Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[northwichcat]

Yes, but not their money. The sort of mods to make a 3-car unit would probably make it poor value for the users for such a limited time.

It looks like they won't be off lease for long if at all anyway.

Porterbrook did come up with that idea originally when it was proposed the 319s would go to the North West and Thames Valley, which could have left a small number of units off-lease.

There could be a period when some are unused for. However, with the other suggestion that Corby-London services will get 375s from Southeastern, maybe they'll be an option for Northern to take them all on and sublease some units out until Huddersfield-Selby is electrified.

 

[Class377/5]

I can't imagine the 350s going to Northern, they'd go to London Midland if they leave TPE. That would release the 319/321s up north.

I don't think the 319s would lose a trailer either, I don't see what the point would be. There's no reason why 8-cars can't stop at most stations in the north, platform alterations will need to be sorted out eventually.

But the North doesn't need 8 cars it seems. 6 cars is enough to accommodate on the over crowded services. Or at least that the opinion many on here have and ununreasonably think this is the only length the north can ever have.

Without giving extra capacity the north will never justfy new trains. Build up an increase in passenger and start thinking about proper upgrade of the north. Sharing with the Bolton line that's regularly reported to be brushing at the seams with six car peak trains.

Is beggers belief that so many have complained of the north not being the same level of investment as the south yet equal amount of time has been spent on why the north doesn't need any train lengthening.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is beggers belief that so many have complained of the north not being the same level of investment as the south yet equal amount of time has been spent on why the north doesn't need any train lengthening.

Perhaps it is just as much to do with the type of units in the Northern Rail franchise that are used just as much as the length of the trains.

 

[northwichcat]

Without giving extra capacity the north will never justfy new trains. Build up an increase in passenger and start thinking about proper upgrade of the north. Sharing with the Bolton line that's regularly reported to be brushing at the seams with six car peak trains.

That's not the full story.

First thing is the 6 car trains are 185s which have low density seating. It could be a 319 (with high density seating) has just as many seats as a 185.

Second thing is the Victoria-Blackpool and Hazel Grove-Preston services see nothing longer than a 4 car Sprinter. Ideally some of those services could do with an extra carriage or two. However, I think the risk is if everyone can squeeze on a 4 car 319 then is the operator going to run 8 cars just to avoid a sardine loading between Salford and Manchester?

Is beggers belief that so many have complained of the north not being the same level of investment as the south yet equal amount of time has been spent on why the north doesn't need any train lengthening.

Really? I've never seen any posts on here saying the North doesn't need train lengthening and I don't know anyone who uses the train in the North who'd agree with that.

I think you've seem posts regarding 8 cars and Salford Crescent from posters including me and wrongly thought that applies to hundreds of stations in the North.

In the past 6 car 185s omitted Salford Crescent because the infrastructure didn't allow for it. Network Rail eventually remodelled Salford Crescent to allow 6 car 185s to stop there. If we introduce 8 car 319s I fear the same thing could happen again, with diesel services to places such as Southport having to pick up most of the Salford Crescent passengers, meaning we have to lengthen diesel services because the longer electric ones can't stop there!

If 6 car 323s were used then they'll be no issues and over 550 seats would be provided on a single service - more than double what a 6 car 185 provides.

 

[RobShipway]

That's not the full story.

First thing is the 6 car trains are 185s which have low density seating. It could be a 319 (with high density seating) has just as many seats as a 185.

Second thing is the Victoria-Blackpool and Hazel Grove-Preston services see nothing longer than a 4 car Sprinter. Ideally some of those services could do with an extra carriage or two. However, I think the risk is if everyone can squeeze on a 4 car 319 then is the operator going to run 8 cars just to avoid a sardine loading between Salford and Manchester?



Really? I've never seen any posts on here saying the North doesn't need train lengthening and I don't know anyone who uses the train in the North who'd agree with that.

I think you've seem posts regarding 8 cars and Salford Crescent from posters including me and wrongly thought that applies to hundreds of stations in the North.

In the past 6 car 185s omitted Salford Crescent because the infrastructure didn't allow for it. Network Rail eventually remodelled Salford Crescent to allow 6 car 185s to stop there. If we introduce 8 car 319s I fear the same thing could happen again, with diesel services to places such as Southport having to pick up most of the Salford Crescent passengers, meaning we have to lengthen diesel services because the longer electric ones can't stop there!

If 6 car 323s were used then they'll be no issues and over 550 seats would be provided on a single service - more than double what a 6 car 185 provides.

Bear with me in the question I am about to ask:

Does London Midland still class 323 trains on the Birmingham Cross City or has this now gone over to Class 350 operation?

The reason for the above question is in the leasing that London Midland is going to be doing of Class 319's which I think would be good for the Cross City line through the Midlands and would then free up possibly the class 323's to move north to be with the rest of the class 323 fleet.

 

[40129]

Not sure that transferring cl-323s to Northern and cl-319s to London Midland would solve one problem without creating another. Reason I say this is that quite a few Cross City line trains are 6-car and this is the maximum length most platforms on the line can accommodate. Given that despite the reduced individual car length an 8-car cl-319 is longer than a 6-car cl-323 all that would be achieved is a transfer of the problem from Manchester to Birmingham.

In any case, IIRC, the March edition of Modern Railways says that the entire cl-319 fleet is likely to go to Northern with LM and GA getting additional cl-321s from GN.

Finally, no the cl-350s do not work any Cross City line trains and hopefully never will. Not only would you have the same 8-car train problem as with the cl-319s but the slower rate of acceleration means they couldn't keep to what is probably best described as a challenging schedule

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The pep-derived stock has, thus far, lasted better than the 317s for example from a corrosion point of view as they are made from aluminium. On that basis they could outlive the Mk3-based stock if they're looked after. As stated above the 315s would be easier to shorten if required too.

The whole issue of the apparently in-demand 323s would be far easier to deal with if another 20 or so had been ordered for the Airedale and Wharfedale lines!

 

[Class377/5]

That's not the full story.

First thing is the 6 car trains are 185s which have low density seating. It could be a 319 (with high density seating) has just as many seats as a 185.

Second thing is the Victoria-Blackpool and Hazel Grove-Preston services see nothing longer than a 4 car Sprinter. Ideally some of those services could do with an extra carriage or two. However, I think the risk is if everyone can squeeze on a 4 car 319 then is the operator going to run 8 cars just to avoid a sardine loading between Salford and Manchester?

Lower density trains are what people expect these days with 2+2 plus accessible toilets reducing seating.

We aren't talking about today's crowds but the future and actually getting the railways to deal with the loads In the next ten years.

Really? I've never seen any posts on here saying the North doesn't need train lengthening and I don't know anyone who uses the train in the North who'd agree with that.

I think you've seem posts regarding 8 cars and Salford Crescent from posters including me and wrongly thought that applies to hundreds of stations in the North.

In the past 6 car 185s omitted Salford Crescent because the infrastructure didn't allow for it. Network Rail eventually remodelled Salford Crescent to allow 6 car 185s to stop there. If we introduce 8 car 319s I fear the same thing could happen again, with diesel services to places such as Southport having to pick up most of the Salford Crescent passengers, meaning we have to lengthen diesel services because the longer electric ones can't stop there!

If 6 car 323s were used then they'll be no issues and over 550 seats would be provided on a single service - more than double what a 6 car 185 provides.

I've had a lot of posts that have stated that Northern just needs brand new trains and they will solve the overcrowding.

I don't see what is so wrong with extending platforms at major stations. Yes it might be expensive but limiting yourself isn't going to hold forever and if we are to give the north a decent transport infrastructure then we need to start doing some serious investing in it.

Let's stop pretending the current situation is tenable. Its not. While upgrades are needed already let alone the timetables they are likely to happen.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As has been discussed more than once here, the modification of 319s to 3-cars would be uneconmical. They are 4-car and I suggest, will stay that way for the remaining 10-15 years of service life.
Without getting into yet another 'cast-offs from the south' argument, released 313s or even 314s if they can be modified to 3-car easier than the 319s, would fit the bill for frequent-stop and/or adverse gradient services. As both Southern and Merseyrail have demonstrated, the 'PEP design' has proven reliable, and suitable for refurbishment.

A single operator for 319s would make it easier to negotiate major upgrades like retractioning and reconfiguration.
That would eliminate the size/performance issues that are often quoted on here.
The bidders for the new franchise will be able to work up these options with a large fleet size.
In penny numbers like 15 and 25 it won't work.

 

[Class 170101]

Class 350s mostly operate Walsall to Wolverhampton via New Street services now and the 323s that were displaced have been used to improve the frequency of the Birmingham Cross City Routes (Redditch every 20 vice 30 minute frequency for example).

I can see the Class 319s that may be moving to LM would be a sensible swap with the Class 350/4s currently in the northwest thereby concentrating the 319s in the Northwest and the 350s with LM. Manchester to Scotland services being operated by new trains (IEP, 387s, 380s take your pick) probably as part of a new fleet for TPE.

 

[ECML180]

Here's an idea then, not sure if it's been discussed before...

Instead of taking bits out of 2x319 to make 3 car sets to couple together to run as 6 cars, stick a motor and trailer car from one set into another giving a better motor/trailer ratio and a six car train with no 'bits missing'.

I presume this is impractical for some reason? Although I accept scrapping a load of driving cars would be wasteful!

 

[Wolfie]

I note your mention of the North-West and extended moans and more particularly your use of the word "sepcifically" to which my researches into its historical word base have yielded naught (an arcane word) so far unfortunately. Feel free to treat this as a "North-West extended moan" about having to make detailed lexicological researches in order to obtain cognisance of certain posting comments....:roll:

Sarcastic comments over an obvious typographical error, caused by using my phone at speed, while ignoring the substantive thrust of the comments adds value to the forum how exactly?

 

[AM9]

Here's an idea then, not sure if it's been discussed before...

Instead of taking bits out of 2x319 to make 3 car sets to couple together to run as 6 cars, stick a motor and trailer car from one set into another giving a better motor/trailer ratio and a six car train with no 'bits missing'.

I presume this is impractical for some reason? Although I accept scrapping a load of driving cars would be wasteful!

Well the MSO of the 319s have a pantograph, a ~1MW transformer with rectifiers/inverters etc. and four motors totalling over 1300 hp (nearly 1MW) and some auxiliary 'hotel' power supplies.
If you wanted to have another motor car, it would require its own transformer etc., and have another pantograph. That would be a very unwieldy reconfiguration and certainly cost even more than making 3-car sets.

 

[158756]

If 4 cars ever became too few could they not simply omit Salford Crescent(and anywhere else too short), or alternatively price out enough people to make lengthening unnecessary.

 

[WatcherZero]

When Salford Central platforms are reinstated and Ordsall Chord completed it could take over the job of main interchange between Victoria and Piccadilly from Crescent.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Sarcastic comments over an obvious typographical error, caused by using my phone at speed, while ignoring the substantive thrust of the comments adds value to the forum how exactly?

Because your original posting itself was sarcastic with regards to "North West moans" and I always find that the bubble of pomposity is usually pricked by comments that reveal mistakes made by those choosing to pontificate upon certain matters.

 

[Emyr]

alternatively price out enough people to make lengthening unnecessary.

As an alternative, that completely misses the point of railways.

 

[ECML180]

Well the MSO of the 319s have a pantograph, a ~1MW transformer with rectifiers/inverters etc. and four motors totalling over 1300 hp (nearly 1MW) and some auxiliary 'hotel' power supplies.
If you wanted to have another motor car, it would require its own transformer etc., and have another pantograph. That would be a very unwieldy reconfiguration and certainly cost even more than making 3-car sets.

Cost more in what terms? To run, I agree that it would draw more power and would be carting a lot of fresh air about. But to build, the vehicles already exist so with a possible exception of the computer systems for controlling motor(s) then aside from the order and make-up of the stock not much would need changing.

 

[AM9]

Cost more in what terms? To run, I agree that it would draw more power and would be carting a lot of fresh air about. But to build, the vehicles already exist so with a possible exception of the computer systems for controlling motor(s) then aside from the order and make-up of the stock not much would need changing.

Any scheme to tinker with the design of rolling stock carries cost that in itself also carries considerable risk. Multiple units are in themselves designed and proven to run in a fixed configuration. It's not all about performance or capacity. The reliability, effect on OHLE and overall cost of modification are important factors, especially with stock that has limited economical life left in it.
Whilst it may be interesting to ponder of possible reconfiguration of existing assets to overcome the short-term limitations of stations and track layout in the North-west, in reality, running the railway within strict cost regimes mandates taking less unnecessary risks.
I estimate that the 319s have somewhere near 10 maybe 15 years full-time service left in them. Hopefully, electrification in that period will spawn increases in passenger demand, which will in part be met by modifications to the timetables. If required, there will be more cascaded trains available to fill an expanded number of diagrams.
If the demand really is there, these infrastructure pinch-points will be high on the list for eradication so that when the lines are restocked with the appropriate designs, these new trains will work as planned. That's how it works in a well-used network like London.

 

[northwichcat]

I've had a lot of posts that have stated that Northern just needs brand new trains and they will solve the overcrowding.

I don't see what is so wrong with extending platforms at major stations. Yes it might be expensive but limiting yourself isn't going to hold forever and if we are to give the north a decent transport infrastructure then we need to start doing some serious investing in it.

Let's stop pretending the current situation is tenable. Its not. While upgrades are needed already let alone the timetables they are likely to happen.

Well we've had people saying Northern can't afford to operate trains newer than the 319s or that they can't afford to replace Pacers (with 15.5m carriages) with newer diesels (with 23m carriages.) Yet it seems if money is required to run longer formations than necessary or provide the infrastructure work for that the money can be found. :roll:

I agree about future proofing. However, that hasn't been done at Salford Crescent (if the intention was to use 8 car 319s in the long term.)

 

[AM9]

Well we've had people saying Northern can't afford to operate trains newer than the 319s or that they can't afford to replace Pacers (with 15.5m carriages) with newer diesels (with 23m carriages.) Yet it seems if money is required to run longer formations than necessary or provide the infrastructure work for that the money can be found. :roll:

I agree about future proofing. However, that hasn't been done at Salford Crescent (if the intention was to use 8 car 319s in the long term.)

Infrastructure improvements on a busy railway are far more effective than restricting the service to certain types of trains, new or otherwise.
Extending platforms, (obviously including necessary adjustments to track layout and signalling) is a once and for ever investment, usually with an opportunity to improve station efficiency. With new trains costing from £1m per coach, any intensive service that requires that level of investment every 20-40 years will soon indicate which way is the most cost effective.
If Salford Crescent is so busy and important then the investment should come when (if) traffic reaches the point of need. There will inevitably be a period between the need and the implementation but if justification is there it will happen. That's exactly what happens where traffic levels are really high as in London. The Thameslink programme totals somewhere over £6B which includes trains, London Bridge rebuilding, Blackfriars rebuilding, St Pancras (Thameslink) rebuilding, and extension of platforms at all bar 3 or 4 of the stations north of London. Such is the volume that the cost per passenger is relatively low for a 50-100 year investment (trains excepted).
If traffic in Manchester really is as heavy in the North-west as you say, then longer trains are the only way, not dozens of little trains of odd lengths wasting paths just because the platforms are that way.

 

[Fincra5]

I don't get the problem. The 319s are fine trains. The inter-urban work horses that they are.

The only reason they aren't any use down here anymore is because they can't run DOO as 12 cars for the TL Core, nor, I'd guess was it simple to install ATO to these trains.

So what they aren't brand new trains, Northern are getting a boost to capacity.

 

[Wolfie]

Because your original posting itself was sarcastic with regards to "North West moans" and I always find that the bubble of pomposity is usually pricked by comments that reveal mistakes made by those choosing to pontificate upon certain matters.

Do the phrases "pot", "kettle" or "it takes one to know one" mean anything to you?

Boasting on at great length about alleged past professional exploits (and incidentally using these to browbeat other users who have the temerity to express a view different from your own), which can't in any event be proven/disproven on a forum utilising anonymity is sure to impress many a person, NOT!

 

[northwichcat]

The comment about the 350/4s to Northern now makes sense after seeing the Northern ITT. Northern are being expected to provide a high quality regional service between Manchester and Blackpool, as well as occasional trains between Manchester and Windermere.

 

[Inox]

Just a note about 4 car sets. four cars (2 x 150s) are already at or near 100% of seated capacity at Manchester Victoria to Blackpool North on the 17.23.

Then another 40 get on at Salford Central....

Not that I'm not looking forward to having 4 car sets on services either side of the 17.23, mind.....

 

[Bevan Price]

Here's an idea then, not sure if it's been discussed before...

Instead of taking bits out of 2x319 to make 3 car sets to couple together to run as 6 cars, stick a motor and trailer car from one set into another giving a better motor/trailer ratio and a six car train with no 'bits missing'.

I presume this is impractical for some reason? Although I accept scrapping a load of driving cars would be wasteful!

As I have commented elsewhere - would Northern successor, or any other TOC, want two (or more) different varieties of Class 319 (3, 4 or 6 coaches) ? They will want units with maximum flexibility / interchangeability between the different electrified routes.

4 car sets may be something of a compromise, but 3 car sets would be too short for the "Liverpool" routes, and 6 car formations would be too long for most of the platforms.

On the "Bolton" route, many passengers travel no further north than Bolton. So, a lot of overcrowding on Preston/Blackpool services could be eased if (post-electrification) a 4 car set was timed to run via Bolton to Wigan about 5 minutes before the busiest Preston/Blackpool services.

 

[Class377/5]

Infrastructure improvements on a busy railway are far more effective than restricting the service to certain types of trains, new or otherwise.
Extending platforms, (obviously including necessary adjustments to track layout and signalling) is a once and for ever investment, usually with an opportunity to improve station efficiency. With new trains costing from £1m per coach, any intensive service that requires that level of investment every 20-40 years will soon indicate which way is the most cost effective.
If Salford Crescent is so busy and important then the investment should come when (if) traffic reaches the point of need. There will inevitably be a period between the need and the implementation but if justification is there it will happen. That's exactly what happens where traffic levels are really high as in London. The Thameslink programme totals somewhere over £6B which includes trains, London Bridge rebuilding, Blackfriars rebuilding, St Pancras (Thameslink) rebuilding, and extension of platforms at all bar 3 or 4 of the stations north of London. Such is the volume that the cost per passenger is relatively low for a 50-100 year investment (trains excepted).
If traffic in Manchester really is as heavy in the North-west as you say, then longer trains are the only way, not dozens of little trains of odd lengths wasting paths just because the platforms are that way.

The pay back period of the cost of Thameslink Programme is expected to be seven years.

And all stations north of London on the MML were extended with some also done on the GN early.

Well we've had people saying Northern can't afford to operate trains newer than the 319s or that they can't afford to replace Pacers (with 15.5m carriages) with newer diesels (with 23m carriages.) Yet it seems if money is required to run longer formations than necessary or provide the infrastructure work for that the money can be found. :roll:

I agree about future proofing. However, that hasn't been done at Salford Crescent (if the intention was to use 8 car 319s in the long term.)

Seems yesterday's announcement has changed the landscape for the next Northern franchise.

However there is a significant different inbetween finding money for continued rolling stock costs and providing infrastructure costs.

The comment about the 350/4s to Northern now makes sense after seeing the Northern ITT. Northern are being expected to provide a high quality regional service between Manchester and Blackpool, as well as occasional trains between Manchester and Windermere.

The inner regional service corridors will be of interest. I note that the Warrington Central line is one such line now TPE are to pull out.

 

[Bald Rick]

And all stations north of London on the MML were extended with some also done on the GN early.

Strictly speaking, not all of them, just those where 12 car trains are expected to call.

 

[AM9]

Strictly speaking, not all of them, just those where 12 car trains are expected to call.

That's what I was going to reply with. Kentish Town, Cricklewood and Hendon are the three that I was thinking of.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The pay back period of the cost of Thameslink Programme is expected to be seven years.

Wow, that's pretty quick. I wonder how long the North-West electrification programme will take to pay back or would it be part of the Northern Hub?

 

[martynbristow]

As I have commented elsewhere - would Northern successor, or any other TOC, want two (or more) different varieties of Class 319 (3, 4 or 6 coaches) ? They will want units with maximum flexibility / interchangeability between the different electrified routes.

4 car sets may be something of a compromise, but 3 car sets would be too short for the "Liverpool" routes, and 6 car formations would be too long for most of the platforms.

On the "Bolton" route, many passengers travel no further north than Bolton. So, a lot of overcrowding on Preston/Blackpool services could be eased if (post-electrification) a 4 car set was timed to run via Bolton to Wigan about 5 minutes before the busiest Preston/Blackpool services.

You could also run a Bolton Only train which would solve the problem.

The issue isn't would it be nice to have 3, 4, 6 etc its is it cost effective. Its been discussed to death but its not cheap!
If your talking new rolling stock then maybe 3car would be good but its hardly a good solution. Mersey rail struggles with 3 car services and 6 car is OTT, actually leaving it as 4 cars is probably sensible, potentially you might need more capacity but this can be done by adding extra trains in.

The issue probably is the timetables need completely rethinking. Loads of services call at all the houses helping everyone, but 90% of people go to one station. Maybe the new Northern Franchise will sort that out