Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[fowler9]

I was more alluding to people moaning about getting the 319s or any others cascaded up north, admittedly I didnt make this clear or no point about it at all.. These vehicles are still usable and whilst they are still usable, after a nice refresh I see no reason why they shouldnt be used elsewhere.

Fair enough mate but they were always only a stopgap when they were built. The road going versions of similar bodyshells were consigned to Heritage groups long ago.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

These vehicles are still usable and whilst they are still usable, after a nice refresh I see no reason why they shouldnt be used elsewhere.

I am sure that a "nice refurbish" is eminently more preferable than a "nice refresh"

 

[Clip]

I am sure that a "nice refurbish" is eminently more preferable than a "nice refresh"

Anything to keep them going a bit longer till you can have some more of our shiny trains

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Anything to keep them going a bit longer till you can have some more of our shiny trains

If TOC each had their own dedicated song to state how things are, would the one best suited to Northern Rail be the old Barbra Streisand song from the musical show "Funny Girl"..."Second-hand Rose"

 

[fowler9]

I am sure that a "nice refurbish" is eminently more preferable than a "nice refresh"

I've got a refurbish along the lines of Triggers broom in mind. Ha ha. Rip off the bodyshell and make a new one, change the whole interior and then for good measure replace the chassis and then the engine.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....This picture at Lime Street (not mine) shows just how little crash protection these trains offer....

Was that not the crumple zone??

....But the 319s have the same bodyshell and seats as the 150, so they have the same problems with legroom and visibility out of the windows.

Tbf, with fewer, smaller cabs, the same number of seats in a 319 should give more leg room.

 

[fowler9]

Was that not the crumple zone??



Tbf, with fewer, smaller cabs, the same number of seats in a 319 should give more leg room.

Ha ha, probably designed as one but it includes the disabled seating area/bike area/ where loads of people are often now standing.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Was that not the crumple zone??

Well, it certainly crumpled

Joking aside, the fact the body has lifted away from the chassis is the really bad thing.

Tbf, with fewer, smaller cabs, the same number of seats in a 319 should give more leg room.

The 319s have more seating rows put in, so legroom is the same, not helped by the fact the seats are so low to the ground.

The 319s will be nice if they have a proper refurbishment. SWT did a great job on the ex-508 carriages in the 455s, and they were far worse than the 319s are now. But a proper refurbishment isn't planned. They're trying to spin it as the trains being "refreshed", but "refreshment" Northern style involves a bit of gaffer tape, some velcro and a cheeky smile.

 

[Clip]

Well, it certainly crumpled

Joking aside, the fact the body has lifted away from the chassis is the really bad thing.



The 319s have more seating rows put in, so legroom is the same, not helped by the fact the seats are so low to the ground.

The 319s will be nice if they have a proper refurbishment. SWT did a great job on the ex-508 carriages in the 455s, and they were far worse than the 319s are now. But a proper refurbishment isn't planned. They're trying to spin it as the trains being "refreshed", but "refreshment" Northern style involves a bit of gaffer tape, some velcro and a cheeky smile.

Well there you go then. Whats wrong with a cheeky smile.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They'll be a huge step up from a Pacer. They're crash-worthy, for one thing. All this talk of "nobody has died on a Pacer" is more through luck than anything else; the two big crashes (Winsford and Lime Street) thankfully both involved ecs moves.

This picture at Lime Street (not mine) shows just how little crash protection these trains offer.

The MkI slam-door trains were scrapped because of their non-existent crash protection, but nobody can put their hand on their heart and say the Pacers offer much more.

I'm not so sure about them being much better than a 150, though. They don't have engines under the floor and they have more carriages, which is great news. But the 319s have the same bodyshell and seats as the 150, so they have the same problems with legroom and visibility out of the windows.

When I brought up the "no-one has died on a pacer" argument, my tongue was firmly in my cheek! I'd never seen a photo of the Lime Street buffer-smash before, and that one is bl**dy scary!

One of the reasons the Mk1-based units were (eventually) withdrawn was the way they were built with a heavy chassis and lightweight body shell- which was of course one of the reasons the Clapham disaster was so deadly.
Pacers seem like they'd react in the same way- carriages over-riding each other and crushing the lightweight bodyshells (and anyone unfortunate enough to be inside).

Back onto the 319s, this weekend I visited Glasgow for the first time, and was very impressed with the seating in both the 318s and 320s: All 3+2 but all facing rather than airline, and very comfortable seats. Really it's a shame seats of that design presumably no longer meet current standards, as those seats in that arrangement would be ideal for any of the 20m MkIII-based units.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Joking aside, the fact the body has lifted away from the chassis is the really bad thing.

The Pacers were designed so that in the event of an impact the bodyshell would shear off from the underframe specifically to reduce the compression of the bodyshell; this was in recognition of the risk of the bodyshell telescoping otherwise.

As built, the bodyshells were held on by four specially designed shear bolts, one at each corner.

Consider the Winsford accident in particular; look at the side on pictures - it is clear that had the bodyshell not detached on impact then the 87 would have ploughed through the entire carriage instead of just the end portion.

 

[Emyr]

The downside being that the seated passengers of a lightweight bodyshell which has just sheared off will find their arses experiencing such a deceleration that they can't protect their heads from hitting the interior or some other passenger.

This is a train designed before it was realised that crumple zones are a good idea.

 

[Clip]

Ive said it before but you can have our 378s up there. I really dont like them.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Ive said it before but you can have our 378s up there. I really dont like them.

Naah, you're alright... We have views worth seeing out of the window up here, thanks!

 

[Clip]

Naah, you're alright... We have views worth seeing out of the window up here, thanks!

Cant even give the buggers away

 

[158722]

They'll be a huge step up from a Pacer. They're crash-worthy, for one thing. All this talk of "nobody has died on a Pacer" is more through luck than anything else; the two big crashes (Winsford and Lime Street) thankfully both involved ecs moves.

This picture at Lime Street (not mine) shows just how little crash protection these trains offer.

The MkI slam-door trains were scrapped because of their non-existent crash protection, but nobody can put their hand on their heart and say the Pacers offer much more.

I'm not so sure about them being much better than a 150, though. They don't have engines under the floor and they have more carriages, which is great news. But the 319s have the same bodyshell and seats as the 150, so they have the same problems with legroom and visibility out of the windows.

Indeed, given the crash protection of Pacers, I think BR and every TOC which has had them since have been simply lucky that they haven't been involved many even moderately serious accidents. It might be just my impression, but given the number of units in each class, the 156s seem to have been involved in an inordinate number of incidents - nothing to do with the units themselves, just coincidence. I can recall just the four serious Pacer accidents - Huddersfield (141 written off, collision with 156476), Winsford, Skipton (144 hit by 37?) and Liverpool LS - three of which saw units written off. Now think of a few 156 accidents - the Ais Gill derailment, Blea Moor tunnel and aforementioned Huddersfield collision - the former sadly with one loss of life, but what if any of these had involved 142s/144s, both of which have operated on the S&C?

 

[sirbobpaisley]

Once again London gets brand new trains and we get their 319 cast off's. It's an absolute disgrace and needs to stop. These trains are over 30 years old so they're not exactly 'new' trains in the sense of the word.

 

[westcoaster]

Once again London gets brand new trains and we get their 319 cast off's. It's an absolute disgrace and needs to stop. These trains are over 30 years old so they're not exactly 'new' trains in the sense of the word.

um over 30 years old i think not. Plus all this north south rubbish is just that. Do not forget its alot of other town ans lines getting these trains not just london where the train passes through.

 

[northwichcat]

um over 30 years old i think not. Plus all this north south rubbish is just that. Do not forget its alot of other town ans lines getting these trains not just london where the train passes through.

By the time they are introduced on Blackpool services some of them will be 30 years old but exactly 30 not over 30.

 

[JamesRowden]

Once again London gets brand new trains and we get their 319 cast off's. It's an absolute disgrace and needs to stop. These trains are over 30 years old so they're not exactly 'new' trains in the sense of the word.

Thirteen days ago, the 319 that I travelled on between Herne Hill and Elephant & Castle seemed like a far nicer train to travel on than the previews I have seen of the 700s. The 319 seemed comfortable, clean and fairly fast. I thought to myself, this train seems perfectly good for the Thames Valley services since it shouldn't be too bad if the journies are slowed down by a minute or two during the peak (compared to having 110mph stock).

 

[Bishopstone]

Once again London gets brand new trains and we get their 319 cast off's. It's an absolute disgrace and needs to stop. These trains are over 30 years old so they're not exactly 'new' trains in the sense of the word.

The class 313s were 35 years old when introduced as 'new' trains in Sussex, which isn't in the north.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The class 313s were 35 years old when introduced as 'new' trains in Sussex, which isn't in the north.

When you find that 35 year old units are classified as "new units", wheresoever this occurs, it is a disgraceful state of affairs. Indeed a sad reflection on the country that thinks there is nothing wrong with rail units of that age being seen as an acceptable mode of transportation.

Perhaps we shall see biplanes and triplanes landing at our major airports in future and a series of fast "fly-shuttle" boats plying their trade on the canals of England once again..:roll:

Perhaps I may set up a new company to build a series of turnpikes, upon which the "new-fangled" road steam carriages may run.

 

[Emyr]

Actually, with modern manufacturing tolerances and computerised design tools you could probably build some very nice road steam carriages...

 

[Clip]

Once again London gets brand new trains and we get their 319 cast off's. It's an absolute disgrace and needs to stop. These trains are over 30 years old so they're not exactly 'new' trains in the sense of the word.

Ok, so lets try and put a price on this.

How many new build MUs do you think would be sufficient for the north?

I reckon theres a lot of factors in working out value for money when procuring a new fleet including more than likely a new depot(s) and also how intensively they will be used and how long you think they should last for.

Its not because I live in the south but I see no reason why perfectly usable trains like the 319s cannot be used elsewhere on the network when they get displaced - theres a good few years left in them yet.

 

[ExRes]

I remember writing to my MP about the disgraceful decision to introduce 333s, all that money just to carry northeners around, then they got extra carriages as well !! The 308s were perfectly good for years more use and the 333s could have been used properly in London

:roll:

 

[Bishopstone]

Its not because I live in the south but I see no reason why perfectly usable trains like the 319s cannot be used elsewhere on the network when they get displaced - theres a good few years left in them yet.

Exactly. I wonder how many of the moaners have travelled on a 319 recently, if ever?

They are decent machines, and the interiors - refreshed by FCC quite recently - are better than those on the Northern units I observed on recent business trips to Blackpool and Salford.

If the 319s were displaced to Coastway West work, covering another business trip I make regularly, Brighton - Portsmouth, I would be quite delighted!

 

[Manchester77]

I remember writing to my MP about the disgraceful decision to introduce 333s, all that money just to carry northeners around, then they got extra carriages as well !! The 308s were perfectly good for years more use and the 333s could have been used properly in London

:roll:

Is this a sarcastic post

 

[GatwickDepress]

Once again London gets brand new trains and we get their 319 cast off's. It's an absolute disgrace and needs to stop. These trains are over 30 years old so they're not exactly 'new' trains in the sense of the word.

I wonder if some London & South East commuters in the 1980s complained about the north getting brand new Sprinters and Super-Sprinters.

 

[Clip]

I wonder if some London & South East commuters in the 1980s complained about the north getting brand new Sprinters and Super-Sprinters.

We didnt have internet forums then to shout your mouth off about such issues

 

[Jonny]

Thirteen days ago, the 319 that I travelled on between Herne Hill and Elephant & Castle seemed like a far nicer train to travel on than the previews I have seen of the 700s. The 319 seemed comfortable, clean and fairly fast. I thought to myself, this train seems perfectly good for the Thames Valley services since it shouldn't be too bad if the journies are slowed down by a minute or two during the peak (compared to having 110mph stock).

Unfortunately for the Thames Valley planners, those minutes add up and mean less potential capacity than would otherwise be possible.