Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[ScotGG]

All this talk of 4-cars being overkill off-peak, whilst making some case for major reconfiguration work to m ake them 3-car. Even if there is no growth and a few of the 319s are running as overkill for 10 years, I doubt that that would be more costly than the modifications and the diagramming inconveniences that would result.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Aye - seems that way to me too. If quite empty have some promotions and advertise them well and ridership will rise sharply.

 

[WatcherZero]

Really? Oldham had a train every 15 minutes to an advertised timetable, now it's got a tram that's just advertised as 'every 12 minutes' with the actual timetable being deeply buried in transportdirect.info but even if you find it trams are allowed to depart up to 2 minutes early to keep them spaced out in the city centre. OK Oldham will get a tram every 6 minutes but it's not happened yet.

4tph to Oldham but only 2tph to rochdale. Surprisingly a lot of people travelling all the way from rochdale rather than faster HR, presumably because of city centre penetration or links to south of county.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 8 cars have completely different seating from the new 5 cars. But the longer trains are very welcome.

Yep, I know...been on both and I prefer the new ones, as my preference is for an airline seat but I don't like 3+2.

Neil

 

[ainsworth74]

365s and 350/1s had 3rd rail equipment removed and stored so why should 319s be treated any differently?

Though wasn't that removal (at least on the 350/1s) just the shoe gear and other bits attached to the bogies. I was under the impression that everything else was still in place.

 

[AM9]

Though wasn't that removal (at least on the 350/1s) just the shoe gear and other bits attached to the bogies. I was under the impression that everything else was still in place.

Surely there's not much else to remove on the DC side apart from the wiring to the shoes. The next thing would be the changeover contactors, but they would probably be integrated with the DC traction (as rectified from AC) circuits so not worth tampering. Access to the DC switch position should be done by removing control links.

 

[Greybeard33]

Probably a silly question, but is there any possibility of a future swap of some Northern's 4-car 319s for some of Scotrail's 3-car 318s? So enabling some Glasgow suburban trains to be strengthened from 6-car to 8-car, while Northern could operate 6-car trains on routes where the platforms are too short for 8-car?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

yeah, true, the compressor and the toilets are on the trailer standard....

And the fuses and the Main Air Reservoir and other equipment that always fails to get mentioned. Porterbrook notes more than twenty items to be moved if a three car unit were to be formed.

....although there would be more room under the motor coach with the removal of the 750v DC equipment it would be expensive to do.

In their present guise, the only DC equipment you can remove, without needing new equipment, is the shoe, the shoe beam, the shoe fuse, the associated wires to carry the power and maybe a smoothing choke, The AC power supply goes through everything else.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'll ask again. Does anyone happen to be 'in the know' about whether the issues with shortening the 319s (compressors in particular, as the toilets will need sorting out somehow anyway come 2020) would apply just as much to the other similar EMU classes such as 317s or 321s?

With mention of Marsden a few posts back, I was there earlier today and was surprised to see that a 2x150 formation did fit fully in Platform 1. Therefore a 319 would fit too, though the current plan is for both Marsden and Slaithwaite to fit 4x23m. I was actually surprised to see the guard ask if anyone wanted SWT as we approached (I was in the rear of the rear set) and escorted them to the front car of the set (the front set was a /1, the rear being /2). He then released all doors on both sets, in spite of the fact that the rear carriage was off the platform. He'd obviously taken the precaution to ensure anyone alighting was in the front 3 cars, but I'm surprised the rule book allows such a procedure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect it doesn't.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I suspect it doesn't.

That did occur to me as I was typing, which is why I removed any reference to the units/services/times involved! To be honest he'd taken the two passengers through who were getting off, and I don't think anyone other than me even realised the door controls were illuminated, so there was pretty much zero risk of anyone coming to harm.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So a bit like the M5000s replacing DMUs on the Oldham Loop then? Was there the outcry that Class377/5 suggests? I seem to recall there was a big fuss but that was about big fare increases.

Was it not the T-68 trams, rather than the M5000 trams, that replaced the DMU on the Oldham Loop Line? Or did both types run the first services?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Was it not the T-68 trams, rather than the M5000 trams, that replaced the DMU on the Oldham Loop Line?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Ansaldos only ever saw use on the Bury, Altrincham and Eccles routes. All the phase three routes were M5000-only I believe, unless any of the T-68s made it on test.

 

[WatcherZero]

T68 was tested but only for gauge clearance, it was dragged unpowered past the Newton Heath depot as it wasn't EM cleared by NR.

 

[childwallblues]

I'll ask again. Does anyone happen to be 'in the know' about whether the issues with shortening the 319s (compressors in particular, as the toilets will need sorting out somehow anyway come 2020) would apply just as much to the other similar EMU classes such as 317s or 321s?

With mention of Marsden a few posts back, I was there earlier today and was surprised to see that a 2x150 formation did fit fully in Platform 1. Therefore a 319 would fit too, though the current plan is for both Marsden and Slaithwaite to fit 4x23m. I was actually surprised to see the guard ask if anyone wanted SWT as we approached (I was in the rear of the rear set) and escorted them to the front car of the set (the front set was a /1, the rear being /2). He then released all doors on both sets, in spite of the fact that the rear carriage was off the platform. He'd obviously taken the precaution to ensure anyone alighting was in the front 3 cars, but I'm surprised the rule book allows such a procedure.

Four car trains on the HUD-MCV route are common in the peak as there are many commuters from Greenfield and Mossley. The off peak services continue to Wigan Wallgate and some are four car. Last Tuesday the 1415 HUD-WGN was 150112 and 142061 whilst the 1515 was 156459,

 

[AM9]

Four car trains on the HUD-MCV route are common in the peak as there are many commuters from Greenfield and Mossley. The off peak services continue to Wigan Wallgate and some are four car. Last Tuesday the 1415 HUD-WGN was 150112 and 142061 whilst the 1515 was 156459,

Given that the deployment of 319s in their native 4-car configuration has been assumed from all official announcement, (the only mention of 3-cars being an opportunistic sales pitch by Porterbrook), can anybody here say for sure which platforms on the Northern routes that are being electrified definitely cannot (and will not) take more than 3-cars?
Also, which stations will need more than 4-cars but can't be lengthened to take 8-cars.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Given that the deployment of 319s in their native 4-car configuration has been assumed from all official announcement, (the only mention of 3-cars being an opportunistic sales pitch by Porterbrook), can anybody here say for sure which platforms on the Northern routes that are being electrified definitely cannot (and will not) take more than 3-cars?
Also, which stations will need more than 4-cars but can't be lengthened to take 8-cars.

Would it be a major or minor job to install and enable SDO in a class 319 (if it's even physically possible)?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'll ask again. Does anyone happen to be 'in the know' about whether the issues with shortening the 319s (compressors in particular, as the toilets will need sorting out somehow anyway come 2020) would apply just as much to the other similar EMU classes such as 317s or 321s?....

I don't know them particularly well, but on the other Mk3 based units (class 325 excepted) most of the underfloor equipment is on the PMS (Pantograph Motor Standard), with some on the adjacent DTS (Driving Trailer Standard). This is possibly to make it a standard design to facilitate the likes of the 318 and 320 units. The 319 has no 3 car variant and, afaik, was never intended to have one.

It should be noted that the 319 (and the 325) have more equipment due to their dual voltage capacity.

I cannot say what internal equipment the centre trailer on the other Mk3 units have, but I suspect it is not much for the reason noted above. I think I am right in saying that, until the recent refurbishments for Scottish stock, none of them have a TET (Toilet Effluence Tank), but the 319 does (317/1s were built with them but they were removed when they left the MML).

....I was actually surprised to see the guard ask if anyone wanted SWT as we approached (I was in the rear of the rear set) and escorted them to the front car of the set (the front set was a /1, the rear being /2). He then released all doors on both sets, in spite of the fact that the rear carriage was off the platform. He'd obviously taken the precaution to ensure anyone alighting was in the front 3 cars, but I'm surprised the rule book allows such a procedure.

Grandfather rights I believe, stock can call at stations that are too short if they had done so before current rules came into place. A pair of 150s can call, but, when it gets electrified, a 319 cannot without having SDO fitted (or the platform getting lengthened), despite them being the same length.

 

[northwichcat]

Four car trains on the HUD-MCV route are common in the peak as there are many commuters from Greenfield and Mossley. The off peak services continue to Wigan Wallgate and some are four car. Last Tuesday the 1415 HUD-WGN was 150112 and 142061 whilst the 1515 was 156459,

But isn't the rear unit locked out of use for part of the service?

 

[swt_passenger]

365s and 350/1s had 3rd rail equipment removed and stored so why should 319s be treated any differently?

I had another close look at a 350/1 a couple of weeks ago, and as I've posted before the only component they have removed is the pickup shoe itself. The shoe arm is still there, but in its raised position, so almost invisible behind the shoe beam. You need to look down behind the middle of the shoe beam.

I'll try and take a picture next time, because it is often repeated on here that certain fittings have been removed from 350/1s at bogie level, apparently based more on what could theoretically be removed rather than what has definitely been done.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

But isn't the rear unit locked out of use for part of the service?

Usually yes, which is why I was surprised at being able to board the rear of 2 150s at Marsden. Both platforms at Slawit are around 60m, with Marsden P3 (Westbound and the only step-free platform) being similar.

 

[northwichcat]

Usually yes, which is why I was surprised at being able to board the rear of 2 150s at Marsden. Both platforms at Slawit are around 60m, with Marsden P3 (Westbound and the only step-free platform) being similar.

Ah if it was 2 x 150/2s with the corridor connectors in use different rules apply.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Ah if it was 2 x 150/2s with the corridor connectors in use different rules apply.

Well, it was a 150/1 leading a 150/2, so no corridor connection!

 

[Llama]

There is a Sectional Appendix local instruction for Slaithwaite, amongst other stations in that neck of the woods. The instruction does say anything longer than a 3-car 14x or 2-car 15x mustn't stop 'for traffic purposes' and any additional units conveyed must be 'locked out of public use throughout'.
This has since been overridden by company-specific instructions.

edit

Regarding the 319s, the shoes and shoe fuses are being removed, and some cabling will be shrouded. Drivers still have the option of setting the unit up for AC or DC operation, although obviously only AC is applicable on their routes in the North West.

 

[Clip]

Im still struggling to get to grips with the '4 coaches is overkill' statement. Surely having enough capacity is better than having to do things yet again with 'hindsight' which seems to be the problem now.

 

[northwichcat]

Im still struggling to get to grips with the '4 coaches is overkill' statement. Surely having enough capacity is better than having to do things yet again with 'hindsight' which seems to be the problem now.

I think the real issue is lack of flexibility.

If you've got 3 x 4 car trains and 3 services to run then each one needs to have 4 carriages. You can't give one service 6 and another 2 in the same way you can with Sprinters.

Also the surplus capacity will only be on selected electrified services, it would be a big coincide if off-peak Victoria-Lime Street stoppers started needing 4 cars off-peak and the other routes didn't need extra capacity.

 

[Clip]

I understand that but by using these then surely they are freeing up other stock which can be used to strengthen other services that are not electrified.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes, but you are losing the flexibility to match demand on electrified lines, particularly if the demand is for more than a 4 carriage train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, but you are losing the flexibility to match demand on electrified lines, particularly if the demand is for more than a 4 carriage train.

If the demand is more than 4, run 8, or use DMUs. Northern has never been afraid of running DMUs under the wires.

Large swathes of the South East manage with fleets of 4-car EMUs. If you need two, you use two. Or even three.

If you mean "the DfT won't give Northern enough EMUs", that's a valid concern. But it is no way a reason to reduce any trains they have got in length. 3 4-car EMUs is more use than 3 3-car ones, particularly if SDO is fitted.

Neil

 

[Emyr]

If the demand is more than 4, run 8, or use DMUs. Northern has never been afraid of running DMUs under the wires.

Whether it desires to do so is moot if no DMUs are available.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whether it desires to do so is moot if no DMUs are available.

Which takes me back to the DfT not providing enough stock, which will not be solved by removing one coach from the EMUs, because doing so will not allow any more units to be formed.

Neil