More 150s for Northern?

[swt_passenger]

This FOI repsonse seems to allocate more ex LM 150s to Northern, as far as discussions elsewhere suggest.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi-responses/698001/698004/f0007261.pdf

Of the 72 Class 150 carriages, 28 are now contracted to be used by Northern Trains. The arrival of the 28 carriages in Northern Trains will then lead to the following subsequent cascades:
8 x Class 150 carriages will enable 8 x Class 156 carriages to cascade from Northern Trains to East Midlands Trains (EMT) which will be used by EMT to internally cascade more Class 158 units onto their Norwich - Nottingham - Liverpool services.
12 x Class 150 carriages will enable 15 x Class 180 carriages currently sub-leased by Northern Trains from East Coast to be returned to East Coast.
The remaining 8 x Class 150 carriages provide additional capacity for Northern Trains.

There's also the Pacers to come back from FGW, which is a separate deal apparently:

14 x Class 150 carriages will enable 14 x Class 142 carriages currently sub-leased by FGW from Northern Trains to be returned to Northern Trains. Subject to successfully concluding a commercial agreement that is affordable and value for money, these 14 Class 142 carriages will be used to provide additional capacity for Northern Trains.

Is that what was expected previously?

 

[tbtc]

I'm getting confused here. I had thought that the 7x142s were to replace the 3x180s.

However, the cascade gets more complicated and convoluted that its hard to know for sure what will happen

 

[sprinterguy]

More trains for the north! That’s good news. That’s a gain of six 150s over the original stated cascade.

So three pairs of 150s to replace three 180s (On paper at least, whether the current 180 diagrams will actually see such an arrangement is another matter). The seating in a pair of 150s is roughly comparable to the total seating in a 180: I suppose nobody would be able to work out the exact number of seats unless they knew whether Northern intend to remove the current 3+2 seating in the 150s for something different or not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm getting confused here. I had thought that the 7x142s were to replace the 3x180s.

However, the cascade gets more complicated and convoluted that its hard to know for sure what will happen

That is how it seemed. It seems now that the seven 142s are being considered simply as additional capacity, rather than being an integral part of further stock movements (the 180s) from Northern.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm getting confused here. I had thought that the 7x142s were to replace the 3x180s.

Concur - I think that's what just about everyone, and most rail mags have been saying for ages...

The full letter also mentions that the 13 surplus units are under review for use by FGW, LM and Northern. Which fits with previous rumours that LM wouldn't release them all...

 

[tbtc]

More trains for the north! That’s good news. That’s a gain of six 150s over the original stated cascade.

So three pairs of 150s to replace three 180s (On paper at least, whether the current 180 diagrams will actually see such an arrangement is another matter). The seating in a pair of 150s is roughly comparable to the total seating in a 180: I suppose nobody would be able to work out the exact number of seats unless they knew whether Northern intend to remove the current 3+2 seating in the 150s for something different or not.

Its hard to know how to account for the 180s. On paper, there are fifteen carriages. However, reliability being so poor (and paranoia about having nothing "spare" if one goes wrong?) means only two units (ten coaches) are used each day.

SO, given 150 reliability tends to be better (and that there are more 150s, so no need for two-thirds to be "idle" each day), Northern may be able to use five of the six cascaded 150s each day, so have more units in service each day. Plus, there's scope to have more "mid sized" services, rather than a couple of "long" ones (180s) and lots of short ones (the Northern 142/150/156s on that line).

 

[northwichcat]

I'm getting confused here. I had thought that the 7x142s were to replace the 3x180s.

However, the cascade gets more complicated and convoluted that its hard to know for sure what will happen

The London Overground 150s were supposed to replace the FGW 142s, which were supposed to return to Northern in December 2010 to allow the 180s to be at East Coast in time for the May 2011 timetable.

However, FGW somehow got permission to keep the 142s until they get LM 150s, meaning Northern will get the 142s and LM 150s at around the same time.

 

[sprinterguy]

Its hard to know how to account for the 180s. On paper, there are fifteen carriages. However, reliability being so poor (and paranoia about having nothing "spare" if one goes wrong?) means only two units (ten coaches) are used each day.

SO, given 150 reliability tends to be better (and that there are more 150s, so no need for two-thirds to be "idle" each day), Northern may be able to use five of the six cascaded 150s each day, so have more units in service each day. Plus, there's scope to have more "mid sized" services, rather than a couple of "long" ones (180s) and lots of short ones (the Northern 142/150/156s on that line).

Yeah I agree. Having a larger number of short trains instead of a couple of long ones allows for much more flexibility over which services are lengthened and can benefit more routes and services.

And as you say, with a larger fleet there’s less carriages out of service as a maintenance contingent: A very small fleet of any type of train is always going to have low availability as the proportion of the fleet out of service for maintenance or acting as a hot spare will be larger.

 

[tbtc]

Yeah I agree. Having a larger number of short trains instead of a couple of long ones allows for much more flexibility over which services are lengthened and can benefit more routes and services.

And as you say, with a larger fleet there’s less carriages out of service as a maintenance contingent: A very small fleet of any type of train is always going to have low availability as the proportion of the fleet out of service for maintenance or acting as a hot spare will be larger.

The depressing thing with the part I've highlighted (which I agree with) is that it's probably the DFT's logic for dumping all these Pacers on us

But, yeah, stick to a few unit types, much easier for staff training/ maintenance/ "spares". Logically there are a few ATW/FGW routes that are suited to 156s, but it makes more sense ultimately to give them (more) 150s and 158s instead

 

[sprinterguy]

The depressing thing with the part I've highlighted (which I agree with) is that it's probably the DFT's logic for dumping all these Pacers on us

But, yeah, stick to a few unit types, much easier for staff training/ maintenance/ "spares". Logically there are a few ATW/FGW routes that are suited to 156s, but it makes more sense ultimately to give them (more) 150s and 158s instead

Yup, there are economies of scale to be had by having a large fleet of one train type. At the end of the day, even when additional capacity in Northern Rail territory usually equals “More Pacers”, it’s still increasing the number of seats available. And I quite like Pacers: I’d just rather that they weren’t all concentrated in Northern Rail territory!

 

[northwichcat]

Its hard to know how to account for the 180s. On paper, there are fifteen carriages. However, reliability being so poor (and paranoia about having nothing "spare" if one goes wrong?) means only two units (ten coaches) are used each day.

In reality the equivalent of 3x180s would be 5x156s. 2x156s for both of the 180 diagrams and a spare maintainence unit.

When looking at that document in places it has some places where the replacements are smaller than the units they replace e.g. 4x150s replacing 4x156s which is a loss of about 80 seats, so the 180s not being fully utilised will cancel that out.

 

[Nym]

Hang on, this could mean that the AM Peak and PM Peak services in Greater Manchester could be formed of three 150s coupled together...

Sounds good, and more appropriate for the route it would be running, hopfully we'll get the other 26 carrages aswell so we can use the full length of all our platforms, also living in hope that planners will be less scared of joining trains in stations..

 

[starrymarkb]

However, FGW somehow got permission to keep the 142s until they get LM 150s, meaning Northern will get the 142s and LM 150s at around the same time.

Because the LO 150s have released other hired in stock first.

 

[Inox]

it's sad to see that 26 two car sets are un allocated; there is no shortage of units its just no-one wants to lease them?

Is this reasonable to assume?

 

[tbtc]

it's sad to see that 26 two car sets are un allocated; there is no shortage of units its just no-one wants to lease them?

Is this reasonable to assume?

These are units still in service with LM, but which are soon to be replaced by new class 172s; they won't be "unallocated" long term, we just need to wait for the operators to "bid" for them.

There are very few units unallocated (one class 180?)

 

[Old Hill Bank]

it's sad to see that 26 two car sets are un allocated; there is no shortage of units its just no-one wants to lease them?

Is this reasonable to assume?

If you go back to the link at the start of this thread you will see that negotiations are ongoing with LM, FGW and Northern regarding the rest.

It's all to do with money not seats for passengers and certainly not for the benefit of gricers!!!!!!

 

[swt_passenger]

What is the seating layout in the LM 150s being transferred?

Are there going to be complaints about seating capacity when they replace four of Northern's 156s with 150s? (ie the ones going to EMT.)

 

[northwichcat]

What is the seating layout in the LM 150s being transferred?

Are there going to be complaints about seating capacity when they replace four of Northern's 156s with 150s? (ie the ones going to EMT.)

The original 150 seating pattern, which is a decrease of around 15 seats over a 156. However, the ex-FNW 150s have less seats again due to having a DDA complaint layout so if a 156 diagram gets replaced by a 150 diagram it could mean a greater reduction in seats on most days as Northern are very unlikely to have specific ex-FNW 150 diagrams.

Because the LO 150s have released other hired in stock first.

I thought most of the hired in FGW stock was to cover refurbishment work so if they are getting replaced doesn't that mean that FGW have gained stock already?

 

[DarloRich]

Quick question - what will happen to the 153 units used be LM? I hope we get a ncie new TurboStar on the Marston vale line (bet it will go to 2x153 - not that that is a bad thing)

More 150 for Northern has to be a good thing as they can be used with thier classmates to increase capacity on some routes in desperate need of extra space.

 

[TEW]

I thought most of the hired in FGW stock was to cover refurbishment work so if they are getting replaced doesn't that mean that FGW have gained stock already?

FGW finished stock refurbishment in 2008, all the hired in stock was to cover for a shortage of units. So far FGW have gained 6 150s but lost 2 LHCS rakes (4 MK2s each) and 2 ATW 150s, so no gain so far. FGW will gain two carriages (one unit) when the 9 LM 150s arrive but this extra capacity will be lost by reforming 4 2 carriages 158s to 2 3 carriage 158s.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

What is the seating layout in the LM 150s being transferred?

Are there going to be complaints about seating capacity when they replace four of Northern's 156s with 150s? (ie the ones going to EMT.)

The LM units are fitted with high capacity 3 + 2 seating layouts at present, of course it's up to their new operators what they fit!

 

[Max]

The LM units are fitted with high capacity 3 + 2 seating layouts at present, of course it's up to their new operators what they fit!

All Northern 150s are already 2+3 so I would imagine this would stay.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Quick question - what will happen to the 153 units used be LM? I hope we get a ncie new TurboStar on the Marston vale line (bet it will go to 2x153 - not that that is a bad thing)

More 150 for Northern has to be a good thing as they can be used with thier classmates to increase capacity on some routes in desperate need of extra space.

2 x 153 is not an option for the Marston Vale jobs due to platform lengths, I assume this is why LM may keep some 150s.

Lets see what happens when the negotiations are completed.

 

[tbtc]

2 x 153 is not an option for the Marston Vale jobs due to platform lengths, I assume this is why LM may keep some 150s.

Lets see what happens when the negotiations are completed.

Well, if you want something with more seats than a 153 but shorter than 2x153 then we have a few Pacers that could be "spared"...

(in all seriousness, is the allocation for the Bedford-Bletchley line swapped with other LM DMUs on a regular basis, or are they dedicated units?)

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Well, if you want something with more seats than a 153 but shorter than 2x153 then we have a few Pacers that could be "spared"...

(in all seriousness, is the allocation for the Bedford-Bletchley line swapped with other LM DMUs on a regular basis, or are they dedicated units?)

Bedford- Bletchley operates with one 2 car 150 and one 153 each day out of the LM pool.

Thanks for the Pacer offer but no thanks lol

 

[tbtc]

Bedford- Bletchley operates with one 2 car 150 and one 153 each day out of the LM pool.

Thanks for the Pacer offer but no thanks lol

Ach, it was worth a try - can't blame me for trying to get rid of a few, can you?

Presumably the units on the Bedford line (and the 153 from the Coventry - Nuneaton) must run along the WCML to Birmingham to swap over (presumably running light?) - can't be easy finding paths suitable for 75mph trains?

 

[Failed Unit]

What is the seating layout in the LM 150s being transferred?

Are there going to be complaints about seating capacity when they replace four of Northern's 156s with 150s? (ie the ones going to EMT.)

The London Midland 150s is the high density seating like the 150/2s not the original 150/1 facing seating as per the ex-fgw ones as jcollins suggests. As a result you only lose 4 seats over a 156. Centro altered the seating in the early 1990s to increase the seating and used the 150/2 as the base.

 

[strange6]

As a passenger, I hate 150's. The 158's are the best Northern has at the moment. Good visibility and comfortable not to mention quiet

 

[northwichcat]

The London Midland 150s is the high density seating like the 150/2s not the original 150/1 facing seating as per the ex-fgw ones as jcollins suggests.

What? I said that the LM 150s had the original seating (i.e. like the Northern 150s that ATN had and didn't refurbish). I said they had more seats than the ex-FNW 150s which have accessible toilets. The FGW 2+2 facing seats and tables was after a refubishment and not an original layout.

 

[Failed Unit]

What? I said that the LM 150s had the original seating (i.e. like the Northern 150s that ATN had and didn't refurbish). I said they had more seats than the ex-FNW 150s which have accessible toilets. The FGW 2+2 facing seats and tables was after a refubishment and not an original layout.

But London midlands dont have the original seating! They were refurbished an reseated in the early 1990s.

150/1 as built 138 seats
150/1 after Centro refurbishment 147 seats (150101 - 150132)
156 (ex FNW - 148 seats)
155 (ex ATN - 150 seats)

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Ach, it was worth a try - can't blame me for trying to get rid of a few, can you?

Presumably the units on the Bedford line (and the 153 from the Coventry - Nuneaton) must run along the WCML to Birmingham to swap over (presumably running light?) - can't be easy finding paths suitable for 75mph trains?

Dont know how the ECS works, I guess that there is local fuelling and faulting at Bletchley with maintenance swops to and from Tyseley depot.

There was a proposal to operate the line with just two class 153 diagrams but the local councils threw their toys out of their prams because two services a day are busy with a school run.

Actually 142's would do for that line but we are back to the issue of split fleets and the associated inefficiencies.