Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. However, due to the small windows if alignment was good the trains wouldn't have that many seats per carriage and would probably have a large number of luggage racks. The Pendolinos are the only type of train we have which are designed for 140mph tilting operation (although they're limited to 125mph.) The small windows are a compromise for having the 140mph tilting facility

No, they aren't, they're a piece of rotten design that affects all Pendolinos, not just UK ones but also these:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Pendolino

and enhance safety. Remember the Grayrigg derailment? Apparently things would have been much worse if the train had large windows and narrow pillars between windows (as you see on trains like Pacers.)

Possibly so, but personally I'll accept a bit less safety in the incredibly unlikely chance of a serious crash for something nice like one of these:-

http://www.siemens.com/press/en/events/industry/mobility/2010-04-velaro-d.php

Or even one of these (bigger windows, higher top speed):-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_395

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

No, they aren't, they're a piece of rotten design that affects all Pendolinos, not just UK ones but also these:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Pendolino

I should have said only UK train designed to tilt and run at 140mph, so while we can make comparisons to Europe, there isn't a UK equivalent of an alternative design.

Or even one of these (bigger windows, higher top speed):-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_395

They have the same top speed but are cleared to run at their top speed on HS1. They also don't tilt - non-tilting stock is limited to 110mph on the WCML, so they would be slower than Pendolinos if they operated Virgin services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They have the same top speed but are cleared to run at their top speed on HS1. They also don't tilt - non-tilting stock is limited to 110mph on the WCML, so they would be slower than Pendolinos if they operated Virgin services.

Tilt does not require small windows, it just requires sloping sides. Voyager windows are massive, and Mk4 coaches have a tilt profile even though tilt was never fitted. APT similarly does not have tiny windows.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Voyager windows are massive.

Voyagers were designed for a top speed of 125mph, opposed to being designed for a top speed of 140mph. I don't know how much difference that makes. Also note design regulations change - a 350 would not have been cleared for 110mph running under the older regulations without removing a significant number of seats from the driving carriages, so what may have been possible in 1975 or 2010 may not have been possible in 2000.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Voyagers were designed for a top speed of 125mph, opposed to being designed for a top speed of 140mph. I don't know how much difference that makes.

The top speed is a separate design consideration from tilt.

Therefore as I presented you a tilting train that has large windows (Voyager, APT, ICE-TD, Mk4 coach) and a non-tilting high speed train that has large windows (Class 395, all varieties of DB ICE), it should therefore be possible to have a tilting high-speed train that has large windows.

But the UK will never see such a thing, because there will be no more tilting high-speed stock ordered anyway. The IEP, which is high (ish) speed but not tilting, looks like it is basically a 26m version of the Class 395 bodyshell.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Neil Williams: Earlier in the thread you were dismissing advantages of a 380 over a 350 (like more seating) saying the passenger wasn't the only consideration. Now you're going on about a Pendolino being a poor design because of the seating alignment.

What kind of designs did other manufacturers offer Virgin as alternatives to Pendolinos? Did any of them have large windows? If so why were they rejected?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Neil Williams: Earlier in the thread you were dismissing advantages of a 380 over a 350 (like more seating) saying the passenger wasn't the only consideration. Now you're going on about a Pendolino being a poor design because of the seating alignment.

The situations were rather different. VT and the WCML upgrade were a planned programme over many years with plenty of time to get things right (and I'm not a Pendolino hater, I just think the windows are too small). TPE needed stock now, and it got it, and a design that isn't much different to what you think was the ideal.

What kind of designs did other manufacturers offer Virgin as alternatives to Pendolinos? Did any of them have large windows? If so why were they rejected?

I genuinely don't even know if it went to tender. I imagine it probably did, but similarly imagine window size was not likely to have been specified directly. The decision in the case of a tender will have been made on the cheapest bid offering the required specification.

Neil

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The top speed is a separate design consideration from tilt.
Therefore as I presented you a tilting train that has large windows (Voyager, APT, ICE-TD, Mk4 coach) and a non-tilting high speed train that has large windows (Class 395, all varieties of DB ICE), it should therefore be possible to have a tilting high-speed train that has large windows.
But the UK will never see such a thing, because there will be no more tilting high-speed stock ordered anyway. The IEP, which is high (ish) speed but not tilting, looks like it is basically a 26m version of the Class 395 bodyshell.
Neil

Pendolino windows are not small horizontally but they are vertically.
BR narrowed the windows with the Mk3 design, on the premise that it was psychologically unsettling to have the near view rushing past at 125mph, and higher sills gave a better ambience.
Tilt further emphasised the problems so Alstom/Fiat raised the sills further in the Pendolino to counteract the tilt.
For all the "big window" benefits of the 350s/Voyagers the low sills give you that scenery rushing past problem and can give a tiring ride.
A 390 (usually) also rides better than a 221/350 on the same track.
You have to balance the more limited view of the 390 with these ambience issues.
On Lancs/Scotland runs I still head for Pendolinos first.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For all the "big window" benefits of the 350s/Voyagers the low sills give you that scenery rushing past problem and can give a tiring ride.

Do you actually find you notice that? I don't really, FWIW. The bigger the windows the better, to me. But most importantly, high windows give the feeling of spaciousness even if the sill is also high.

A 390 (usually) also rides better than a 221/350 on the same track.
You have to balance the more limited view of the 390 with these ambience issues.

Oh, indeed, which is why I was stating the small windows of the Pendolino as a poor design feature, rather than the Pendolino as a bad train overall.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As regards alignment, that's a separate issue. Usually a bodyshell has one window layout for ease of design and repurposing later. For IC trains that's usually First Class, for regional body designs[1] e.g. Desiros, where first class's selling point is that you get a seat, it's usually Standard.

[1] You can of course seat one to IC standard, as TPE and LM (/1 and /3) have.

Neil

 

[bramling]

Pendolino windows are not small horizontally but they are vertically.
BR narrowed the windows with the Mk3 design, on the premise that it was psychologically unsettling to have the near view rushing past at 125mph, and higher sills gave a better ambience.
Tilt further emphasised the problems so Alstom/Fiat raised the sills further in the Pendolino to counteract the tilt.
For all the "big window" benefits of the 350s/Voyagers the low sills give you that scenery rushing past problem and can give a tiring ride.
A 390 (usually) also rides better than a 221/350 on the same track.
You have to balance the more limited view of the 390 with these ambience issues.
On Lancs/Scotland runs I still head for Pendolinos first.

I have to say that, although initially I was unimpressed with the small windows on the Pendolinos, in practice I haven't found them to be an issue, and I am someone who very much likes to look out the window. *However*, what *is* an issue on these trains is the seat alignment. If all the vehicles were laid out as in First Class then they would be superb, otherwise unfortunately it very much depends on were you sit. OK on a lightly loaded train where you get the choice, but not if you are forced to sit in one of the many seats with poor or no view.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have to say that, although initially I was unimpressed with the small windows on the Pendolinos, in practice I haven't found them to be an issue, and I am someone who very much likes to look out the window. *However*, what *is* an issue on these trains is the seat alignment. If all the vehicles were laid out as in First Class then they would be superb, otherwise unfortunately it very much depends on were you sit. OK on a lightly loaded train where you get the choice, but not if you are forced to sit in one of the many seats with poor or no view.

And (possibly more important to some people) no shoulder room either. Certainly my shoulders need to expand into the space provided by a window.

Neil

 

[ac6000cw]

Err, what has a discussion of Pendo/185/350/Voyager window and seat layouts got to do with '319 cascade to Northern' (the title of this thread) ?

 

[158722]

Err, what has a discussion of Pendo/185/350/Voyager window and seat layouts got to do with '319 cascade to Northern' (the title of this thread) ?

Exactly. Have 319363 & 380 been out on more crew training runs? 319361 as well?

Further south, no sign of 362/364/365 emerging from Wolverton?

 

[ainsworth74]

As has been noted this discussion has wandered far off-topic. Therefore I'm going to ask all those who were participating in the discussion around 350/185/390s and or the discussion around 'the north has it bad/does not/should be grateful for what it gets' carry on that discussion elsewhere on either a new thread or an existing suitable thread if one does not already exist. This thread should be used for discussion around 319s being sent to Northern.

I am not going to split out or delete the off-topic postings that are already here as to do so would be a huge undertaking at this point. However that does not mean you can carry on those discussions here. Any further off-topic posts will be deleted. If anyone sees an off-topic post please feel free to report it (

) to the Staff Team.

Many thanks

 

[PHILIPE]

As has been noted this discussion has wandered far off-topic. Therefore I'm going to ask all those who were participating in the discussion around 350/185/390s and or the discussion around 'the north has it bad/does not/should be grateful for what it gets' carry on that discussion elsewhere on either a new thread or an existing suitable thread if one does not already exist. This thread should be used for discussion around 319s being sent to Northern.

I am not going to split out or delete the off-topic postings that are already here as to do so would be a huge undertaking at this point. However that does not mean you can carry on those discussions here. Any further off-topic posts will be deleted. If anyone sees an off-topic post please feel free to report it (

) to the Staff Team.

Many thanks

Hear, Hear.

 

[Class377/5]

Exactly. Have 319363 & 380 been out on more crew training runs? 319361 as well?

Further south, no sign of 362/364/365 emerging from Wolverton?

No, its all gone very quiet. Likely as a result of the three or so month delay in completing the wires. Meanwhile commissioning of the 387s that will allow the cascading of the remaining 319s has started. There is currently 6 delivered for commissioning and a further 6-8 completed meaning there's enough trains built to allow the full 14 units cascaded to Northern, likely before the July deadline.

 

[158722]

No, its all gone very quiet. Likely as a result of the three or so month delay in completing the wires. Meanwhile commissioning of the 387s that will allow the cascading of the remaining 319s has started. There is currently 6 delivered for commissioning and a further 6-8 completed meaning there's enough trains built to allow the full 14 units cascaded to Northern, likely before the July deadline.

By July, you mean the agreed date for Northern to have the 14x 319s available or just handed over from TSGN?

I guess the infrastructure delays negate all the possible problems with delays in having enough refreshed 319s available. Do we have any idea of the wiring status/going live dates of the four routes the 319s are meant to be used on?
Liverpool LS to Manchester Airport, Liverpool LS to Wigan NW & Liverpool LS to Warrington BQ plus Liverpool LS to (Ordsall Lane) & Manchester Victoria look like should release at least 12x DMU - 3, 4, 2 & 3 diagrams respectively.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

By July, you mean the agreed date for Northern to have the 14x 319s available or just handed over from TSGN?

I guess the infrastructure delays negate all the possible problems with delays in having enough refreshed 319s available. Do we have any idea of the wiring status/going live dates of the four routes the 319s are meant to be used on?
Liverpool LS to Manchester Airport, Liverpool LS to Wigan NW & Liverpool LS to Warrington BQ plus Liverpool LS to (Ordsall Lane) & Manchester Victoria look like should release at least 12x DMU - 3, 4, 2 & 3 diagrams respectively.

There have been postings upon another thread which one member has regularly suggested that a reduction of services into Manchester Airport would free up DMU for use on other areas of the Northern Rail franchise.

As time factors go, would it not be more advisable to keep the status quo and to let the DMU freed by the introduction of the 14 Class 319 units fulfil that aspiration?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There have been postings upon another thread which one member has regularly suggested that a reduction of services into Manchester Airport would free up DMU for use on other areas of the Northern Rail franchise.
As time factors go, would it not be more advisable to keep the status quo and to let the DMU freed by the introduction of the 14 Class 319 units fulfil that aspiration?

I doubt if the basic timetable will change much until the next franchise starts and the Bolton line goes live.
The debate about Airport services vs the rest is one for Rail North and the wider subsidy issue.
The December ITT might give us some hints.

 

[northwichcat]

I doubt if the basic timetable will change much until the next franchise starts and the Bolton line goes live.

I think the one thing that could change (maybe in May 2015) is for the off-peak Liverpool-Warrington services to be diverted to Victoria to give a half-hourly service all day across the line.

 

[158722]

There have been postings upon another thread which one member has regularly suggested that a reduction of services into Manchester Airport would free up DMU for use on other areas of the Northern Rail franchise.

As time factors go, would it not be more advisable to keep the status quo and to let the DMU freed by the introduction of the 14 Class 319 units fulfil that aspiration?

I think you've answered that perfectly...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the one thing that could change (maybe in May 2015) is for the off-peak Liverpool-Warrington services to be diverted to Victoria to give a half-hourly service all day across the line.

How would that work? You can't get from the CLC line to Victoria, can you? Or do you mean when the Ordsall Chord has opened?

Or do you mean a cut to the stopping service on the CLC?

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

How would that work? You can't get from the CLC line to Victoria, can you? Or do you mean when the Ordsall Chord has opened?

Or do you mean a cut to the stopping service on the CLC?

Neil

The other Liverpool to Warrington service (via Rainhill): http://www.northernrail.org/pdfs/timetables/20140422/15.pdf

 

[Bletchleyite]

The other Liverpool to Warrington service (via Rainhill): http://www.northernrail.org/pdfs/timetables/20140422/15.pdf

Ah I see... anyway I guess we are heading too far off topic with this again

Neil

 

[Class377/5]

By July, you mean the agreed date for Northern to have the 14x 319s available or just handed over from TSGN?

I guess the infrastructure delays negate all the possible problems with delays in having enough refreshed 319s available. Do we have any idea of the wiring status/going live dates of the four routes the 319s are meant to be used on?
Liverpool LS to Manchester Airport, Liverpool LS to Wigan NW & Liverpool LS to Warrington BQ plus Liverpool LS to (Ordsall Lane) & Manchester Victoria look like should release at least 12x DMU - 3, 4, 2 & 3 diagrams respectively.

Hand over date for the last four 319s is 01/07/15. However by May timetable 29x 387 should have come in service to cover the loss at Thameslink of 24 units.

So Id expect Northern to have completed mods on most if not all the 319s by July. After all its taking Wolverton around a month to install PUS and replace the toilets on the Thameslink 319s.

I don't have knowledge of routes going live but expect Victoria then west of Earlstown before the Bryn section.

 

[petersi]

I thought northern were getting only 14 unites where are the other 10 units going

 

[user15681]

I thought northern were getting only 14 unites where are the other 10 units going

There are other units going to other places, shall we say.

On a side note, saw 319 driver training at Crewe on Sunday, was very odd having only ever seen them locally.

 

[Manchester77]

I wonder if porterbrook will take the opportunity and use one of the soon to be off lease units as a demonstrator?

 

[childwallblues]

There are other units going to other places, shall we say.

On a side note, saw 319 driver training at Crewe on Sunday, was very odd having only ever seen them locally.

Driver training continues on a daily basis. 319380 was out on Sunday.

 

[158722]

There are other units going to other places, shall we say.

On a side note, saw 319 driver training at Crewe on Sunday, was very odd having only ever seen them locally.

Another teaser! Now where are they off to?!

I'd honestly have thought that another 8 to 10 could go to Northern, replacing 323s on the Airport shuttle/Crewe/etc turns, which in turn go to LM to displace the soon to be 5x 350 turns on the Cross-City line, allowing the 7x 321s to go to ScotRail...