Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[northwichcat]

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

Well that's your problem. If Northern need more than 4 car and they can't use 8 due to infrastructure problems then they'll likely be a 6 car DMU working under the wires. And as the newly electrified routes all run in to PTE areas, the PTEs will try to ensure that the 6 car DMUs do run even if it results in non-PTE services not getting the extra capacity they need.

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

SWT have 2 car EMUs, 4 car EMUs and 5 car EMUs.

Southeastern have 2 car EMUs, 3 car EMUs, 4 car EMUs, 5 car EMUs and 6 car EMUs.

Southern have 3 car EMUs, 4 car EMUs and 5 car EMUs.

Thameslink Great Northern have 3 car EMUs as well as 4 car EMUs.

I'm not sure what your point is?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well that's your problem. If Northern need more than 4 car and they can't use 8 due to infrastructure problems then they'll likely be a 6 car DMU working under the wires. And as the newly electrified routes all run in to PTE areas, the PTEs will try to ensure that the 6 car DMUs do run even if it results in non-PTE services not getting the extra capacity they need.

The work needs to be done to allow the use of 8, then, either lengthening platforms or fitting SDO to said EMUs.

Thameslink Great Northern have 3 car EMUs as well as 4 car EMUs.

I'm not sure what your point is?

Thameslink proper only operates with 4s, doesn't it? And London Midland's south WCML commuter services are operated exclusively using 4-car EMUs. And most of SWT's mainline units are 4-car, with some 5s, and there is little inter-working with other EMUs which are used for suburban services.

Neil

 

[Manchester77]

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

There are very few platforms in the north which can facilitate 160m long trains. Then what would you operate the actual diesel services with?

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

All of the southern region TOCs have mixed length EMUs, SWT has 2 car 456s, 4 car 455s and 450s & 5 car 444s and 485/5s. Southern has a mixed length fleet of 377s ranging from 3 car to 5 car and South Eastern have 2 car networkers 4 car electrostars and networkers, 3 car electrostars and 5 car 376s. This is because they need flexibility to operate 2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/12 coach services. Northern could really do with having the option to operate 3/4/5/6/8 car EMU services however the best they can have is 4/8 carriages.

 

[northwichcat]

The work needs to be done to allow the use of 8, then, either lengthening platforms or fitting SDO to said EMUs.

Well nothings in the Northern Hub or Network Rail CP5 budget for allowing 8 car operation on Chat Moss or the Bolton corridor. I'm pretty sure 8 car provision on the Ordsall Chord and at the main North TPE stations will be allowed for.

Maybe send a letter to Network Rail with a blank cheque?

Thameslink proper only operates with 4s, doesn't it? And London Midland's south WCML commuter services are operated exclusively using 4-car EMUs. And most of SWT's mainline units are 4-car, with some 5s, and there is little inter-working with other EMUs which are used for suburban services.

And yet the closest example to the lines which will be electrified are the class 323 routes out of Birmingham, which use 3 and 6 car formations.

 

[Class377/5]

Don't forget that carriage amounts are not always equal. A 185 is equal to 3.5 car 377 length wise. So a 6 car 185 is almost the same as a 7 car 319 (just 2m difference). So a 6 car 319 is actually a reduction in capacity vs a 6 car 185.

Why I've pointed out that going to 8 car 319s over a 6 car 185 or similar length train isn't as big as some have made out to be.

 

[northwichcat]

Don't forget that carriage amounts are not always equal. A 185 is equal to 3.5 car 377 length wise. So a 6 car 185 is almost the same as a 7 car 319 (just 2m difference). So a 6 car 319 is actually a reduction in capacity vs a 6 car 185.

Why I've pointed out that gong o 8 car 319s over a 6 car 185 or similar length train isn't as big as some have made out to be.

Remember Northern replaced doubled up Sprinters with 180s and then went back to doubled up Sprinter diagrams when the 180s were released. The 180s were longer trains but the doubled up Sprinters provided more seats (but with less comfort.)

 

[Class377/5]

Remember Northern replaced doubled up Sprinters with 180s and then went back to doubled up Sprinter diagrams when the 180s were released. The 180s were longer trains but the doubled up Sprinters provided more seats (but with less comfort.)

I'm not sure what that had to do with my post? My point was we can't always compare number of carriages equally. Take the 5 car 442/444 fleets, they are 23m EMU units (another example of how the former Southern area isn't quite as simple as four car multiples).

 

[RobShipway]

Remember Northern replaced doubled up Sprinters with 180s and then went back to doubled up Sprinter diagrams when the 180s were released. The 180s were longer trains but the doubled up Sprinters provided more seats (but with less comfort.)

Unless the class 319's are re - upholstered in some way they are going to be just as uncomfortable as the sprinters.

 

[LateThanNever]

Unless the class 319's are re - upholstered in some way they are going to be just as uncomfortable as the sprinters.

But hopefully not so much of a 'bouncy castle'!

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not sure what that had to do with my post? My point was we can't always compare number of carriages equally.

You were talking about a 6 car 319 providing less capacity than a 6 car 185, despite the 319 currently having high density commuter seating and the 185 currently having low density regional seating. So I gave an example of where 4 car Sprinters replaced 5 car 180s and gave more seats.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unless the class 319's are re - upholstered in some way they are going to be just as uncomfortable as the sprinters.

Even if they are, they'll be instances where they replace 156s with 2+2 seating, armrests and tables.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are very few platforms in the north which can facilitate 160m long trains. Then what would you operate the actual diesel services with?

Well, you could start by rediagramming to stop running diesels under the wires on the Hazel Grove shuttles...that'd release a few. Or swap 4-car 319s for 3-car 323s where the latter would do (I know they are 3x23m).

My point is there are options, and throwing away a coach per 319 on a seriously overcrowded system seems stupid.

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

And yet the closest example to the lines which will be electrified are the class 323 routes out of Birmingham, which use 3 and 6 car formations.

Which, as those were bought new, has nothing to do with removing and scrapping/mothballing cars from EMUs that already have them.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Well, you could start by rediagramming to stop running diesels under the wires on the Hazel Grove shuttles...that'd release a few.

What timetable are you looking at? There's an hourly Hazel Grove-Bolton-Preston service and an hourly Buxton-Hazel Grove-Manchester service, neither can switch to electric currently and even if you changed it so it was Buxton-Preston and Hazel Grove-Manchester the latter would only need 1 diagram.

Some of the peak time extras can't switch either. The 16:58 unit off the Piccadilly-Hazel Grove does an ECS to Stockport and then works the 17:58 Stockport-Chester. Get an extra couple of paths out of Piccadilly for Northern and you can solve that issue but unless Virgin cut back London services you won't be able to do that until at least the Ordsall Chord is opened.

Or swap 4-car 319s for 3-car 323s where the latter would do (I know they are 3x23m).

And where would the 323s come from? Note that 319s can't replace 323s on Glossop/Crewe/Airport/Stoke services without first being re-engineered to improve acceleration. The 319s really are square pegs being sent out to put in to round holes.

 

[Manchester77]

Well, you could start by rediagramming to stop running diesels under the wires on the Hazel Grove shuttles...that'd release a few. Or swap 4-car 319s for 3-car 323s where the latter would do (I know they are 3x23m).

My point is there are options, and throwing away a coach per 319 on a seriously overcrowded system seems stupid.

Well that'll stop anyway once the Bolton route is wired as Hazel Grove - Preston services will switch to EMU operation.

No one said we would throw away the spare coach; if you were doing this then you could go the whole hog and retraction the 319s so that they all had a decent rate of acceleration. Then 5 car 319s would be feasible as they would have a decent rate of acceleration. That way norther would have the option to run 3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10 car trains which is far better than the current 4/8.

 

[Class377/5]

You were talking about a 6 car 319 providing less capacity than a 6 car 185, despite the 319 currently having high density commuter seating and the 185 currently having low density regional seating. So I gave an example of where 4 car Sprinters replaced 5 car 180s and gave more seats.

Carrying capacity yes because seating can be changed but unit length is never going to change.

 

[deltic08]

Well, you could start by rediagramming to stop running diesels under the wires on the Hazel Grove shuttles...that'd release a few. Or swap 4-car 319s for 3-car 323s where the latter would do (I know they are 3x23m).

My point is there are options, and throwing away a coach per 319 on a seriously overcrowded system seems stupid.

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


Which, as those were bought new, has nothing to do with removing and scrapping/mothballing cars from EMUs that already have them.

Neil

Consider yourself well chastised for asking such an innocent but obvious way of providing more diesel units in the short term. As you are a newcomer, I quite understand if you do not post ever again. Don't worry, there are many who are with you.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

Lease and running costs are also issues.
Somebody at the DfT will be determining how many vehicles Northern can afford in the new franchise.
More coaches per unit may mean fewer units for a given fleet size (ie lower frequency).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Lease and running costs are also issues. Somebody at the DfT will be determining how many vehicles Northern can afford in the new franchise. More coaches per unit may mean fewer units for a given fleet size (ie lower frequency).

Perhaps it might have been better to have said "the new franchise holder" rather than "Northern" above.

 

[northwichcat]

Lease and running costs are also issues.
Somebody at the DfT will be determining how many vehicles Northern can afford in the new franchise.
More coaches per unit may mean fewer units for a given fleet size (ie lower frequency).

Indeed. While the 319s are apparently much cheaper to lease than new EMUs, the running costs are higher than they are for other types of EMU.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Perhaps it might have been better to have said "the new franchise holder" rather than "Northern" above.

Northern is the term used by DfT in its prospectus for the new franchise.
Having decided not to merge Northern and TPE the names look like sticking, whoever operates them.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed. While the 319s are apparently much cheaper to lease than new EMUs, the running costs are higher than they are for other types of EMU.

Do you have a source for this? My instinct would be to think that 319s are about the same or cheaper to run, as although they don't have regen braking they are lighter than newer classes so may need less power overall. Also they don't have things like aircon which are expensive to operate and maintain.

 

[martynbristow]

Wel if the issue is capacity on a 4car 319 why don't Northern run 2 319s seperatly.
The services they operate on have fairly poor frequencies and that should be looked at first.
Liverpool - Manchester may get 7 trains an hour on paper but it's badically 2.1 if you look at the timetable, when you look at the arrival times.
With the improvements through huyton its supposed to add capacity, although until Piccadilly is finished your still stuck ./

 

[northwichcat]

Do you have a source for this? My instinct would be to think that 319s are about the same or cheaper to run, as although they don't have regen braking they are lighter than newer classes so may need less power overall. Also they don't have things like aircon which are expensive to operate and maintain.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cp5-ac...-fixed-charges-uplifted-to-2014-15-prices.xls

A 319 costs 27.59p per mile in track access charges (which includes electricity usage)

A 321 costs 26.08p per mile in track access charges.

A 323 (3 car but with 23.7m carriages) costs 17.18p per mile in track access charges

A 4 car 377 costs 26.56p per mile in track access charges

OK there are other trains which cost more than a 319 but the chance of Northern ever getting something like 395s is extremely slim.

To me it would seem if you were serious about reducing the Northern subsidy then the first option to look at would be whether it's possible to send the LM 323s to Northern.

If someone could give an idea of how many miles a Northern 323 normally covers in a year then we could put the figures in to prospective.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wel if the issue is capacity on a 4car 319 why don't Northern run 2 319s seperatly.

Pathing issues?

Liverpool - Manchester may get 7 trains an hour on paper

Liverpool-Manchester isn't really an issue, it's what you do with Manchester-Bolton and beyond. I understand there's a long term plan to improve the off-peak frequency of Manchester-Bolton services but the frequency of peak services needs to remain similar to the current frequency due to pathing constraints, so extra carriages is the solution here.

 

[AM9]

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cp5-ac...-fixed-charges-uplifted-to-2014-15-prices.xls

A 319 costs 27.59p per mile in track access charges (which includes electricity usage)

A 321 costs 26.08p per mile in track access charges.

A 323 (3 car but with 23.7m carriages) costs 17.18p per mile in track access charges

A 4 car 377 costs 26.56p per mile in track access charges

OK there are other trains which cost more than a 319 but the chance of Northern ever getting something like 395s is extremely slim.

To me it would seem if you were serious about reducing the Northern subsidy then the first option to look at would be whether it's possible to send the LM 323s to Northern.

If someone could give an idea of how many miles a Northern 323 normally covers in a year then we could put the figures in to prospective.

Would the 319 cost drop if they are exclusively used under knitting. That means that there would be no very expensive to operate, dual power switching in the Thameslink core (which almost every current 319 negotiates in its diagrams).

 

[northwichcat]

Would the 319 cost drop if they are exclusively used under knitting. That means that there would be no very expensive to operate, dual power switching in the Thameslink core (which almost every current 319 negotiates in its diagrams).

I'm not sure as the AC only 377s don't have a lower track access charge. Maybe they would if removing the third rail equipment significantly reduces the weight of the unit, which I don't think it will.

By the way the link should have been: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cp5-ac...age-price-list-uplifted-to-2014-15-prices.xls

 

[martynbristow]

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cp5-ac...-fixed-charges-uplifted-to-2014-15-prices.xls

A 319 costs 27.59p per mile in track access charges (which includes electricity usage)

A 321 costs 26.08p per mile in track access charges.

A 323 (3 car but with 23.7m carriages) costs 17.18p per mile in track access charges

A 4 car 377 costs 26.56p per mile in track access charges

OK there are other trains which cost more than a 319 but the chance of Northern ever getting something like 395s is extremely slim.

To me it would seem if you were serious about reducing the Northern subsidy then the first option to look at would be whether it's possible to send the LM 323s to Northern.

If someone could give an idea of how many miles a Northern 323 normally covers in a year then we could put the figures in to prospective.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Pathing issues?



Liverpool-Manchester isn't really an issue, it's what you do with Manchester-Bolton and beyond. I understand there's a long term plan to improve the off-peak frequency of Manchester-Bolton services but the frequency of peak services needs to remain similar to the current frequency due to pathing constraints, so extra carriages is the solution here.

319s are coming to work Northerns liverpiol service for the moment.
Bolton could go back to having its TPE can't IT when that gets sorted, the only one after that is the Blackpool service but we are still waiting on that

The issue was really running 8car 319s across Chat Moss but the parking issue has partly been solved by introducing 4 track through huyton.

 

[northwichcat]

Bolton could go back to having its TPE can't IT when that gets sorted

Based on the Northern Rail consultation, it's likely the North West TPE service will go to Northern, rather than TPE taking on more services. Presumably that's because DfT don't want new EMUs being ordered for Bolton corridor services.

The issue was really running 8car 319s across Chat Moss

How many Chat Moss Northern services are services with at least 4 carriages which have very few spare seats?

 

[edwin_m]

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cp5-ac...-fixed-charges-uplifted-to-2014-15-prices.xls

A 319 costs 27.59p per mile in track access charges (which includes electricity usage)

A 321 costs 26.08p per mile in track access charges.

A 323 (3 car but with 23.7m carriages) costs 17.18p per mile in track access charges

A 4 car 377 costs 26.56p per mile in track access charges

OK there are other trains which cost more than a 319 but the chance of Northern ever getting something like 395s is extremely slim.

Energy charges will be similar to track access and maintenance costs probably more. Thus track access is probably less than a third of the operating costs, excluding crew costs which are unlikely to vary by class. The track access charges may also be recalculated when the units move to a new operator, to reflect the different operating regime.

Thus I suggest a difference of a few pence per mile in track access says very little about the overall running costs of the units.

 

[physics34]

im guessing 319s cost that much because of the weight of the motor coach containing the extra DC equipment (heaviest passenger vehicles on the railway arent they????). Remove this and surely the cost will go down.

 

[northwichcat]

im guessing 319s cost that much because of the weight of the motor coach containing the extra DC equipment (heaviest passenger vehicles on the railway arent they????). Remove this and surely the cost will go down.

The 317 motor vehicles cost 12.87p per mile compared to the 13.58p per mile that a 319 motor vehicle costs. The total 317 cost per mile is 27.3p so while removing DC equipment make persuade Network Rail to lower the cost, the difference probably isn't significant.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thus I suggest a difference of a few pence per mile in track access says very little about the overall running costs of the units.

I asked earlier on if someone could give a typical Northern 323 annual mileage so the difference could be put in to prospective.

In another thread someone talked about 200,000 miles per annum not being untypical for a Northern Pacer (which are less intensively used than the EMUs) so if we say 250,000 miles per annum then a 319 will cost £68,975 in track access charges per annum compared to the £42,950 a 323 would cost. That would mean the difference between Northern getting the 26 x LM 323s and getting 26 x 319s would be £676,650 per annum in track access charges.

OK you might say £676,650 per annum isn't a lot in prospective when Northern have outgoings which are hundreds of millions but when the consultation document was talking about reducing ticket office hours which would probably save a lot less than that it isn't something which should be ignored.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Liverpool - Manchester may get 7 trains an hour on paper but it's basically 2.1 if you look at the timetable, when you look at the arrival times.
With the improvements through huyton its supposed to add capacity, although until Piccadilly is finished your still stuck ./

From Liverpool, the timetable conspires to have Manchester departures at 12, 16, 20*, 22 and 27* minutes past the hour, then 52 and 55*.
Only a masochist would catch the stoppers* which take 63-69 minutes.
Only two of the seven (16 Airport and 20 Victoria*) are due to go electric soon.