Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[Class377/5]

It's due to be removed from the initial batch at ilford so I'd say it probably won't be kept for the rest

Removed at Hornsey. Ilford doesn't deal with 319s.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Also the suggestion of northern 323s to LM is entirely mine, based on the fact that LM will need extra EMUs when the Chase line goes live and Bromsgrove extension to Cross city services is finished. These units have to come from somewhere, with 323s being the obvious choice (well, obvious to me!).

This has all the hallmarks of a similar suggestion it would appear to that of First TPE having to give up 9 x Class 170 to Chiltern to enable them to run a new service. Just because official bodies fly such kites, there is no reason why members of RailUK should decide to join in with them...

In all these cases, the common principle would appear to be NEVER to ask for the ex-Merseyrail Class 142 Pacers from the working transport museum that is known as Northern Rail...:roll:

 

[Manchester77]

Removed at Hornsey. Ilford doesn't deal with 319s.

Corse don't know where I got ilford from..! Thanks

 

[northwichcat]

It's due to be removed from the initial batch at ilford so I'd say it probably won't be kept for the rest

Porterbrook have recommended the removal of 3rd rail equipment opposed to keeping it fitted on the off-chance that at some point in the future it's wanted again.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Porterbrook have recommended the removal of 3rd rail equipment opposed to keeping it fitted on the off-chance that at some point in the future it's wanted again.

Removal makes sense. It prevents damage to the equipment. I would assume that it would be possible to refit it again should it be needed (as has happened with the 350/1s when they were loaned to Southern)

 

[cslusarc]

Also do we assume the plan to make at least some 319s 3 car and run doubled up on busy services is taken up or not? Network Rail have warned that if it isn't taken up then the Bolton corridor will likely continue to have 6 car DMU workings at peak times post-electrification.

If 3-car trains are in such hot demand, shouldn't Class 314s, Class 318s and Class 320s be cascaded to England & Wales for use by Northern and/or ATW's Valley Lines services. Or better yet couldn't all Class 323s be cascaded to Northern.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Given the electrical layout of the 319, I doubt there is much 'DC' equipment to actually remove anyway. Shoe gear, shoe fuse, bus wires, can't think of much else before you start needing to add stuff again.

 

[Domh245]

Would the power source select function of the pan down button be removed, or will it stay in place with drivers told, if you don't get line light, press it again?

 

[edwin_m]

I guess the shoegear and possibly the shoe fuses would be removed as it is easy to do so and they are the parts that are most vulnerable to damage. Internal bits would probably stay unless the units had a new traction package, which was talked about when cascade was first suggested but seems to have gone quiet since.

However I also wonder if there is scope to keep the dual-voltage mode on some 319s to displace some DMUs from Reading-Gatwick if the gaps in that route are electrified.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Would the power source select function of the pan down button be removed, or will it stay in place with drivers told, if you don't get line light, press it again?

They might want to get rid of the 'DC Selected' light in the cab and maybe remove the 'DC System Select' writing on the 'Pan Down' button, but I'm not sure what benefit there would be to go further than that.

If the pan is down you won't get a line light without all the third rail equipment (and a live third rail). Pan UP/AC Reset might though.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What about if they removed the shoe gear and anything third rail related that's likely to get damaged and in the cab, blank off any button/dials/controls/displays that are to do with DC only or switching between DC and AC. The provided that the stuff removed is kept somewhere safe and in good condition, they'll be easily convertable back to dual-voltage if needed

 

[The Planner]

I think the shoes are being removed. Will check on details that have come through.

 

[Class377/5]

The shoes are being removed from the 319s at Hornsey prior to the unit heading for the NNL on Crewe via Acton Recp Sidings (Wildesden Junction).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is the current best guess that refurbished Class 319s will also be used for all these shorter distance electric services:

• Liverpool - Manchester Vic/Airport
• Liverpool - St.Helens - Wigan/Preston
• Blackpool - Preston - Manchester/Liverpool
• Manchester - Bolton - Wigan
• Man Vic - Stalybridge extension?

Will there be enough Class 319s to cascade to everywhere that will need them?

After 2016, Northern will have an electrified 80-mile trunk route Crewe-Manchester-Preston-Blackpool.
Also another one nearly as long Stoke-Manchester-Liverpool (70 miles).
Wouldn't you expect somebody to be planning the most efficient services over these trunk routes rather than the historic stub-ends we mostly have now?
It would eliminate a lot of dead time turning in Manchester and other strange places (like Hazel Grove).
eg 2tph Crewe-Manchester-Blackpool, alternating via Stockport/Airport, with 2tph Stoke/Macc-Manchester-Liverpool.
Then fill in the shorter routes and higher frequencies round this.
It's an opportunity to look at the bigger picture.
Replacing DMUs by EMUs one-for-one on the current network doesn't feel right.

 

[edwin_m]

After 2016, Northern will have an electrified 80-mile trunk route Crewe-Manchester-Preston-Blackpool.
Also another one nearly as long Stoke-Manchester-Liverpool (70 miles).
Wouldn't you expect somebody to be planning the most efficient services over these trunk routes rather than the historic stub-ends we mostly have now?
It would eliminate a lot of dead time turning in Manchester and other strange places (like Hazel Grove).
eg 2tph Crewe-Manchester-Blackpool, alternating via Stockport/Airport, with 2tph Stoke/Macc-Manchester-Liverpool.
Then fill in the shorter routes and higher frequencies round this.
It's an opportunity to look at the bigger picture.
Replacing DMUs by EMUs one-for-one on the current network doesn't feel right.

Nobody is going to make the through journey Crewe-Blackpool or Stoke-Liverpool by these routes, except enthusiasts or if really low fares were offered, because much shorter routes are available and if the trains replace the current Northern services they will be making lots of stops. So if these journeys are linked it would be for operational convenience rather than to attract passengers, and the train interior and service should be designed for the rather shorter journeys that are actually going to happen. Running a train for a long distance through lots of junctions also creates a performance risk.

Far better to retain the link between Blackpool and Manchester Airport since it's a journey people might actually want to make. I doubt there is a single destination beyond Manchester that has a particular attraction for passengers from Stoke, and because this service is tightly timed between faster trains it makes sense to terminate it at Piccadilly and not risk importing delays from beyond.

I'm not sure how any re-planning could eliminate the turnbacks at Hazel Grove either. All the current trains are diesels and some turn back here because, presumably, demand reduces on the section onwards to Buxton. If they were electrics they would all have to turn back here, as there is no committed scheme to electrify on to Buxton.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Do we know if the planned move for 319.161 on 1st June is still on...(?) or is it still too early...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Nobody is going to make the through journey Crewe-Blackpool or Stoke-Liverpool by these routes, except enthusiasts or if really low fares were offered, because much shorter routes are available and if the trains replace the current Northern services they will be making lots of stops. So if these journeys are linked it would be for operational convenience rather than to attract passengers, and the train interior and service should be designed for the rather shorter journeys that are actually going to happen. Running a train for a long distance through lots of junctions also creates a performance risk.

Far better to retain the link between Blackpool and Manchester Airport since it's a journey people might actually want to make. I doubt there is a single destination beyond Manchester that has a particular attraction for passengers from Stoke, and because this service is tightly timed between faster trains it makes sense to terminate it at Piccadilly and not risk importing delays from beyond.

I'm not sure how any re-planning could eliminate the turnbacks at Hazel Grove either. All the current trains are diesels and some turn back here because, presumably, demand reduces on the section onwards to Buxton. If they were electrics they would all have to turn back here, as there is no committed scheme to electrify on to Buxton.

Well it's how the RER works. Or Thameslink, and Crossrail.
It's also what the Northern Hub is for (more throughput via Oxford Road/Victoria).
Currently the 319s do 100+ mile legs with multiple stops/routes on a daily basis without batting an eyelid. Why is this not valid in the north?
You can still have your Blackpool-Airport if you want, but there is a lot of fresh air carted around between Piccadilly and the Airport in the current 9tph.

I think the like-for-like approach will result in a number of 319s which Northern can't afford.
So the debate will move on to how to make the best use of the number of trains the DfT will allow Northern to have.
I think an "RER" style system will give the best economics.
Maybe we will have to wait till the Northern Hub is complete.
Just my 5p.

 

[Jonny]

Well it's how the RER works. Or Thameslink, and Crossrail.
It's also what the Northern Hub is for (more throughput via Oxford Road/Victoria).
Currently the 319s do 100+ mile legs with multiple stops/routes on a daily basis without batting an eyelid. Why is this not valid in the north?
You can still have your Blackpool-Airport if you want, but there is a lot of fresh air carted around between Piccadilly and the Airport in the current 9tph.

It's as much a case of finding suitable electrified routes, at least in the short term, that would be useful.

As an aside, how likely is it that Class 319s would be used on Northern, east of the pennines?

 

[northwichcat]

After 2016, Northern will have an electrified 80-mile trunk route Crewe-Manchester-Preston-Blackpool.
Also another one nearly as long Stoke-Manchester-Liverpool (70 miles).
Wouldn't you expect somebody to be planning the most efficient services over these trunk routes rather than the historic stub-ends we mostly have now?
It would eliminate a lot of dead time turning in Manchester and other strange places (like Hazel Grove).
eg 2tph Crewe-Manchester-Blackpool, alternating via Stockport/Airport, with 2tph Stoke/Macc-Manchester-Liverpool.
Then fill in the shorter routes and higher frequencies round this.
It's an opportunity to look at the bigger picture.
Replacing DMUs by EMUs one-for-one on the current network doesn't feel right.

A few points to consider:
* If the proposal to change Stoke services goes ahead then the Manchester-Stoke service will be extended to Birmingham via Stone.
* The Manchester-Crewe stoppers could be extended to Stoke. However, the latest proposal is to extend the diesel service from Derby beyond Crewe rather than extending the electric service.
* Long term we're expecting Piccadilly to gain 3 new platforms (0, 15 and 16) meaning Piccadilly will be able to handle more terminating services from the Ardwick direction as well as allowing more through services.
* Reliability issues can cause services to be split as happened with Buxton-Blackpool and also numerous Central Trains routes in the past.
* Surplus capacity on one section of the route with overcrowding on another can also cause a service to be split as happened with Wakefield-Huddersfield-Bradford-Leeds. (Wakefield-Huddersfield having been tagged on to that service after a Wakefield-Manchester Victoria service was cut at Huddersfield.)

 

[hairyhandedfool]

After 2016, Northern will have an electrified 80-mile trunk route Crewe-Manchester-Preston-Blackpool.
Also another one nearly as long Stoke-Manchester-Liverpool (70 miles).
Wouldn't you expect somebody to be planning the most efficient services over these trunk routes rather than the historic stub-ends we mostly have now?
It would eliminate a lot of dead time turning in Manchester and other strange places (like Hazel Grove).
eg 2tph Crewe-Manchester-Blackpool, alternating via Stockport/Airport, with 2tph Stoke/Macc-Manchester-Liverpool.
Then fill in the shorter routes and higher frequencies round this.
It's an opportunity to look at the bigger picture.
Replacing DMUs by EMUs one-for-one on the current network doesn't feel right.

Have you any idea how complex the route through Manchester is? You can't just look at a line on a map and say, that train should go this way. It doesn't work like that.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Have you any idea how complex the route through Manchester is? You can't just look at a line on a map and say, that train should go this way. It doesn't work like that.

I have a pretty good idea, thanks.
I know it isn't easy, I just think there should be more vision given we are spending £2billion or so on the north west network with Northern Hub and electrification.
What are we going to use those new south side platforms for?
The consultation for the new franchise will be interesting.

 

[WatcherZero]

More like £1bn than 2, ~£400m electrification and £600m Northern Hub. £60m for the 10 350's. If there was a new fleet ordered for North TPE and new rather than cascaded for Northern then you might hit £2bn in the North West.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....What are we going to use those new south side platforms for?....

15 & 16 at Piccadilly you mean? Ordsall Chord which will see many TPE services to Manchester Airport switch from reversals in the 12 main platforms to through trains via Oxford Road and Victoria. 13 & 14 don't have enough capacity to cope with that as it is.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

* Long term we're expecting Piccadilly to gain 3 new platforms (0, 15 and 16) meaning Piccadilly will be able to handle more terminating services from the Ardwick direction as well as allowing more through services.

Will platform 0 at Manchester Piccadilly have any resemblance to platform 17 at Leeds. Where exactly will this new platform be situated, assuming that it will be somewhere in the region of the existing train shed.?

 

[northwichcat]

Ordsall Chord which will see many TPE services to Manchester Airport switch from reversals in the 12 main platforms to through trains via Oxford Road and Victoria.

Only 2 per hour - York to Manchester Airport services, although I suppose over the course of the day that's around 30 services in total.

Which other services continue to the Airport is supposed to be reviewed to 'match current patterns of demand.' Although, it's envisaged it will include 2tph between the Airport and Rochdale and beyond (to give 4tph between the Airport and Victoria) and a Chester to Manchester Airport service but may not include Cleethorpes or Southport services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Will platform 0 at Manchester Piccadilly have any resemblance to platform 17 at Leeds. Where exactly will this new platform be situated, assuming that it will be somewhere in the region of the existing train shed.?

Think like at Stockport station where they've built a new platform beyond platform 1 and called it platform 0 opposed to renumbering the existing platforms.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Think like at Stockport station where they've built a new platform beyond platform 1 and called it platform 0 opposed to renumbering the existing platforms.

I am fully aware of the position of the through platform 0 at Stockport which is within the confines of the land area that was used. I do note that the existing platform 1 at Manchester Piccadilly is situated hard against the brick walled area of the existing train shed, so do I take it that platform 0 will be so constructed to be exterior to the train shed in the manner of what was the case at Manchester Central station on the Lower Moseley Street side of that train shed there ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I am fully aware of the position of the through platform 0 at Stockport which is within the confines of the land area that was used. I do note that the existing platform 1 at Manchester Piccadilly is situated hard against the brick walled area of the existing train shed, so do I take it that platform 0 will be so constructed to be exterior to the train shed in the manner of what was the case at Manchester Central station on the Lower Moseley Street side of that train shed there ?

Isn't it beyond the Piccadilly train shed to the south, on the east side of the far end of P1?
That will make it a long walk to the concourse, although no further than P13/14.
P9 at Central was a handy overspill, but was a very rickety wooden structure.
Chester trains usually got banished there. 15 minutes to Altrincham, 1 stop at Sale.
Journey times have not improved, although frequency has.

 

[northwichcat]

Chester trains usually got banished there. 15 minutes to Altrincham, 1 stop at Sale.
Journey times have not improved, although frequency has.

A 1950s timetable shows there were 12 northbound trains on the Altrincham-Sale-Manchester line in a 59 minute morning period. Metrolink manages 10 and can't go higher due to the tracks through Navigation Road being split between Metrolink and National Rail.

However, Metrolink doesn't run at a reduced frequency between the morning and evening peaks and as you say some of the trains stopped at Sale only meaning the peak frequency has improved at smaller stations. Where BR really had the edge was on match days (football and cricket) when they ran 8 car EMUs and arranged for trains to stop at Warwick Road (now Old Trafford) which would normally run Sale-Manchester non-stop.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I am presuming they will just turn the Eastern Spur into platform o. Makes the most sense to me anyways.

 

[edwin_m]

Piccadilly platform 0 is where the HS2 station is planned to be, so I think that idea has been parked since HS2 was though of.