Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[AM9]

Oh I agree with you totally! but all the TOCs in the North seem to obsessed with running absurdly short AND overcrowded trains at ever increasing frequency, rather than fewer longer trains with greater reliability and more seats. TPE has been a disaster ever since the withdrawal of the long loco hauled sets ~1990. What have TPE just done now that they have a little more rolling stock? ......just add a fifth 3-car train between Leeds and Manchester rather than lengthening existing diagrams.

I thought that I was alone on here in arguing this, as most people seem to think that the only thing that attracts passengers is frequency rather than comfort and reliability.

Having said all that the TOCs are not entirely to blame as BR policy in it's dying years was to strip out every millimetre of surplus capacity that it could identify in the North of England, including shortening platforms which has made it more difficult to reintroduce even 4 or 6 car trains!

BR's practice of shortening platforms was not just outside London. When passenger levels were falling in the '80s, some of the North London lines, particularly the GOBLIN, were shortened. They are now being lengthened again to accommodate 5 coach EMUs (having just been stretched for four coach units). Many of the GOBLIN stations have derelict platforms long enough for 5 or 6 coach trains but have more weeds on them than an abandoned allotment.

 

[Starmill]

So essentially the government should have spent £6bn making London less attractive for business? :?

Wonder what the cost-benefit allowance of that would be to the taxpayer!

I completely agree with the point you're trying to make but the only way you can do it is by making London as unattractive as possible a place to live/work then, as I can't see you can transform the rest of the country to have the same draw to employees as well as business. For example, London encourages many skilled people in from all over the world. For many it's not just about the job but about living in London too. How do you encourage these skilled workers to go work in, say, Middlesbrough? Or Burnley? While some cities (Manchester in particular) are developing a strong draw of their own - you then have the same problem (on a smaller scale in another city).

Well I'm afraid I'm not qualified to answer that... but if you mean 'Cost-Benefit Analysis' then I'd say that that is a basic weakness of modern BCR ratio use; it doesn't take even geographic economic development into account very well.

The policies designed to help solve the problem would obviously be constructive rather than destructive and as for developing the problem again on a smaller scale... the evidence suggests that as this is a problem of magnitude, it's OK. It's a bit like income inequality (which is actually the same problem but along different vectors; cross-sections of people based on where they work and their skills rather than where they live). Not everyone will ever earn all the same in the same way that not every square kilometer will generate the same amount of GDP around the county. But the distribution is important. A crude measure would be to compare the lowest paid in terms of the highest paid. Other measures look at how competitive different parts of the country are economically. Transport is only one of the things that can be used to influence this, but it is an area I think is not at all being exploited at present as a solution; indeed it is making the problem worse. I hope that makes sense...

Look at what The Queen had to say on the matter (not that she had any actual say in it, obviously):

My Government will seek to maintain a sound economy and to ensure a well-balanced growth of production in conditions of high and stable employment.

 

[RichmondCommu]

That's why Crossrail is essentially such a misguided project. If that same amount of money were spent trying to disperse economic activity throughout the country and encourage balanced and even economic growth (which is, let us not forget, because they seem to have, the Government's mandate) then all of the people who will be taking up Crossrail's new capacity could be taking up the empty seats (i.e. spare capacity, with absolutely no marginal cost of provision whatsoever) in the other parts of the country. And that's without the cost of having to dig all those new tunnels. Our lop-sided economy is definitely costing us here.

If we build Crossrail and Crossrail 2 and things go on as now, they will simply fill up. What then? How much money do we commit to trying to keep the same provision of service? Spending public money is one way to try to balance the economy in this situation, and although I like it as an excellent transport system and an enthusiast, Crossrail makes me very sad to see the result of government policy and funding both being used to re-enforce the dominance of London over other places.

You seem to have forgotten that London will be meeting 60% of the cost of Crossrail. Can the same be said for the cost of the Northern Hub in terms of local contributions? Could you honestly say that a city outside of London would benefit from a project similar to Crossrail? Crossrail has been delayed by at least a decade and the £4.2bn contribution from London based businesses suggests that they would like to see improved transport links in London. Have you any evidence that they are looking to make a contribution to the cost of rail infrastructure projects in the North?

Unless we improve the public transport network in the capital international companies will simply move their headquarters to other competing overseas countries. They certainly won't be moving to Warrington.

What plans do you have to encourage businesses and more importantly their employees to move from London to the North? You have already stated that you don't like Leeds. I think the only way you could do it would be to offer huge tax breaks and in the end that would prove to be unsustainable. The fact that so many of our service industries are centered in the South East has no material effect on our economy what so ever. I'm sorry but I think this is a case of London envy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm afriad it's this sort of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place; Economists call it 'overheating'. If too much economic activity takes place in too small an area it can have damaging effects. If you try to cram too much into one region of the country it will increase land values and overcrowd all of the other services available (water, electricity, healthcare, education, TRANSPORT etc.) such that it starts to be come more inefficient as a result of this. Lets not even talk about Land Values or supply of housing in London The marginal cost of increasing the supply of these things after demand has grown to outstrip them will continue to rise because all of the 'easy' capacity has been taken up already.

I would agree that property is more expensive in the South East but that is generally reflected in what people earn. It also explains why people who earn London wages commute for up to an hour in order to buy cheaper properties. In actual fact, if you look at the amount of green space in Greater London it's not nearly as densely populated as you would like to believe. And as a Londoner for over 25 years (I'm originally from the East Midlands) the provision of utilities is no difference to anywhere else. As the population in the South East continues to grow people just move further and further out. Hence the reason for extending Crossrail to Reading.

In terms of the recession is it any coincidence that London has led the rest of the country out of recession? Or that house prices have increased by crazy amounts in the South East but much less so in other areas, suggesting that the South East has the most demand.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think what you've proved there is that as a country we need to look away from from London & encourage businesses to spread out across the country instead of ramming themselves into one single centre. How many more tunnels can you possibly build under the capital before that gets too full as well, and how many more planes can you possibly ram into the skies above London before chaos ensues? Events over recent years such as inclement weather, tube strikes etc have shown just how vulnerable London really is. It doesn't take much at all to bring the place to a complete standstill. So what if something really devastating happens like a storm surge that overwhelms the barrier & swamps the place?

Well if you're predicting a storm surge then we'd better start making plans to move Parliament and Whitehall to Leeds. Are you suggesting that the rest of the country is immune from transport related industrial action? In the 25 years that I've lived in London I can't remember a single time when the entire Metropolitan area has come to a stand still. Even on that terrible day of July 2005 Londoners managed to get themselves home and the next day London was back as a fully functioning city.

I'm no civil engineer but building tunnels under the capital is clearly not a problem, either now or in the future. Just ask the French who have their extensive RER network in Paris not to mention the Metro. As for the 3rd runway at Heathrow that is basically to reduce delays into Heathrow more than anything else. And of course to ensure that Heathrow continues to compete with its European rivals.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Having all our financial eggs in one basket is asking for trouble, so the time is now right to invest much more the infrastructure around the country as part of a policy of relocating some of our business elsewhere. This should include much more rail infrastructure to allow both higher density commuter & regional / inter-city traffic, as well as HS2 and beyond, all complete with proper links to HS1 & Europe. Sadly the current government's mindset is far from this, and I suspect that future governments will be equally blinkered.

How do you suggest that we go about forcing businesses and their employees from the South East to the North? I absolutely agree that North needs better transport links and the Northern Hub and North West electrification is a very good start as I'm sure you'd agree. However let’s not kid ourselves that there will ever be a mass exodus from the South East. London powers the economy, it certainly doesn't damage it. Which is why Scotland is very foolish in looking to become an independent nation. London will always be the nation’s safety net.

 

[Starmill]

You seem to have forgotten that London will be meeting 60% of the cost of Crossrail. Can the same be said for the cost of the Northern Hub in terms of local contributions?

Nope. But privately-funded transport projects are fine by me! 40% of £6bn is still quite some public money spent on tunnels...

Could you honestly say that a city outside of London would benefit from a project similar to Crossrail?

Expensive tunnels that aren't necessary to offer similar improvements to transport usage elsewhere in the country!

Crossrail has been delayed by at least a decade

Welcome to the UK. I share your frustrations!

and the £4.2bn contribution from London based businesses suggests that they would like to see improved transport links in London. Have you any evidence that they are looking to make a contribution to the cost of rail infrastructure projects in the North?

No, because there is none, and that's precisely the problem.

Unless we improve the public transport network in the capital international companies will simply move their headquarters to other competing overseas countries. They certainly won't be moving to Warrington.

Oh, the 'they will go abroad' argument, this is so misused. I didn't say it wouldn't be a challenge to structure our economy in a way that offers at least two or three pinnacles of business given the state it's in at the moment, but it should never have been allowed to develop in that way. If losing a little bit (and it is a little bit, because the firm either values the UK market or it doesn't) of that international repute to build a fairer and more stable economy in the long-term is the price we have to pay then...

What plans do you have to encourage businesses and more importantly their employees to move from London to the North?

You have already stated that you don't like Leeds.

Oh, so my own personal preferences are now an important factor in the structure of our economy? You flatter me.

I think the only way you could do it would be to offer huge tax breaks and in the end that would prove to be unsustainable.

I did just say I'm not qualified to fix our economy by myself, but I would suggest picking two other places apart from London and focussing on how to try to distribute certain industries centers in those. Polices on development and building, tax, research and development and transprot and infrastructure would all be instrumental in this.

The fact that so many of our service industries are centered in the South East has no material effect on our economy what so ever.

I'm afraid this is exactly the opposite of the truth.

I'm sorry but I think this is a case of London envy.

What is there to be envious of? I've just told you London is heading for a long-term economic meltdown - and this time, it might affect more than just the financial industry.

I would agree that property is more expensive in the South East but that is generally reflected in what people earn.

This is also a dangerous economic phenomenon that backs up my point about overheating in the South East - it's called the Wage-Price Spiral. It ultimately leads to hyper-inflation.

It also explains why people who earn London wages commute for up to an hour in order to buy cheaper properties. In actual fact, if you look at the amount of green space in Greater London it's not nearly as densely populated as you would like to believe. And as a Londoner for over 25 years (I'm originally from the East Midlands) the provision of utilities is no difference to anywhere else. As the population in the South East continues to grow people just move further and further out. Hence the reason for extending Crossrail to Reading.

I'm not really sure I understand this point. The South East is fuller and more expensive than the other English regions? The provision of utilities is different; they cost more as more people try to use them! I don't think anyone is suggesting that the whole of greater London has been concreted over, it is after all a very large area... but my reference was to Land Values, which represents an ever growing number of pounds chasing the same physical amount of space - which ultimately makes it more expensive.

In terms of the recession is it any coincidence that London has led the rest of the country out of recession? Or that house prices have increased by crazy amounts in the South East but much less so in other areas, suggesting that the South East has the most demand.

Very true, demand this out of balance seems dangerous or unnatural doesn't it? And it has human consequences too where people can no longer afford to live there despite their family/friends/roots being there (see the BBC Panorama on Brent).

How do you suggest that we go about forcing businesses and their employees from the South East to the North? I absolutely agree that North needs better transport links and the Northern Hub and North West electrification is a very good start as I'm sure you'd agree. However let’s not kid ourselves that there will ever be a mass exodus from the South East. London powers the economy, it certainly doesn't damage it. Which is why Scotland is very foolish in looking to become an independent nation. London will always be the nation’s safety net.

But London's economy does damage the rest of it, that's precisely what we've all been trying to say :x

 

[Wavertreelad]

Whilst the discussion of London v North etc is very interesting, it is way off the thread and perhaps should be a separate topic on it own as it clearly a subject that could rumble on well past the use by date of a 142.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Whilst the discussion of London v North etc is very interesting, it is way off the thread and perhaps should be a separate topic on it own as it clearly a subject that could rumble on well past the use by date of a 142.

Agreed. Whosoever would have thought that a generalised traction stock based thread with a title of "319 cascade to Northern" could have generated the debate on economics that has blossomed of late on this particular thread.

I do note that you have "hedged your bets" by the carefully word-crafted way you in which did not state a final date for the demise of the Class 142 monstrocities..

 

[Lankyline]

Don't know if any picked this up but according to Northern Rails twitter feed, they expect to add extra coaches / sets (319's) at the end of the year, plus there will be no first class seating, just cattle class !

Seems to run contrary to what has been mentioned in earlier on this thread

 

[northwichcat]

Don't know if any picked this up but according to Northern Rails twitter feed, they expect to add extra coaches / sets (319's) at the end of the year, plus there will be no first class seating, just cattle class !

Seems to run contrary to what has been mentioned in earlier on this thread

How's it different? When Northern had the 180s there was no First Class seating, carriage D was treated as standard class despite being 2+1 seating. They are apparently planning 2 daily class 319 diagrams on Liverpool-Airport services from December but will only have 3 x 319s so if 2 are out of service on the same day then a Pacer or Sprinter (with one class) will have to fill in.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Don't know if any picked this up but according to Northern Rails twitter feed, they expect to add extra coaches / sets (319's) at the end of the year, plus there will be no first class seating, just cattle class !
Seems to run contrary to what has been mentioned in earlier on this thread

I don't think 319/3s have 1st class anyway.
They work mainly on inner-suburban services (Wimbledon loop).

 

[swt_passenger]

Don't know if any picked this up but according to Northern Rails twitter feed, they expect to add extra coaches / sets (319's) at the end of the year, plus there will be no first class seating, just cattle class !

I think the basic issue being discussed in the various 319 threads is/was the specific number of units available for the December timetable. 2 in service from 3 is a major reduction since the original plans, which should have seen half a dozen units available for Northern by now, not at the end of the year and increasing through 2015.

I don't think anyone has expected anything other than standard accommodation throughout, especially given the specific units that appear to be on the 'transfer list'...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As having the Class 323 as our normal units, any Class 319 will seem no difference to us, as neither class has first class accommodation.

Howsoever, when it comes to longer journey types from Manchester Airport or Manchester Piccadilly/Victoria, the FTPE units that do offer first-class accommodation to places such as Durham are often used by my good lady wife and I.

 

[northwichcat]

As having the Class 323 as our normal units, any Class 319 will seem no difference to us, as neither class has first class accommodation.

319s won't be used on Stoke/Crewe/Glossop services except in an emergency due to inferior acceleration and not being able to run at 323 speeds.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

319s won't be used on Stoke/Crewe/Glossop services except in an emergency due to inferior acceleration and not being able to run at 323 speeds.

Thanks for this information.

 

[AM9]

319s won't be used on Stoke/Crewe/Glossop services except in an emergency due to inferior acceleration and not being able to run at 323 speeds.

Is this verified fact or wishful thinking?

 

[northwichcat]

Is this verified fact or wishful thinking?

It was said by someone who works for TfGM. I should have actually said '323 timings' given the 319s certainly can reach 90mph but they can't do it as fast as the 323s.

 

[AM9]

Much has been said on the 319s (in 4-car form) not having 'metro' type accleration. They don't seem that bad except when confronted with mulch from the leafy suburbs down here and they scamper up the slope between City Thameslink and Blackfriars without much effort.
Are any of the lines in the northern electrification programme particularly hilly?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

No rumours at Picc about drivers training on 319's in the foreseeable future or Vic drivers learning routes like Hadfield etc. One of the benefits of the 323 especially on routes like Hadfield is like has been mentioned the very good acceleration.

 

[northwichcat]

Are any of the lines in the northern electrification programme particularly hilly?

I think 'particularly hilly' might be an understatement for some of the routes which are electric or set to become electric in the North.

For instance, Manchester is 115 feet above sea level while Greenfield is 1200 feet above sea level.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Much has been said on the 319s (in 4-car form) not having 'metro' type accleration. They don't seem that bad except when confronted with mulch from the leafy suburbs down here and they scamper up the slope between City Thameslink and Blackfriars without much effort.
Are any of the lines in the northern electrification programme particularly hilly?

There's the climb out of Lime St (in cutting/tunnel, already run by other EMUs), and the similar climb from Victoria to Miles Platting towards Stalybridge.
It never ceases to amaze me that a single franchise can have such "compartmentalisation" between north/south and east/west.
You'd have thought the aim would be for a common fleet and "go anywhere" trains.

 

[petersi]

No rumours at Picc about drivers training on 319's in the foreseeable future or Vic drivers learning routes like Hadfield etc. One of the benefits of the 323 especially on routes like Hadfield is like has been mentioned the very good acceleration.

Even a 319 makes it up north by mid to late June I assume some modification will be required for use by a guard(some one posted they were designed as DOO).

Plus a deep clean

so my guesses is driver training is still a while away.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Even a 319 makes it up north by mid to late June I assume some modification will be required for use by a guard...Plus a deep clean

I do so hope that the expressed aspiration in your posting that I have highlighted does come to pass, but I do have my doubts as to what level of this will occur, if any...:roll:

 

[AM9]

No rumours at Picc about drivers training on 319's in the foreseeable future or Vic drivers learning routes like Hadfield etc. One of the benefits of the 323 especially on routes like Hadfield is like has been mentioned the very good acceleration.

Yes I see from Wikipedia that the 323s are lighter and have higher power motors, resulting in about 38% higher power to weight ratio. The 319s are however will have the advantage of being available in large numbers in the future so some of the newly electrified lines will surely be taking them, particularly if a future WM operator is successful in adding them to their fleet of 323s.
Porterbrook's proposals for gearing or even traction changes could make them suitable for lower speed metro service patterns.
Despite their heavy use on Thameslink, they are reasonable carriers and do seem to slot in and out well between the HSTs and 222s on the fast lines.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It never ceases to amaze me that a single franchise can have such "compartmentalisation" between north/south and east/west.
You'd have thought the aim would be for a common fleet and "go anywhere" trains.

With the diesels they do have much more of a "go anywhere" feel, with the exception of the 158s only working out of Neville Hill.

With the electrics, there's inevitable compartmentalisation as the "west side" and "east side" EMUs can't swap across under their own power (unless you send them all the way via Edinburgh or London).

When the Manchester to Leeds line is electrified it might well be different.

As for the 319s, a "deep clean" is the least that they need. They are disgusting, and for some bizarre reason FCC are sending the worst ones north first.

 

[northwichcat]

With the diesels they do have much more of a "go anywhere" feel, with the exception of the 158s only working out of Neville Hill.

Well no Northern 144s, 153s, 155s or 158s work services out of Manchester Piccadilly or Liverpool Lime Street.

What were originally the Newton Heath 158s were sent to Neville Hill in exchange for their 150s for 'fleet consistency'. However, that only seemed to stop 158s being used on the west side but didn't stop 150s from being used on the east side (even before the LM 150s arrived.)

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Even a 319 makes it up north by mid to late June I assume some modification will be required for use by a guard(some one posted they were designed as DOO).....

The doors can be opened from any cab, it does not need to be the lead cab, however, fitting door controls elsewhere on the units might be advisable. for the stations in the Merseyside area.

....When the Manchester to Leeds line is electrified it might well be different....

Tbh, unless west side drivers learn east side units and east side drivers learn west side units, there seems little point in them 'swapping places', even when it is possible

....As for the 319s, a "deep clean" is the least that they need. They are disgusting, and for some bizarre reason FCC are sending the worst ones north first.

It makes perfect sense if you are FCC. Send away the knackered ones and keep the rest in as good a condition as you can.

 

[Starmill]

Yes I see from Wikipedia that the 323s are lighter and have higher power motors, resulting in about 38% higher power to weight ratio. The 319s are however will have the advantage of being available in large numbers in the future so some of the newly electrified lines will surely be taking them, particularly if a future WM operator is successful in adding them to their fleet of 323s.
Porterbrook's proposals for gearing or even traction changes could make them suitable for lower speed metro service patterns.
Despite their heavy use on Thameslink, they are reasonable carriers and do seem to slot in and out well between the HSTs and 222s on the fast lines.

See my signature for one of our more technically knowledgeable member's description of the excellent traction equipment in a 323

I also remember somebody mentioning on this thread that guard's panels would be fitted throughout.

 

[westcoaster]

The doors can be opened from any cab, it does not need to be the lead cab, however, fitting door controls elsewhere on the units might be advisable. for the stations in the Merseyside area.






It

door control is now via the master controller, the dks is no longer used and plated over

 

[Starmill]

door control is now via the master controller, the dks is no longer used and plated over

Are they the controls on the console rather than actually by the door?

In other words, could you stand on the platform on both sides and reach the door controls as they are configured at present?

Anyway no DKS either sounds like some rewiring is going to be needed!

 

[Geeves]

If they can rewire a 180 for Two man crew or turn every single DKS so it faces into the saloon on all the 142, 144s, 150s,155s and 156s in the fleet Im sure they will have no problem messing about with a 319. Its basically the same carriage design as a 150 is it not?

I doubt we will ever see Vic men signing to Hadfield but Im pretty certain the plan is to make the 319s and 323s common user in so much as they can all go to Liverpool, Victoria and Stalybridge if needs be. As the Hadfield is line is run for 323 timings I guess thats how it will stay, well at least till the 387s come

There is no reason a 144, 155 or 158 could not go Liverpool even now as Vic sign the route and the traction, but when its gets there it might be a be working a different service back with a Liverpool or Picc Crew who dont sign said units, hence why they never go.

 

[northwichcat]

If they can rewire a 180 for Two man crew

I thought the work around for 180s involved using local door operation in lieu of SDO because the guard didn't have full access to the controls.