Manchester - Scotland EMU stock

[northwichcat]

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.

I'm not sure about that but Virgin/DFT's main aim of the WCML modification was to get faster services to and from London. Reducing journey times on XC routes wasn't the primary aim but could be used as justification for spending huge amounts on the WCML.

 

[swt_passenger]

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.

Yes they did - but as I pointed out it had absolutely no passenger benefit because the timetable had to be written for any 220s that came along. Just like Arriva, Virgin couldn't or didn't guarantee 221s to particular services, and passengers supposedly wanted clockface departures anyway.

Have they actually removed the TASS balises though? Normally NR just seem to switch stuff off and stop maintaining it...

Another point that's just occured to me, I dont think the tilt enabled section was ever as long as that - I'm 99% sure it didn't cover the GWML at all.

 

[Failed Unit]

No it was not, It was between Banbury and Oxford - not sure if it was the whole length either.

Another Waste of money, like all these sections of 125mph running that were installed only to be stuck behind slower trains or if they get a clear run wait outside Derby for a platform!

 

[Whistler40145]

Does FTPE really need to run a service from Manchester Airport to Edinburgh/Glasgow?

I think it should be run within the ICWC franchise.

Does the WCML have sufficient capacity for 1 or 2 trains per hour from Birmingham?

If yes, my prospected service pattern would be as follows:-

1st train would be Birmingham to Edinburgh/Glasgow via Crewe & Wigan with a portion from Manchester Airport being added at Preston.

2nd train would be Birmingham to Edinburgh/Glasgow via Stoke, Crewe & Manchester Airport.

Run the above with Class 350s.

 

[rail-britain]

Does FTPE really need to run a service from Manchester Airport to Edinburgh/Glasgow?
I think it should be run within the ICWC franchise.
Does the WCML have sufficient capacity for 1 or 2 trains per hour from Birmingham?

Originally Scotland - Manchester was briefly part of West Coast
However the route fitted better with a competitor and so was transferred to FTPE
Clearly this was a mistake and the route will return to West Coast in due course

Yes, there is plenty of demand for the hourly Birmingham - Scotland service
So much so that four car Voyagers were struggling
Again, this should be solved during the next West Coast franchise

 

[MCR247]

Does FTPE really need to run a service from Manchester Airport to Edinburgh/Glasgow?

I think it should be run within the ICWC franchise.

Does the WCML have sufficient capacity for 1 or 2 trains per hour from Birmingham?

If yes, my prospected service pattern would be as follows:-

1st train would be Birmingham to Edinburgh/Glasgow via Crewe & Wigan with a portion from Manchester Airport being added at Preston.

2nd train would be Birmingham to Edinburgh/Glasgow via Stoke, Crewe & Manchester Airport.

Run the above with Class 350s.

Thats what I suggest, but the portion at Preston from Liverpool, and the 2nd tph would run in place of an XC service between Birmingham & Manchester (if it got electrified, could start back at Reading)

 

[northwichcat]

Originally Scotland - Manchester was briefly part of West Coast
However the route fitted better with a competitor and so was transferred to FTPE

Did it though?

TPE had a Man Airport-Blackpool service and a 2 hourly Man Airport to Barrow and 2 hourly Man Airport to Windermere which all interworked to give a 30 minute frequency between Manchester Airport and Preston and an hourly frequency between Man Airport and Lancaster.

The 2 hourly Virgin Piccadilly-Scotland service didn't interwork with any other services between Manchester and Preston and only called at Bolton between Piccadilly and Preston. Once north of Preston it was very much on Virgin's turf with them also running London to Scotland and Birmingham to Scotland whereas you can be waiting a lot time at Carlisle before a 185 turns up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

1st train would be Birmingham to Edinburgh/Glasgow via Crewe & Wigan with a portion from Manchester Airport being added at Preston.

2nd train would be Birmingham to Edinburgh/Glasgow via Stoke, Crewe & Manchester Airport.

Run the above with Class 350s.

The Manchester Airport to Scotland EMU proposal is in the future to be running an hourly service with some trains containing portions which go to Liverpool.

Would Stockport retain 2tph for Birmingham? XC try to cut back to 1tph at Stockport and it was a dismal failure and returned to 2tph.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Originally Scotland - Manchester was briefly part of West Coast
However the route fitted better with a competitor and so was transferred to FTPE. Clearly this was a mistake and the route will return to West Coast in due course

In which case, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to procure 350s to operate these services, burdening West Coast with a third fleet. These trains should either be short-formed Pendolinos or electrified Voyagers. In either case, they could fit in 125 mph paths and in either case, they would not burden WC with another type of train.

Such is the nonsense that DfT created under the previous Government. The present Government should acknowledge that DfT lost the plot under Labour, bite the bullet and put things right, even if it means swallowing pride, and some cost to do so.

Cancel this procurement
Cancel the IEP procurement
Cancel Thameslink procurement

and start again with a clean sheet and a proper strategy!

 

[WatcherZero]

The 350's are a stopgap until 110mph trains are procured for the route, allowing the order to take place rapidly in time for electrification without tendering as its being tacked on to a LM order. We know you want these competitions rerun so you can sell your Chinese trains but its not going to happen.

 

[asylumxl]

The 350's are a stopgap until 110mph trains are procured for the route, allowing the order to take place rapidly in time for electrification without tendering as its being tacked on to a LM order. We know you want these competitions rerun so you can sell your Chinese trains but its not going to happen.

Well, the Polaris would be better for the role than 350s... So I'd not mind them buying some. Could even tilt and use EPS speed limits.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

The 350's are a stopgap until 110mph trains are procured for the route, allowing the order to take place rapidly in time for electrification without tendering as its being tacked on to a LM order. We know you want these competitions rerun so you can sell your Chinese trains but its not going to happen.

Aw shucks, was it so obvious???

Seriously though, the Chinese are not ready for either an IEP or a Thameslink tender when to date they haven't introduced anything and the Manchester - Scotland order is so small it would be an inconvenience on its own.

I've already said what I think the choices should be for Manchester - Scotland, neither of which involve Chinese trains.

Thameslink should be more 375s.

IEP should be re (or rather de) specified to EMUs and some purpose built diesel locos, plus some life extended HSTs.

 

[RobShipway]

Aw shucks, was it so obvious???

Seriously though, the Chinese are not ready for either an IEP or a Thameslink tender when to date they haven't introduced anything and the Manchester - Scotland order is so small it would be an inconvenience on its own.

I've already said what I think the choices should be for Manchester - Scotland, neither of which involve Chinese trains.

Thameslink should be more 375s.

IEP should be re (or rather de) specified to EMUs and some purpose built diesel locos, plus some life extended HSTs.

One thing that everyone seems to have lost the plot on is if HS2 gets built as that will need specific trains that can then travel on to HS1, however the current Government is saying that specific HS2 trains would still be needed but have no plans to join HS2 to HS1. Although, there may end up being a connection between the two lines anyway as previous threads have noted.

Whether HS2 will be Siemens IE400 trains or CSRE equivalent trains who knows, but I have to agree with KingFisher's statement above as to me that would be the most sensible way to go accept Thameslink should be class 379's rather than 375's.

Instead of IEP, I would have more Voyagers/Meridians but with a pantograph car as it is proven technology all ready and could easily be built in the Bombardier factory in Derby where a factory all ready exists. Whereas, with the Agility trains deal we have to wait a few years for the factory to be built and the first trains are being built in Japan anyway until the Factory here comes online.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Whether HS2 will be Siemens IE400 trains or CSRE equivalent trains who knows, but I have to agree with KingFisher's statement above as to me that would be the most sensible way to go accept Thameslink should be class 379's rather than 375's.

Instead of IEP, I would have more Voyagers/Meridians but with a pantograph car as it is proven technology all ready and could easily be built in the Bombardier factory in Derby where a factory all ready exists. Whereas, with the Agility trains deal we have to wait a few years for the factory to be built and the first trains are being built in Japan anyway until the Factory here comes online.

Fair point about 379s rather than 375s.

Not sure more Meridians would ever see Litchurch Lane. Weren't they built in Bruges the first time around?

 

[MCR247]

Instead of IEP, I would have more Voyagers/Meridians but with a pantograph car as it is proven technology all ready and could easily be built in the Bombardier factory in Derby where a factory all ready exists. Whereas, with the Agility trains deal we have to wait a few years for the factory to be built and the first trains are being built in Japan anyway until the Factory here comes online.

220-222s were built in Bruges, not Derby

What is a Siemens IE400? The velaro?

 

[RobShipway]

220-222s were built in Bruges, not Derby

What is a Siemens IE400? The velaro?

Yes, the IE400 is the Velaro.

The 220-222's may have been built in Bruge, but the moulds for them from what I have been told previously could be transferred to be used on the production line in Derby and the current Government plus the previous Government where offered this choice.

So much for keeping the jobs in the UK from either party....:-x

 

[LE Greys]

The way things seem to be going, I would be prepared to bet that what is currently Virgin and what is currently London Midland will merge at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, increasing the number of 350s will be perfectly feasible, to displace the remaining 321s apart from anything. I would prefer to see more Pendys, some of them taking the fast Northampton and Crewe workings, anything that uses the WCML fasts basically. Further north, the north-western arm of Trans-Pennine might also join this new LNWR. Whether this will lead to a northward cascade of 350s is not certain, tilting stock might work much better. Really, Liverpool-Glasgow trains ought to be considered as well, if there is the capacity for them.

Purely speculation, of course.

 

[tbtc]

The way things seem to be going, I would be prepared to bet that what is currently Virgin and what is currently London Midland will merge at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, increasing the number of 350s will be perfectly feasible, to displace the remaining 321s apart from anything. I would prefer to see more Pendys, some of them taking the fast Northampton and Crewe workings, anything that uses the WCML fasts basically. Further north, the north-western arm of Trans-Pennine might also join this new LNWR. Whether this will lead to a northward cascade of 350s is not certain, tilting stock might work much better. Really, Liverpool-Glasgow trains ought to be considered as well, if there is the capacity for them.

Purely speculation, of course.

Gets my vote.

Makes a lot of sense (albeit with the Snow Hill part of LM going to Chiltern, plus some direct Blackpool - Glasgow trains once there are spare units)

 

[MCR247]

When you get 350s you can have the Manchester running hourly to Scotland, with say 1tp2h Blackpool - EDB & 1tp2h Liverpool - GLC. This portion would be in Preston before the Manchester portion, which would run as 8 cars, with the set joining at Preston to form a 12 car set briefly, before the rear 4 are dropped off for Blackpool or somewhere, or they are dropped off at Lancaster!

Sounds quite awkward doesnit it

 

[WatcherZero]

A tad..

Joining the two Scotland services in Wigan or Preston makes sense for the North of Preston paths issue and if done in Wigan the Preston station southern throat issues, though it might cause a few minutes timetable penalty (especielly if one is late!) cant see the benefit in joining Blackpool though.

 

[RobShipway]

When you get 350s you can have the Manchester running hourly to Scotland, with say 1tp2h Blackpool - EDB & 1tp2h Liverpool - GLC. This portion would be in Preston before the Manchester portion, which would run as 8 cars, with the set joining at Preston to form a 12 car set briefly, before the rear 4 are dropped off for Blackpool or somewhere, or they are dropped off at Lancaster!

Sounds quite awkward doesnit it

Since the 350's where made technology has moved on to having the same sort of train but lighter, so I suspect any request for more 350's would actually end up being something like the 380.

 

[MCR247]

No, they'd specifically be an add on order for LM & TPE units.

 

[WatcherZero]

Mainly as the 380 cant run coupled with a 350 so small number of 380's for LM would be a nightmare of incompatability.

 

[northwichcat]

No, they'd specifically be an add on order for LM & TPE units.

I think the whole electrification thing is up in the air due to the changes to IEP (which was originally supposed to release 350/1s) and delays to the Thameslink order.

We will have 3 services ready to switch to EMU in the North West before a single EMU is even released from Thameslink and they are supposed to be fully refurbished before being put in to service elsewhere.

As I said in another thread there should be a new EMU order for Northern to run the newly electrified routes, replace 321s, 322s and 323s plus and diesels running under the wires. LM and NXEA could then benefit from the units released by Northern and they'll then be no need for LM to make a small additional EMU order.

The Thameslink EMUs would still go on to Thames Valley initially but additional electrification schemes can be undertaken to make use of the other 319s e.g. commuter routes around Bristol and Cardiff. That way the wires wouldn't be ready years ahead of the units to run under them.

 

[tbtc]

the 380 cant run coupled with a 350

Is there no hope for units which can couple together when a 350 can't even work in tandem with the "next generation of 350" (which is what a 380 essentially is)?

 

[WatcherZero]

Theres a lot more changes under the hood I think, the 380 is kind of an interim between the Desiro UK and the Desiro City. Different control systems and power distribution.

The NR Rolling Stock RUS claims that 350, 360 and 380 are a compatible family but from what I read in other documents it doesnt seem to be the case in practise.

 

[northwichcat]

Could it be that 350s and 380s are actually compatible but Scotrail ordered the 380s with a different type of coupler to be able to work with their existing EMUs?

The 170s and 171s aren't compatible but they are the effectively same train.

 

[rail-britain]

Could it be that 350s and 380s are actually compatible but Scotrail ordered the 380s with a different type of coupler to be able to work with their existing EMUs?

As far as I am aware the Class 380 is not compatable with any other rolling stock that ScotRail have (at the moment)
Equally, on close inspection the couplings are slightly different between a Class 350 and 380
Class 350 - electrical panel below tightlock (similar to Class 185)
Class 380 - electrical panel above tightlock (similar to Voyager)

 

[swt_passenger]

As far as I am aware the Class 380 is not compatable with any other rolling stock that ScotRail have (at the moment)
Equally, on close inspection the couplings are slightly different between a Class 350 and 380
Class 350 - electrical panel below tightlock (similar to Class 185)
Class 380 - electrical panel above tightlock (similar to Voyager)

I think you are using the word 'tightlock' here to mean the mechanical coupler, but this is misleading because a 'Tightlock' is a different pattern of coupler entirely.

The 350, 380, 185, 220/1 all use variants of the 'Scharfenberg pattern' auto-coupler for the mechanical coupling. (Before anyone complains, the Voyager coupling is manufactured by Dellner, but it is still a Scharfenberg. Likewise the latest Platform 5 book states the 380 is a Voith coupler, but this is short for Voith Scharfenberg - the company's current name.) The location of the electrical connector is optional, above or below, but is unlikely to match any other manufacturer's wiring anyway.

A Tightlock is a different pattern of knuckle coupling entirely, used on older units like 320s, 322s etc.

 

[dalmahoyhill]

Hmm call me a numpty but why are 125mph EMUS being mentioned for Edinburgh-Glasgow electrification? A few posters have mentioned this. Its only 45miles and the line speed is 100mph, the units would never reach this speed. Surely just ordering more 380s would make sense? 30 was a small order as it is, i would be surprised if that batch didn't have an option to order more as required.

Secondly i heard coupler wise they are not compatible with any other scotrail units. I was told that the unit stationed permanently at Haymarket is for shunting unit failures. Can anyone confirm this?

 

[tbtc]

Hmm call me a numpty but why are 125mph EMUS being mentioned for Edinburgh-Glasgow electrification? A few posters have mentioned this. Its only 45miles and the line speed is 100mph, the units would never reach this speed. Surely just ordering more 380s would make sense? 30 was a small order as it is, i would be surprised if that batch didn't have an option to order more as required.

Secondly i heard coupler wise they are not compatible with any other scotrail units. I was told that the unit stationed permanently at Haymarket is for shunting unit failures. Can anyone confirm this?

I agree with you.

Similarly, I hope that the 380 becomes the "normal" EMU, in the way that the 170 became the "normal" DMU for many areas of the country. With Scotland getting plenty new EMUs (to run Edinburgh-Glasgow etc) it'd be a shame if the small batch of 380s remains at just 38.

FSR already operate five EMU classes (314, 318, 320, 334, 380 - not including the 322s which are heading to Leeds) - it'd be nice if they settled on a single type of unit for new EMUs