Northern possibly close to taking on extra EMUs

[driver9000]

Regearing from 100mph to 75mph would of course improve acceleration and would be great if the routes they are going to are not above 75mph. Is it really the case that the new routes are all max 75mph so below 100mph ?

I think that could potentially be a shot in the foot if the cascaded EMUs were regeared down from 100mph. Current linespeed for much of Blackpool/Liverpool-Manchester is no higher than 75mph but this is supposed to be raised once the wires are up. Seems a shame to raise linespeed to say 90/95mph and then start running trains which can't take advantage of those speeds.

 

[Whistler40145]

Would the ORR have laid down in Northern's franchise agreement that when services are operated by EMUs that they have to use their higher maximum speed?

 

[northwichcat]

Looking through from Man Pic to Preston for platforms shorter than 120m or 160m

Deansgate 150m/155m
Salford Crescent 153/158m
Kearsley 126/109m
Farnsworth 143/149m
Moses Gate 79/79m
Lostock 155/158m
Horwich 141/141m
Blackrod 114/114m
Adlington 127/124m
Chorley 142/138m
Buckshaw 150/150m

So not too much issue there.

So if 4 car 319s prove insufficient for peak time Hazel Grove to Preston services, which I consider very likely given the current loadings give busy 4 car 150s, then the stations in red would have an issue unless the platforms are lengthened, the train formations are changed or SDO is fitted.

If the 319s become 3 car and run doubled up then only Blackrod would be an issue, which is a peak time only call on Hazel Grove to Preston, so it might be easier for Airport-Blackpool services to stop there if they run as 4 car EMUs.

 

[WatcherZero]

As I said not too much lengthening required and the stopper could be 6 car interspersed with 8 car on other services. NR is required to provide the tocs with whatever platform length they request, it legally cant turn around and say sorry but we dont think its cost effective to lengthen x station.

I may be mistaken but many of these stations used to have longer platforms anyway in the days of locomotive hauled carriages.

 

[Greybeard33]

One issue with using 317s or 319s to supplement 323s on the existing Manchester Piccadilly services is that the platforms at Gatley, on the Airport line, are only 75m long, and those at Flowery Field and Godley, on the Glossop/Hadfield line, are only 74m. Long enough for the 323's 3x23m carriages but not for 4x20m. On the other hand, if the units were reformed as 3-car, capacity would be much less than a 323 - only 60m long versus 69m.

Platform lengthening might be the best long-term solution, but meanwhile would it be feasible to retrofit SDO to the 317s/319s? Or would they have to be rostered to avoid these stations?

 

[northwichcat]

The 323s actually have 23.3m carriages. Most modern '23m' stock is actually 23 point something metres long, which is why Network Rail have talked about lengthening some platforms to 96m and 144m in CP5 opposed to 92m and 138m.

Mossley Down, Greenfield Down, Marsden, Slaithwaite, Mouldsworth, Delamere, Cuddington, Greenbank, Plumley Down, Ashley Down, Hathersage and Grindleford are being considered for 96m platform lengths.

Liverpool South Parkway Up and Down fast platforms, Widnes, Warrington Central and Newton-le-Willows are being considered for 144m platform lengths.

Although saying that, Dove Holes, Chapel-en-le Frith, Middlewood, Woodsmoor, Humphrey Park, Glazebrook Down, New Lane, Bescar Lane, Moses Gate, Hall i’th’wood, Darwen, Ramsgreave & Wilpshire, Langho, Whalley and Clitheroe are to get 92m platform lengths while Bamber Bridge is to get a 69m platform length. So maybe there is an issue with longer platforms at those stations or maybe those stations don't have a hope in hells chance of getting post-1990 rolling stock.

 

[Greybeard33]

The 323s actually have 23.3m carriages. Most modern '23m' stock is actually 23 point something metres long, which is why Network Rail have talked about lengthening some platforms to 96m and 144m in CP5 opposed to 92m and 138m.

Mossley Down, Greenfield Down, Marsden, Slaithwaite, Mouldsworth, Delamere, Cuddington, Greenbank, Plumley Down, Ashley Down, Hathersage and Grindleford are being considered for 96m platform lengths.

Liverpool South Parkway Up and Down fast platforms, Widnes, Warrington Central and Newton-le-Willows are being considered for 144m platform lengths.

Although saying that, Dove Holes, Chapel-en-le Frith, Middlewood, Woodsmoor, Humphrey Park, Glazebrook Down, New Lane, Bescar Lane, Moses Gate, Hall i’th’wood, Darwen, Ramsgreave & Wilpshire, Langho, Whalley and Clitheroe are to get 92m platform lengths while Bamber Bridge is to get a 69m platform length. So maybe there is an issue with longer platforms at those stations or maybe those stations don't have a hope in hells chance of getting post-1990 rolling stock.

I guess that carriages with end doors, e.g. 156, need slightly longer platforms than a train the same length with 1/3 - 2/3 door locations? Because the latter can stop with the front end a few metres beyond the end of the platform, if there are unit-specific Stop signs.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Unless TPE have had a word, I'm not sure what the point of extending Newton-le-Willows is when Earlestown (Down), St Helens Jn. (up), Lea Green, Whiston, Huyton, Broad Green, and Wavertree Tech. Park (all both platforms) are too short for 6 car trains anyway, and whilst Eccles and Patricroft may have existing platform lengths to suit 8 car trains (and more), the length beyond about 100m probably haven't been looked after properly for a long time.

Of course, any discussion about doubled up 319s would be very dependent on Northern actually getting enough 319s to do it in the first place.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I may be mistaken but many of these stations used to have longer platforms anyway in the days of locomotive hauled carriages.

Would I be right in thinking that on the Styal line, the platforms at Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury and at Gatley were are totally brand new ones that were installed in a recent station improvement programme ?

 

[Silv1983]

Would I be right in thinking that on the Styal line, the platforms at Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury and at Gatley were are totally brand new ones that were installed in a recent station improvement programme ?

Yes that is correct. Cheap and cheerful.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Unless TPE have had a word, I'm not sure what the point of extending Newton-le-Willows is when Earlestown (Down), St Helens Jn. (up), Lea Green, Whiston, Huyton, Broad Green, and Wavertree Tech. Park (all both platforms) are too short for 6 car trains anyway, and whilst Eccles and Patricroft may have existing platform lengths to suit 8 car trains (and more), the length beyond about 100m probably haven't been looked after properly for a long time.

Of course, any discussion about doubled up 319s would be very dependent on Northern actually getting enough 319s to do it in the first place.

I think the new NT services should be a 4-car (ie 80m) all day, no doubling up or messing with 6-car platform extensions, or a variable fleet length.
Adjust frequencies for extra capacity if need be (but I can't see the need).
How many trains out of Lime St are 6-car now? Oxford Road?
Off-peak is growing steadily, but peak is not (probably).
Same applies to TPE really, although I know they start with an all 3-car setup so some 6-car workings are needed.

Just my 2p-worth.

 

[Silv1983]

So if 4 car 319s prove insufficient for peak time Hazel Grove to Preston services, which I consider very likely given the current loadings give busy 4 car 150s, then the stations in red would have an issue unless the platforms are lengthened, the train formations are changed or SDO is fitted.

If the 319s become 3 car and run doubled up then only Blackrod would be an issue, which is a peak time only call on Hazel Grove to Preston, so it might be easier for Airport-Blackpool services to stop there if they run as 4 car EMUs.

The Hazel Grove to Preston service is unnecessarily busy into Manchester due to the inflexibility of some commuters at stops such as Stockport and Heaton Chapel. They cram themselves onto the usual 2 car 150 - only to alight at Piccadilly when they could get out of bed a few minutes earlier and get a spacious 323. Northern won't therefore concern themselves with this service when it runs half full between Manchester and Bolton (can't comment how busy it get's after Bolton as I don't sign Preston). If anything they could just remove some of these stops from the plan and let the 323s either side take the strain. I agree though in an ideal world would be nice to have the options!

 

[WatcherZero]

I think the new NT services should be a 4-car (ie 80m) all day, no doubling up or messing with 6-car platform extensions, or a variable fleet length.
Adjust frequencies for extra capacity if need be (but I can't see the need).
How many trains out of Lime St are 6-car now? Oxford Road?
Off-peak is growing steadily, but peak is not (probably).
Same applies to TPE really, although I know they start with an all 3-car setup so some 6-car workings are needed.

Just my 2p-worth.

Most of the growth over the last decade has indeed been down to offpeak travel though in the last set of figures off peak was down slightly while peak was up suggesting the leisure market demand may have topped out until the economy recovers or the 'sparks' affect kicks in, theres also the issue there may be a certain amount of suppressed peak demand due to perceived poor comfort and crowding. Theres next to no spare line capacity for increased service frequency due to signalling distance/choke points without a major region wide signalling upgrade, Northern hub squeezes a few new paths in but these are mostly pre-reserved for planned new services.

As to capacity, Porterbrook lists seats of a class 319 as 82+82+77+78 which is 319 (was that some sort of inside joke?)

Comparing that to some of the current Northern diagrams for Lancashire/Transpennine services through Manchester as of 2011 (and noting some of these will still require infill electrification) means very little room for growth and some reduction in capacity if it was only 4 car 319's and not 6, also some of the peak TPE services are already 2x185 formations.

0613 Leeds-Manchester Vic, 144(3)+144(2), -51 seats
0621 Liverpool L St-Manchester O Rd, 142+142, +45 seats
0637 Leeds-Manchester Vic, 158(2)+158(2) +35 seats
0713 Leeds-Manchester Vic, 144(3)+142, -40 seats
0715 Wigan Wallgate-Stalybridge, 150+142 -18 seats

You get the picture, roughly half of peak services would lose around 50 seats and half gain 50/100 seats, which of course is the present situation and leaves no room for future growth.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yes I see your point.
There's nothing to stop a few 8-car trains at main stations (Lime St, Victoria, Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds, York).
There will also be 2tph stoppers Manchester (Pic)-Leeds rather then 1tph now.
Line capacity will go up with electric traction.

I just think the trend is away from "double up in the peaks" working.
On Merseyrail, for instance there are now very few 6-car workings.
The more-frequent 3-car services have killed them off.

 

[northwichcat]

The Hazel Grove to Preston service is unnecessarily busy into Manchester due to the inflexibility of some commuters at stops such as Stockport and Heaton Chapel. They cram themselves onto the usual 2 car 150 - only to alight at Piccadilly when they could get out of bed a few minutes earlier and get a spacious 323.

I've seen Leveshulme passengers look at the 2 car DMU running the 09:07 Chester-Manchester with disgust when, in school holidays, there can be all seats occupied and 20 or so standing before arrival at Levenshulme. A nice spacious class 323 arrives 8 minutes later but it seems everyone wants to travel on the 2 car DMU.

Maybe Northern in timetables for services between places such as Stockport and Manchester and between Bolton and Manchester should state the booked formation like LM do in some of their timetables, so the people will flexible plans can plan to get the longer train.

However, I was thinking more of the Blackpool to Hazel Grove morning service which runs in a similar path to the old St-Annes-on-Sea to Greenbank service. That's a service that GMPTE increased their subsidy for quite a few years ago to run as a 4 car 156 instead of a 156+150 formation. It then got replaced by the Blackpool to Hazel Grove class 180 working but went to a 4 car 150 with Northern losing the 180s and some of their 156s.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I guess that carriages with end doors, e.g. 156, need slightly longer platforms than a train the same length with 1/3 - 2/3 door locations? Because the latter can stop with the front end a few metres beyond the end of the platform, if there are unit-specific Stop signs.

Given the latest regulations require a separate drivers' door on a train, do the latest regulations also require platform lengthening programs to allow for such doors to not be off the end of the platform when the train stops?

For instance, Winsford takes a 4 car 350 with those doors off the end of the platform but if the platforms were to be lengthened to take 8 car 350s would the drivers' door hanging off the end still be allowed?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unless TPE have had a word, I'm not sure what the point of extending Newton-le-Willows is when Earlestown (Down), St Helens Jn. (up), Lea Green, Whiston, Huyton, Broad Green, and Wavertree Tech. Park (all both platforms) are too short for 6 car trains anyway

Maybe to do with allowing 6 car operation being planned for on Manchester-Chester services opposed to 6 car operation on Manchester-Liverpool services with intermediate calls?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

.....As to capacity, Porterbrook lists seats of a class 319 as 82+82+77+78 which is 319 (was that some sort of inside joke?)

Comparing that to some of the current Northern diagrams for Lancashire/Transpennine services through Manchester as of 2011 (and noting some of these will still require infill electrification) means very little room for growth and some reduction in capacity if it was only 4 car 319's and not 6, also some of the peak TPE services are already 2x185 formations.

0613 Leeds-Manchester Vic, 144(3)+144(2), -51 seats
0621 Liverpool L St-Manchester O Rd, 142+142, +45 seats
0637 Leeds-Manchester Vic, 158(2)+158(2) +35 seats
0713 Leeds-Manchester Vic, 144(3)+142, -40 seats
0715 Wigan Wallgate-Stalybridge, 150+142 -18 seats

You get the picture, roughly half of peak services would lose around 50 seats and half gain 50/100 seats, which of course is the present situation and leaves no room for future growth.

I'm not sure I understand those figures. If I'm reading them right the capacities are as follows:

Class 319 = 319 seats
Class 142 = 137 seats
Class 144 = 148 seats (2-car), 222 seats (3-car)
Class 150 = 200 seats
Class 158 = 142 seats (2-car)

I would have expected the 150 to be around 150-160 seats and the 158 a similar amount.

....Maybe to do with allowing 6 car operation being planned for on Manchester-Chester services opposed to 6 car operation on Manchester-Liverpool services with intermediate calls?

In which case Earlestown P5 (up) is too short.

 

[jopsuk]

Given the latest regulations require a separate drivers' door on a train, do the latest regulations also require platform lengthening programs to allow for such doors to not be off the end of the platform when the train stops?

For instance, Winsford takes a 4 car 350 with those doors off the end of the platform but if the platforms were to be lengthened to take 8 car 350s would the drivers' door hanging off the end still be allowed?

I would have thought that the requiremtns would be for platforms to be built, where physically possible, longer than the anticipated trains.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In which case Earlestown P5 (up) is too short.

And Helsby (Down).

 

[northwichcat]

In which case Earlestown P5 (up) is too short.

And Helsby (Down).

If Chester-Manchester goes to 2tph maybe one service would have a stopping pattern of Chester then Newton-le-Willows then Manchester (Oxford Road or Victoria), with provision to allow it to be operated by up to 6 car 175s (or 170s or 185s)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would have expected the 150 to be around 150-160 seats and the 158 a similar amount.

The maximum number of seats on a class 150 I believe is 149 and that number is only found on the ex-LM 150/2s. Even the ex-ATN 150/2s have less than that due to having some seats removed to make a designated wheelchair bay.

The refurbished 150/1s at Northern have 124 seats and don't necessarily have that much more standing space than the ex-LM 150/2s due to the large accessible toilet.

The refurbished 150/2s do have slightly more seats, while the non-refurbished 150/1s do have slightly less seats than the non-refurbished 150/2s.

The 158s were built with 138 seats per train.

Peak time capacity is usually seen as 135% of the seating capacity on local services so the peak time capacity of an ex-LM 150/2 is 201 if there are 149 seats.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

If Chester-Manchester goes to 2tph maybe one service would have a stopping pattern of Chester then Newton-le-Willows then Manchester (Oxford Road or Victoria), with provision to allow it to be operated by up to 6 car 175s (or 170s or 185s)?....

ATW barely have enough 175s to run the 2/3 car 1tph they have now (I believe one diagram is currently covered by 158s or occasionally 150s) and I don't think there are enough 185s or 170s to cover the service either.

.....The maximum number of seats on a class 150 I believe is 149 and that number is only found on the ex-LM 150/2s....

....The 158s were built with 138 seats per train.

Peak time capacity is usually seen as 135% of the seating capacity on local services so the peak time capacity of an ex-LM 150/2 is 201 if there are 149 seats.

So, basically, a 4-car 319 (currently) is an increase in capacity on virtually any 4-car service (currently).

 

[Class377/5]

As to capacity, Porterbrook lists seats of a class 319 as 82+82+77+78 which is 319 (was that some sort of inside joke?)

Of course you have to remember that the 319s currently have four different internal layouts...

319/0 = 319 standard class
319/2 = 225 standard class + 18 first class - 243
319/3 = 297 standard class
319/4 = 263 standard class + 12 first class - 275

Refurbishment will require a disable toilet area which may or may not require more seat loss along with a new interior so until we know for sure the plan, there's a wide margin currently. Only a couple of the 319/2 have disabled loos currently.

 

[northwichcat]

ATW barely have enough 175s to run the 2/3 car 1tph they have now (I believe one diagram is currently covered by 158s or occasionally 150s) and I don't think there are enough 185s or 170s to cover the service either.

We're talking about what Network Rail are planning to do in a 5 year period between 2014 and 2019 and possibly allowing for future proofing beyond that.

Can you imagine the Hope Valley stoppers or Mid-Cheshire line services being operated by 4 car 17xs in the near future? I can't and yet Network Rail's platform lengthening plans seems to allow for that happening.

So, basically, a 4-car 319 (currently) is an increase in capacity on virtually any 4-car service (currently).

Looking at the figures 377/5 has just posted:

The 319/2 and 319/4s currently have less seats than the 3 car 323s and comparing the highest capacity 4 car Sprinter combination with the highest capacity subclass of 319 the difference is around 20 seats and as noted the number of seats will reduce when accessibility improvements are made.

 

[tbtc]

We're talking about what Network Rail are planning to do in a 5 year period between 2014 and 2019 and possibly allowing for future proofing beyond that.

Can you imagine the Hope Valley stoppers or Mid-Cheshire line services being operated by 4 car 17xs in the near future? I can't and yet Network Rail's platform lengthening plans seems to allow for that happening

It could be to allow the longer distance services through the Hope Valley to (skip)stop at some stations in place of the current stopper - like the temporary plan on stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield (where there's not going to be enough room for an all-stops service).

Taking out the stopper and making every "fast" train stop at one or two Hope Valley stations could allow you to double the current service provision (albeit no spare paths north of Dore/ north of Stockport!) - though people may get into arguments about the lack of direct services from say Grindleford to Hathersage.

Can't comment re Mid-Cheshire though.

 

[northwichcat]

It could be to allow the longer distance services through the Hope Valley to (skip)stop at some stations in place of the current stopper - like the temporary plan on stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield (where there's not going to be enough room for an all-stops service).

Taking out the stopper and making every "fast" train stop at one or two Hope Valley stations could allow you to double the current service provision (albeit no spare paths north of Dore/ north of Stockport!) - though people may get into arguments about the lack of direct services from say Grindleford to Hathersage.

Can't comment re Mid-Cheshire though.

There was a Network Rail document not that long ago which stated what types of stock certain lines should get in the future with two 'local' options - one a high density commuter type layout and the other a semi-regional layout. Hope Valley stoppers and Mid-Cheshire line services were both given the latter category, while lines like the Buxton and Southport line were given the former category.

I think that's the most likely reason for the differences. The only other alternatives I can think of for the Mid-Cheshire line is the Airport spur could be extended to the Mid-Cheshire line (which is a potential CP6 scheme) or that certain Mid-Cheshire services are to be operated as part of the Wales and Borders franchise, which has class 175s. Neither of those look that likely reasons at this moment in time.

 

[Class377/5]

Looking at the figures 377/5 has just posted:

The 319/2 and 319/4s currently have less seats than the 3 car 323s and comparing the highest capacity 4 car Sprinter combination with the highest capacity subclass of 319 the difference is around 20 seats and as noted the number of seats will reduce when accessibility improvements are made.

Forgot to say the 319/2 have unusual layout (although the bar and lounge area have now been removed). due to alterations made by Connex and the 319/3 are 3+2.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Forgot to say the 319/2 have unusual layout (although the bar and lounge area have now been removed). due to alterations made by Connex and the 319/3 are 3+2.

I always liked those coffee lounge compartments, though I never saw them with the 'coffee' part in use! Something like that would be nice on the early-morning runs...

 

[SeanG]

Didn't on them, and they have armchairs or something, can't seem to find any info on them and they have always fascinated me for some reason

 

[jon0844]

They looked very odd, with halogen spot lights and seating bays. Shame they've gone though!

Here's a photo:

Or was it this?

 

[anthony263]

The chavs on the Valley lines would certainly like that interior

 

[Class377/5]

They looked very odd, with halogen spot lights and seating bays. Shame they've gone though!

Here's a photo:

Or was it this?

The latter. Ah once had fun asking if anyone wanted a drink there