Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[DJH1971]

So, any more news on when 319362 will be heading North?

 

[fgwrich]

So, any more news on when 319362 will be heading North?

Quite probably when Wolverton have finished it's repaint and work I'd imagine - Wolverton is fairly busy at the moment so it would probably be within the space of this month.

 

[DJH1971]

Quite probably when Wolverton have finished it's repaint and work I'd imagine - Wolverton is fairly busy at the moment so it would probably be within the space of this month.

Will it be repainted in Northern colours?

 

[northwichcat]

Will it be repainted in Northern colours?

According to Northern a few months back the 319s will be made to look 'more Northern like.'

Tony Miles says talks are now taking place with Porterbrook and DfT to improve the 319s during the current franchise. Previously they weren't expected to have anything above the bare minimum done to them before 2016.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Will it be repainted in Northern colours?

322s appear to be getting plain blue with logos, I'd imagine the 319s will get the same.

 

[507 001]

It's getting a PIS too apparently.....

 

[phil beard]

According to Northern a few months back the 319s will be made to look 'more Northern like.'

Presumably, then, even dirtier windows and much more cramped inside than they currently are! Let's hope for the sake of those oop north that new seats at a higher position are installed.

 

[Bevan Price]

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.

Just because they have a bad policy in London, Birmingham (& Liverpool) is not a reason to spread that policy eleswhere. One side effect will probably be to have a negative effect on city centre shops & businesses, because it is midweek shoppers and theatre-goers who are the people most likely to be affected.

In fact, some areas are being penalised more than passengers in London - there (London) , one day travelcards are valid during the afternoon peak. Likewise, I think the West Midlands Daytripper is also valid all day after the morning peak. In contrast, West Yorkshire Day Rovers and GM rail day rangers and System One day tickets will be banned in the afternoon peak.

 

[westcoaster]

It's getting a PIS too apparently.....

The gizmos to operate the pis i.e the brains in the cab is already fitted but not used, holes were drilled for forward facing cab pis (006) a little while ago.

 

[DJH1971]

It's getting a PIS too apparently.....

What is that exactly?

 

[hassaanhc]

What is that exactly?

Automated announcements and LED info displays inside, possibly external displays too rather than roller blind.

 

[Class377/5]

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.

And as I've repeated stated just because there is no plans doesn't mean we are stuck with that situation.

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.

The 450's are easily converted into dual voltage units as they were designed that way and the 350/1 are simply a 450 with a pan. As for the 387, there no proposal to make them 110mph capable, they are being built 110mph capable. Not the same thing.

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.

A rather childish reply to insult, take it you don't actually have a sensible answer. Especially as you ignore (as usual) the extra hidden costs such as driver retraining and less efficient maintenance arrangements.

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.

It my understanding that the proposals to give 319s to TPE for electric services was alongside the 185s to replace the 170s so maintenance arrangements aren't affected like you suggest unless your talking about something I've not seen.

As for inconsistency between north and south, well its curious you have spoke about new 6 car EMUs all the time while ignoring the simple fact that it won't pay for itself because it won't provide extra capacity to pay for the increased costs but when its suggested to increase capacity cheaper (using 319s) go fund new trains in the longer term by using the extra passenger funds to pay the increased costs you still default to NR say no.

 

[AM9]

Presumably, then, even dirtier windows and much more cramped inside than they currently are! Let's hope for the sake of those oop north that new seats at a higher position are installed.

They could supply booster cushions trimmed in NR colours.

 

[deltic08]

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

Nope, genuine post. If we can't have new in the North then nearly new is good and at 23 units is about the right number for Northwest 6-car services. Posters from the Southeast claim the so called higher fares they pay give them the right to new trains. Job done.

 

[Harryn9000]

can't they remove all the 3rd rail equipment that would save weight

 

[HSTEd]

The third rail equipment essentially consists of the shoegear itself.

 

[12CSVT]

319008 appears to have had its Southern logos re-applied.

 

[northwichcat]

A rather childish reply to insult, take it you don't actually have a sensible answer. Especially as you ignore (as usual) the extra hidden costs such as driver retraining and less efficient maintenance arrangements.

Really? Apparently the 319s can be split between multiple operators and multiple depots but that can't be done with Desiros, despite Siemens already having specialist maintenance facilities at Ardwick and Neville Hill with 1 of them already being able to deal with 350s.

You've not provided a single figure relating to how your ideas are more cost effective than what Network Rail have proposed which is 6 car EMUs or 6 car DMUs under the wires but you seem certain that you have the best and most cost-effective solution. Maybe you can provide the costing for converting 319s to 3 car and the relevant platform lengthening required to run them in 8 car formation so we can compare the two?

 

[Class377/5]

Really? Apparently the 319s can be split between multiple operators and multiple depots but that can't be done with Desiros, despite Siemens already having specialist maintenance facilities at Ardwick and Neville Hill with 1 of them already being able to deal with 350s.

The simple point is the 319s are looked after my the TOC so contracts change as TOCs do so easy to move.

The Desiro's are set contracts that require more work to change.

You've not provided a single figure relating to how your ideas are more cost effective than what Network Rail have proposed which is 6 car EMUs or 6 car DMUs under the wires but you seem certain that you have the best and most cost-effective solution. Maybe you can provide the costing for converting 319s to 3 car and the relevant platform lengthening required to run them in 8 car formation so we can compare the two?

Why should I supply figure for converting the 319s to 3 cars as its an added cost that I suggest avoiding? I have never claimed the 8 car plan to be cost effective but that its a sensible plan to tackle over crowding.

You seem stuck in an view that nothing can be done but are happy to complain about it at every time. That's a negative self fuelling attitude that doesn't have to be the same forever. You have not suggest a single solution for the issues you have posted about but attack others for doing so. What's so wrong with trying to address the issues and improve the situation at Northern for the traveling public?

 

[northwichcat]

You seem stuck in an view that nothing can be done but are happy to complain about it at every time. That's a negative self fuelling attitude that doesn't have to be the same forever. You have not suggest a single solution for the issues you have posted about but attack others for doing so. What's so wrong with trying to address the issues and improve the situation at Northern for the traveling public?

I've suggested numerous options to implement Network Rail's suggestion of using 6 car EMUs on the Bolton corridor and you've just come along and shot down every one of them saying the North can't afford that and sticking to the idea of 8 car 319s being the best option even though the infrastructure can't handle that and can't easily be adapted to allow that. I've lost count of the number of times I've told you that we usually have busy 4 car Sprinters on all/most-stops services at peak times, going up to 8 car in CP5 would be overkill while remaining 4 car wouldn't improve things for passengers. Doubling the length of some services on newly electrified routes will do no good except create a nice statistic for Northern and DfT to quote about how many extra carriages are in operation which helps cover up the lack of extra carriages on routes not being electrified.

If the 319s remain in 4 car formation and they run in 8 car formation you could bet on either them having a rear unit locked out-of-use for part of the service or/and missing out important stations like Salford Crescent.

 

[ac6000cw]

If the 319s remain in 4 car formation and they run in 8 car formation you could bet on either them having a rear unit locked out-of-use for part of the service or/and missing out important stations like Salford Crescent.

Is it really that much of a problem extending the platforms at Salford Crescent by 40m to accommodate 8 cars?

(with some junction shifting there looks to be enough space within the formation at the north end, but I'm not familiar with the 'ground level' view - aerial photos only tell you part of the story).

 

[Class377/5]

I've suggested numerous options to implement Network Rail's suggestion of using 6 car EMUs on the Bolton corridor and you've just come along and shot down every one of them saying the North can't afford that and sticking to the idea of 8 car 319s being the best option even though the infrastructure can't handle that and can't easily be adapted to allow that. I've lost count of the number of times I've told you that we usually have busy 4 car Sprinters on all/most-stops services at peak times, going up to 8 car in CP5 would be overkill while remaining 4 car wouldn't improve things for passengers. Doubling the length of some services on newly electrified routes will do no good except create a nice statistic for Northern and DfT to quote about how many extra carriages are in operation which helps cover up the lack of extra carriages on routes not being electrified.

If the 319s remain in 4 car formation and they run in 8 car formation you could bet on either them having a rear unit locked out-of-use for part of the service or/and missing out important stations like Salford Crescent.

I've always questioned you over new build 6 car EMU and how they could be afforded, yet you've never come back with an answer for that. Note my idea of using 8 car EMU also came with suggestions of where the funding would come from. Something lacking in your own answers.

Again I've spoken about targeting the most overcrowded routes first, which posters on here have repeated talked about.

As for the Salford Crescent issue, well platform extension can make your point mute, once again you show an inability to think outside any confirmed works.

Is it really that much of a problem extending the platforms at Salford Crescent by 40m to accommodate 8 cars?

(with some junction shifting there looks to be enough space within the formation at the north end, but I'm not familiar with the 'ground level' view - aerial photos only tell you part of the story).

A six car 185 is 138m and an 8 car 319 so 160m so you only need an extra 22m of platform, or just over a single carriage of a 319s.

 

[northwichcat]

I've always questioned you over new build 6 car EMU and how they could be afforded, yet you've never come back with an answer for that. Note my idea of using 8 car EMU also came with suggestions of where the funding would come from. Something lacking in your own answers.

Well there's your problem - I never suggested a new build 6 car EMU. I suggested a cascade of either existing 3 car EMUs or shortening 4 car EMUs where the displaced carriage could easily be inserted in to other EMUs i.e. not 319s. No wonder you think my answers are lacking if you got the wrong idea from a post from a while back and have been persisting with your misinterpreted understanding ever since. It was you who suggested if Northern took on 3 car 377s that there would need to be a new EMU order to replace them - overlooking the fact that Northern would take on 377s instead of 319s not as well as. As you're changing my ideas in your head to make them sound less suitable and not backing up your own arguments then I won't bother suggesting anything else and will conclude with your idea being a very poor one.

A six car 185 is 138m and an 8 car 319 so 160m so you only need an extra 22m of platform, or just over a single carriage of a 319s.

It might also depend where the passenger doors and signals are. Winsford's platform is shorter than the 4 car 350s that stop there but the overhanging bits don't have passenger doors on them. If there was a signal preventing an overhang at Winsford then either the platform would need extending or the signal would need moving.

 

[Class377/5]

Well there's your problem - I never suggested a new build 6 car EMU. I suggested a cascade of either existing 3 car EMUs or shortening 4 car EMUs where the displaced carriage could easily be inserted in to other EMUs i.e. not 319s. No wonder you think my answers are lacking if you got the wrong idea from a post from a while back and have been persisting with your misinterpreted understanding ever since. It was you who suggested if Northern took on 3 car 377s that there would need to be a new EMU order to replace them - overlooking the fact that Northern would take on 377s instead of 319s not as well as. As you're changing my ideas in your head to make them sound less suitable and not backing up your own arguments then I won't bother suggesting anything else and will conclude with your idea being a very poor one.

Please show where I suggested Northern gets 3 car 377s please as I never did.

Your idea of cascading 377 had to include new build as I pointed out as you can't just cascade trains without replacing them. Just because Northern doesn't see the cost of new build doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You actually haven't suggested anything just repeated what NR has said, no original ideas there.

It might also depend where the passenger doors and signals are. Winsford's platform is shorter than the 4 car 350s that stop there but the overhanging bits don't have passenger doors on them. If there was a signal preventing an overhang at Winsford then either the platform would need extending or the signal would need moving.

Fair point however if 6 car DMUs are stopping there now you'd assume that platform length are fine. Of course changing routes we are talking about does justify your point.

 

[northwichcat]

Please show where I suggested Northern gets 3 car 377s please as I never did.

Again that's not what I said. I suggested Northern taking on 3 car 377s, I was saying you suggested as the 3 car 377s are needed elsewhere new EMUs would be required if that happened.

On checking back what you actually said is:

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.

and

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

 

[ac6000cw]

According to the sectional appendix, Salford Crescent platform 1 is 158m and platform 2 is 153m, so we're only talking about adding 7m to the shortest one e.g. converting the end ramps to usable platform space might do it (newly built platforms e.g. the recent Cambridge and Peterborough additions, have squared off ends with fencing so ramps are obviously not a requirement now)

Clifton is 172m, Bolton is 200m+, Lostock is 155m, Horwich Parkway is 142m, Chorley is 140m, Buckshaw Parkway is 150m, so accommodating limited stop 8-car 319s Manchester-Preston doesn't feel like a huge undertaking in terms of platform lengthening.

 

[northwichcat]

According to the sectional appendix, Salford Crescent platform 1 is 158m and platform 2 is 153m, so we're only talking about adding 7m to the shortest one e.g. converting the end ramps to usable platform space might do it (newly built platforms e.g. the recent Cambridge and Peterborough additions, have squared off ends with fencing so ramps are obviously not a requirement now)

Clifton is 172m, Bolton is 200m+, Lostock is 155m, Horwich Parkway is 142m, Chorley is 140m, Buckshaw Parkway is 150m, so accommodating limited stop 8-car 319s Manchester-Preston doesn't feel like a huge undertaking in terms of platform lengthening.

Clifton isn't served by any services which will be converted to electric operation, neither is Moses Gates, Kearsley or Farnworth. Farnworth is the one with the highest usage out of those 4 if you considering adding additional services.

The problem isn't so much the semi-fasts like the Airport-Blackpool services, but the most stops services like the Hazel Grove-Preston services which can be busy 4 car Sprinters at peak times. They call at the stations highlighted in Green and also Manchester Oxford Rd, Deansgate, Blackrod (at peak times) and Leyland.

 

[Class377/5]

According to the sectional appendix, Salford Crescent platform 1 is 158m and platform 2 is 153m, so we're only talking about adding 7m to the shortest one e.g. converting the end ramps to usable platform space might do it (newly built platforms e.g. the recent Cambridge and Peterborough additions, have squared off ends with fencing so ramps are obviously not a requirement now)

Clifton is 172m, Bolton is 200m+, Lostock is 155m, Horwich Parkway is 142m, Chorley is 140m, Buckshaw Parkway is 150m, so accommodating limited stop 8-car 319s Manchester-Preston doesn't feel like a huge undertaking in terms of platform lengthening.

That's been my point all along. Making the line 8 car 319 ready isn't quite as big a challenge as some make it out to be, especially when your comparing 23m trains with 20m.

Again that's not what I said. I suggested Northern taking on 3 car 377s, I was saying you suggested as the 3 car 377s are needed elsewhere new EMUs would be required if that happened.

Sorry you are indeed correct. Now are you going to bother to reply to the rest of my post and provide some workable ideas?

 

[HSTEd]

Busy 4 car Sprinter at peak times sounds like just running a Class 319 would not be a disaster.
We shouldn't just assume that explosive passenger number growth is going to occur - because that way we risk getting caught out.

If 4 cars is not enough then we should discuss it once it is demonstrated to be the case.

 

[northwichcat]

Busy 4 car Sprinter at peak times sounds like just running a Class 319 would not be a disaster.
We shouldn't just assume that explosive passenger number growth is going to occur - because that way we risk getting caught out.

If 4 cars is not enough then we should discuss it once it is demonstrated to be the case.

Just had a flick through some TfGM reports and it looks like the 4 car 07:19 Southport-Manchester Airport is the worst where they report it leaves Wigan Wallgate with around 90% of seats occupied and leaves Bolton with almost all the standing capacity taken. While Southport isn't being electrified the Wigan-Bolton-Manchester Airport part is set to be switched to electric traction with the Victoria-Kirkby service diverted to Southport.