Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[Class377/5]

6 car operation on the Bolton line is rare now the Scottish portion workings no longer exist.

The question is where are you going to get the extra funds for Network Rail to lengthen platforms they haven't included in their CP5 plans? Salford Crescent was only recently lengthened to allow 6 car 185s. I think only Blackrod and one platform at Leyland would need lengthening to allow 6 car 319s. If it's 8 car 319s then most platforms need doing. Or you could arrange for EMUs with SDO to be used and not lengthen any platforms? Or alternatively without platform extensions use 2 x 3 car EMUs and have the rear unit locked out of use north of Horwich Parkway?

Question of funding should b something Rail North should be looking into to fund actual improvements. Perhaps local authorities should look for business to chip in to a transport fund or at least get bigger business on the route to give something. London has done this, in fact so has Manchester with the Metrolink Airport Line.

Rather than always complaining no-one is giving funding, perhaps people need to realise they need to push to get extra funding to improve local services. Its happened before in the shape of the Metrolink. Seems rather lazy of many on here to just complain but happy to sit back and do nothing.

I don't think we assume if the franchise operator wants to run 8 car EMUs then Network Rail will automatically arrange the provision. Weren't the 350/1s supposed to be used to lengthen SWT services but didn't happen as a platform lengthening program wasn't approved?

The 450/1 (what became the 350/1) were ordered with the SRA permission on the basis of longer platforms until they got the bill for platform lengthening and chickened out.

If 3 car EMUs were sourced then there's no need to do that. DfT are trying to fit square pegs in to round holes by sending 319s North and Porterbrook are trying to prove there's a solution to turn the square pegs in to round ones.

Maybe if the 377/5s were sent North, a car could be removed to lengthen most of the 377/3s and the North would then have 3 car EMUs with corridor connectors - ideal for 6 car operation.

The 377/5 are spoken for as are the 377/3. Of course the ugly truth of much more expensive leasing costs for new built has been overlooked in your suggestion.

 

[northwichcat]

Question of funding should b something Rail North should be looking into to fund actual improvements. Perhaps local authorities should look for business to chip in to a transport fund or at least get bigger business on the route to give something. London has done this, in fact so has Manchester with the Metrolink Airport Line.

So do you think Lancashire County Council would fund platform extensions to allow 8 car trains when 8 car isn't needed in their area or that TfGM will fund platform extensions outside their area?

The 377/5 are spoken for as are the 377/3. Of course the ugly truth of much more expensive leasing costs for new built has been overlooked in your suggestion.

How much would the 319s cost to lease if all the changes Porterbrook proposed like corridor connections, re-wiring, re-engineering, addition of air condition etc. are made? Porterbrook would only have around 10 years to get their money back.

Also aren't you overlooking something in saying why not 8 car 319s for Northern and then talking about 377s having high leasing costs? The 319s in 8 car formation cost 52.34p per mile in track access charges while a 6 car 377 only costs 24.48p per mile, so less than half price.

 

[edwin_m]

Easy solved with some track work and platform extension to the north surely ? Looks to be plenty of scope to shift the tracks about to the north

This view is before rebuilding but it shows a junction pretty near the north end - the southern one is under the bridge but evidently also pretty close to the platform.

http://binged.it/1sATZr4

Having just got my NESA login reinstated I'm able to answer my own question. Sectional Appendix gives 158m and 153m - good for 6 by 23m but an 8-car 319 would need about 165m so they're just too short. As I mentioned above, SDO won't help here as a the tail of an 8-car would probably foul the points and block other moves on parallel lines.

Perhaps the answer is to have a mixed fleet as suggested, and run 7-car sets in the peak.

 

[westcoaster]

This view is before rebuilding but it shows a junction pretty near the north end - the southern one is under the bridge but evidently also pretty close to the platform.

http://binged.it/1sATZr4

Having just got my NESA login reinstated I'm able to answer my own question. Sectional Appendix gives 158m and 153m - good for 6 by 23m but an 8-car 319 would need about 165m so they're just too short. As I mentioned above, SDO won't help here as a the tail of an 8-car would probably foul the points and block other moves on parallel lines.

Perhaps the answer is to have a mixed fleet as suggested, and run 7-car sets in the peak.

The south end junction could be simplified, and platforms extended out under the bridge.

 

[IrishDave]

(with apologies for dredging this up from a day or two ago...)

Actually I wonder if that could be the plan. A couple of extra 319s for Northern to run the Airport-Piccadilly stoppers, to allow 2 x 323s to be sub-leased to LM, to in turn allow 2 x 350/3s to be subleased to TPE.

As previous commenters have said, there's not much slack on the Airport line. However, the xx38 Piccadilly-Alderley Edge (via Stockport) and xx48 return, which takes two units (with a 40-minute layover at Alderley Edge!), seem to be self-contained and pretty clear of everything else - could they go over to 319s? They run slow line between Piccadilly and Stockport to call at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel, so they shouldn't pose any problems there.

In fact, for some reason half of them are timed as 75mph DMUs already - have Northern finally given up trying to diagram 15 of 17 323s every day and put a diesel on one of the Alderley Edge diagrams? If a diesel can keep to (roughly) the same timings as a 323, then I don't see why a 319 should be a problem...

 

[Class377/5]

So do you think Lancashire County Council would fund platform extensions to allow 8 car trains when 8 car isn't needed in their area or that TfGM will fund platform extensions outside their area?

Funny thats not what I said. But I notice once again you avoid my entire point about money being raised locally rather than depending on central funds. Sitting back and complaining just makes people look bitter.

How much would the 319s cost to lease if all the changes Porterbrook proposed like corridor connections, re-wiring, re-engineering, addition of air condition etc. are made? Porterbrook would only have around 10 years to get their money back.

New is supposed to cost double what refurbished is. I'd suggest 10yrs is far too short a period to be sensible looking at and 15-20yrs is more suitable period if you do a proper refurbishment.

Also aren't you overlooking something in saying why not 8 car 319s for Northern and then talking about 377s having high leasing costs? The 319s in 8 car formation cost 52.34p per mile in track access charges while a 6 car 377 only costs 24.48p per mile, so less than half price.

I believe your overlooking the fact that a 319 is dual voltage and carries around extra weight compared to a DC only 377 so your example is misleading at best. Of course the fact that a 6 car simplier train is half the cost of an heaviler 8 car also overlooks the fact that one is 25% longer so there is already half your difference accounted for making your example rather less susscessful when you actually look in to your claims of a massive difference.

 

[thealexweb]

6 car operation on the Bolton line is rare now the Scottish portion workings no longer exist.

This is incorrect. 6 car operation through Bolton happens seven days a week. Some Manchester Airport to Blackpool North are 6 cars themselves and some are three cars that join up with Barrow / Windermere services as far as Preston.

 

[Class377/5]

This is incorrect. 6 car operation through Bolton happens seven days a week. Some Manchester Airport to Blackpool North are 6 cars themselves and some are three cars that join up with Barrow / Windermere services as far as Preston.

How busy are these services from your experience?

Remember that a 6 car 185 is actually almost the same length as a 7 car 319, going over to 8 car 319 operation isn't as big a difference as it sounds if your just comparing carriange numbers.

 

[thealexweb]

How busy are these services from your experience?

Remember that a 6 car 185 is actually almost the same length as a 7 car 319, going over to 8 car 319 operation isn't as big a difference as it sounds if your just comparing carriange numbers.

There's a lot of one-off factors right that skew the truth e.g. summer holidays, Chorley blockade. But speaking more generally, in my experience between Bolton and Manchester, in the peak all seats full and many many standing. Outside of the peak, all seats still full but with few standing. On weekends, all seats essentially full between 11am and 7pm in the popular direction of travel so towards Manchester early on and away later on.

 

[Class377/5]

There's a lot of one-off factors right that skew the truth e.g. summer holidays, Chorley blockade. But speaking more generally, in my experience between Bolton and Manchester, in the peak all seats full and many many standing. Outside of the peak, all seats still full but with few standing. On weekends, all seats essentially full between 11am and 7pm in the popular direction of travel so towards Manchester early on and away later on.

Thanks for that. So suitable for platfiorm lengthening on train loadings then. This is the sort of project where efforts should be directed to reduce crowding.

 

[user15681]

Thanks to Tony Miles as ever, who has tonight confirmed 319362 at Wolverton will get an interior and exterior repaint, work to seats and door control panels installed. All sets after 362 will get slightly more than the repaints, seat and door panel work (no idea what extra), as 362 has to go to Allerton fairly soon, and then 361 and 362 will get the extras later on. It will NOT be a refurb though (i.e compliant toilets, air-con), that's for the next franchise bidders to decide.

 

[northwichcat]

How busy are these services from your experience?

Remember that a 6 car 185 is actually almost the same length as a 7 car 319, going over to 8 car 319 operation isn't as big a difference as it sounds if your just comparing carriange numbers.

Remember the Blackpool-Manchester Airport services don't call at some of the smaller stations than the 4 car Sprinters which run the Northern services on that corridor call at.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Funny thats not what I said. But I notice once again you avoid my entire point about money being raised locally rather than depending on central funds. Sitting back and complaining just makes people look bitter.

I'm just repeating what Network Rail have said about 4 car EMUs cascaded from the London area not being suitable for all services. They've suggested 6 car DMUs will have to be used on the Bolton corridor post-electrification if a suitable electric alternative isn't found.

New is supposed to cost double what refurbished is. I'd suggest 10yrs is far too short a period to be sensible looking at and 15-20yrs is more suitable period if you do a proper refurbishment.

But the 377s I was referring to aren't brand new and if you're unable to give ballpark figures for leasing costs I'll just assume the higher leasing costs are cancelled out by the track access costs being half.

I believe your overlooking the fact that a 319 is dual voltage and carries around extra weight compared to a DC only 377 so your example is misleading at best. Of course the fact that a 6 car simplier train is half the cost of an heaviler 8 car also overlooks the fact that one is 25% longer so there is already half your difference accounted for making your example rather less susscessful when you actually look in to your claims of a massive difference.

No it's not. The 377s have a set track access price which includes the ones with a pantograph.

It was you who said 8 car 319s would be better than 6 car 377s, even though the infrastructure can't support 8 car 319s and Northern can't have 3 car 377s instead of 4 car 319s because of the cost, now you're arguing I'm not giving a fair comparison! I'm now not sure what (if any) point you were trying to make originally.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is incorrect. 6 car operation through Bolton happens seven days a week. Some Manchester Airport to Blackpool North are 6 cars themselves and some are three cars that join up with Barrow / Windermere services as far as Preston.

I was meaning rare in comparison to the past - is it not just a couple of northbound and southbound services per day when it used to be considerably more?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If a diesel can keep to (roughly) the same timings as a 323, then I don't see why a 319 should be a problem...

They can't. A DMU timed service takes 2 minutes longer than a 323 timed service. When the 323 got attacked by a 4 x 4 at Congleton they submitted a timetable revision for certain services to be re-timed as 75mph DMUs.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Thanks to Tony Miles as ever, who has tonight confirmed 319362 at Wolverton will get an interior and exterior repaint, work to seats and door control panels installed. All sets after 362 will get slightly more than the repaints, seat and door panel work (no idea what extra), as 362 has to go to Allerton fairly soon, and then 361 and 362 will get the extras later on. It will NOT be a refurb though (i.e compliant toilets, air-con), that's for the next franchise bidders to decide.

I hope they attend to the scratched windows too...
I wonder what "work to seats" means. Recovering in Northern colours?
They need new (higher) seats really, but then we are into "coffin" type territory as per 158s, and a lot of cost.

 

[ac6000cw]

This Porterbrook document - http://www.porterbrook.com/downloads/brochures/319 Brochure.pdf - does say that conversion to 3-car units (and regearing for 75 mph) has been investigated and costed.

...and of course the 313s are going to become available when TSGN makes them redundant, if you'd prefer 3-car units with more motored axles

 

[northwichcat]

They need new (higher) seats really, but then we are into "coffin" type territory as per 158s, and a lot of cost.

Making trains accessible will have to include allowing for people with mobility difficulties who aren't in wheelchairs, so if there aren't at least priority seats which are easy for less mobile people to get in and out of then I don't see how the train would be classed as accessible.

 

[WatcherZero]

Thanks to Tony Miles as ever, who has tonight confirmed 319362 at Wolverton will get an interior and exterior repaint, work to seats and door control panels installed. All sets after 362 will get slightly more than the repaints, seat and door panel work (no idea what extra), as 362 has to go to Allerton fairly soon, and then 361 and 362 will get the extras later on. It will NOT be a refurb though (i.e compliant toilets, air-con), that's for the next franchise bidders to decide.

Which is the extent of works that I had predicted, though interior repaint was more than I gave them credit for.

 

[ianhr]

I hope they attend to the scratched windows too...
I wonder what "work to seats" means. Recovering in Northern colours?
They need new (higher) seats really, but then we are into "coffin" type territory as per 158s, and a lot of cost.

Why do they need HIGHER seats?........I find the height of the seat backs in 319s perfectly acceptable, whereas those fitted to EC 225s, Northern's 158s & 144s are excessively high and create an unpleasantly claustrophobic ambience.

 

[richa2002]

Why do they need HIGHER seats?........I find the height of the seat backs in 319s perfectly acceptable, whereas those fitted to EC 225s, Northern's 158s & 144s are excessively high and create an unpleasantly claustrophobic ambience.

Amen to that.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why do they need HIGHER seats?........I find the height of the seat backs in 319s perfectly acceptable, whereas those fitted to EC 225s, Northern's 158s & 144s are excessively high and create an unpleasantly claustrophobic ambience.

I don't mean taller seats, but higher cushions.
319s and trains built around the same time have curiously low-slung seats.
150s are particularly bad - it's like sitting in a mini with its "potty" seats.
I quite agree about high seat backs - hence my "coffin" remark.
EMT's 158s and FGW's HSTs are like that - no view out, even when the window is aligned.
Merseyrail also have high seat backs in their 507/508s, but they are in 2+2 format with gaps between the seat backs, which makes all the difference.

 

[ianhr]

Ok, yes, agreed!

 

[hassaanhc]

Why do they need HIGHER seats?........I find the height of the seat backs in 319s perfectly acceptable, whereas those fitted to EC 225s, Northern's 158s & 144s are excessively high and create an unpleasantly claustrophobic ambience.

I think it was more to do with the height of the seat bottoms from the floor, not the backs. I also find those seats too low.

EDIT: Beaten

 

[WatcherZero]

Gah no, I hate high back seats. You have to be an exact height or you end up being stabbed in the back of the neck by the head cushions.

 

[Class377/5]

Remember the Blackpool-Manchester Airport services don't call at some of the smaller stations than the 4 car Sprinters which run the Northern services on that corridor call at.

Which has nothing to do with what you replied to. I was talking comparing a 6 car 185 to a 8 car 319 which has nothing to do with your point.

I'm just repeating what Network Rail have said about 4 car EMUs cascaded from the London area not being suitable for all services. They've suggested 6 car DMUs will have to be used on the Bolton corridor post-electrification if a suitable electric alternative isn't found.

Once again you completely ignore my comments which makes your reply pointless again.

By ignoring the point of raising money locally to improve the situation you are looking like you are just here to complain rather than constructive develop suggestions on how to change the situation to the benefit of the users of the northern railways. Something I've posted about more than once and am generally ignored of in favour of complaining that its not fair. Hardly a likely situation to get things moving is it.

But the 377s I was referring to aren't brand new and if you're unable to give ballpark figures for leasing costs I'll just assume the higher leasing costs are cancelled out by the track access costs being half.

The units you are talking about aren't free to be cascaded so someone would need replacement stock and higher charges so point stands.

No it's not. The 377s have a set track access price which includes the ones with a pantograph.

Have you got a link to the figures you refer to?

It was you who said 8 car 319s would be better than 6 car 377s, even though the infrastructure can't support 8 car 319s and Northern can't have 3 car 377s instead of 4 car 319s because of the cost, now you're arguing I'm not giving a fair comparison! I'm now not sure what (if any) point you were trying to make originally.

I said it would be better to provide more capacity on what is being refered to on here as an overcrowded route. Simple keeping things the same length does no favours to the users and we should be looking at lengthening trains where the loadings jusfty this. Going off what many on here post, the Bolton line is an ideal starting point.

My general point to be clear to you, was your comparsion was unbalanced to the point of being misleading.

 

[LateThanNever]

I don't mean taller seats, but higher cushions.

Quite, it's as if trains nowadays are designed solely for people with well upholstered bottoms...

Merseyrail also have high seat backs in their 507/508s, but they are in 2+2 format with gaps between the seat backs, which makes all the difference.

Good point - as I understand high seat backs are a European directive or similar - that's the solution!

 

[northwichcat]

Which has nothing to do with what you replied to. I was talking comparing a 6 car 185 to a 8 car 319 which has nothing to do with your point.

You'd previously been talking about having 8 car 319s replacing busy 4 car Sprinters instead of 6 car EMUs, so I was just adding some clarification that creating provision for 8 car on semi-fasts is not the same as 8 car on all stops services.

The units you are talking about aren't free to be cascaded so someone would need replacement stock and higher charges so point stands.

What would have happened had the 319s been released on time and the order for additional 377s to plug the gap hadn't gone ahead? Maybe some new trains would have been ordered?

Have you got a link to the figures you refer to?

Certainly. http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cp5-access-charges/track-usage-price-list.xls

The 377s are all a consistent price despite a 350/1/M being more than the other 350/M which I agree doesn't make sense but it's the way it is.

 

[IanXC]

I don't really know the services in the North West very well, bit my observation would be, to what extent can current single 323 services be replaced by single 319s, and the 323s used in 6 car formation on routes which are limited by platform lengths?

 

[northwichcat]

I don't really know the services in the North West very well, bit my observation would be, to what extent can current single 323 services be replaced by single 319s, and the 323s used in 6 car formation on routes which are limited by platform lengths?

I don't know the answer but can provide a summary of facts that should help work out the answer, if someone can give the necessary platform lengths:
* While the 319s have a higher top speed they are concerns they wouldn't be able to run to 323 timings on certain services due to poorer acceleration.
* Porterbrook said the acceleration can be improved by making the 319s 75mph 3 car units. (They also say there's an option for new fronts with corridor connections.)
* 323s are one of the few trains which are wide enough to allow 3+2 seating and have carriages of at least 23m in length. This means a 323 is only about 10m shorter than a 4 car 319 (80m) with both trains currently having similar seating densities, so a 3 car 319 would be a reduction in capacity over a 323.
* The 10m difference between a 4 car 319 and a 323 is apparently enough to cause a problem at certain platforms on the Glossop line.
* A 6 car 319 would be around 120m in length compared to around 140m for a 6 car 323, so the latter may require more platform lengthening.
* A smaller issue with the 323s is the CCTV is funded by TfGM on condition that they are used on Manchester area routes, so if the 323s stray on to Liverpool-Wigan/Blackpool services it would create issues unless CCTV is fitted to the 319s with someone other than TfGM footing the bill.

 

[otomous]

Don't worry, the north won't get the 313s as they don't start to get replaced until 2018, by then the entire 319 fleet will be released.

Word is Wales wants the 313s to get a cheap metro like Valley services. And for the record one TSGN bidder proposed keeping the 313 fleet on the GN after a major refurbishment.



If overcrowding is so bad on the Bolton line then why are people obsesses with keeping it 6 car? Why not actually provide capacity of 8 car trains on shat is routinely mentioned as badly over crowded line? Can't say north is getting a bad deal then on other hand state that one overcrowded line should stay as is.

Any word on the South Coast 313s? I know there was nothing in the announcement but it seems odd not to replace them too. After all, there seems to be a drive to have as uniform a fleet as possible (ditching the 442s, 317s, 321s and 365s in time); the 313s on the coast are the same age as the ones on the GN routes and given the size of the new TSGN combined fleet, the few 313s on the coast must be a bit of a micro fleet by 2018. Plus once the order for GN 6 car trains is placed it's surely not difficult to take up the option for enough to ditch all the 313s.

 

[Class377/5]

Any word on the South Coast 313s? I know there was nothing in the announcement but it seems odd not to replace them too. After all, there seems to be a drive to have as uniform a fleet as possible (ditching the 442s, 317s, 321s and 365s in time); the 313s on the coast are the same age as the ones on the GN routes and given the size of the new TSGN combined fleet, the few 313s on the coast must be a bit of a micro fleet by 2018. Plus once the order for GN 6 car trains is placed it's surely not difficult to take up the option for enough to ditch all the 313s.

The South Coast 313 are staying I'm told. Uniform fleet doesn't apply as the 313s on the South Coast are operationally seperate DC only fleet that never go near the GN units.

You'd previously been talking about having 8 car 319s replacing busy 4 car Sprinters instead of 6 car EMUs, so I was just adding some clarification that creating provision for 8 car on semi-fasts is not the same as 8 car on all stops services.

Ah I understand you know. What length are the 6 car EMUs you suggest?

What would have happened had the 319s been released on time and the order for additional 377s to plug the gap hadn't gone ahead? Maybe some new trains would have been ordered?

If the 319s and TRSP had gone to plan then the 26x 377/6 wouldn't have been ordered. The reason it was 26 units was to replace the 23x 377/5 and 3x 377/2 that FCC were borrowing plus an extra car per unit for growth.

Certainly. http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cp5-access-charges/track-usage-price-list.xls

The 377s are all a consistent price despite a 350/1/M being more than the other 350/M which I agree doesn't make sense but it's the way it is.

The difference between the 319s are 377s is hardly anything (surpringly) with a four car 377 costing 25.2 pence per mile and a 319 costing 26.17 pence per mile.

This is due to the fact the 319 has single expensive motor coach where a 377 has three slightly more expensive motor costs.

 

[swt_passenger]

Any word on the South Coast 313s? I know there was nothing in the announcement but it seems odd not to replace them too. After all, there seems to be a drive to have as uniform a fleet as possible (ditching the 442s, 317s, 321s and 365s in time); the 313s on the coast are the same age as the ones on the GN routes and given the size of the new TSGN combined fleet, the few 313s on the coast must be a bit of a micro fleet by 2018. Plus once the order for GN 6 car trains is placed it's surely not difficult to take up the option for enough to ditch all the 313s.

The coastway 313s are in a vastly different condition to the GN stock. They are already pretty well overhauled, with new seating throughout and apparently only require minor mods to be DDA compliant after 2019. When it same to GTR deciding what to do with them they probably seemed like they had completely different issues, and I'd expect they have been deemed good enough to last for at least the relatively short length of the TSGN management contract style franchise...