Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[Wolfie]

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 ---


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.

Two comments:

a You are looking at track access charges but what about vehicle lease costs - do, as I suspect, 323s cost more than 319s to lease?
b The LM 323s are there currently under a legally binding lease between LM and the vehicle owners -
i What makes you think, at least without some serious compensation and/or replacement with suitable vehicles (would 319s be any more suitable for West Midlands stations than those in the North?), that LM are going to just release them in order to suit an economically shaky premise?
ii What makes you think the vehicle owners will be content for them going to Northern (which has a dire record for looking after assets) without perhaps receiving a lease premium?

 

[martynbristow]

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.

Well the timings are quite rough :/
I guess the chat miss stoppers could pick up time using 319s although IT would still be painful.
I can only assume the 16&20 will get juggled when there's more capicuty that way through Huyton in a year or 2

 

[Class377/5]

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 main difference is a 319 has a single motor carriage vs the three on a 377. So the 319 has one coach trying to shift three others where as the 377 motor coaches push 'less' (not including weight).

Curious the differences between the 377 and 375 which are pretty much the same train so its not just down to the units themselves.

Two comments:

a You are looking at track access charges but what about vehicle lease costs - do, as I suspect, 323s cost more than 319s to lease?

A good point when trying to compare different trains.

 

[northwichcat]

Two comments:

a You are looking at track access charges but what about vehicle lease costs - do, as I suspect, 323s cost more than 319s to lease?

The comment about 'Northern can't afford newer trains because they cost more to lease' has been done to death, usually without anyone giving any figures as evidence. I also did say

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.

Would the 323s cost more apart from track access charges?
1. Northern may be able to take on a smaller number of carriages and still be able to provide enough to provide sufficient capacity on all services.
2. Millions of pounds could be saved by lengthening less platforms.

b The LM 323s are there currently under a legally binding lease between LM and the vehicle owners -
i What makes you think, at least without some serious compensation and/or replacement with suitable vehicles (would 319s be any more suitable for West Midlands stations than those in the North?), that LM are going to just release them in order to suit an economically shaky premise?
ii What makes you think the vehicle owners will be content for them going to Northern (which has a dire record for looking after assets) without perhaps receiving a lease premium?

Well you've obviously never been on a Northern 323. They are maintained at Longsight alongside the Virgin Pendolinos and are very well maintained. The comment about Northern having to pay a higher leasing cost is a load of rubbish, they'd pay the same as any other operator but would be charged an additional cost if the units aren't returned in an acceptable condition at the end of the lease.

LM did actually propose they could send their 323s to Northern in the hope of DfT allowing them to order more Desiros after it was previously proposed Northern would get new EMUs and LM could have the Northern 323s until DfT dropped the idea.

I didn't say the 319s would go to LM. You could do a more complex cascade where LM get something as a result of another operator getting 319s.

 

[RobShipway]

The comment about 'Northern can't afford newer trains because they cost more to lease' has been done to death, usually without anyone giving any figures as evidence. I also did say



Would the 323s cost more apart from track access charges?
1. Northern may be able to take on a smaller number of carriages and still be able to provide enough to provide sufficient capacity on all services.
2. Millions of pounds could be saved by lengthening less platforms.



Well you've obviously never been on a Northern 323. They are maintained at Longsight alongside the Virgin Pendolinos and are very well maintained. The comment about Northern having to pay a higher leasing cost is a load of rubbish, they'd pay the same as any other operator but would be charged an additional cost if the units aren't returned in an acceptable condition at the end of the lease.

LM did actually propose they could send their 323s to Northern in the hope of DfT allowing them to order more Desiros after it was previously proposed Northern would get new EMUs and LM could have the Northern 323s until DfT dropped the idea.

I didn't say the 319s would go to LM. You could do a more complex cascade where LM get something as a result of another operator getting 319s.

So out of interest what other operator did you have in mind? Other than staying with TSGN, the only other options are to go to SouthEastern, Southern, C2C or Abeillo East Anglia I believe?

 

[Wolfie]

Well you've obviously never been on a Northern 323. They are maintained at Longsight alongside the Virgin Pendolinos and are very well maintained. The comment about Northern having to pay a higher leasing cost is a load of rubbish, they'd pay the same as any other operator but would be charged an additional cost if the units aren't returned in an acceptable condition at the end of the lease.

LM did actually propose they could send their 323s to Northern in the hope of DfT allowing them to order more Desiros after it was previously proposed Northern would get new EMUs and LM could have the Northern 323s until DfT dropped the idea.

I didn't say the 319s would go to LM. You could do a more complex cascade where LM get something as a result of another operator getting 319s.

I have been on a Northern 323 and I agree with you about them (although in my view the LM ones are better). However, I've also been on other Northern trains and they were universally unkempt, dirty and un- (or minimally) refurbished in the interior and looking like they were held together with duct tape on the exterior...

I also heard a strong rumour that Northern got hammered financially for the state that they returned the 180s in....

An alternative to 319s could certainly be found for Northern in slightly slower time - shortened 315s come to mind.....

Oh, two questions:
a If the 319s don't go to Northern where are you proposing they do go?
b If your suggestion led to LM getting more new EMUs how would you react?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well you've obviously never been on a Northern 323. They are maintained at Longsight alongside the Virgin Pendolinos and are very well maintained. The comment about Northern having to pay a higher leasing cost is a load of rubbish, they'd pay the same as any other operator but would be charged an additional cost if the units aren't returned in an acceptable condition at the end of the lease.

Very well put with regard to what you say about the maintenance of the Northern Rail Class 323 units. You have my 100% backing on that statement.

 

[Wolfie]

jcollins

One further question, if you go for three carriage EMUs where is any capacity increase to come from? Surely that is one of the reasosn for platfrom lengthening?

 

[Class377/5]

2. Millions of pounds could be saved by lengthening less platforms.

What's the point of messing with units to provide an electric train that gives the same? How will this deal with overcrowding?

The argument for lengthening platforms is to accommodate the growth on the busiest lines. Why change thing and not bother to provide additional capacity? Northern needs to run longer trains to cope with loadings, surely the busiest lines deserve longer trains? This is the investment the Government must provide.

 

[RobShipway]

What's the point of messing with units to provide an electric train that gives the same? How will this deal with overcrowding?

The argument for lengthening platforms is to accommodate the growth on the busiest lines. Why change thing and not bother to provide additional capacity? Northern needs to run longer trains to cope with loadings, surely the busiest lines deserve longer trains? This is the investment the Government must provide.

I have to agree with Class377 as that same investment has been give to South West Trains and I believe TSGN as well so that they can run longer trains to lessen the amount of people standing on the trains in rush hour periods. This is also why FGW needs four to 6 car trains as well as I have often seen two three cars class 165's packed full of people at Reading before now on a train bound for London. Whether FGW has class 319's or 387's I personally do not really care, although I think with the electrification of the Great Western line 110mph trains will be needed so it is more likely to be class 387's.

 

[northwichcat]

What's the point of messing with units to provide an electric train that gives the same? How will this deal with overcrowding?

Just to be clear Network Rail are not planning to lengthen any North West platforms to take 8 cars, they have even expressed concerns about 4 car 319s being unsuitable for the Bolton corridor. The only proposal put forward to allow 319s to operate in formations longer than 4 car is the Porterbrook one to shorten the 319s to 3 car and to add corridor connectors. The plans are detailed here: http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/downloads/brochures/319 Brochure.pdf

How many Bolton services are expected to need more than around 500 seats in the near future? (500 is what I imagine a pair of 323s will have after accessibility changes.) A 6 car 323 will fit at Salford Crescent without yet more multi-million pound changes to the infrastructure at Salford Crescent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Very well put with regard to what you say about the maintenance of the Northern Rail Class 323 units. You have my 100% backing on that statement.

Though it is also true that LM are very good at looking after their units - they are always spotless inside and out (except on Friday and Saturday late evenings when the drunken passengers have made a mess of them).

Filthy windows are as common on Northern, for instance, as they are inexcusable. Almost completely unknown on LM.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

I also heard a strong rumour that Northern got hammered financially for the state that they returned the 180s in....

I did as well but as they were subleased from NXEC and then EC I don't know if it was the ROSCO or EC who imposed the fine.

An alternative to 319s could certainly be found for Northern in slightly slower time - shortened 315s come to mind.....

Just make sure you provide us with station toilets at the stations with over 100,000 passengers per annum where the 315s will stop at.

Oh, two questions:
a If the 319s don't go to Northern where are you proposing they do go?
b If your suggestion led to LM getting more new EMUs how would you react?

To be honest I think the biggest problem with the Northern fleet at present is so many of the diesel trains are in need of replacement and nothing is being done about it. (Electrification and EMUs are providing overdue extra capacity not replacement carriages.) If Northern gets some modern DMUs to replace the 142s and 150s and some cascaded 323s for additional capacity then I think Northern passengers will be a lot more satisfied then they are now.

I've not completed a detailed analysis of which operators need which type of trains in the way DfT should have done. However, it is clear new 4 car EMUs are being ordered for the South when apparently the 319s are perfectly good 4 car trains. At the moment there isn't a clear plan with what will happen to some of the 319s - Northern have agreed to take on 14 with more expected to follow in the next franchise while FGW may or may not take on 319s, if they don't then another operator will need to take on the 319s originally intended for FGW - who will that be?

 

[Class377/5]

Just to be clear Network Rail are not planning to lengthen any North West platforms to take 8 cars, they have even expressed concerns about 4 car 319s being unsuitable for the Bolton corridor. The only proposal put forward to allow 319s to operate in formations longer than 4 car is the Porterbrook one to shorten the 319s to 3 car and to add corridor connectors. The plans are detailed here: http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/downloads/brochures/319 Brochure.pdf

How many Bolton services are expected to need more than around 500 seats in the near future? (500 is what I imagine a pair of 323s will have after accessibility changes.) A 6 car 323 will fit at Salford Crescent without yet more multi-million pound changes to the infrastructure at Salford Crescent.

And? Just because its not currently planned doesn't mean it can't happen. The ORR has a scheme to help fund improvements, even at the end of a franchise. Simply stating it can't happening is ignoring the problem here and now.

So your saying that changing Salford Crescent is gong to cost multi billions? What a load of crap. Rebuilding the whole of London Bridge is around a billion so claiming Salford requires more money is quite frankly, ludicrous. And we are talking about a carriage length or so.

So you happy to forever keep the Bolton line, which is regularly sighted as heavily overcrowded on this very forum, stuck at 6 car (actually 7 car for 20m stock like the 319)?

Sorry but your failure to deal with the actual problem of overcrowding by re-arranging fleets is like trying to stop the Titanic from sinking by re-arranging the deckchairs. It will make no major change and proper capacity increase is required.

I've not completed a detailed analysis of which operators need which type of trains in the way DfT should have done. However, it is clear new 4 car EMUs are being ordered for the South when apparently the 319s are perfectly good 4 car trains. At the moment there isn't a clear plan with what will happen to some of the 319s - Northern have agreed to take on 14 with more expected to follow in the next franchise while FGW may or may not take on 319s, if they don't then another operator will need to take on the 319s originally intended for FGW - who will that be?

Which four car trains do you refer to please. And please definite what you mean by perfectly good trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Was the recent platform face lengthening at Salford Crescent made in line with what future requirements may be needed at this particular railway station?

 

[northwichcat]

So your saying that changing Salford Crescent is gong to cost multi billions? What a load of crap.

????

A 6 car 323 will fit at Salford Crescent without yet more multi-million pound changes to the infrastructure at Salford Crescent.

And it was £12m they just spent to allow for 6 car 185s or equivalent stopping there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which four car trains do you refer to please.

How long are the 387s which you have posted about many times?

And please definite what you mean by perfectly good trains.

That's a term many Southern users who post on there have said about the 319s. So are you saying they aren't 'perfectly good trains'?

 

[martynbristow]

I'm a bit confused by why 8 car 319's won't fit into platforms and issues with lengthening.

The issue on all lines radiating from Manchester is the overcrowding on 2-4 car sets operating 30 minute frequencies.

As a passenger I would prefer higher frequency than more seats and also better locations.

The capacity on the Bolton corridor especially on a weekend evening could be fixed by running more trains that are 4 cars.
The capacity through Piccadilly is an issue but not everyone wants Piccadilly, if its an event an the Manchester Arena thats best served by trains from Victoria, and the City Centre isn't too far from Victoria.

 

[Manchester77]

I'm a bit confused by why 8 car 319's won't fit into platforms and issues with lengthening.

Because very few platforms are 165m long to accommodate an 8 car 319 set.

The issue on all lines radiating from Manchester is the overcrowding on 2-4 car sets operating 30 minute frequencies.

But the other issue is that platforms are not long enough for 8 car trains and track capacity is limited. Hence why what northern really need is a fleet of homogeneous EMUs (319s) for the NW electrification schemes that are mixed length as you have in the SE.

As a passenger I would prefer higher frequency than more seats and also better locations.

There isn't the track capacity on some routes and what do you mean by locations?

 

[martynbristow]

Because very few platforms are 165m long to accommodate an 8 car 319 set.

But the other issue is that platforms are not long enough for 8 car trains and track capacity is limited. Hence why what northern really need is a fleet of homogeneous EMUs (319s) for the NW electrification schemes that are mixed length as you have in the SE.

There isn't the track capacity on some routes and what do you mean by locations?

But why would they need to operate 8 car trains, it complete overkill. 2 cars rattle around most of the day and aren't that full at peak time you get large volumes of people travelling between key hubs.
I don't think theres any need for 8 car sets and if there becomes a need they can just run 8car services calling at the large hubs which have long platforms.

In the morning peak into Liverpool a 150+156 combo only just fills heading into Liverpool and thats on a 2tph basis

 

[northwichcat]

I don't think theres any need for 8 car sets and if there becomes a need they can just run 8car services calling at the large hubs which have long platforms.

In the morning peak into Liverpool a 150+156 combo only just fills heading into Liverpool and thats on a 2tph basis

Liverpool is just one place that 319s will serve.

I agree 8 cars aren't needed for stopping services but 4 cars isn't going to be sufficient for much longer on some stopping services.

 

[Manchester77]

But why would they need to operate 8 car trains, it complete overkill. 2 cars rattle around most of the day and aren't that full at peak time you get large volumes of people travelling between key hubs.
I don't think theres any need for 8 car sets and if there becomes a need they can just run 8car services calling at the large hubs which have long platforms.

In the morning peak into Liverpool a 150+156 combo only just fills heading into Liverpool and thats on a 2tph basis

Hence why 3 car sets are optimal for peak strengthening and off peak de-strengthening as well as fitting the northern network. 319s will not just serve liverpool, there are many services which will change over to 319 operation which could so with a mixed length fleet.

 

[martynbristow]

Hence why 3 car sets are optimal for peak strengthening and off peak de-strengthening as well as fitting the northern network. 319s will not just serve liverpool, there are many services which will change over to 319 operation which could so with a mixed length fleet.

Routes for 319's will be for the moment
LIV-MIA (via PIC)
LIV-MVC
LIV-WGN

If you go down the route of spending vast sums making 319's 3 car, when everyones cottoned on to the better service it'll be packed and you'll be needing 4 cars.

Merseyrail has the 3 car - 6 car problem.
3 cars are always busy, .... not heaving but busy. 6 cars are too long and everyone packs in one end and leaves a load room at the other end.

I'm not convinced you need 6 cars

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Routes for 319's will be for the moment
LIV-MIA (via PIC)
LIV-MVC
LIV-WGN

And LIV-WBQ (interworks with MVC/WGN).

 

[Emyr]

Bolton isn't Merseyside.

Running more trains through Salford Crescent and Deansgate/Oxford Rd/Piccadilly isn't going to happen before Ordsall Chord and Picadilly's P15/16 project.

Unless you're suggesting a load of 4-car Class 700s with ATO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Routes for 319's will be for the moment
LIV-MIA (via PIC)
LIV-MVC
LIV-WGN

If you go down the route of spending vast sums making 319's 3 car, when everyones cottoned on to the better service it'll be packed and you'll be needing 4 cars.

Merseyrail has the 3 car - 6 car problem.
3 cars are always busy, .... not heaving but busy. 6 cars are too long and everyone packs in one end and leaves a load room at the other end.

When Merseyrail eventually gets new stock, I would suggest they go for fixed-formation 4x23m or 5x20m (or an articulated equivalent similar to the S-stock).

Neil

 

[Class377/5]

????

I'm sure you put multi-billion.

And it was £12m they just spent to allow for 6 car 185s or equivalent stopping there.

So now its now 138m capable. So it needs around 22m or a single carriage. Of course depending on signal location etc the platforms may be longer than that.

But we are talking about investing a millions on the route to expand capacity, doesn't the most over crowded routes deserve such investment? As I've pointed out that your belief just because its not in the current settlement for this CP is not barrier to it being done so I don't understand your point of view that this is so difficult.

You seem to be missing the point of improving the services of the north is a worthwhile cause compared to your approach which does nothing for the long term issues.

How long are the 387s which you have posted about many times?

Four cars. I needed to know what you were talking about prior to replying to ensure we were talking about the same thing. Let start with some facts shall we, the 319s are required elsewhere and have been promised publicly. The 319s are not suitable for continued use on Thameslink as they require more 12 car services. The 319s are not permitted to be used in such formations while decreased numbers makes it more difficult to diagram them on the main Bedford - Brighton route. So the decision was made to order some new EMUs a few years earlier to allow the planned for cascade to continue instead of derailing years of planning.

So where as there is nothing at all wrong with the 319s, its just they are not suitable for the service that is planned for Thameslink as they cannot provide the capacity, especially as frequencies are being reduced requiring train lengthening to the maximum 12 cars length. The 387s are also more compatible with the majority current rolling stock on the route they will operate.

That's a term many Southern users who post on there have said about the 319s. So are you saying they aren't 'perfectly good trains'?

I'm asking you for your opinion, stop trying to twist what I'm saying while avoiding the question. If you haven't been on them then you should say so. I use them about 40% of the time I travel by train so my opinion is based on reality.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Having just looked at the NR CP5 entry for "North West Platform Lengthening", it's pretty much finger in the air stuff.
No dates for completion or even a date for GRIP 3 which would confirm scope and costs.

There is this caveat:

The scope will be determined by the rolling stock strategy for services in the North West and
the operational plans of the relevant train operators

Of the stations listed only Newton le Willows is in the NW electrification scheme (3 more come with the TP scheme):

Early development identified that platform lengthening would be required at the following stations:
 4 x 24m car length at Mossley Down, Greenfield Down, Marsden, Slaithwaite, Mouldsworth, Delamere, Cuddington, Greenbank, Plumley Down, Ashley Down, Hathersage and Grindleford;
 4 x 23m car length at Dove Holes, Chapel-en-le Frith, Middlewood, Woodsmoor, Humphrey Park, Glazebrook Down, New Lane, Bescar Lane, Moses Gate, Hall i’th’wood, Darwen, Ramsgreave & Wilpshire, Langho, Whalley and Clitheroe;
 6 x 24m car length at Liverpool South Parkway Up and Down fast platforms, Widnes, Warrington Central and Newton-le-Willows; and
 3 x 23m car at Bamber Bridge Up.

Most of these are to do with doubling up 2-car DMUs or 3-car 185s.
The EMU length question has not been addressed.

 

[edwin_m]

...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.
...

As I already posted, the track access charges are only a small part of the operating cost. An EMU that saves a few pence in track access per mile could cost significantly more in energy or maintenance - and that's before we get into leasing costs. So it's impossible to draw any sort of useful conclusion based on these figures alone.

 

[northwichcat]

Most of these are to do with doubling up 2-car DMUs or 3-car 185s.
The EMU length question has not been addressed.

Bamber Bridge the exception which is possibly to allow 3 car 158s to stop there when going between York and Blackpool?

Network Rail have mentioned an option for lengthening certain platforms on the Manchester-Preston/Southport lines to take 6 car trains is available. Page 53: http://www.persona.uk.com/Ordsall/Applicant_docs/SoC.pdf (The pdf is locked so you can't copy and paste.)

Underneath it they question potential usage of 4 car EMUs on the Bolton corridor where they say 4 car may not be sufficient where 8 car would be over-provision and would be costly to implement at Salford Crescent meaning the ideal length of train for the Bolton corridor would be 6 car.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Having looked at this thread for some time can I suggest the following:

Northern are getting 4-car 319s so get used to it and make best use of them.

West Midlands are not releasing any 323s as they are needed for the Reddich and Bromsgrove enhancements, in fact it makes good sense down here to take about six of the Northern 323s to Birmingham Cross City.

There seem to be green eyed monsters on here who assume that any nice stock can and should be moved to the north west.