With 2+2 seating) offer 202 standard class (plus 9 tip-up seats) and 24 first class seats. A four car 220 offers 154 standard class and 26 first class seats, so the poor internal layout of the Voyagers and the requirement to have crumple zones for travelling at over 100mph really does stack up against them, though of course a 350 doesn't have full kitchen facilities: If all they were asked to perform was regional duties such as Manchester/Birmingham to Oxford, and more Intercity-like trains were left to perform the long distance duties stretching beyond these points then I don't see that being a problem.

I'd agree with you.

Since we can't replace all Voyagers with brand new stock we have to

1. Cut XC services (to allow boosted capacity on others)?
2. Get the 20x five coach Voyagers from Virgin (post-Chester electrification)?
3. Put EMUs on certain routes (to allow more Voyagers to be used on the "core")?

None ideal, but "3" sounds realistic - I'm not pretending that 350s are ideal, but it'd be a step in the right direction...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Article in RAIL about the order, will be 18 four car class 350/3's with 2x2 standard seating if a small eletrification scheme in Birmingham goes ahead, if not the order will be reduced to 15. Was to be announced in June but now delayed until September.

Do you know which small eletrification scheme in Birmingham?

 

[swt_passenger]

Do you know which small eletrification scheme in Birmingham?

I think it is the extension from Barnt Green to Bromsgrove.

Still completely stalled awaiting third party funding according to the latest (June) update to the NR CP4 enhancement plan...

 

[LE Greys]

If the Stratford-Long Marston reinstatement were to go ahead (and potentially a new chord from the Cotswold line to the Birmingham-Bristol route) then I would have thought there would be capacity to add extra services via this route.

It avoids the Cross City line, but then it would include Bordesley Junction to Tysley Junction so I'm not sure thats much of an improvement!

Potential for a rival route by FGW (which is why that line exists in the first place). They can't do Honeybourne-Cheltenham direct, but it's close enough that a diversion through Hereford would allow a Bristol-Honeybourne-Moor Street service.

 

[northwichcat]

To save on maintenance costs, presumably, as the tilt capability is unnecessary when over half of XCs' Voyager fleet is unable to do in the first place.

I think the tilt was included on the 221s primarily for North Wales-London services with Birmingham services to Manchester/Scotland only really getting tilting as they'd already ordered a set for North Wales services.

 

[Failed Unit]

I think the tilt was included on the 221s primarily for North Wales-London services with Birmingham services to Manchester/Scotland only really getting tilting as they'd already ordered a set for North Wales services.

But did they not install have a tilting section between Reading and Banbury? I could be wrong here but I thought the first tilting train in the UK post the APT was the voyager on that very section. This equipment of course is now gone.

 

[northwichcat]

1. Cut XC services (to allow boosted capacity on others)?
2. Get the 20x five coach Voyagers from Virgin (post-Chester electrification)?
3. Put EMUs on certain routes (to allow more Voyagers to be used on the "core")?

What about the option to add a pantograph vehicle to the Voyagers, which will add capacity and allow use of OHE on sections like York-Edinburgh and Manchester-Birmingham?

 

[Failed Unit]

What about the option to add a pantograph vehicle to the Voyagers, which will add capacity and allow use of OHE on sections like York-Edinburgh and Manchester-Birmingham?

That to be honest is one of the more sensiable options as it also allows to use the Great Western wires where needed, not sure if they would between Reading and Oxford however...