Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[158722]

The question isn't whether it's poor, it's whether they have lightning quick acceleration like the 323s and if not what impact would running 319s on a service timed to run as a 323 may have.

So they have problems when it's wet :eek:

I think I referred to this earlier (or on another thread!), but the current Hadfield service has only a 6 min turnaround at Piccadilly and 4-5 mins at the other end. So if a 319 was just 2 mins slower in each direction, this would leave unacceptably tight turnaround times to run a reliable service, requiring the current set-up of 3 units diagrammed to be increased to 4, or some sort of inter-working with other services. Totally agree with jcollins, its not that the 319s are poor, its just they are not quite quick enough to potentially cover the Hadfield turns with the same number of units.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I thought two diagrams are supposed to switch, so those two diagrams could be timed as EMU running. (TPE time some Scottish services for class 185s but most are timed for 350s.) I imagine the issue is the chance of needing to use a DMU to fill in for a 319 will be very high with such a small fleet.

The point is that the Liverpool stoppers (Wigan/WBQ/Victoria) are essentially bus-stopping services between Lime St and St Helens (Central or Junction).
They also rotate between services and are on a common stopping pattern to Huyton.
Until all these trains are 319s, they will have to keep the DMU timetable.
The Airport and Blackpool trains are different (but still interwork).
The Airport diagram is also very slack through Manchester eastbound.
You can pretty much guarantee a 3/5-minute wait at Ordsall Lane, or if you get through you will only have to wait at Oxford Road.
Fast acceleration doesn't come into it.

 

[DJH1971]

I wonder when 319362 is rescheduled to come up North?

 

[Class377/5]

It could also be that three cars is the minimum configuration for "modular" EMU designs - 2-car would need special engineering to put the transformer/pantograph in a cab car. It would also create problems with closely-spaced pantographs when running in multiple, admittedly not an issue if you only build one! Given that they can show all the key features in a 3-car there's no real need to build extra cars for a demonstrator.

What is much more interesting in relation to the target market is whether they build 23m or 20m (or some other length) and whether they include third rail compatibility. 23m would be out of gauge on many Southern routes and strongly suggest they are aiming north of London. However for a demonstrator, if I had any money it would be on a "universal" 20m dual-voltage with the brochure saying it is available in other configurations.

The demonstrator is the AT200 model which is 23m are 125 capable units. Rail stated Hitachi are targeting TPE among others with the new train designs.

 

[Bevan Price]

If the 319s were to be converted to three car (and I was under the impression that three car EMU operation on the Lancashire Triangle was the preferred option) then peak services could be doubled up. Eight car trains would be overkill, and require a fairly extensive programme of platform lengthening, whereas the latter wouldn't be quite the same problem for six car trains.

Reduction to 3 cars would be sheer stupidity in my opinion, leading to gross overcrowding on many services. Many of the platforms on the Liverpool to Manchester & Wigan lines are only long enough for 4 coach trains - 6 coach trains (2x3) are not an option.

 

[Class 170101]

Nothing to do with that. All units are capable of 10% over speed beyond there rated speed. Note other more modern 100mph units are capable of far higher speeds.

When Bombardier did 110mph testing on a 379 it simply rewrote the software to allow high speeds (meaning the 379 needed to be capable of reaching 121mph) as the motors were capable of more despite the fact the 379 are '100mph' units.

The same now applies to the Class 350/1/3/4 all capable of 110mph (or planned to be). When the 350/1s entered service maxmium speed was 100mph. Subsequently modified for only four car operation at 110mph and again modified for 8/12 car 110mph operation.

 

[Geeves]

We will see in the future with regards to 319s on the Hadfield line but if the choice is cancelling a train due to the failure of a 323 and having the option of sending a 319 instead, then whether it keeps to time or not is irrelevant, the 319 will be going much as the current situation is to send a 142 or 150 to Crewe!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Reduction to 3 cars would be sheer stupidity in my opinion, leading to gross overcrowding on many services. Many of the platforms on the Liverpool to Manchester & Wigan lines are only long enough for 4 coach trains - 6 coach trains (2x3) are not an option.

In the short term, I agree... But in the longer term, extending platforms to 120m (2x(3x20m)) is more achievable than extending to 160m (2x(4x20m)).

 

[northwichcat]

Reduction to 3 cars would be sheer stupidity in my opinion, leading to gross overcrowding on many services. Many of the platforms on the Liverpool to Manchester & Wigan lines are only long enough for 4 coach trains - 6 coach trains (2x3) are not an option.

The 3 car option is something that needs to be considered for the Manchester-Bolton-Preston line. Only a couple of platforms would need lengthening to allow 6 car 319s and many peak time services on that line are already busy 4 car Sprinters so if the 319s aren't reformed then an alternative type of EMU would likely need to be sourced for services on that line. Network Rail in one of their documents said just that and said if neither are done then it's likely 6 car DMUs will have to be used on some peak services on the Bolton corridor post-electrification.

No reason why you can't have a mix of 3 and 4 car units - the 144s and 158s at Northern aren't all the same number of carriages.

 

[AM9]

The 3 car option is something that needs to be considered for the Manchester-Bolton-Preston line. Only a couple of platforms would need lengthening to allow 6 car 319s and many peak time services on that line are already busy 4 car Sprinters so if the 319s aren't reformed then an alternative type of EMU would likely need to be sourced for services on that line. Network Rail in one of their documents said just that and said if neither are done then it's likely 6 car DMUs will have to be used on some peak services on the Bolton corridor post-electrification.

No reason why you can't have a mix of 3 and 4 car units - the 144s and 158s at Northern aren't all the same number of carriages.

If it's that urgent then maybe some 313s could be rustled up.

 

[northwichcat]

If it's that urgent then maybe some 313s could be rustled up.

Not sure that would go down well. Northern are already expected to take over Manchester Airport-Blackpool and that would likely result in modern regional DMUs replaced by older commuter EMUs. Add to that a lack of toilets and you're creating a situation worse than when Southern put fully refurbished 313s on Brighton services. Would a 313 refurbishment still be economically viable now the units are approaching 40 years in age?

 

[Class377/5]

Not sure that would go down well. Northern are already expected to take over Manchester Airport-Blackpool and that would likely result in modern regional DMUs replaced by older commuter EMUs. Add to that a lack of toilets and you're creating a situation worse than when Southern put fully refurbished 313s on Brighton services. Would a 313 refurbishment still be economically viable now the units are approaching 40 years in age?

Don't worry, the north won't get the 313s as they don't start to get replaced until 2018, by then the entire 319 fleet will be released.

Word is Wales wants the 313s to get a cheap metro like Valley services. And for the record one TSGN bidder proposed keeping the 313 fleet on the GN after a major refurbishment.

The 3 car option is something that needs to be considered for the Manchester-Bolton-Preston line. Only a couple of platforms would need lengthening to allow 6 car 319s and many peak time services on that line are already busy 4 car Sprinters so if the 319s aren't reformed then an alternative type of EMU would likely need to be sourced for services on that line. Network Rail in one of their documents said just that and said if neither are done then it's likely 6 car DMUs will have to be used on some peak services on the Bolton corridor post-electrification.

No reason why you can't have a mix of 3 and 4 car units - the 144s and 158s at Northern aren't all the same number of carriages.

If overcrowding is so bad on the Bolton line then why are people obsesses with keeping it 6 car? Why not actually provide capacity of 8 car trains on shat is routinely mentioned as badly over crowded line? Can't say north is getting a bad deal then on other hand state that one overcrowded line should stay as is.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If there was a use for the displaced 319 vehicle after reduction to 3 coaches it might make some sense (ie to give a fleet of 3/4/5-car trains tailored to particular routes).
But as there isn't, it is plain stupid to throw away 25% of a 319s capacity for the odd occasions when they are doubled up, on a railway which claims it is overcrowded.
Re-tractioning is probably the answer, but not for several years.

 

[northwichcat]

If overcrowding is so bad on the Bolton line then why are people obsesses with keeping it 6 car? Why not actually provide capacity of 8 car trains on shat is routinely mentioned as badly over crowded line? Can't say north is getting a bad deal then on other hand state that one overcrowded line should stay as is.

6 car operation on the Bolton line is rare now the Scottish portion workings no longer exist.

The question is where are you going to get the extra funds for Network Rail to lengthen platforms they haven't included in their CP5 plans? Salford Crescent was only recently lengthened to allow 6 car 185s. I think only Blackrod and one platform at Leyland would need lengthening to allow 6 car 319s. If it's 8 car 319s then most platforms need doing. Or you could arrange for EMUs with SDO to be used and not lengthen any platforms? Or alternatively without platform extensions use 2 x 3 car EMUs and have the rear unit locked out of use north of Horwich Parkway?

I don't think we assume if the franchise operator wants to run 8 car EMUs then Network Rail will automatically arrange the provision. Weren't the 350/1s supposed to be used to lengthen SWT services but didn't happen as a platform lengthening program wasn't approved?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If there was a use for the displaced 319 vehicle after reduction to 3 coaches it might make some sense (ie to give a fleet of 3/4/5-car trains tailored to particular routes).
But as there isn't, it is plain stupid to throw away 25% of a 319s capacity for the odd occasions when they are doubled up, on a railway which claims it is overcrowded.
Re-tractioning is probably the answer, but not for several years.

If 3 car EMUs were sourced then there's no need to do that. DfT are trying to fit square pegs in to round holes by sending 319s North and Porterbrook are trying to prove there's a solution to turn the square pegs in to round ones.

Maybe if the 377/5s were sent North, a car could be removed to lengthen most of the 377/3s and the North would then have 3 car EMUs with corridor connectors - ideal for 6 car operation.

 

[hassaanhc]

Maybe if the 377/5s were sent North, a car could be removed to lengthen most of the 377/3s and the North would then have 3 car EMUs with corridor connectors - ideal for 6 car operation.

Or just send the 377/3 and no need to mess around with configurations?

 

[northwichcat]

Or just send the 377/3 and no need to mess around with configurations?

Are they dual-voltage or DC only?

 

[92002]

Or just send the 377/3 and no need to mess around with configurations?

Presumably the simplest and cheapest solution is to provide whichever unit is finally supplied with selective door opening. Nice new ones like 387s would be good.

 

[hassaanhc]

Are they dual-voltage or DC only?

DC only, however i was thinking it might be easier to just add AC equipment to them (even possibly taking them from /5 variants) rather than mess around with adding and removing coaches? :?

 

[swt_passenger]

If the 377/3s are seen as a long term part of Southern's 10 car suburban strategy though, they need them to run in pairs with other 4 car units anyway. (3+3+4)

We could always spend some extra money in the south extending even more stations to 12 car though, if that was preferred...

 

[physics34]

If the 377/3s are seen as a long term part of Southern's 10 car suburban strategy though, they need them to run in pairs with other 4 car units anyway. (3+3+4)

We could always spend some extra money in the south extending even more stations to 12 car though, if that was preferred...

Southern really need to take the 2x2 seating out of the 377/3s and swap them with the 3x2 seating in 377121 - 164 and the /2s and /4s....... for the suburban work.....

they had the perfect opportunity with the refresh but missed a trick ..... silly people.

 

[swt_passenger]

Southern really need to take the 2x2 seating out of the 377/3s and swap them with the 3x2 seating in 377121 - 164 and the /2s and /4s....... for the suburban work.....

they had the perfect opportunity with the refresh but missed a trick ..... silly people.

I think the latest thinking is that suburban trains should be 2+2 with increased standing space. I don't think your idea is a goer...

 

[physics34]

I think the latest thinking is that suburban trains should be 2+2 with increased standing space. I don't think your idea is a goer...

yeh seems to be way forward these days. BUt at least it would have given the 1s/2s and 4s more comfortable seating. obviously there wouldnt be enough for the whole fleet.

anyway...im digressing...

 

[hassaanhc]

If the 377/3s are seen as a long term part of Southern's 10 car suburban strategy though, they need them to run in pairs with other 4 car units anyway. (3+3+4)

We could always spend some extra money in the south extending even more stations to 12 car though, if that was preferred...

I think with these 10 car extensions it would have been better to spend a little bit more and extend to 12 car (~250m length), for future proofing at least if they still want to run 10 car ~200m trains now (typical railway short term thinking and all that :P). I don't see trains getting longer than that in the foreseeable future

 

[northwichcat]

If the 377/3s are seen as a long term part of Southern's 10 car suburban strategy though, they need them to run in pairs with other 4 car units anyway. (3+3+4)

We could always spend some extra money in the south extending even more stations to 12 car though, if that was preferred...

So where are the 5 car units going to be used?

 

[swt_passenger]

So where are the 5 car units going to be used?

Same ten car routes but as 5+5 pairs. There are nothing like enough 5 cars (e.g. 377/6 or /7) to run all the necessary routes, they were only ever part of the overall plan.

 

[northwichcat]

Same ten car routes but as 5+5 pairs. There are nothing like enough 5 cars (e.g. 377/6 or /7) to run all the necessary routes, they were only ever part of the overall plan.

I thought a batch of 5 car sets were only ordered because of FCC needing more sub-leased 377s and also needing to hang on to them for longer. What would have happened if the 700s had been delivered sooner?

 

[edwin_m]

Getting back on topic, I think the junctions at Salford Crescent may be too close together to allow anything longer than a 6-car, in which case even with SDO a longer train stopping would block the junction behind it. Does anyone have any better information?

 

[158722]

If the 377/3s are seen as a long term part of Southern's 10 car suburban strategy though, they need them to run in pairs with other 4 car units anyway. (3+3+4)

We could always spend some extra money in the south extending even more stations to 12 car though, if that was preferred...

Surely an extra batch of 5-car 377 or 387s is likely to be proposed for the 10-car strategy, releasing the 377/3s to replace the 313s eventually.

 

[Haydn1971]

Getting back on topic, I think the junctions at Salford Crescent may be too close together to allow anything longer than a 6-car, in which case even with SDO a longer train stopping would block the junction behind it. Does anyone have any better information?

Easy solved with some track work and platform extension to the north surely ? Looks to be plenty of scope to shift the tracks about to the north

 

[Whistler40145]

IMHO if there was room, platforms could have been built on the through lines at Salford Crescent and grade separate the lines, current platform lines for Wigan/Southport & through lines for Bolton/Preston?