Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The constant arguing about age of rolling stock deflects from the more important issue which is the number of trains available. Hopefully there should be enough cascaded 1980s or 1990s EMUs available over the next few years to ensure by the end of the decade there *should* be no overhead electric routes suffering from overcrowding because of lack of trains, subject to some investment in either SDO or platform extensions at applicable locations. With sufficient electrification, hopefully many diesel routes could find themselves in the same position as well, although not if large numbers of Pacers are withdrawn.

How nice it is to see a well written and considered posting that puts its point, albeit differing from the point of view of mine, that I made in relation to one of the most "rudest in phraseology" postings by a forum member that it has been my unfortunance to read in the three and a half years since I have been a member of this forum.

I note your comments regarding the cyclical nature of all areas receiving better-quality rolling stock and would accept that view if cyclical were to remain the case and here in the northern reaches we currently took cascaded stocks of 1980s vintage to enable capacity to be retained in the interim period, but there has to be a time when those 1980s units also become life-expired.

The fear up here is that when that said life-expiration of the 1980s units occurs, instead of the cyclical nature referred to were then to bring new rolling stock to the northern areas, all that would occur is that further batches of new units for the southern areas at that point of time would once again see a repeat of 30 year-old cascaded rolling stock being offered to northern areas and this being the norm for years to come, instead of new units ever again being offered to the northern areas.

 

[59CosG95]

How nice it is to see a well written and considered posting that puts its point, albeit differing from the point of view of mine, that I made in relation to one of the most "rudest in phraseology" postings by a forum member that it has been my unfortunance to read in the three and a half years since I have been a member of this forum.

I note your comments regarding the cyclical nature of all areas receiving better-quality rolling stock and would accept that view if cyclical were to remain the case and here in the northern reaches we currently took cascaded stocks of 1980s vintage to enable capacity to be retained in the interim period, but there has to be a time when those 1980s units also become life-expired.

The fear up here is that when that said life-expiration of the 1980s units occurs, instead of the cyclical nature referred to were then to bring new rolling stock to the northern areas, all that would occur is that further batches of new units for the southern areas at that point of time would once again see a repeat of 30 year-old cascaded rolling stock being offered to northern areas and this being the norm for years to come, instead of new units ever again being offered to the northern areas.

Yet, back in the late 90s, the North had Sprinters and similar units which really weren't that old. The Southern and Great Eastern still had slammer stock-some of the oldest in Britain. And let it not be forgotten we still have to contend with 313s...

 

[Bletchleyite]

What has that got to do with the subject of this thread, - '319 cascade to Northern'?

The fact that Class 319s are a significant part of the overall North West rolling stock strategy.

The 319s will be deployed when the wiring is completed in the North allowing the displaced DMUs to strengthen the remaining diesel lines. No need to waste capital on yet more diesel stock as the progressive electrification in CP6 will allow even more EMUs to be cascaded until eventually the oldest DMUs can be retired leaving the better sprinters and 170s to run on the lines that probably won't have a good enough case for electrification.

The better Sprinters will by then be 40+ years old and needing replacement.

Neil

 

[AM9]

How nice it is to see a well written and considered posting that puts its point, albeit differing from the point of view of mine, that I made in relation to one of the most "rudest in phraseology" postings by a forum member that it has been my unfortunance to read in the three and a half years since I have been a member of this forum.

I note your comments regarding the cyclical nature of all areas receiving better-quality rolling stock and would accept that view if cyclical were to remain the case and here in the northern reaches we currently took cascaded stocks of 1980s vintage to enable capacity to be retained in the interim period, but there has to be a time when those 1980s units also become life-expired.

The fear up here is that when that said life-expiration of the 1980s units occurs, instead of the cyclical nature referred to were then to bring new rolling stock to the northern areas, all that would occur is that further batches of new units for the southern areas at that point of time would once again see a repeat of 30 year-old cascaded rolling stock being offered to northern areas and this being the norm for years to come, instead of new units ever again being offered to the northern areas.

Paul, I understand the concerns expressed above regarding the cyclical nature of stock replacement and the fear that the north's next replacement cycle will consist of more ex south-east EMUs.
The current cycle is driven by the fact that the requirements of a single route in the south-east are greater than all the routes in the CP4 electrification plans. There are 86 319s, that's 348 coaches. Whereas in Thameslink service they have mainly been used as 8-car trains, posters here are telling us that there won't be the demand for 8-car trains and that in some cases, even 4-car trains are an overkill. Assuming the currrent DfT enthusiasm for electification in the north does not fade away soon, by the end of CP7 the majority of the lines should be using electric trains. Assuming significant growth in patronage (meaning longer trains), the volume of stock would approach the levels of larger areas in the south east, so would be treated in the same way, i.e. sometimes new and sometimes cascaded.
After the current major schemes in London are completed, i.e. Thameslink, Crossrail, and GWML, the next major replacement of EMU stock is liklely to be the 455s, 456s & 458s. It is fortuitous for the north that they are DC stock and late in their service life, so unlikely that they would (or can) be converted to AC for cascading. The reluctance so far to consider conversion of more modern DC stock, e.g. 375s, 376s, 455s & 450s might be seen to indicate as an intention to work the rest of their lives in the south-east. The newest stock, i.e. 700s and 345s will be fixed formation 8/9/12-car trains so from what I read on here, would have little application in the north.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yet, back in the late 90s, the North had Sprinters and similar units which really weren't that old. The Southern and Great Eastern still had slammer stock-some of the oldest in Britain. And let it not be forgotten we still have to contend with 313s...

I agree with what you say as the current projected cascadation northwards will tend to equalise the cyclical matters. Howsoever, my concern is with the future northern regions' rolling stock provision once that rolling stock such as the cascaded Class 319 units will reach their life expiry and of what then may be the rolling stock that will form the subsequent rolling stock provision in the northern regions. I can well imagine this website in 2030 still containing postings to convince forum members in the north that there is plenty of rolling stock with about 10 more years life left in them in the southern regions that could be cascaded northwards once their new fleets are in service.

 

[northwichcat]

The 319s will be deployed when the wiring is completed in the North allowing the displaced DMUs to strengthen the remaining diesel lines. No need to waste capital on yet more diesel stock as the progressive electrification in CP6 will allow even more EMUs to be cascaded until eventually the oldest DMUs can be retired leaving the better sprinters and 170s to run on the lines that probably won't have a good enough case for electrification.

For that to work lines should have started being electrified 5 years earlier. Given the number of Pacer and older Sprinters in need of replacement, as well as the extra capacity avoiding a new DMU order altogether will mean either:
1. A lack of extra capacity on diesel lines.
2. DMUs being kept in service long after they should have been withdrawn which then creates reliability issues, as we saw with the 101s around the turn of the millennium.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yet, back in the late 90s, the North had Sprinters and similar units which really weren't that old. The Southern and Great Eastern still had slammer stock-some of the oldest in Britain. And let it not be forgotten we still have to contend with 313s...

You're forgetting the north only got rid of slam door on local services completely in 2004. The last of which was only withdrawn when all the 175s were in service (which allowed the 101s to be withdrawn) and Central had received the ex-MML 170s and consequently cascaded a few 158s North (which allowed the mk2 sets to be withdrawn.)

EMUs are supposed to last 10 years longer than DMUs, so in relative terms the 313s aren't in need of replacement any more than the 150s, while the slightly newer Pacers are more in need of replacement than the 150s so year of build isn't everything.

 

[tbtc]

The reality is that the North would have more investment if all of the money wasn't being spunked away on massively loss-making current services.....

I've tried to generate a discussion about how savings could be made, but nobody seemed interested - much easier to blame Big Bad London than to debate where inefficiencies lie.

For example, northern England has a number of "parliamentary" services which southern England doesn't...

...we have a few infrequent services that seem to serve little purpose other than "because that's what British Rail did" - e.g. the Sheffield - York service only serves one unique station (Pontefract Baghill - the third station in that town) but requires over a thousand miles a week to be travelled...

...northern England sees a lot of lines with relatively frequent services run by short DMUs - since the staffing costs make up a significant share of the railway's costs, it'd be a lot more efficient to run less frequent/ longer services. For example, in northern England we have

• three trains an hour from Barnsley to Castleford
• five trains an hour from Sheffield to Doncaster
• six trains an hour from Leeds to York (not including the Harrogate service)
• four trains an hour from Manchester to Romily
• nine trains an hour from Manchester to Manchester Airport
• four trains an hour from Manchester to Preston (plus the Barrow services)
• Doncaster to Hull is knocking on three trains an hour
• Leeds to Huddersfield will go up from 6/hour to 8/hour in a few years (not including the slower "via Bradford" service)
• four trains an hour from Keighley to Skipton (plus the Carlisle/ Morecambe services)

...(many of which are run by shortish DMUs) - aren't there at least some examples where we could run less frequent/longer services that would maintain the overall number of seats (but at less cost)?

I'm not saying every route needs to be profitable, but if we don't do something to tackle the worst inefficiencies then a future government is going to get fed up with the 50p subsidy per passenger mile and realise that it'd be cheaper to put is in taxis instead.

The point I've made several times is the spending in London is always going to be more expensive as its at a point it requires major works. And London does dip into its pockets to fund these improvements. Those headline figures of London getting 30 times the rest of the country fall to something like 6-7 times when you take out the non governmental money, ie private and in Crossrail's case loans on future ridership.

And that recent report in rail where London is using 96% of its rail capacity compared to Manchester's 73%. That figure is based on amount of passengers vs seats on trains being provided today. So London is at a much more critical point in rail capacity issues.

For the north to have parity, it needs to drag in other investment such as private while also being allowed to raise taxes on developments benefit from infrastructure investment. So the north needs to change its approach as does the government.

True - but this will go over many people's heads. Again.

I miss hearing about the 319s.

Sorry for going off topic. I set up a "North of England" thread a while ago for all of the rants to be put into, to stop polluting other threads, but it didn't seem to work

I do agree with you but electrification installation is not fast enough to replace non compliant Pacers by 2020

Agreed - it'll take until the early 2020s until the final Pacer is withdrawn (all 142s may be scrapped this decade though).

However, as any new DMU order would take until 2017 to come into service, there seems no prospect of building new (pure) DMUs, when there'll be a surplus of existing ones by 2024.

The 2004 franchise award was a no growth award. Growth since Northern was awarded the contract has been 67% in ten years. The problem is we have not had 67% more seats

Not a 67% increase in supply, maybe a 40% increase (despite all of the "no growth" stuff), that's a much bigger increase than many franchises have seen in that time.

I agree with what you say as the current projected cascadation northwards will tend to equalise the cyclical matters. Howsoever, my concern is with the future northern regions' rolling stock provision once that rolling stock such as the cascaded Class 319 units will reach their life expiry and of what then may be the rolling stock that will form the subsequent rolling stock provision in the northern regions

Once passenger numbers have evened out on the longer EMUs and we are in a position to forecast, I expect that there will be new EMUs for future orders (just like Airedale/Wharfdale got cascaded London stock at first, then brand new 333s, just like North Berwick got cascaded London stock at first then brand new 380s...)

You're forgetting the north only got rid of slam door on local services completely in 2004

You make it sound like the north west was the victim, yet again.

The midlands had slam door 121s until 2001, Scotland had slam door 117s until 2000, Yorkshire had slam door 308s until 2001, Wales had slam door 121s until 2013 (not including the fact that the midlands/ Scotland/ Yorkshire still see daily slam door HSTs from the 1970s on longer distance services) - so Manchester's 101s only lasted a couple of years beyond most other places (notwithstanding that the midlands still have 121 operation).

 

[mpb56125]

319380 is currently running between Liverpool South Parkway and Crewe on driver training duties.
http://mark5812.smugmug.com/Trains2014/November-2014/i-MkcstSC

Mark
http://mark5812.smugmug.com

 

[northwichcat]

You make it sound like the north west was the victim, yet again.

The midlands had slam door 121s until 2001, Scotland had slam door 117s until 2000, Yorkshire had slam door 308s until 2001, Wales had slam door 121s until 2013 (not including the fact that the midlands/ Scotland/ Yorkshire still see daily slam door HSTs from the 1970s on longer distance services) - so Manchester's 101s only lasted a couple of years beyond most other places (notwithstanding that the midlands still have 121 operation).

The post I was responding to was commenting on the South suffering from slam door EMUs in the 1990s (which weren't actually life expired) while the North enjoyed modern Sprinters and the like. I was pointing out the inaccuracies in that bias post, not comparing the North to every single area, which is what you're doing (and even bringing in Intercity services!) for no apparent reason.

The 101s weren't the last slam door stock on local services in the North. In 2004 FNW were using a mk2 set on the Blackpool and Mid-Cheshire lines, while ATN were using one on the Settle-Carlisle. Hence my reference to the MML 170s going to CT releasing 158s (to TPE) which indirectly saw the loco-hauled services end.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with what you say as the current projected cascadation northwards will tend to equalise the cyclical matters. Howsoever, my concern is with the future northern regions' rolling stock provision once that rolling stock such as the cascaded Class 319 units will reach their life expiry and of what then may be the rolling stock that will form the subsequent rolling stock provision in the northern regions. I can well imagine this website in 2030 still containing postings to convince forum members in the north that there is plenty of rolling stock with about 10 more years life left in them in the southern regions that could be cascaded northwards once their new fleets are in service.

Does that overly matter, provided said rolling stock is refurbished to an adequate standard? (Think the SWT 455s or the Merseyrail 507s - barely recognisable from the original build - or the various DB Silberling refurbs which when I first saw one had me fooled into thinking they were actually new but to an old design).

Regional bus operators thrive on London offcasts, and why shouldn't they?

Old stock need not be bad stock.

Neil

 

[Brian Aylott]

I do agree with you but electrification installation is not fast enough to replace non compliant Pacers by 2020 as they are completely knackered due to over intensity of use, corrosion and still working 15 years beyond their design life now. Despite comments from Southerners to the contrary, growth in Leeds City Region has been 54% in the same timescale as average growth in the rest of the country has been 39% so we in Yorkshire are short of trains for the traffic on offer.

The 2004 franchise award was a no growth award. Growth since Northern was awarded the contract has been 67% in ten years. The problem is we have not had 67% more seats.

Planned electrification IS fast enough to replace non compliant Pacers but of course it depends on what happens to cascaded stock from Scotrail, Crossrail, GTR, FGW etc and anyhow there is still the possibllity that 143s and 144s will be made compatible by 2020

Whilst agreeing that Dft in their wisdom made the current franchise a no growth one, it is not necessarily correct to assume that a 67% growth means that 67% more seats are required
Surely this would only apply if 100% seats were occupied in every train at the beginning of the franchise
Brian

 

[Bletchleyite]

For that to work lines should have started being electrified 5 years earlier. Given the number of Pacer and older Sprinters in need of replacement, as well as the extra capacity avoiding a new DMU order altogether will mean either:
1. A lack of extra capacity on diesel lines.
2. DMUs being kept in service long after they should have been withdrawn which then creates reliability issues, as we saw with the 101s around the turn of the millennium.

I agree one more build of DMUs would help matters a lot. Perhaps they could be DEMUs of some kind convertible easily to pure EMU, or even bi-mode to be used on services like those to Barrow and Windermere which are in danger of becoming shuttles from the nearest electrified line. I'm sure a way could be found to comply with emissions law if the desire was there.

EMUs are supposed to last 10 years longer than DMUs, so in relative terms the 313s aren't in need of replacement any more than the 150s, while the slightly newer Pacers are more in need of replacement than the 150s so year of build isn't everything.

I don't get the 313 hate, provided they are mechanically reliable and not falling to bits. The only thing I really dislike about the bodyshell is the small windows, but as so many people don't look out these days, rather looking at phones and tablets, they'd be better off changing the layout so that rather than giving nobody a good view they have two bays centred on the two windows and airline seats against the panel, thus giving most seats a good view and a few none.

Merseyrail, SWT (with the odd 508 vehicles in the 455s) and Southern have proven what can be done with the interiors of these units. They're getting old but they're not dead yet.

But...as you feel 313s aren't quite ready for replacement yet, why would you object to some going to Northern? They are 3 car units, which some here are calling for...

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

However, as any new DMU order would take until 2017 to come into service, there seems no prospect of building new (pure) DMUs, when there'll be a surplus of existing ones by 2024.

That's 7 years of misery. And lots more Pacers.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

But...as you feel 313s aren't quite ready for replacement yet, why would you object to some going to Northern? They are 3 car units, which some here are calling for...

They've not got a lot of life left in them, so by the time the Bolton corridor is electrified they will be due for replacement.

EMUs have a 35-40 shelf-life.*

The 313s were built in 1976, so due for replacement by 2016 at the latest.

DMUs have a 25-30 year shelf-life.*

The oldest 150s were built in 1984, so are due for immediate replacement.

The oldest 142s were built in 1985 but they probably should have been replaced by around the 25 yr mark (2010) rather than the 30 yr mark.

* Figures Network Rail stated in their rolling stock RUS.

 

[AM9]

They've not got a lot of life left in them, so by the time the Bolton corridor is electrified they will be due for replacement.

EMUs have a 35-40 shelf-life.*

The 313s were built in 1976, so due for replacement by 2016 at the latest.

DMUs have a 25-30 year shelf-life.*

The oldest 150s were built in 1984, so are due for immediate replacement.

The oldest 142s were built in 1985 but they probably should have been replaced by around the 25 yr mark (2010) rather than the 30 yr mark.

* Figures Network Rail stated in their rolling stock RUS.

OK, if you are relying on quotes, the 'Network RUS Passenger Rolling Stock' in its executive summary

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/network/working%20group%203%20-%20passenger%20rolling%20stock%20and%20depots/network%20rus%20-%20passenger%20rolling%20stock.pdf

says:

"A large proportion of the fleet, however, is
considerably older. Historically the railway has
considered commercial asset life as a nominal 30
years for diesel trains, and 35 years for electric trains.
In theory, over the next ten years a quarter of the
fleet would need to be replaced on this basis. Recent
technical research suggests that the life of some
rolling stock can be extended considerably. Where this
is possible, meets customer expectations and makes
sense commercially, life extension of rolling stock may
be a better whole life cost solution than purchasing
new rolling stock in the short term. However, even if
the life of much of the stock were to be extended for
five years, 12 per cent of the fleet would still need to
be replaced in that period."

I have boldened key parts of the text in case you had not noticed them. So the life figures so often stated in this forum are nominal. The industry rightly recognises that life of any given design is determined by a number of criteria. Passenger satisfaction is but one of them and it is not necessarily directly related to the absolute age of the stock.
Far more important is safety, route compatibility, commercial operating costs and reliability. The latter (reliability) has far more impact on actual passenger satisfaction than cosmetics anyway.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Does that overly matter, provided said rolling stock is refurbished to an adequate standard?. Old stock need not be bad stock.

Neil

I have emboldened that part of your posting that is something that is indeed most aspirational, but when the news of the Class 319 cascadation was first mooted, whatever was proposed for the upgrading of these units varied wildly in comments made from a "cat lick and change of TOC symbol vinyls" to something more substantial.

Therefore, can someone inform this elderly poster of exactly what will be the agreed upgrading on all the number of the Class 319 units that Northern Rail have selected to move into their area.

 

[Class83]

I have emboldened that part of your posting that is something that is indeed most aspirational, but when the news of the Class 319 cascadation was first mooted, whatever was proposed for the upgrading of these units varied wildly in comments made from a "cat lick and change of TOC symbol vinyls" to something more substantial.

Therefore, can someone inform this elderly poster of exactly what will be the agreed upgrading on all the number of the Class 319 units that Northern Rail have selected to move into their area.

Indeed, if the class 319s were refurbished to a similar standard to the Merseyrail 507/8s there would be less moaning. There remains an issue that most problems with Northern & Transpennine could be solved using existing infrastructure and longer/better trains. The 319s can be part of the solution for the next 10 years or so if properly modernised. There will still be a need for new electric units so transpennine can run 6*23m car services on all peak services out of the major cities, which effectively means most services on their network between 7-9am & 4-6pm.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

DMUs have a 25-30 year shelf-life.*

HSTs look like being around in Scotland until their 50th year...
They have received major re-engineering though.

 

[DT611]

I've tried to generate a discussion about how savings could be made, but nobody seemed interested - much easier to blame Big Bad London than to debate where inefficiencies lie.

For example, northern England has a number of "parliamentary" services which southern England doesn't...

...we have a few infrequent services that seem to serve little purpose other than "because that's what British Rail did" - e.g. the Sheffield - York service only serves one unique station (Pontefract Baghill - the third station in that town) but requires over a thousand miles a week to be travelled...

...northern England sees a lot of lines with relatively frequent services run by short DMUs - since the staffing costs make up a significant share of the railway's costs, it'd be a lot more efficient to run less frequent/ longer services. For example, in northern England we have

three trains an hour from Barnsley to Castleford
five trains an hour from Sheffield to Doncaster
six trains an hour from Leeds to York (not including the Harrogate service)
four trains an hour from Manchester to Romily
nine trains an hour from Manchester to Manchester Airport
four trains an hour from Manchester to Preston (plus the Barrow services)
Doncaster to Hull is knocking on three trains an hour
Leeds to Huddersfield will go up from 6/hour to 8/hour in a few years (not including the slower "via Bradford" service)
four trains an hour from Keighley to Skipton (plus the Carlisle/ Morecambe services)


...(many of which are run by shortish DMUs) - aren't there at least some examples where we could run less frequent/longer services that would maintain the overall number of seats (but at less cost)?

i don't know, but i'm thinking even though the trains are shortish, its the frequency that probably attracts people to the service, if it was less frequent but with longer trains could that not turn some people away? maybe the hope is that eventually they're will be enough capacity to make these services longer yet still keep the frequency, and hopefully attract more people. just a thought

I'm not saying every route needs to be profitable, but if we don't do something to tackle the worst inefficiencies then a future government is going to get fed up with the 50p subsidy per passenger mile

they may get fed up with it but realistically what can they do? its not the 50s/60s/70s/80s now so i can't see a government simply going back to mass closures/removals of service that would surely not go down well (and shall we say) not help whatever parties chances at the next election? ah i don't know

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Northern England sees a lot of lines with relatively frequent services run by short DMUs - since the staffing costs make up a significant share of the railway's costs, it'd be a lot more efficient to run less frequent/ longer services. For example, in northern England we have

• nine trains an hour from Manchester to Manchester Airport

...(many of which are run by shortish DMUs) - aren't there at least some examples where we could run less frequent/longer services that would maintain the overall number of seats (but at less cost)?

Please can you give the breakdown of these nine trains into the actual service journeys that are included in this short part of their journeys, stating what the actual journeys are, the name of the TOC operating them and the actual service frequency of each service.

At first glance, forum members who reside very many miles away and have no real knowledge of the way that you have portrayed matters may well assume that you are only referring to an extremely regular shuttle service between those two railway stations.

 

[Bantamzen]

...northern England sees a lot of lines with relatively frequent services run by short DMUs - since the staffing costs make up a significant share of the railway's costs, it'd be a lot more efficient to run less frequent/ longer services. For example, in northern England we have

• three trains an hour from Barnsley to Castleford
• five trains an hour from Sheffield to Doncaster
• six trains an hour from Leeds to York (not including the Harrogate service)
• four trains an hour from Manchester to Romily
• nine trains an hour from Manchester to Manchester Airport
• four trains an hour from Manchester to Preston (plus the Barrow services)
• Doncaster to Hull is knocking on three trains an hour
• Leeds to Huddersfield will go up from 6/hour to 8/hour in a few years (not including the slower "via Bradford" service)
• four trains an hour from Keighley to Skipton (plus the Carlisle/ Morecambe services)

...(many of which are run by shortish DMUs) - aren't there at least some examples where we could run less frequent/longer services that would maintain the overall number of seats (but at less cost)?

Simply cutting services, and lengthening those that survive the cull isn't going to solve the problem. In fact as Paul mentions above, reducing frequencies might actually make the services less attractive. But that isn't the only problem, for a start many of the platforms simply couldn't cope with anything more than 4x20/23m units and some of those would be near to impossible to lengthen. And then there's the problem of running lower frequency services with ageing stock. If a unit fails, passengers could suddenly be faced with an hour or more wait. If that happens even just occasionally, you can bet that passengers will fall away.

Let's also not forget that along some of Northern's routes they operate a fairly complex set of paths, so a 333 (for example) running on the Aire & Wharfe valley routes might spend one journey being lightly loaded, then the next one heavily so. And again with complex paths comes the risks when things go wrong with ageing stock.

I really don't understand why whenever this issue comes up some are so keen to simply go for a programme of cuts in the North. This region needs investment as well as others. Nobody is expecting the extensive amounts of investment taking place in the South East, but none the less in the medium to long term money will have to be spent, regardless of what some folk think. London cannot expand forever, there's only so many tunnels you can push underneath the capital before it simply becomes too much. And when that happens governments & businesses are going to have to look further afield to base industry. By investing in the North, and indeed all around the country, we are putting infrastructure in place that will be fit for purpose in 20 or 30 years. Sadly this will cost, but you invest in the future so it will be a price worth paying.

The 319s being prepped for work in the North West will act as a handy stopgap, and hopefully they will go into service with more than just a quick wipe down and a bottle of Febreeze. But even with them in play, more EMU and DMU stock is going to be needed in the not too distant future. And I don't think we can make a system any more economic in the long run by throwing just old, cascaded stock at the franchises up here. At some point new stock, designed with the potential future requirements is going to be needed eventually.

I'm not saying every route needs to be profitable, but if we don't do something to tackle the worst inefficiencies then a future government is going to get fed up with the 50p subsidy per passenger mile and realise that it'd be cheaper to put is in taxis instead.

Goof luck running a taxi service through Manchester, or out of Leeds up the Aire Valley. It would be quicker to issue bikes to the passengers at times...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Please can you give the breakdown of these nine trains into the actual service journeys that are included in this short part of their journeys, stating what the actual journeys are, the name of the TOC operating them and the actual service frequency of each service.

At first glance, forum members who reside very many miles away and have no real knowledge of the way that you have portrayed matters may well assume that you are only referring to an extremely regular shuttle service between those two railway stations.

Standard pattern is:
5xTPE (Blackpool/Cumbria, Scotland, York, Middlesbrough, Cleethorpes), all 185s except Scotland (350)
4xNT (Piccadillyx2 (323), Liverpool, Southport (DMU))

That adds up to 26 cars an hour Piccadilly-Airport. Too many seats for the traffic on offer.
All non-stop except the two NT 323s (all stops), and the TPE Blackpool calls at Heald Green.
One of the NT 323s runs on to Crewe.
But trains routed via the South Junction have to go somewhere.

 

[Haydn1971]

That adds up to 26 cars an hour Piccadilly-Airport. Too many seats for the traffic on offer.

Indeed, it's really frustrating in the evening seeing an empty 8 carriage 350 or 6 carriage 185 chugging through Piccadilly towards Manchester Airport closely followed by a rammed 4 carriage EMT 158 heading to Sheffield

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Standard pattern is:
5xTPE (Blackpool/Cumbria, Scotland, York, Middlesbrough, Cleethorpes), all 185s except Scotland (350)
4xNT (Piccadillyx2 (323), Liverpool, Southport (DMU))

That adds up to 26 cars an hour Piccadilly-Airport. Too many seats for the traffic on offer.
All non-stop except the two NT 323s (all stops), and the TPE Blackpool calls at Heald Green.
One of the NT 323s runs on to Crewe.
But trains routed via the South Junction have to go somewhere.

I thank you for this information. I don't think that the soon to be opened fourth platform at Manchester Airport is there for its aesthetic complementation to the Manchester Metrolink platform opposite, but to cope with number of train services that are routed via the South Junction into the Manchester Airport railway station.

These services all run into the Manchester Airport railway station, as the majority of them actually terminate there, with the exception of the service that carries onwards to Crewe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Standard pattern is:
5xTPE (Blackpool/Cumbria, Scotland, York, Middlesbrough, Cleethorpes), all 185s except Scotland (350)
4xNT (Piccadillyx2 (323), Liverpool, Southport (DMU))

That adds up to 26 cars an hour Piccadilly-Airport. Too many seats for the traffic on offer.
All non-stop except the two NT 323s (all stops), and the TPE Blackpool calls at Heald Green.
One of the NT 323s runs on to Crewe.
But trains routed via the South Junction have to go somewhere.

Indeed. The main reason for so much going to the Airport is that there is only one reversing siding at Picc that can be used to reverse trains coming from the west, and Arriva Trains Wales already use it. Stockport would be another option, I suppose, though it already has plenty of services to/from Picc so there'd be little to gain from clogging the WCML up with yet more trains.

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

Indeed, it's really frustrating in the evening seeing an empty 8 carriage 350 or 6 carriage 185 chugging through Piccadilly towards Manchester Airport closely followed by a rammed 4 carriage EMT 158 heading to Sheffield

That it might be, but as I mention it has little to do with passenger demand and more to do with places where trains can be reversed after Picc.

Neil

 

[Haydn1971]

That it might be, but as I mention it has little to do with passenger demand and more to do with places where trains can be reversed after Picc.

Room to reverse at Sheffield as an alternative to Manchester Airport haha

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Indeed. The main reason for so much going to the Airport is that there is only one reversing siding at Picc that can be used to reverse trains coming from the west, and Arriva Trains Wales already use it....

Except, of course, that the York, Cleethorpes and Middlesborough services all go into the terminus platforms and go back out to the airport, so if they didn't go to the airport they could just terminate there. This might allow some units to be used for additional capacity on busier trains..

It's all academic though, because when Ordsall Curve is finished they'll all have to go through platform 13/14/15/16....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Room to reverse at Sheffield as an alternative to Manchester Airport haha

Because TPE and Northern have lots of spare stock to use for an extra service to Sheffield?

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

Except, of course, that the York, Cleethorpes and Middlesborough services all go into the terminus platforms and go back out to the airport, so if they didn't go to the airport they could just terminate there.

Good point, I forgot those. I guess the Airport run could (and probably should) indeed be removed from them.

Neil

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Good point, I forgot those. I guess the Airport run could (and probably should) indeed be removed from them.

Neil

Why do you think that train services run to and from Manchester Airport railway station and to Stansted Airport railway station?

It is not for the scenic views that can be admired en route...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why do you think that train services run to and from Manchester Airport railway station and to Stansted Airport railway station?

It is not for the scenic views that can be admired en route...

It has been established (a) that there are 9tph, and (b) that TPE have a problem with a shortage of units.

Reducing that to say 6 or 7tph and redeploying the units on overcrowded services elsewhere would be extremely sensible. The journey opportunities would still be there, just they'd be connectional.

Neil

 

[Wavertreelad]

How nice it is to see a well written and considered posting that puts its point, albeit differing from the point of view of mine, that I made in relation to one of the most "rudest in phraseology" postings by a forum member that it has been my unfortunance to read in the three and a half years since I have been a member of this forum.

I note your comments regarding the cyclical nature of all areas receiving better-quality rolling stock and would accept that view if cyclical were to remain the case and here in the northern reaches we currently took cascaded stocks of 1980s vintage to enable capacity to be retained in the interim period, but there has to be a time when those 1980s units also become life-expired.

The fear up here is that when that said life-expiration of the 1980s units occurs, instead of the cyclical nature referred to were then to bring new rolling stock to the northern areas, all that would occur is that further batches of new units for the southern areas at that point of time would once again see a repeat of 30 year-old cascaded rolling stock being offered to northern areas and this being the norm for years to come, instead of new units ever again being offered to the northern areas.

I'd totally agree the endless North/South argument is now getting very tedious, and I am a Northerner. It's was so refreshing to see a point of view being put into reasoned argument rather than some of the comments expressed here and elsewhere.

Whilst I would not dispute investment in the North's infrastructure is long overdue, and now very necessary it surely has be accepted that this and many other infrastructure schemes have to take their place is an ever lengthening and increasingly expensive list of priorities than any government has to deal with over the lifetime of a parliament. The argument about were on the list this investment should take place and whether it is sufficient are two entirely separate issues on which we will all get a chance to vote on next May.

The facts are the North West electrification scheme is being completed during and immediately following the worst economic period for decades thus dictating the optimum use of existing recourses, in this case otherwise redundant 4 car 319's. When these units are finally introduced they will significantly boost capacity on the electrified lines and reduce the present chronic over crowding at peak times, which let's face it is what the majority of fare paying passengers are clamouring for. At the same time the released diesel units will be available to strengthen non electrified services relieving overcrowding elsewhere on the Northern network.

I fail to understand the logic of spending huge sums of money reducing some or all of the Northern 319's to three car sets when a far simpler modification to control the door operation is a possibility combined perhaps with some changes to station stops where the infrastructure does not allow it at least in the interim. Whether the 4 car 319's are overkill in the off peak should not be an issue, as the sparks affect and ability to secure a seat off peak should encourage passengers who otherwise might travel off peak by other means for leisure purposes which will be further encouraged when the electrification spreads across the Pennines.

Whether the 319's are eventually replaced by new or further cascaded stock seems at this stage academic, because we are probably looking at least five to ten years into the future with the prospect of HS3 services being planned to link the cities of north on the main trans-Pennine route. As for future demand, well as somebody who has experienced for the last eight weeks a daily commute to Manchester in the peak along the M62 which can often take between 75 to 90 minutes even at 0700hrs the potential demand could be huge even if a small percentage of this traffic could be encouraged to rail. From personal observations only a few very rough calculations - the average queue at Junc 9 westbound is about 1.5 miles so roughly that's about 5000 cars, allowing 20ft per car and all the vehicles in the three lane queue are cars which obviously is not the case. To get through this queue often takes 30+ minutes which means in a peak of two hours that's about 20000 cars. For some strange reason the queue on a Friday is considerably reduced on a Friday, and last week it was half term in Liverpool so the queue was considerably reduced to perhaps15/20 minutes but last Friday was virtually nil suggesting perhaps the majority of the queue usually originates in the Liverpool area. At the Manchester end the vast majority of traffic (about 65%) appears to head north around the city on the M62/M60 rather than entering Salford or Manchester from the M602 or turning south down the M60. So even if the number of car drivers was half the volume and a reliable, fast and cost effective rail service across the north was available it might suggest there is potential several hundred passengers an hour certainly at peak based on these very unscientific observations and calculations.