Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[petersi]

Well, I wonder if 319361 actually made the journey up north this morning.

Just waiting for news now.

its on its way
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97571/2014/06/20/advanced

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm fed up of this attitude that Northern is so hard done when no-one has actually suggested a single actual idea to how to deal with the issues. If your going to complain then at least have the guts to suggest how you make Northern pay its way, otherwise your views are just rants which is fast becoming boring.

Well, that decision will have to be made once the new franchise is in place and it is noted that the existing joint venture holders of the current franchise have stated that they will not be bidding for the new franchise.

Incidentally, would any of the franchises in your area find themselves in the hiatus of the ridiculous situation of that which has occurred, when the Burnley Council lead authority were successful in their £9.8 million bid for Regional Growth Aid monies were obtained to regenerate East Lancashire covering both the Weavers Triangle restoration and refurbishment project and also the cost of reinstating the Todmorden Chord to enable Blackburn-Burnley-Copy Pit Line-Manchester rail services to once again run....then find that from April 2014 to December 2014, there was no rolling stock to run the said service.

 

[Clip]

Fighting an injustice is NOT having a chip on my shoulder. Where is the justice of £2700 per head spend in London compared to £300 per head in Yorkshire on rail infrastructure? That makes a mockery of your argument about fare subsidy being greater in the North.

A desire for 2+2 seating is wrong? If 319s are to be refreshed and retrimmed then all seats are removed anyway, so costs no more to put them back as 2+2. In fact it costs less not trimming the 5th seat and seat back in each row. I suggest you get your facts right before posting inaccuracies.

See this is where I know you are just blinded by some rather strange fury as I havent once mentioned anything about fare subsidy - just that its rather silly to complain about getting perfectly servicable rolling stock to increase capacity in the north - which is what is required. Everything else has been debunked by others a fair few times already but it seems you are just unwilling to either read or accept it.

LEts face it both in this thread and the 'Londons great but the north gets nowt' thread,people have pointed out that for many years the South was using RS well past its use by date and that th North has had new rolling stock but yourself and others have not even bothered to respond to these posts and still roll out the same tired and unreliable information again and again.. YAWN.

 

[mpb56125]

57306 hauling 319361 from Bedford to Allerton Depot at Warrington Arpley and Penketh on the low level route between Arpley & Ditton

http://mark5812.smugmug.com/Trains2014/June-2014/i-5Rp7mgt/A
http://mark5812.smugmug.com/Trains2014/June-2014/i-vL75DzC/A
http://mark5812.smugmug.com/Trains2014/June-2014/i-mthCP38/A
http://mark5812.smugmug.com/Trains2014/June-2014/i-hCb3KFM/A

Mark
http://mark5812.smugmug.com

 

[northwichcat]

people have pointed out that for many years the South was using RS well past its use by date and that th North has had new rolling stock but yourself and others have not even bothered to respond to these posts and still roll out the same tired and unreliable information again and again.. YAWN.

If we take the expected shelf life of products being 25-30 years for DMUs and 35-40 years for EMUs:

The South West Trains 421s would have had an expected withdrawal date of 1999-2004. A few examples lasted until 2010, 6 years beyond their shelf life.

The First North Western 101s would have had an expected withdrawal date of 1981-1986. Some examples lasted until 2003, 17 years beyond their shelf life.

So yes YAWN we keep hearing about the South using life expired stock until fairly recently when the 421s were withdrawn at a young age in comparison to the 101s.

getting perfectly servicable rolling stock to increase capacity in the north

In principle a cascade is a sensible option. However, what needs to be done is to make the internal and mechanical alterations proposed by Porterbrook to make them more suitable for their new operations.

 

[Clip]

See thats why I like selective quoting because it means you can prove a point with 2 examples and means you dont have to even consider the fatc that the north has had new rolling stock within that time frame.

And who are you to give something a time frame for its shelf life? Chartered engineer are we? Qualified to do so in any other means? Seems odd if you are not given that there are examples of trains still in use well after the shelf life you give them and also would seem to prove that there is still a good 10+ years or more left in the 319s then doesnt it

 

[northwichcat]

And who are you to give something a time frame for its shelf life? Chartered engineer are we?

I'm using the figures that were given in a Network Rail document about life expectancy of diesel stock compared to electric stock. I think Network Rail may just have some qualified engineers working for them.

Apart from the small number of 421s it looks like the SWT slam-door stock was withdrawn when the trains were 38-39 years old, which fits in nicely with the up to 40 year shelf life Network Rail say for EMUs.

See thats why I like selective quoting because it means you can prove a point with 2 examples and means you dont have to even consider the fatc that the north has had new rolling stock within that time frame.

Well the North West had 175s introduced to replace the last of slam-door stock (101s and loco hauled services) around the turn of the millennium, while the SWT area got a very large number of new Desiros a few years later to replace their slam-door stock. Is it really necessary to point that out, given both areas got new trains to replace their slam-door trains?

also would seem to prove that there is still a good 10+ years or more left in the 319s then doesnt it

See the addition to my previous post. Just need to made modifications to make them suitable opposed to trying to trying to fit square pegs in to round holes.

 

[richa2002]

If we take the expected shelf life of products being 25-30 years for DMUs and 35-40 years for EMUs:

The South West Trains 421s would have had an expected withdrawal date of 1999-2004. A few examples lasted until 2010, 6 years beyond their shelf life.

The First North Western 101s would have had an expected withdrawal date of 1981-1986. Some examples lasted until 2003, 17 years beyond their shelf life.

Sorry but the slam door EMUs were on pretty much every non-suburban route on the Southern Region until 2002/2003 until being withdrawn by the end of 2005 bar a couple. The class 101s however limped on in vastly fewer numbers. Not a fair comparison at all when you had 1980s/90s built units on the majority of routes.

 

[Boothby97]

Well, I wonder if 319361 actually made the journey up north this morning.

Just waiting for news now.

It has made the journey, yes

Photo (not mine) - https://www.flickr.com/photos/30268259@N03/14441641276

 

[northwichcat]

Sorry but the slam door EMUs were on pretty much every non-suburban route on the Southern Region until 2002/2003 until being withdrawn by the end of 2005 bar a couple. The class 101s however limped on in vastly fewer numbers. Not a fair comparison at all when you had 1980s/90s built units on the majority of routes.

How many of the Southern area EMUs remained in service beyond their 40th birthdays? I was talking about life-expired stock not just stock approaching the end of it's life. Most of the 1st gen DMUs would have been classed as life-expired in the mid-1980s so the new Pacers and 150s that were introduced were ordered at the right time, the same applies for the Desiros ordered for SWT.

 

[deltic08]

Injustice? You do realise that your so badly done by franchise is requiring a £1m a day to keep it going? Prehaps this is the situation you should be addressing rather than complaining that other franchises get more, especially when the stock your complaining about is coming from a franchise that gives more to Government that it recieves.

For reference the 22 month (roughly 660 days) contract recieves £633m in subsidy.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...ontroversial-633m-follow-train-franchise.html



I'm fed up of this attitude that Northern is so hard done when no-one has actually suggested a single actual idea to how to deal with the issues. If your going to complain then at least have the guts to suggest how you make Northern pay its way, otherwise your views are just rants which is fast becoming boring.

I hate to burst your hypocritical balloon, but London Underground is subsidised by £3m a day of public money according to the latest published figures. For every £2.80 fare, £1 is subsidy to the tune of £1billion annually. Considering the population of the Northern franchise area is 13 million and London is only 7 million, that is six times more subsidy per head than the North. How do you square that one.

 

[Class377/5]

I hate to burst your hypocritical balloon, but London Underground is subsidised by £3m a day of public money according to the latest published figures. For every £2.80 fare, £1 is subsidy to the tune of £1billion annually. Considering the population of the Northern franchise area is 13 million and London is only 7 million, that is six times more subsidy per head than the North. How do you square that one.

How do I square it, well considering that the Tube carries around 70% of the passengers as the national rail network its fairly clear to everyone that the Tube just doesn't get used by Londoners. Or are you trying to claim that only Londoners ever use the Tube?

And your figures require some updating at its 8m so your claims are off.

Of course fact you've clearly failed to reply to my replies to your before suggest that you are just ranting and refusing to see anything other than your own point of view. Prehaps you should try and use some of that anger over your belief that Northern is so hard done by and actual do something productive like suggest how Northern can build a solid business case for new rolling stock?

 

[deltic08]

See this is where I know you are just blinded by some rather strange fury as I havent once mentioned anything about fare subsidy - just that its rather silly to complain about getting perfectly servicable rolling stock to increase capacity in the north - which is what is required. Everything else has been debunked by others a fair few times already but it seems you are just unwilling to either read or accept it.

LEts face it both in this thread and the 'Londons great but the north gets nowt' thread,people have pointed out that for many years the South was using RS well past its use by date and that th North has had new rolling stock but yourself and others have not even bothered to respond to these posts and still roll out the same tired and unreliable information again and again.. YAWN.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the South as old, flimsy and uncomfortable as 30 years old Pacers, now 15 years beyond their design life. When did the Southeast ever have a bus body bolted onto a twin axle wagon chassis with 3+2 low back bus seats used on heavy rail commuter routes? At least when slam door stock was introduced it was the best available at that time and 377 replacements were the same.

 

[jonesy3001]

Is 319361 having the northern livery applied or is it staying in the first livery?

 

[deltic08]

How do I square it, well considering that the Tube carries around 70% of the passengers as the national rail network its fairly clear to everyone that the Tube just doesn't get used by Londoners. Or are you trying to claim that only Londoners ever use the Tube?

And your figures require some updating at its 8m so your claims are off.

Of course fact you've clearly failed to reply to my replies to your before suggest that you are just ranting and refusing to see anything other than your own point of view. Prehaps you should try and use some of that anger over your belief that Northern is so hard done by and actual do something productive like suggest how Northern can build a solid business case for new rolling stock?

The actual up-to-date population of London is not high on my priority list as it is a horrid place. I try not to go there. I haven't used the Underground in the last 20 years but it seams I am indirectly subsidising it.

I hardly ever use Northern Rail (once in the last two years) as my railheads are used by East Coast and TPEx and so are my destinations, but those who use Northern Rail services daily deserve a better deal than they have been getting for the last 10 years, £1m subsidy per day or not. Perhaps it would be less if the trains were new and not so old requiring high costs in daily maintenance. The 308s required huge amounts of maintenance to keep them running, much more than 144s previously on the route and 333s hardly any when they were introduced.

Surely it is the responsibility of the TOC to find ways of increasing usage and reducing operating costs to address the subsidy and not keep asking me. Some subsidy comes from local authorities to encourage use of rail as city centre roads and car parks are at capacity in the peaks just like London. Apart from "give them our well used 319s" I have not seen any constructive suggestions from the clever posters in the South on reducing subsidy. We are only getting 319s as that balances the books better for Thameslink new 700s than scrapping.

 

[jon0844]

They are still 25 years old before we get them and have been run into the ground.

No they haven't. And trains are now seemingly designed for around 40 years of service, so there's clearly plenty of life left in them.

These nice shiny new trains coming on Thameslink will also be around for around 40 years, so I guess in 20 years time there will be loads of moans about how old they are.

The fact is, trains aren't replaced as often as you might change your car, or a mobile phone. They're kept 'new' through regular maintenance and refreshes and refurbishments, not scrapping them when they get dirty.

Oh, and if the Thameslink project didn't require new trains to work with ATO, I suspect the 319s would have stayed and been accompanied by other stock cascaded as required (rather like the temporary leasing of the 377s). They'd then hopefully get a total rebuild with aircon and people would be quite happy.

I don't think that many people using FCC complain about the condition of the rolling stock, they moan about delays and getting a seat (or getting on at all). They really do NOT care what train it is. I bet very few people at St Albans would let a 319 go to get a nice new 377, for example.

I was on a near 40-year old 313 only this morning and likely on one again in an hour or two to get home. I don't care one bit that they're old. They're clean, spacious, accessible and pretty damn reliable (bash with a hammer if it gives you grief). The problem is that of capacity and presumably in the years ahead, the availability of parts etc - so they'll be replaced. Who knows, they might still end up somewhere else before going for scrap - and those who get them will probably be just fine.

 

[northwichcat]

These nice shiny new trains coming on Thameslink will also be around for around 40 years, so I guess in 20 years time there will be loads of moans about how old they are.

Depends what else is in service at the time. People refer to the 333s as new as they are the newest thing in the Northern fleet. However, I've heard people complain about the original 377s being tired and shabby. OK they could do with a refresh but are they really in any worse condition than the 333s?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

We are only getting 319s as that balances the books better for Thameslink new 700s than scrapping.

No, the NW electrification scheme only got past the Treasury on the basis that new trains would not be needed as well.

 

[driver_m]

I'll wager that if the HST's end up on a completely different route to those they're on now, say, Tpe maybe or maybe even the E-W services when they get displaced. The cast off thread would probably not reach two pages. No one is getting anywhere with this north-south arguing so lets make the best of these units, and hopefully the next northern franchise will have much better maintenance standards. That for me is the main problem. Also, I bet all the west midlands posters on this forum are probably all smug reading this thread. After all, they've done rather well recently with new stock haven't they!!

 

[The Ham]

So the cost per mile for Northern passengers is 40p, whilst the cost per journey on the Tube is 89p. Given most people on Northern trains probably travel further than 2.25 miles the subsidy for northern likely to be greater than for the tube per passenger. I also don't think that the northern subsidy includes infrastructure improvements whilst the tube's is its total costs for everything.

Also it should be noted that without the tube there would be a lot less people willing to use the mainline railways, which means although many of the SE's are about break-even if there was no tube they would need more of a subsidy (likely to be more than that of the tube).

One of the problems with the tubs is that their trains have to be so small, which means you can't get as many people on each train as you could if it was a full sized railway. That, plus the number of staff at each station, means that the staffing costs per passenger is a lot higher.

The tube is trying to make cost savings but tend to be held to ransom by the unions if changes are proposed, as London is so reliant on the tube to keep going. If northern rail stopped there would be a lot of people that would be upset but the area wouldn't grind to a halt to the same extent.

The big way which Northern can make cost savings is to have EMU's which are of a reasonable length. However when it is proposed there are many who think that because they have had oldish DMU's for some time that they should be at the top of the list for brand new EMU's. The problem with this is that the industry has leant from XC's mistakes, meaning that they do not want to buy brand new trains which provide improvements (i.e. change in service patterns by XC, or EMU's replacing DUM's by Northern) when there is a risk that the TOC could be stuck with those trains for a long time. When if they bring in old trains they can then get a larger fleet of new trains once the initial boast from the change has levelled off a bit.

For instance if XC had changed their timetables and then 3 years later got the Voyagers it is likely that they would have got more and/or longer sets and they wouldn't be overcrowded now.

 

[northwichcat]

I also don't think that the northern subsidy includes infrastructure improvements whilst the tube's is its total costs for everything.

Depends what you define as infrastructure. Northern Rail do manage 462 railway stations but aren't responsible for the track they run trains on, which is quite often shared with other passenger or freight operators. They also have TVMs at stations which they don't manage.

Northern Rail get a subsidy of 11.5p per passenger mile. There's also 29.1p per passenger mile Network Grant.

A Network Grant is defined as "An allocation of the Network Grant (that is, payments made directly to Network Rail.) This is calculated by taking the total Network Grant, apportioned according to each franchise’s share of fixed track access charges."

 

[FOH]

Isn't it pretty unusual for a unit to leave a franchise with full branding intact? As it has, does this lend weight to Northern assuring FCC that they'll quickly re-brand it? I wonder will it be vinyl upon vinyl?

 

[IanXC]

Is 319361 having the northern livery applied or is it staying in the first livery?

If the 322s are anything to go by the First branding will he removed and Northern name and brand applied. A bit "quick and dirty" for a rebrand!

 

[northwichcat]

Isn't it pretty unusual for a unit to leave a franchise with full branding intact? As it has, does this lend weight to Northern assuring FCC that they'll quickly re-brand it? I wonder will it be vinyl upon vinyl?

158s which were transferred to TPE from Central Trains entered service for TPE with the Central Trains name intact but with a notice on board saying the trains had been transferred and put straight in to service without rebranding or any internal makeover.

 

[deltic08]

No, the NW electrification scheme only got past the Treasury on the basis that new trains would not be needed as well.

Exactly, just what I said. The 319s needed a home so NW electrification was authorised as it looked better on a balance sheet than scrapping. Where else would they have gone?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

158s which were transferred to TPE from Central Trains entered service for TPE with the Central Trains name intact but with a notice on board saying the trains had been transferred and put straight in to service without rebranding or any internal makeover.

This is the most likely scenario. Rebranding in Northern livery would be a waste of money IF they are to be refurbed and IF Abellio is not tendering for the new franchise in two years time. A new TOC would change the livery then.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Depends what else is in service at the time. People refer to the 333s as new as they are the newest thing in the Northern fleet. However, I've heard people complain about the original 377s being tired and shabby. OK they could do with a refresh but are they really in any worse condition than the 333s?

Yes, I still regard 333s as being new but they are 13 years old now yet light years ahead of anything else east of the Pennines except 170s.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

If the 322s are anything to go by the First branding will he removed and Northern name and brand applied. A bit "quick and dirty" for a rebrand!

Not even that to start with, the First vinyls were simply removed and the units ran in unbranded blue. Only later did they stick a Northern logo on them.



Considering the 319s seem to be blue beneath the viynl I imagine they will do this again, although the 322s started in service very quickly after the transfer, they still have five months with the 319s before they have to get them passenger ready.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Put it this way - (as one who was just a little involved) - the NW Triangle electrification would not have happened without the idea of the 319's - so it all went a bit wrong in timings , due to the financial crisis etc. etc.)

I wont say be grateful , and so on - though tempted to - better an old 319 (perfectly acceptable to those paying 3K+ a year from say Harpenden if it gives them a seat) , than a 14x or a 15x for the commuters and travellers up North. A tad weary of this bouncing of issues - especially from those who do not use the things. Akin to Daily Mail commentators who (from St Tropez or Australia) comment on the iniquities of the NHS. Rant over.

 

[bb21]

I suspect that many ordinary passengers in the north would rather the 319s go into service straight away to provide additional capacity than have to wait until whatever time they are fully refurbished, and come out with less seating capacity even should all be converted to 2+2 seating. It is easy to just sit here and moan, but in real life priorities are very much different on the ground. :roll:

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Absolutely! (with reference to the 2 posts above). I'm a Northerner and would like to have shiny new trains every 10 years or so, but it's simply not possible. In fact, when was the last time new electrification and new rolling stock went hand-in-hand? Just about the only example I can think of in my own lifetime is the ECML- where there was nothing suitable to be cascaded anyway- for related services where there was (the North Berwick branch and Leeds-Doncaster locals) cascaded stock WAS used (305s and 307s respectively).

 

[Starmill]

I'm fed up of this attitude that Northern is so hard done when no-one has actually suggested a single actual idea to how to deal with the issues. If your going to complain then at least have the guts to suggest how you make Northern pay its way, otherwise your views are just rants which is fast becoming boring.

That's because all of those 'issues' are entirely of the making of the people who want all the good stuff for themeselves in London; the DfT. There's one perfectly simple solution to increase passenger use that has just been pointed out; investment in new stock and infrastructure.