Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[northwichcat]

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

Earlier on in the thread you suggested the idea of reforming the 319s in to 3 cars so they can run in 6 car formation (a Porterbrook proposal) shouldn't go ahead and Network Rail should just lengthen platforms to be able to take 8 cars if 4 cars is insufficient. So I was assuming a 6 car 319. The problem of course is you can't have a 5 car 319 due to a lack of power so you're wasting carriages.

If you go for your idea of longer platforms then you're putting 8 cars on some services which don't need 8 cars so it's still really a waste plus it won't help reduce the subsidy.

I suggested 3 car 377s could have been an alternative without the wastage. If Northern did get 377s then it could allow more 4/5 car units for another franchise as the 319s would be available and if Northern took on what are currently 4 car 377s, shortened to 3 cars then it would allow some 4 car 377s to be lengthened to 5 cars and make 10 car formations much easier to form in the Southern area.

It's not the only possibility. An alternative idea (which wouldn't be at all popular in the SWT area) could be for SWT to get the 319s and to release a similar number of 450s, which could then be converted to a mix 3, 4 and 5 car 350s. Then let FGW have a mix of 4 and 5 car 350s for Thames Valley and Northern get a mix of 3 and 4 car 350s. It would also mean Thames Valley get's trains which can be upgraded to run at 110mph. Given it's proposed the 450s will be converted to dual voltage anyway it might be the cheaper overall than the combined cost of reforming 319s and making 450s dual voltage.

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.

OK but there would still be a cost advantage of having 6 car formations in operation over 8 car formations.

 

[AM9]

Earlier on in the thread you suggested the idea of reforming the 319s in to 3 cars so they can run in 6 car formation (a Porterbrook proposal) shouldn't go ahead and Network Rail should just lengthen platforms to be able to take 8 cars if 4 cars is insufficient. So I was assuming a 6 car 319. The problem of course is you can't have a 5 car 319 due to a lack of power so you're wasting carriages.

If you go for your idea of longer platforms then you're putting 8 cars on some services which don't need 8 cars so it's still really a waste plus it won't help reduce the subsidy.

I suggested 3 car 377s could have been an alternative without the wastage. If Northern did get 377s then it could allow more 4/5 car units for another franchise as the 319s would be available and if Northern took on what are currently 4 car 377s, shortened to 3 cars then it would allow some 4 car 377s to be lengthened to 5 cars and make 10 car formations much easier to form in the Southern area.

It's not the only possibility. An alternative idea (which wouldn't be at all popular in the SWT area) could be for SWT to get the 319s and to release a similar number of 450s, which could then be converted to a mix 3, 4 and 5 car 350s. Then let FGW have a mix of 4 and 5 car 350s for Thames Valley and Northern get a mix of 3 and 4 car 350s. It would also mean Thames Valley get's trains which can be upgraded to run at 110mph. Given it's proposed the 450s will be converted to dual voltage anyway it might be the cheaper overall than the combined cost of reforming 319s and making 450s dual voltage.

But that would mean withdrawing Desiro's from a Siemens maintenance contract with a very tightly woven set of diagrams to equalise mileages on two of the busiest main lines. Breaking up a fleet of over 100 4-car sets to supply a few to lower density services would just create problems that far outweigh any gains.

 

[WatcherZero]

One concern I have is the four car 350's have a habit for bringing down the overheads due to pantographs close proximity and resonance. Would a short formed 319 have the same propensity?

 

[76020]

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.

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.[/QUOTE]
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just a quick word to say that I saw two 377/2 coupled to 377/5 on FCC Bedford to Brighton services today.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

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.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just a quick word that I saw two FCC trains today formed of a 377/2 coupled to 377/5 on the Bedford to Brighton run.

 

[Class377/5]

One concern I have is the four car 350's have a habit for bringing down the overheads due to pantographs close proximity and resonance. Would a short formed 319 have the same propensity?

The 350's don't bring down the wires that often and the 319s have been dewirement issues more lately but of course your assuming the units are always at fault which isn't true.

Earlier on in the thread you suggested the idea of reforming the 319s in to 3 cars so they can run in 6 car formation (a Porterbrook proposal) shouldn't go ahead and Network Rail should just lengthen platforms to be able to take 8 cars if 4 cars is insufficient. So I was assuming a 6 car 319. The problem of course is you can't have a 5 car 319 due to a lack of power so you're wasting carriages.

Why would a 5 car 319 have a lack of power?

If you go for your idea of longer platforms then you're putting 8 cars on some services which don't need 8 cars so it's still really a waste plus it won't help reduce the subsidy.

I suggesting targetting selectively putting in 8 car services on the busiest services. I don't understand the resistance to train lengthen when the comments are always the northern railways are so over crowded. Well if your only running 3-6 cars then lengthen then and stop complaining!

I suggested 3 car 377s could have been an alternative without the wastage. If Northern did get 377s then it could allow more 4/5 car units for another franchise as the 319s would be available and if Northern took on what are currently 4 car 377s, shortened to 3 cars then it would allow some 4 car 377s to be lengthened to 5 cars and make 10 car formations much easier to form in the Southern area.

Problem is the 4 cars are needed to work 8/12 car services so all your suggesting is messing with fleet and requiring more new build units for the south while cascading units to the north.

OK but there would still be a cost advantage of having 6 car formations in operation over 8 car formations.

But then your still failing the basic point of actually dealing with the over crowding in the first place let alone allowing scope for growth. Again I find this lack of desire to add capacity madness.

 

[hassaanhc]

But then your still failing the basic point of actually dealing with the over crowding in the first place let alone allowing scope for growth. Again I find this lack of desire to add capacity madness.

And that is what is pretty annoying about the railway. I can see where the average weekend passenger is coming from, when, they've followed advice and avoided the peak crowds (and fare tax), yet they can't get a seat and then see unit after unit in sidings/depots not being used. Yes some will be for exams or just managed to throw a fit, however I don't think anyone really believes they're all under maintenance right that second (a line that SWT are guilty of putting out often). What is wrong with having some empty seats and capacity rather than running things at max all the time? And will it really break the bank as is often claimed?

 

[Manchester77]

And that is what is pretty annoying about the railway. I can see where the average weekend passenger is coming from, when, they've followed advice and avoided the peak crowds (and fare tax), yet they can't get a seat and then see unit after unit in sidings/depots not being used. Yes some will be for exams or just managed to throw a fit, however I don't think anyone really believes they're all under maintenance right that second (a line that SWT are guilty of putting out often). What is wrong with having some empty seats and capacity rather than running things at max all the time? And will it really break the bank as is often claimed?

The TOC will have to pay track access charges for moving round the 'empty' train so in their eyes it makes more sense to have a crowded train than one with loads of empty seats.

 

[hassaanhc]

The TOC will have to pay track access charges for moving round the 'empty' train so in their eyes it makes more sense to have a crowded train than one with loads of empty seats.

Which is true. But I can't see the average passenger taking very kindly to that when they're on a wedged train on a weekend that is using the minimum possible formation and loads of units are parked up . The busiest train I boarded today was a 3-car 166 from Southall towards London, my first train of the day. It had a lot of people standing, and had lost 6 minutes by then probably due to the dwell times. I got off at Ealing Broadway not even 5 minutes later and in that short time I had already heard someone mumble "they should put more carriages on". I know saving costs is the norm, but going too far helps paint a negative image of the industry .

 

[Class377/5]

And that is what is pretty annoying about the railway. I can see where the average weekend passenger is coming from, when, they've followed advice and avoided the peak crowds (and fare tax), yet they can't get a seat and then see unit after unit in sidings/depots not being used. Yes some will be for exams or just managed to throw a fit, however I don't think anyone really believes they're all under maintenance right that second (a line that SWT are guilty of putting out often). What is wrong with having some empty seats and capacity rather than running things at max all the time? And will it really break the bank as is often claimed?

Or the fact that by keeping the mileage down less maintance is need, less trains are needed. Although Saturdays for a lot of TOCs sees a near weekday (off peak) service anyway meaning the 'resting' of units to keep mileages down becomes even more important.

At the end of the day its a balancing act.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Why would a 5 car 319 have a lack of power?.....

I assume it is in reference to the powered axle ratio and power to weight ratio. A 4 car 319 would have 4 powered axles in the 16 axles the unit has, a 5 car 319 would have 4 in 20, that's 25% down to 20%. A 4 car unit is in the region of 142 tonnes (without passengers), a 5 car would be in the region of 173 tonnes (without passengers).

In this thread it has been noted that the acceleration of the 319 is not as good as some other units, adding weight with no extra grunt just makes it worse.

 

[cactustwirly]

Which is true. But I can't see the average passenger taking very kindly to that when they're on a wedged train on a weekend that is using the minimum possible formation and loads of units are parked up . The busiest train I boarded today was a 3-car 166 from Southall towards London, my first train of the day. It had a lot of people standing, and had lost 6 minutes by then probably due to the dwell times. I got off at Ealing Broadway not even 5 minutes later and in that short time I had already heard someone mumble "they should put more carriages on". I know saving costs is the norm, but going too far helps paint a negative image of the industry .

Ah, those trains are a nightmare!, The're empty until Slough, where they get full up pretty quickly. There's no point in adding extra units, if the're only needed for the last 15 minutes of the Journey

 

[northwichcat]

I suggesting targetting selectively putting in 8 car services on the busiest services. I don't understand the resistance to train lengthen when the comments are always the northern railways are so over crowded. Well if your only running 3-6 cars then lengthen then and stop complaining!

Problem is the 4 cars are needed to work 8/12 car services so all your suggesting is messing with fleet and requiring more new build units for the south while cascading units to the north.

But then your still failing the basic point of actually dealing with the over crowding in the first place let alone allowing scope for growth. Again I find this lack of desire to add capacity madness.

There's no consistency in what you're saying and you're completely missing the point.

It's Network Rail who flagged the problem and they aren't proposing to lengthen platforms such as those at Salford Crescent to be long enough for 8 cars, never mind stations like Blackrod. What are you proposing should replace busy 4 car Sprinters post-electrification noting that any platform lengthening to allow 8 cars at all stations is just a fantasy you have which won't happen?

You're referring to Southern needing a mix of 3, 4 and 5 car units to have a variety of lengths to suit demand and platform lengths but then saying the North can make do with just 4 car trains. A very inconsistent argument!

I notice you haven't objected to my other idea of sending 319s to SWT and converting 80 odd 450s to a mix of 3, 4 and 5 car 350s for Northern and FGW. Maybe that's the solution.

But then your still failing the basic point of actually dealing with the over crowding in the first place let alone allowing scope for growth. Again I find this lack of desire to add capacity madness.

Switching all the Northern Hazel Grove/Victoria to Preston/Blackpool services to be 6 car EMU would add a lot of capacity to the Bolton corridor, as none of them are more than a 4 car Sprinter currently. That can be done alongside longer trains to replace the TPE 350/4s between Manchester and Preston via Wigan (or alternatively more EMUs so they can operate more 8 car services.)

 

[158722]

Assuming the Northern 319s were indeed reduced to 3-car sets, what could be done with the trailer cars removed?

Inserted into Northern's 150/1 or 150/2 fleet, possibly in conjunction with a refurbishment/DDA compliance and higher powered engines, given the extra weight to lug around? Would any such engines be available, given the emissions regulations?

Inserted into SWT 455s to make them 5-car sets (assuming they could still move with the extra weight!) or replace the ex-508 vehicles?

Inserted into ScotRail's 318s or 320s to make them up to 4-car? 320 power rating (1328hp) seems to be around only 100hp less than the 4-car 321s, so possible?

 

[Nym]

Or you could take the carriages removed, make some changes to the brake lines and wiring and have some new LHCS stock for the longer(ish) distance stuff oop norf hauled by Class 68s?

 

[HSTEd]

Why would you spend all that money on a 3-car 75mph Class 319 when you can just have a 75mph 3-car Class 315/313 for almost nothing?

What about just rotating the 319s to Southern and sending 313s north from the Coastway?

Or you could remove one driving trailer from every two formations and marshal the trains into fixed 7-car sets.
Would give the highest capacity per unit train length.

 

[Nym]

Could work, but wouldn't you then have the issues of mismatched pairs a la bakerloo line?

 

[deltic08]

Why would you spend all that money on a 3-car 75mph Class 319 when you can just have a 75mph 3-car Class 315/313 for almost nothing?

What about just rotating the 319s to Southern and sending 313s north from the Coastway?

Or you could remove one driving trailer from every two formations and marshal the trains into fixed 7-car sets.
Would give the highest capacity per unit train length.

I tend to agree. With such a shortage at the moment, it is sheer madness reducing perfectly adequate 4-car trains to 3-car. There are services in the North operating as overcrowded 2+1 3-car diesel units. Once electrified, these services will need 4-car electric trains due to the sparks effect. Services operated by 2-car DMUs will need 3-car EMUs. If enough 3-car units are made available then these can work as 6-car as required in the peaks. A batch of 3-car 377s is needed for the North as well as 4-car 319s. The options are:

1. 313/315 cascade but that would be unpopular with Northerners.
2 Convert 377/3s to ac and cascade North with new-build for Southern.
3. Remove one coach from 4-car 377s and cascade to North incorporating spare coaches into new-build 377s for FCC/Southern if that is possible.

 

[Class377/5]

I assume it is in reference to the powered axle ratio and power to weight ratio. A 4 car 319 would have 4 powered axles in the 16 axles the unit has, a 5 car 319 would have 4 in 20, that's 25% down to 20%. A 4 car unit is in the region of 142 tonnes (without passengers), a 5 car would be in the region of 173 tonnes (without passengers).

In this thread it has been noted that the acceleration of the 319 is not as good as some other units, adding weight with no extra grunt just makes it worse.

Ah thanks.

There's no consistency in what you're saying and you're completely missing the point.

It's Network Rail who flagged the problem and they aren't proposing to lengthen platforms such as those at Salford Crescent to be long enough for 8 cars, never mind stations like Blackrod. What are you proposing should replace busy 4 car Sprinters post-electrification noting that any platform lengthening to allow 8 cars at all stations is just a fantasy you have which won't happen?

I think your missing mine. My basic point is stop thinking that just because Network Rail says there is no plan that it can't be done. Start thinking for yourself and suggest improvement rather than relying on the DfT/NR to do everything then complain the improvements aren't good enough.

You're referring to Southern needing a mix of 3, 4 and 5 car units to have a variety of lengths to suit demand and platform lengths but then saying the North can make do with just 4 car trains. A very inconsistent argument!

Not inconsistent arguement at all. Your comparing the current situation at Southern with the future changing situation at Northern and making assumations about my views.

For the record I think Southern should have multiples of 4 for everything and loads support this. The whole 10 car working is a cop out from 12 cars that were partly going to be introduced as Thameslink.

The 3 cars are used to fill in for other units to make 10 or 12 car trains generally in peak. (There is a few 6 car services on 8 car routes to simply try and balance avilable units with demand).

The situation with Northern is that in the future that things are going to change, so why not use it as a change to improve the travelling conditions for many people rather than just standing still while this forum is filled with posts of over crowding and complaints of a lack of investiment in the north?

I notice you haven't objected to my other idea of sending 319s to SWT and converting 80 odd 450s to a mix of 3, 4 and 5 car 350s for Northern and FGW. Maybe that's the solution.

Because its unworkable as another poster stated and quite frankly isn't sensible at all.

Switching all the Northern Hazel Grove/Victoria to Preston/Blackpool services to be 6 car EMU would add a lot of capacity to the Bolton corridor, as none of them are more than a 4 car Sprinter currently. That can be done alongside longer trains to replace the TPE 350/4s between Manchester and Preston via Wigan (or alternatively more EMUs so they can operate more 8 car services.)

But by doing so these 6 car EMU are either going to be new build or require new build to cascade other units. Why not use stock that is going to become available to cheapely get longer trains then use the additional funds to do futher improvements?

Why would you spend all that money on a 3-car 75mph Class 319 when you can just have a 75mph 3-car Class 315/313 for almost nothing?

What about just rotating the 319s to Southern and sending 313s north from the Coastway?

Or you could remove one driving trailer from every two formations and marshal the trains into fixed 7-car sets.
Would give the highest capacity per unit train length.

Won't work as you'd need to rebuild the 319s for 3 cars for coastal work so you save nothing bar sending the oldest stock in the country north to futher complains of the northern users on this forum. Note Southern only have 19x 313s anyway. There will be plently more 319s available to use.

1. 313/315 cascade but that would be unpopular with Northerners.
2 Convert 377/3s to ac and cascade North with new-build for Southern.
3. Remove one coach from 4-car 377s and cascade to North incorporating spare coaches into new-build 377s for FCC/Southern if that is possible.

1. Very much so.
2. Possible but whsoes going to pay for this?
3. Not possible to mix the original Electrostar builds with the new generations (387 onwards) due to fly by wire tech being used. You'd have to rewire the whole train which will cost a bomb and make this a very expensive way of doing it.

Rather than this madness you'd just build new for the north but no-ones yet explained how to afford brand new build that will cost more on a franchise thats expected to cost less.

 

[Hophead]

The options are:

1. 313/315 cascade but that would be unpopular with Northerners.
2 Convert 377/3s to ac and cascade North with new-build for Southern.
3. Remove one coach from 4-car 377s and cascade to North incorporating spare coaches into new-build 377s for FCC/Southern if that is possible.

4. Run trains more frequently.

 

[Bevan Price]

Personally, I think that 4 car emus would be perfectly adequate for at least 95% of the services currently operated by Northern, assuming they don't do something stupid like have first class seating areas. 3 cars would be inadequate, and mixed formations (3, 4 or 5 coach variants, etc.,) would cause diagramming problems.

Moreover, I suspect that afternoon peak loadings around the north could fall significantly, following the p.m. peak hour ticket restrictions being imposed by the Conservative DfT.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Assuming the Northern 319s were indeed reduced to 3-car sets, what could be done with the trailer cars removed?

Inserted into Northern's 150/1 or 150/2 fleet, possibly in conjunction with a refurbishment/DDA compliance and higher powered engines, given the extra weight to lug around? Would any such engines be available, given the emissions regulations?

Inserted into SWT 455s to make them 5-car sets (assuming they could still move with the extra weight!) or replace the ex-508 vehicles?

Inserted into ScotRail's 318s or 320s to make them up to 4-car? 320 power rating (1328hp) seems to be around only 100hp less than the 4-car 321s, so possible?

It depends how all the equipment (that the 319s need but the trailer car carries) is removed, Porterbrook list nearly two dozen items to move.

I doubt lengthening 318s or 320s would be worthwhile given the routes they run tend to have 6 car platforms. they could replace the 508 centre cars in 455s, but what is the point in that? I believe 455s have the same basic powered axle arrangement as 319s so 5 car probably won't work.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

2) Convert 377/3s to ac and cascade North with new-build for Southern.

Did you add this "gem" into your posting to see what reaction would be caused by it ?

 

[Jonny]

Why would you spend all that money on a 3-car 75mph Class 319 when you can just have a 75mph 3-car Class 315/313 for almost nothing?

What about just rotating the 319s to Southern and sending 313s north from the Coastway?

Or you could remove one driving trailer from every two formations and marshal the trains into fixed 7-car sets.
Would give the highest capacity per unit train length.

A minor issue would be the pantographs, but that could be sorted by removing one and using the train bus (presumably 750vDC). Perhaps, remove one driving trailer from one and the "other" driving trailer from another and make a 6-car unit with a passenger corridor throughout, formed as DTSO(A) MSO TSOL MSO TSOL DTSO(B) (maybe swap a MSO/TSOL around).

 

[158722]

It depends how all the equipment (that the 319s need but the trailer car carries) is removed, Porterbrook list nearly two dozen items to move.

I doubt lengthening 318s or 320s would be worthwhile given the routes they run tend to have 6 car platforms. they could replace the 508 centre cars in 455s, but what is the point in that? I believe 455s have the same basic powered axle arrangement as 319s so 5 car probably won't work.

Indeed. I raised the question partly as surely what to do with the discarded trailers should be part of the decision process as regards potential 3-car 319s. Those vehicles have plenty life left in them, Porterbrook aren't going to want them sitting around rusting.

Personally, Can't see the 319s being reduced in length, makes more sense for adapting platform lengths at key stations to allow 8-car operation on limited stop, peak times services with 4-cars on the rest. What stations can take 8-cars between Manchester and Blackpool, for example?

 

[northwichcat]

I think your missing mine. My basic point is stop thinking that just because Network Rail says there is no plan that it can't be done. Start thinking for yourself and suggest improvement rather than relying on the DfT/NR to do everything then complain the improvements aren't good enough.

As I've pointed out before there is no plan to lengthen platforms to 8 cars and a proposal to lengthen platforms to 6 cars at Blackrod and Leyland is dependent on an appropriate length of EMU being obtained. 6 cars at all stations is an option at the moment, 8 cars is not.

Because its unworkable as another poster stated and quite frankly isn't sensible at all.

And yet Porterbrook are proposing an option to make the 319s 3 car at the same time as Siemens are proposing an option to make the 450s dual voltage for when Southampton gets OHEs, while there's another option being considered to make the 387s 110mph capable and put them on Thames Valley.

All that's apparently workable but a solution to change just one fleet of trains isn't? Only someone in the South or in government could make such a stupid claim.

The only objection other people have posted is the maintenance contract between SWT and Siemens - and yet it's been proposed TPE would get a cascade of non-Siemens EMUs to replace some of the 185s - again no consistency between the North and the South.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Personally, Can't see the 319s being reduced in length, makes more sense for adapting platform lengths at key stations to allow 8-car operation on limited stop, peak times services with 4-cars on the rest. What stations can take 8-cars between Manchester and Blackpool, for example?

I think just Bolton and Preston.

The biggest issue would be Salford Crescent where it's not just a case of lengthening platforms from 6 car to 8 car but making wholesale infrastructure changes only a couple of years after the infrastructure was renewed.

Like I've said before 4 car EMUs for the Chat Moss services is OK but for Bolton corridor it's fitting square pegs in to round holes.

 

[Wolfie]

Personally, I think that 4 car emus would be perfectly adequate for at least 95% of the services currently operated by Northern, assuming they don't do something stupid like have first class seating areas. 3 cars would be inadequate, and mixed formations (3, 4 or 5 coach variants, etc.,) would cause diagramming problems.

Moreover, I suspect that afternoon peak loadings around the north could fall significantly, following the p.m. peak hour ticket restrictions being imposed by the Conservative DfT.

my bold and italics

(bold) You mean like the ones that have been in place in London and also on LM services around Birmingham for years.

(Italic) A little constitutional lecture! The DfT is NOT "Conservative". It's Ministers are a mixture of Conservatives (mostly) and Liberal Democrats who direct non-political civil servants.

 

[northwichcat]

(Italic) A little constitutional lecture! The DfT is NOT "Conservative". It's Ministers are a mixture of Conservatives (mostly) and Liberal Democrats who direct non-political civil servants.

The Conservatives have the majority of seats in parliament and their MPs get a lot more influence in to decisions than the Lib Dems.

 

[Jonny]

The Conservatives have the majority of seats in parliament and their MPs get a lot more influence in to decisions than the Lib Dems.

Not quite... it's called a plurality because, if all the MPs from other parties get together, they can be out-voted. In a true majority situation, that would not be possible (as long as they are all present).

 

[northwichcat]

Not quite... it's called a plurality because, if all the MPs from other parties get together, they can be out-voted. In a true majority situation, that would not be possible (as long as they are all present).

But they only have a vote if the government decides to have one. I agree they can be defeated - such as the vote on military action in Syria but they wouldn't have a vote on whether the North West should get 319s or some other EMUs.

 

[Manchester77]

In an ideal world where there aren't loads of different items to move from the trailer I'd imagine it would be more plausible to reduce some 319s to 3 car however due to the all the different things which need moving I doubt we'll see it happen which is a shame.