Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[childwallblues]

Routes for 319's will be for the moment
LIV-MIA (via PIC)
LIV-MVC
LIV-WGN

If you go down the route of spending vast sums making 319's 3 car, when everyones cottoned on to the better service it'll be packed and you'll be needing 4 cars.

Merseyrail has the 3 car - 6 car problem.
3 cars are always busy, .... not heaving but busy. 6 cars are too long and everyone packs in one end and leaves a load room at the other end.

I'm not convinced you need 6 cars

You've missed out LIV-WBQ

 

[AM9]

Having looked at this thread for some time can I suggest the following:

Northern are getting 4-car 319s so get used to it and make best use of them.

West Midlands are not releasing any 323s as they are needed for the Reddich and Bromsgrove enhancements, in fact it makes good sense down here to take about six of the Northern 323s to Birmingham Cross City.

There seem to be green eyed monsters on here who assume that any nice stock can and should be moved to the north west.

I have a suspicion that if this thread was called '350 (or 387) cascade to Northern', none of this 3-car 4-car discussion would be taking place.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There seem to be green eyed monsters on here who assume that any nice stock can and should be moved FROM the north west.

Corrected that for you.

Keep your Midlands hands off our Class 323 units..

 

[Bevan Price]

You've missed out LIV-WBQ

Which probably won't exist (apart maybe from a token service) - when there are 2 Lime St - Man Vic locals every hour.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

I have a suspicion that if this thread was called '350 (or 387) cascade to Northern', none of this 3-car 4-car discussion would be taking place.

It's as much about infrastructure as trains, Cross City is set up for 6x23m. Messing that up would cost mega bucks and as a taxpayer no thanks.

 

[tbtc]

]Northern are getting 4-car 319s so get used to it and make best use of them

True.

And, I think that they will make best use of them. For all of the wailing on this thread (and similar), I don't think that there are any impossible obstacles when it comes to the 319s.

As I've said before, I expect the timetable on the Bolton corridor (which is the one with the most "concern") to be eight trains an hour, each at least four coaches long in a few years time.

e.g.

• Wigan via Bolton
• Preston
• Wigan via Bolton
• Blackpool via Preston
• Wigan via Bolton
• Preston
• Blackburn/ Clihteroe via Bolton
• Blackpool via Preston

...something like that (with all Southport services being DMUs via Atherton).

Every service apart from the Blackburn/ Clitheroe one could be a 319 (with the Blackburn one made up of an equivalent length 150/156).

At the minute, some services get rammed because people know to pick the longer services (like the TPE ones). But if all of the single 142s on Wigan services are replaced by single 319s then you've got a much more balanced supply of seats between Manchester and Bolton.

Whilst the services toward Preston are going to be busy, they certainly don't need to all be eight coaches long (or even six coaches long).

So, rather than worrying about whether every single station is capable of eight coaches long, the question is how many of the "TPE" stations couldn't accommodate an eight coach 319 (i.e. 8x20 = 160m):

• Manchester Oxford Road
• Deansgate
• Salford Crescent
• Bolton
• Horwich Parkway
• Chorley
• Buckshaw Parkway
• Preston
• Poulton-le-Fylde

...because if the fast services can stop at these stations then we put eight coaches on (some of) the fasts and a four coach will be fine for intermediate stations like Adlington.

Also worth remembering that the "fast" Manchester - Preston market could be hourly eight coach 'TPE" EMUs via Wigan (which would soak up a good amount of the longer distance traffic, freeing up seats through Bolton).

Less of an issue on the Liverpool - Manchester corridor, given the capacity increase planned for the Liverpool - Sheffield corridor on top of the additional "fast" Liverpool - Manchester (Newcastle) service.

In summary, it's really not all doom and gloom!

(also, I'll wager that we'll see 319s replace the 321/322s in West Yorkshire, but that's another story for another thread)

 

[Class83]

Deleted

 

[Aictos]

Having looked at this thread for some time can I suggest the following:

Northern are getting 4-car 319s so get used to it and make best use of them.

West Midlands are not releasing any 323s as they are needed for the Reddich and Bromsgrove enhancements, in fact it makes good sense down here to take about six of the Northern 323s to Birmingham Cross City.

There seem to be green eyed monsters on here who assume that any nice stock can and should be moved to the north west.

Post of the Week fella Well Said

 

[northwichcat]

West Midlands are not releasing any 323s as they are needed for the Reddich and Bromsgrove enhancements, in fact it makes good sense down here to take about six of the Northern 323s to Birmingham Cross City.

LM would probably have to take on the Manchester-Crewe/Stoke services if that happened due to 319s not being able to keep to 323 timings due to poorer acceleration.

Serious question does Centro have any guarantees about keeping the 323s? If not any operator could approach Porterbrook for the 323s with the intention of taking them on in 2016, when the current lease expires, in the same way that Chiltern acquired the 170/3s and that Southern will acquire a few of the Scotrail 170s.

There is the question of whether LM will take on the 350/4s and whether they will introduce any extra services or enhancements if they do but that's getting a bit too off-topic for this thread.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At the minute, some services get rammed because people know to pick the longer services (like the TPE ones). But if all of the single 142s on Wigan services are replaced by single 319s then you've got a much more balanced supply of seats between Manchester and Bolton.

Is it a case of them picking the longer trains or the nicest or fastest trains? As some of the Hazel Grove-Preston diagrams are 4 car 150s all day they have more capacity than the TPE 185s but are older trains which make more stops.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have a suspicion that if this thread was called '350 (or 387) cascade to Northern', none of this 3-car 4-car discussion would be taking place.

I'm not sure. However, if the 350/450s could be reformed to 3 and 5 cars it could leave an operator like SWT with some 5 car Desiros and Northern with some 3 car Desiros with corridor connectors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is the question of whether LM will take on the 350/4s and whether they will introduce any extra services or enhancements if they do but that's getting a bit too off-topic for this thread.

It is intended that they will after the TPE full fleet replacement on electrification. They will be used, AIUI, to lengthen crowded south WCML commuter services and possibly to make more Crewe services 8-car.

Is it a case of them picking the longer trains or the nicest or fastest trains? As some of the Hazel Grove-Preston diagrams are 4 car 150s all day they have more capacity than the TPE 185s but are older trains which make more stops.

As standing in a 185 is not nicer than sitting in a 150, I imagine it's faster services they go for. Who doesn't?

Neil

 

[Emyr]

As standing in a 185 is not nicer than sitting in a 150, I imagine it's faster services they go for. Who doesn't?

That depends on the weather.

 

[northwichcat]

It is intended that they will after the TPE full fleet replacement on electrification. They will be used, AIUI, to lengthen crowded south WCML commuter services and possibly to make more Crewe services 8-car.

To be clear the 350/4s are not subleased from LM (which some people seem to think) and TPE are not guaranteed to receive new trains in the next franchise (cascades of 365s and 387s have been mooted.) However, apparently Siemens were asked whether it would be easy to convert the 350/4 interiors to be the same as the 350/3 interiors.

LM do want to divert one of the Birmingham-Liverpool services to Preston and to extend the Euston-Crewe service to Liverpool. However, Network Rail recommended making those changes as part of a wider program which would see:
1. Euston-Crewe services diverted away from Stone.
2. The Northern Manchester-Stoke service going to LM and being extended to Birmingham via Stone.
3. Half the XC Manchester-Birmingham services being diverted via Crewe

Some of those changes are rolling stock neutral, others will require an extra unit or two.

However, like I already said future use of 350/4s is a bit off-topic for this thread.

 

[Wolfie]

Having looked at this thread for some time can I suggest the following:

Northern are getting 4-car 319s so get used to it and make best use of them.

West Midlands are not releasing any 323s as they are needed for the Reddich and Bromsgrove enhancements, in fact it makes good sense down here to take about six of the Northern 323s to Birmingham Cross City.

There seem to be green eyed monsters on here who assume that any nice stock can and should be moved to the north west regardless of economics.

fixed that for you

Seriously, when the North West does get new stock ie the 350/4s they still bleat that it isn't suitable.....

I'm not sure. However, if the 350/450s could be reformed to 3 and 5 cars it could leave an operator like SWT with some 5 car Desiros and Northern with some 3 car Desiros with corridor connectors.

You are assuming that SWT wants 5 car Desiros for a start and where exactly are the Desiros you want to allocate to economic basket-case Northern supposed to come from? To be very clear, there is zero appitite to give Northern one penny piece more. Indeed pressure is coming on in the South to stop London commuters subsidising the whole of the rail system. See: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...ws-travelling-in-subcattle-class-9825517.html

 

[Viscount702]

LM would probably have to take on the Manchester-Crewe/Stoke services if that happened due to 319s not being able to keep to 323 timings due to poorer acceleration.

We keep hearing about the poor acceleration on the 319s. Yes they are not as quick off the mark as the 323s but is it really a problem.

I am sure they could easily operate to Crewe and Hadfield/Glossop (Platform lengths aside) without much of a problem. Stoke maybe a bit more difficult.

These units have been running alongside fast trains for years without any problem.

Again a lot of these woes come from Poterbrook who want to make money on modifications.

 

[northwichcat]

We keep hearing about the poor acceleration on the 319s. Yes they are not as quick off the mark as the 323s but is it really a problem.

I am sure they could easily operate to Crewe and Hadfield/Glossop (Platform lengths aside) without much of a problem. Stoke maybe a bit more difficult.

These units have been running alongside fast trains for years without any problem.

Again a lot of these woes come from Poterbrook who want to make money on modifications.

Apparently Porterbrook did a computer simulation of them on current 323 routes, in the hope they could get Northern to agree to take on more 319s but got very poor results back which is one reason why they've proposed re-engineering them to have better acceleration. However, that would make their top speed 75mph which would be OK for Glossop/Hadfield but I'm not sure about Crewe/Stoke services.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Apparently Porterbrook did a computer simulation of them on current 323 routes, in the hope they could get Northern to agree to take on more 319s but got very poor results back which is one reason why they've proposed re-engineering them to have better acceleration. However, that would make their top speed 75mph which would be OK for Glossop/Hadfield but I'm not sure about Crewe/Stoke services.

Looking at the future electrification programme, when making reference to the Manchester to Glossop/Hadfield line, the part of that route from Manchester Piccadilly to Guide Bridge will also see the new Manchester Piccadilly to Leeds via Guide Bridge services and I wonder if there could be any problems between those two services or is a maximum unit speed limit of 75mph as far as Guide Bridge something not to be unduly concerned about?

The units on the Crewe/Stoke services are certainly ones that will be in competition with main line service with a far higher unit top speed.

 

[northwichcat]

Seriously, when the North West does get new stock ie the 350/4s they still bleat that it isn't suitable.....

That's because they are out-of-date regional EMUs been ordered for a Intercity style route, simply because LM wanted EMUs compatible with their existing 350s.

You are assuming that SWT wants 5 car Desiros for a start

Given SWT have just ordered new 5 car Desiros, I'm fairly certain SWT would like 5 car Desiros. They could have lengthened the 450s (which will be modified anyway when DC lines are converted to AC) instead and ordered new 4 car Desiros to still allow 4/8/12 car workings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's because they are out-of-date regional EMUs been ordered for a Intercity style route

They're seated 2+2 with plenty of tables, and the First Class is of as good a standard as any other British train. So the only thing that makes them "regional EMUs" is the positioning of the doors.

As for them being out of date, you could have 319s if you preferred?

I agree a Class 444-a-like would be nicer, but in practice 350s are fine, if a little short.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Looking at the future electrification programme, when making reference to the Manchester to Glossop/Hadfield line, the part of that route from Manchester Piccadilly to Guide Bridge will also see the new Manchester Piccadilly to Leeds via Guide Bridge services and I wonder if there could be any problems between those two services or is a maximum unit speed limit of 75mph as far as Guide Bridge something not to be unduly concerned about?

The units on the Crewe/Stoke services are certainly ones that will be in competition with main line service with a far higher unit top speed.

Yes I think if you ensure all Glossop line platforms are long enough, a 75mph 319 with improved acceleration could work services and possibly release 323s to enhance other services e.g. extending the peak time extras between Manchester and Macclesfield to Stoke.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They're seated 2+2 with plenty of tables, and the First Class is of as good a standard as any other British train. So the only thing that makes them "regional EMUs" is the positioning of the doors.

As for them being out of date, you could have 319s if you preferred?

I agree a Class 444-a-like would be nicer, but in practice 350s are fine, if a little short.

Neil

The point is TPE got 350/4s just because LM wanted 350s and no other reason. Because it was a small order of an out-of-date design Siemens said delivery wouldn't be quick.

TPE could have been allowed to order 6 car 390s as part of the Virgin order, which would have allowed faster journey times (given parts of the WCML have a 125mph speed limit for tilting trains) and a more appropriate number of seats for the service but no that wasn't allowed as it would have costed more and it would have meant LM's 350 order would have been too small to get authorised.

 

[Emyr]

fixed that for you

Seriously, when the North West does get new stock ie the 350/4s they still bleat that it isn't suitable...

The 350/4s are only used for Manchester Airport - Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport - Cumbria/Scotland. The former is a route where Northern have a lot of Class 323s and the latter are TPE Class 185 services.

This is only a slight improvement and only for a minority of passengers. For everyone else, they're not even useful as connections.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TPE could have been allowed to order 6 car 390s as part of the Virgin order, which would have allowed faster journey times (given parts of the WCML have a 125mph speed limit for tilting trains) and a more appropriate number of seats for the service

Given the amount of wasted space in the Class 390 layout, 6 car 390s would have had surprisingly few seats. 5 car 350s would perhaps have been a better choice, but perhaps platform length meant that 10 car trains would have been unworkable.

But they'll likely end up with LM anyway when the main TPE EMU order goes in.

Neil

 

[Wolfie]

That's because they are out-of-date regional EMUs been ordered for a Intercity style route, simply because LM wanted EMUs compatible with their existing 350s.

Firstly they are exactly the same type of trains as LM use on Liverpool to Birmingham, Birmingham to London and Crewe to London. As such they are perfectly adequate (albeit perhaps not in length and certainly currently for the 350/4s reliability) for the role they are being used in.

Out of date? I'm sure Class 700s, complete with Thameslink spec interiors, would go down well - and don't forget one end of extended Thamselink to another is a long journey...

"simply because LM wanted EMUs compatible with their existing 350s" - talk about rewriting history! Use of some of the extant options LM had in place was the fastest way to get TPE new electric stock. The alternative would have been a completely new competition run under EU rules. If you really think train-builders were going to offer a heavily bespoke product for such a small order you are having a laugh!

I'm not sure it's worth engaging with you. Its obvious what you want is for the North West to have brand new bespoke high-end rolling stock with the current low fares and for someone else to pick up the tab.... meanwhile in the real world.....

 

[northwichcat]

Given the amount of wasted space in the Class 390 layout, 6 car 390s would have had surprisingly few seats. 5 car 350s would perhaps have been a better choice, but perhaps platform length meant that 10 car trains would have been unworkable.

Don't forget a Pendolino has longer carriages, so a 6 car 390 would be 146m compared to the 81.6m a 4 car 350 is, so a lot of extra capacity despite the 'wasted space.'

Only Oxford Road should have had an issue with 10 car trains. Also, unlike the 350s, the Pendolinos have SDO so platform lengths is less of an issue with 390s.

But they'll likely end up with LM anyway when the main TPE EMU order goes in.

As already pointed out any such order is merely a rumour. TPE may only be getting cascades.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Firstly they are exactly the same type of trains as LM use on Liverpool to Birmingham, Birmingham to London and Crewe to London. As such they are perfectly adequate (albeit perhaps not in length and certainly currently for the 350/4s reliability) for the role they are being used in.

Remember they were originally going to be SWT 450s and got forced on to Central/Silverlink routes. They weren't designed for services like Liverpool-Birmingham. Virgin XC were apparently offered some to operate Manchester-Birmingham services (half of which didn't extend beyond Birmingham at the time) but refused saying they weren't suitable for that sort of service. Manchester Airport to Edinburgh is longer than Crewe to London and yet some people say 350s are only suitable for Crewe to London because it's not intended for end to end journeys.

Out of date? I'm sure Class 700s, complete with Thameslink spec interiors, would go down well - and don't forget one end of extended Thamselink to another is a long journey...

Why would TPE have needed to order Siemens units? If they had placed the order they would have been required to put out an ITT which any manufacturer could have bidded on. Remember LM ordered Bombardier 172s to go with their Siemens 350s.

 

[Wolfie]

Don't forget a Pendolino has longer carriages, so a 6 car 390 would be 146m compared to the 81.6m a 4 car 350 is, so a lot of extra capacity despite the 'wasted space.'

Only Oxford Road should have had an issue with 10 car trains. Also, unlike the 350s, the Pendolinos have SDO so platform lengths is less of an issue with 390s.




As already pointed out any such order is merely a rumour. TPE may only be getting cascades.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Remember they were originally going to be SWT 450s and got forced on to Central/Silverlink routes.



Why would TPE have needed to order Siemens units? If they had placed the order they would have been required to put out an ITT which any manufacturer could have bidded on. Remember LM ordered Bombardier 172s to go with their Siemens 350s.

Which part of neither TPE nor Northern having a pot to pee into don't you get? There will be NO more subsidy! In fact, as in the South, get ready for years of paying in advance for future inprovements! Jam tomorrow is where it is at!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't forget a Pendolino has longer carriages, so a 6 car 390 would be 146m compared to the 81.6m a 4 car 350 is, so a lot of extra capacity despite the 'wasted space.'

Only Oxford Road should have had an issue with 10 car trains. Also, unlike the 350s, the Pendolinos have SDO so platform lengths is less of an issue with 390s.

350s have a basic but usable form of SDO - Unit Deselect - which is used on LM services at short platforms.

Remember they were originally going to be SWT 450s and got forced on to Central/Silverlink routes.

And were very welcome - InterCity style seating on a local service. We like them a lot round here. They also have decent provision for luggage (the overhead rack is huge) and nice big windows with a good view.

They're only *not* InterCity because of the door layout, IMO. And the Class 444 is as good as a perfect UK InterCity EMU as I've seen, which is basically a stretched and slightly narrowed 350 with the doors at the ends.

Why would TPE have needed to order Siemens units? If they had placed the order they would have been required to put out an ITT which any manufacturer could have bidded on. Remember LM ordered Bombardier 172s to go with their Siemens 350s.

More cost, and slower.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Which part of neither TPE nor Northern having a pot to pee into don't you get? There will be NO more subsidy! In fact, as in the South, get ready for years of paying in advance for future inprovements! Jam tomorrow is where it is at!

Any argument about subsidy when talking about TPE is stupid. If Manchester Airport-Scotland was with Virgin it could have Pendolinos and no-one would complain, likewise if Newcastle-Liverpool was with East Coast it could have IEP and no-one would complain. Yet because routes like Doncaster-Cleethorpes are in the TPE franchise, the franchise isn't profitable and it's seen as unacceptable for Virgin and EC to pay a premium and TPE to get a subsidy. Ridiculous!

 

[Wolfie]

Any argument about subsidy when talking about TPE is stupid. If Manchester Airport-Scotland was with Virgin it could have Pendolinos and no-one would complain, likewise if Newcastle-Liverpool was with East Coast it could have IEP and no-one would complain. Yet because routes like Doncaster-Cleethorpes are in the TPE franchise, the franchise isn't profitable and it's seen as unacceptable for Virgin and EC to pay a premium and TPE to get a subsidy. Ridiculous!

Ho hum, I have heard this desperate attempt to wring yet more subsidy out before. All I will say is that if my aunt had different genitalia she would be my uncle... We are where we are, suck it up!

 

[Manchester77]

Firstly they are exactly the same type of trains as LM use on Liverpool to Birmingham, Birmingham to London and Crewe to London. As such they are perfectly adequate (albeit perhaps not in length and certainly currently for the 350/4s reliability) for the role they are being used in.

Yes which were destined for SWT but the SRA wouldn't authorise platform extensions so 5 car 450s became 4 car 350s.

Out of date? I'm sure Class 700s, complete with Thameslink spec interiors, would go down well - and don't forget one end of extended Thamselink to another is a long journey...

Yes, they're an out of date design hence why siemens made it clear this twenty were the last to be ordered. Why would siemens have bid with the 700s, for all we know hitachi could have won.

I'm not sure it's worth engaging with you. Its obvious what you want is for the North West to have brand new bespoke high-end rolling stock with the current low fares and for someone else to pick up the tab.... meanwhile in the real world.....

Hasnt this been disproven above though? Where the leasing cost of a 319 were higher than a 377? Now the 377s may not be the newest but they have lower leasing costs than a 319 due to weight distribution so I think this nullifies your argument?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Any argument about subsidy when talking about TPE is stupid. If Manchester Airport-Scotland was with Virgin it could have Pendolinos and no-one would complain, likewise if Newcastle-Liverpool was with East Coast it could have IEP and no-one would complain. Yet because routes like Doncaster-Cleethorpes are in the TPE franchise, the franchise isn't profitable and it's seen as unacceptable for Virgin and EC to pay a premium and TPE to get a subsidy. Ridiculous!

Exactly, and it's hardly speculation because when this route was with and intercity franchise it was operated by voyagers, and while not everyone may like them they were more speced to an intercity service than the 185s / 350/4s!

 

[Wolfie]

Hasnt this been disproven above though? Where the leasing cost of a 319 were higher than a 377? Now the 377s may not be the newest but they have lower leasing costs than a 319 due to weight distribution so I think this nullifies your argument?

It might be helpful if you bothered to at least get your basic facts right! Talking about "lower leasing costs" when the "facts" you are using relate to track access charges (which form a small component of actually running a train) is hardly convincing.....

 

[Manchester77]

Ho hum, I have heard this desperate attempt to wring yet more subsidy out before. All I will say is that if my aunt had different genitalia she would be my uncle... We are where we are, suck it up!

Wow great argument, really persuaded me now :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It might be helpful if you bothered to at least get your basic facts right! Talking about "lower leasing costs" when the "facts" you are using relate to track access charges (which form a small component of actually running a train) is hardly convincing.....

Yeah that's the one I had leasing costs on my mind in relation to another thread I was viewing. So instead of being rude why don't you actually respond to my point that charges are less for a 377 which is newer and therefore reduces your statement about newer trains being more cost,y to operate?