Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[Wolfie]

Wow great argument, really persuaded me now :roll:

About as much as the NW whinging has convinced me!:roll:

The case so far seems to be summarised as : Woe is me, I'm a Manc, we pay low fares which don't even cover half the cost of running the trains, and for some reason we still don't have the latest shiny new trains... it's so unfair!!! I must throw my toys out of the pram....

Yeah that's the one I had leasing costs on my mind in relation to another thread I was viewing. So instead of being rude why don't you actually respond to my point that charges are less for a 377 which is newer and therefore reduces your statement about newer trains being more cost,y to operate?

Which part of track access charges forming a small component of actually running a train was unclear?

 

[northwichcat]

Ho hum, I have heard this desperate attempt to wring yet more subsidy out before. All I will say is that if my aunt had different genitalia she would be my uncle... We are where we are, suck it up!

Maybe in your view Southeastern should be barred from getting any new trains because they are a subsided franchise, mainly due to the high costs of operating HS1 services.

 

[Class377/5]

"simply because LM wanted EMUs compatible with their existing 350s" - talk about rewriting history! Use of some of the extant options LM had in place was the fastest way to get TPE new electric stock. The alternative would have been a completely new competition run under EU rules. If you really think train-builders were going to offer a heavily bespoke product for such a small order you are having a laugh!

I think the fact that LM had options on more 350s from the 350/2 order is forgotten here. Ok the DfT allowed the order to held off until it ran out but point is LM had been after more of the same for some time.

I'm not sure it's worth engaging with you. Its obvious what you want is for the North West to have brand new bespoke high-end rolling stock with the current low fares and for someone else to pick up the tab.... meanwhile in the real world.....

He wants the NW to have new stock but is against spending money extending platforms!

Only Oxford Road should have had an issue with 10 car trains. Also, unlike the 350s, the Pendolinos have SDO so platform lengths is less of an issue with 390s.

The 350/450 design now comes with SDO.

As already pointed out any such order is merely a rumour. TPE may only be getting cascades.

Doesn't mean the 350s won't get displaced.

Why would TPE have needed to order Siemens units? If they had placed the order they would have been required to put out an ITT which any manufacturer could have bidded on. Remember LM ordered Bombardier 172s to go with their Siemens 350s.

Why Siemens? Well as Siemens maintains the stock, having a different builders units would make things more complex, ie more extensive.

Your example of LM is flawed. The 172 and 350 operate very different routes and have different depots. Its not quite as simple as you try to make out.

And for the record it wasn't just Siemens that applied for TPE/LM order, but Siemens won it.

 

[Manchester77]

About as much as the NW whinging has convinced me!:roll:

The case so far seems to be summarised as : Woe is me, I'm a Manc, we pay low fares which don't even cover half the cost of running the trains, and for some reason we still don't have the latest shiny new trains... it's so unfair!!! I must throw my toys out of the pram

This 'debate' is about as good as prime ministers questions.

How can you expect a region to actually improve when you don't improve the quality of infrastructure and vehicles which the region replys upon. The motorway network is full and all the DfT will offer is the managed motorway scheme. The rail network needs flexibility and ease of operation to tackle peak and off peak overcrowding within the terms that network rail are working on. And yet we're getting units which a fixed formation 4 car which does not help with the flexibility on key routes. And no the fares in the TfGM region aren't subsidised by northern, Northern out of PTE region fares are rather high, it's just TfGM subside rail fares in its boundaries just as they subside additional peak hour trains.

 

[Wolfie]

This 'debate' is about as good as prime ministers questions.

How can you expect a region to actually improve when you don't improve the quality of infrastructure and vehicles which the region replys upon. The motorway network is full and all the DfT will offer is the managed motorway scheme. The rail network needs flexibility and ease of operation to tackle peak and off peak overcrowding within the terms that network rail are working on. And yet we're getting units which a fixed formation 4 car which does not help with the flexibility on key routes. And no the fares in the TfGM region aren't subsidised by northern, Northern out of PTE region fares are rather high, it's just TfGM subside rail fares in its boundaries just as they subside additional peak hour trains.

You might be surprised to know that I actually sympathise with much of what you say. The problem is that the overall rail spend in the North is actually quite high. Sadly money is being spunked away on subsidising current operations (and I really don't want to get into arguments about franchise boundaries) instead of into infrastructure investment. In the current economic climate vast increases in total spend are highly unlikely.

 

[Class377/5]

Wow great argument, really persuaded me now :roll:

Yeah that's the one I had leasing costs on my mind in relation to another thread I was viewing. So instead of being rude why don't you actually respond to my point that charges are less for a 377 which is newer and therefore reduces your statement about newer trains being more cost,y to operate?

The problem is that while track access is higher for a DV 319 than the majority DC 377 fleet, the leasing costs are the other way around. What we lack is actual evidence of real costs but it should be a significant difference in leasing costs.

The current rule of thumb is refurbished is twice as much as old and new twice as much as that.

 

[tbtc]

LM do want to divert one of the Birmingham-Liverpool services to Preston and to extend the Euston-Crewe service to Liverpool. However, Network Rail recommended making those changes as part of a wider program which would see:
1. Euston-Crewe services diverted away from Stone.
2. The Northern Manchester-Stoke service going to LM and being extended to Birmingham via Stone.
3. Half the XC Manchester-Birmingham services being diverted via Crewe

Some of those changes are rolling stock neutral, others will require an extra unit or two

It's no surprise that LM want to reduce the frequency on a route that they dominate (Birmingham - Liverpool) so that they can get a share of two other markets that Virgin currently have a monopoly on (Birmingham to Preston, London to Liverpool).

The fact that one TOC wants this ORCATS raid (because they'll keep almost 100% of the Birmingham - Liverpool farebox, despite the reduction in frequency) doesn't mean its a good thing or that its likely to happen though.

That's because they are out-of-date regional EMUs been ordered for a Intercity style route

These brand new EMUs are out of date already?

Still not sure what makes them "regional", apart from the door configuration... do they have "regional" seats?

They're seated 2+2 with plenty of tables, and the First Class is of as good a standard as any other British train. So the only thing that makes them "regional EMUs" is the positioning of the doors

Agreed, as far as I can see.

I really don't understand the snobbery some people have about the position of doors on trains - people manage to board them whether they are in the middle or at the end, not sure why some obsess about it so much.

Any argument about subsidy when talking about TPE is stupid. If Manchester Airport-Scotland was with Virgin it could have Pendolinos and no-one would complain, likewise if Newcastle-Liverpool was with East Coast it could have IEP and no-one would complain. Yet because routes like Doncaster-Cleethorpes are in the TPE franchise, the franchise isn't profitable and it's seen as unacceptable for Virgin and EC to pay a premium and TPE to get a subsidy. Ridiculous!

So, of the ten TPE departures per hour from central Manchester (not including the five departures per hour to Manchester Airport), it's the far eastern section of one train an hour that manages to drag the whole TPE franchise into unprofitablity?

The fact that TPE needs such a high subsidy per passenger mile suggests that it has bigger problems than just the loadings east of Doncaster, and that it's more related to the "Provincial" pigeonhole than the "Intercity" one

when this route was with and intercity franchise it was operated by voyagers

I'm old enough to remember the fleet of 158s that used to run Manchester - Scotland (and the Mkiis before that) - was it an "Intercity" route in those days? What changed?

The case so far seems to be summarised as : Woe is me, I'm a Manc, we pay low fares which don't even cover half the cost of running the trains, and for some reason we still don't have the latest shiny new trains... it's so unfair!!! I must throw my toys out of the pram....

You're learning

 

[ainsworth74]

And I continue to sit here, in the North East, on my Pacer with no sign of any improvement on local services whatsoever wondering 'If the people of the North West don't want wires, 319s or 350s can we have them instead?'

 

[Wolfie]

And I continue to sit here, in the North East, on my Pacer with no sign of any improvement on local services whatsoever wondering 'If the people of the North West don't want wires, 319s or 350s can we have them instead?'

If you are really, really lucky the Mancs may throw you the bone of a 150 (unrefurbished of course) released by electrification.....

If you are unlucky you might get some additional ex-Merseyside Pacers....

I just had a thought by the way...

If Northern are so desperate for three car EMUs for the North West how about the 321/322 and 332s all go to Scotland in exchange for more 319s and some nice three car 314s? It would help to keep the average age of the Northern fleet in balance

 

[Manchester77]

And I continue to sit here, in the North East, on my Pacer with no sign of any improvement on local services whatsoever wondering 'If the people of the North West don't want wires, 319s or 350s can we have them instead?'

You're welcome to have the choice of pacer I had this morning: an ex-merseytravel unit or an ex-FGW brown floor unit! That offers alway open for you North easterners!!

 

[ainsworth74]

So why, precisely, are you complaining so vociferously about getting investment which will lead to demonstrably better trains than those Pacers you had this morning?

Meanwhile I continue to sit on my Pacer with no sign of it ever being replaced hoping that some scraps from the North Wests table may be coming my way...

 

[northwichcat]

It's no surprise that LM want to reduce the frequency on a route that they dominate (Birmingham - Liverpool) so that they can get a share of two other markets that Virgin currently have a monopoly on (Birmingham to Preston, London to Liverpool).

The fact that one TOC wants this ORCATS raid (because they'll keep almost 100% of the Birmingham - Liverpool farebox, despite the reduction in frequency) doesn't mean its a good thing or that its likely to happen though.

Network Rail approve of the plans while ORR said 'come back at the next WCML recast.' Looking at the Cheshire area it'll allow journeys to be made from Winsford/Hartford to Warrington without first travelling in the wrong direction to Crewe, which would be a welcome improvement. There are also improvements for the West Midlands included such as a new direct Stone-Birmingham which will surely be of more use to Stone than a slow London service.

These brand new EMUs are out of date already?

Still not sure what makes them "regional", apart from the door configuration... do they have "regional" seats?



Agreed, as far as I can see.

I really don't understand the snobbery some people have about the position of doors on trains - people manage to board them whether they are in the middle or at the end, not sure why some obsess about it so much.

So what have the 350/4s got in common with trains that were designed as Intercity trains like the Voyagers, Meridians and Pendolinos?

So, of the ten TPE departures per hour from central Manchester (not including the five departures per hour to Manchester Airport), it's the far eastern section of one train an hour that manages to drag the whole TPE franchise into unprofitablity?

The fact that TPE needs such a high subsidy per passenger mile suggests that it has bigger problems than just the loadings east of Doncaster, and that it's more related to the "Provincial" pigeonhole than the "Intercity" one

As usual when I give one example and you complain. I never said it was the only example.

I'm old enough to remember the fleet of 158s that used to run Manchester - Scotland (and the Mkiis before that) - was it an "Intercity" route in those days? What changed?

Maybe the fact that it was operated by Voyagers for 6 years before being downgraded to 3 car Desiros?

Maybe the fact that it's more of an express route now? TPE only call at one station between Wigan and Preston than some Virgin services do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And for the record it wasn't just Siemens that applied for TPE/LM order, but Siemens won it.

Due to LM saying ideally trains should be compatible with some of the EMUs already in the LM fleet (321s, 323s and 350s) and Siemens being the only operator who could meet that criteria by offering more 350s (opposed to 380s which aren't compatible with 350s.) Nothing to do with what TPE wanted.

He wants the NW to have new stock but is against spending money extending platforms!

I'm pointing out what Network Rail have said - they're the ones who would have to extend the platforms, not you. It's you who's all in favour of spending millions lengthening platforms to 8 car in the North (even if 8 car isn't required) but very strongly against spending millions on new trains for the North. It doesn't make much sense to me and you've never been able to justify your claim.

 

[Wolfie]

So what have the 350/4s got in common with trains that were designed as Intercity trains like the Voyagers, Meridians and Pendolinos?

May be not too much, your point? If it is that the current stock is inadequate for purpose I will just, except for reliability and perhaps length, beg to differ (again!). Saying the same thing over and over again, even in subtly different ways, isn't going to make black appear white or gloss over the economics.....

Due to LM saying ideally trains should be compatible with some of the EMUs already in the LM fleet (321s, 323s and 350s) and Siemens being the only operator who could meet that criteria by offering more 350s (opposed to 380s which aren't compatible with 350s.) Nothing to do with what TPE wanted.

Beggars can't be choosers. In this scenario TPE was the beggar! I'm sure LM could swap some 350/1s (unrefurbished) for the 350/4s if you wish! That might reduce the leasing charges a little.....

 

[northwichcat]

Beggars can't be choosers. In this scenario TPE was a beggar! I'm sure LM could swap some 350/1s (unrefurbished) for the 350/4s if you wish! That might reduce the leasing charges a little.....

In reality it was DfT who were the beggar. They'd promised TPE 40 new DMU carriages and wanted to work a way of giving TPE 40 new carriages without a new DMU order.

 

[Wolfie]

In reality it was DfT who were the beggar. They'd promised TPE 40 new DMU carriages and wanted to work a way of giving TPE 40 new carriages without a new DMU order.

Promised? Proof please as opposed to mention of plans which, due to their very nature, get changed all the time.....

 

[Class377/5]

Due to LM saying ideally trains should be compatible with some of the EMUs already in the LM fleet (321s, 323s and 350s) and Siemens being the only operator who could meet that criteria by offering more 350s (opposed to 380s which aren't compatible with 350s.) Nothing to do with what TPE wanted.

Doesn't change the fact that Siemens weren't the only bidder nor does it change the fact TPE had some influence on the internal design so your latter comment is false.

I'm pointing out what Network Rail have said - they're the ones who would have to extend the platforms, not you. It's you who's all in favour of spending millions lengthening platforms to 8 car in the North (even if 8 car isn't required) but very strongly against spending millions on new trains for the North. It doesn't make much sense to me and you've never been able to justify your claim.

I've justified my claims, your refusal to reply to them recent is prove you don't have an actual defendable position bar your opinion.

What I've repeatly pointed out to you recently is what's in the CP settlement is not the limit of what can be done. The ORR recently talked about its investment offers and surprise more don't take it up. The comment that even direct award franchises can use the process to get investment is overlooked.

What your desire to have new shiny trains overlooks is the additional cost. How is it to be funded? It has to be higher fares as you can't increase the passenger levels unless you remove seats. My suggestion was lengthen to 8 cars using the 319s as a basis on the most overcrowded route (Bolton being picked as its regularly mentioned its 6 car services are at crush loading) to allow an increase in passenger numbers that will help fund new trains. Your approach is all pain for zero gain, that's just stupid way to deal with the problems Northern is facing.

My approach would be allow 4/8 car 319s on the newly electrified routes to fund new trains with increased revenue. Allowing the properly refurbished 319s to be cascaded to other newly electrified to create additional capacity, being replaced with new trains in due time. This is along side TPE operating with 4/8 car services.

Ultimately we need to start planning for increasing numbers of people using the railways across the north. Simply refusing to increase capacity but increasing costs would be damaging to the railway.

Oh and a report by Center For Cities (mentioned in Rail) gives the % of capacity used in our cities.

London - 96.1%
Manchester - 72.7%
Liverpool - 67.7%
Birmingham - 71.4%

This is taken from services, seats and passengers travelling.

 

[northwichcat]

I've justified my claims, your refusal to reply to them recent is prove you don't have an actual defendable bar your opinion.

What I've repeatly pointed out to you recently is what's in the CP settlement is not the limit of what can be done. The ORR recently talked about its investment offers and surprise more don't take it up. The comment that even direct award franchises can use the process to get investment is overlooked.

What your desire to have new shiny trains overlooks is the additional cost. How is it to be funded? It has to be higher fares as you can't increase the passenger levels unless you remove seats. My suggestion was lengthen to 8 cars using the 319s as a basis on the most overcrowded route (Bolton being picked as its regularly mentioned its 6 car services are at crush loading) to allow an increase in passenger numbers that will help fund new trains. Your approach is all pain for zero gain, that's just stupid way to deal with the problems Northern is facing.

My approach would be allow 4/8 car 319s on the newly electrified routes to fund new trains with increased revenue. Allowing the properly refurbished 319s to be cascaded to other newly electrified to create additional capacity. This along side TPE operating with 4/8 car services.

Ultimately we need to start planning for increasing numbers of people using the railways across the north. Simply refusing to increase capacity but increasing costs would be damaging to the railway.

And that's what doesn't make sense.

If 8 car platforms are never required (suppose growth stalls at a stage when 6 car is sufficient) then millions of pounds will be wasted and it's likely the ends of platforms will get fenced off and will be left to rot.

I've always suggested 6 car EMUs replacing 4 car DMUs - allowing for a level of growth but not doubling capacity just in case, which would require Northern to have a higher level of subsidy. You keep going on about 6 car 185s, yet there's very few 6 car 185 services via Bolton, yet plenty of Pacer/Sprinter services in 2, 3 and 4 car formations

 

[WatcherZero]

I agree with Jcollins, its unlikely they would be needed in the medium term and would be hugely expensive to implement. 8 car emus on the Bolton line would more likely be in the form of limited stop expresses to regional and long distance destinations requiring only a few stations to be modified.

 

[Class377/5]

And that's what doesn't make sense.

If 8 car platforms are never required (suppose growth stalls at a stage when 6 car is sufficient) then millions of pounds will be wasted and it's likely the ends of platforms will get fenced off and will be left to rot.

I've always suggested 6 car EMUs replacing 4 car DMUs - allowing for a level of growth but not doubling capacity just in case, which would require Northern to have a higher level of subsidy. You keep going on about 6 car 185s, yet there's very few 6 car 185 services via Bolton, yet plenty of Pacer/Sprinter services in 2, 3 and 4 car formations

But your ignoring my point to sure your view. On routes here 6 cars are already hugely overcrowded is where 8 cars should be provided. Its an extra 22m, an extra carriages at a bargain cost (compared to new build).

I keep going on about Bolton as its been mentioned on here so often. Especially since the diversions of the TPE services.

But your comments above apply equally to your desire for new 6 car trains but without trying to provide any way to find them. Can you please explain how Northern is going to afford new trains without the increase in capacity to fund them? Or do you believe that more subsidy should be used?

It just looks to me that your only wanting to invest in rolling stock, ignoring that it offers limited ability to cope with demand on the busiest routes yet along ignore future demand.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Doesn't change the fact that Siemens weren't the only bidder nor does it change the fact TPE had some influence on the internal design so your latter comment is false.

They didn't change it hugely - the layout is the same as the 350/1 except for the first class being 2+1 (quite nice as well), the trolley dock area and I think an extra bog.

Neil

 

[Class377/5]

They didn't change it hugely - the layout is the same as the 350/1 except for the first class being 2+1 (quite nice as well), the trolley dock area and I think an extra bog.

Neil

Pretty much but then it wouldn't have been any different whoever had won the order.

 

[WatcherZero]

Jcollins isn't suggesting brand new 6 cars, hes suggesting the 3 car 319 reengineered for suburban timings that Porterbook is touting running in pairs. Replacing paired Sprinters and Paired pacers in particular its a moderate increase in capacity and with a new Blackburn service also providing increase in capacity.

With the 6 car 185's now completely off the Bolton line there's nothing presently running as 6 car and its likely TPE when North Transpennine route is finished will have cascaded newer stock like 387, the Scottish services already straining with 8 car 350's also could benefit from 12 car formations in high peak and removal of the last 2x185 formation.

If Blackpool goes to Northern you might just be able to justify demand for 8 car operation with limited stops at only the larger stations and a full upgrade of Salford Crescent with the two extra platforms passive provision was left for with the previous platform lengthening and station buildings refurbishment, but every other line 8 car would be overkill.

I don't believe Salford platform lengthening further would be impossible, it would be costly though and I could see two methods, firstly remove the northern crossover and simply have the platforms serving different lines sorted by the southern crossover, alternately move the crossover further north, the lines run in parallel for quite a distance through Salford.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Jcollins isn't suggesting brand new 6 cars, hes suggesting the 3 car 319 reengineered for suburban timings that Porterbook is touting running in pairs. Replacing paired Sprinters and Paired pacers in particular its a moderate increase in capacity and with a new Blackburn service also providing increase in capacity.

With the 6 car 185's now completely off the Bolton line there's nothing presently running as 6 car and its likely TPE when North Transpennine route is finished will have cascaded newer stock like 387, the Scottish services already straining with 8 car 350's also could benefit from 12 car formations in high peak and removal of the last 2x185 formation.

If Blackpool goes to Northern you might just be able to justify demand for 8 car operation with limited stops at only the larger stations and a full upgrade of Salford Crescent with the two extra platforms passive provision was left for with the previous platform lengthening and station buildings refurbishment, but every other line 8 car would be overkill.

I don't believe Salford platform lengthening further would be impossible, it would be costly though and I could see two methods, firstly remove the northern crossover and simply have the platforms serving different lines sorted by the southern crossover, alternately move the crossover further north, the lines run in parallel for quite a distance through Salford.

If said person would stop demanding that the North West has the right to take resources from the rest of the nation this thread would be much shorter. The North West is not alone in having capacity issues, we have seen it all before on this site, we know. Yawn!!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Blackpool goes to Northern you might just be able to justify demand for 8 car operation with limited stops at only the larger stations and a full upgrade of Salford Crescent with the two extra platforms passive provision was left for with the previous platform lengthening and station buildings refurbishment, but every other line 8 car would be overkill.

Overkill now, but rail traffic is only going to grow, it seems, so you might as well have the capacity now and enjoy it while you can.

SDO would be a sensible mod if feasible, failing that some platforms are going to need lengthening.

Neil

 

[AM9]

Jcollins isn't suggesting brand new 6 cars, hes suggesting the 3 car 319 reengineered for suburban timings that Porterbook is touting running in pairs. Replacing paired Sprinters and Paired pacers in particular its a moderate increase in capacity and with a new Blackburn service also providing increase in capacity.

Well of course, Porterbrook are good chaps and will do it almost for nothing so effectively it's something for nothing. That's the same company that was chastised by the Competition Commission in 2009 as having cost public funds their 1/3rd share of £100M by overcharging. I doubt whether there will be much overall difference between modifying 25-30 year old stock with about 10 years life lef in it and extending some platforms by 30 metres which will be there for decades to come.

If Blackpool goes to Northern you might just be able to justify demand for 8 car operation with limited stops at only the larger stations and a full upgrade of Salford Crescent with the two extra platforms passive provision was left for with the previous platform lengthening and station buildings refurbishment, but every other line 8 car would be overkill.

So how come a 50% increase in capacity is just right but an additional 25% increase over that is overkill. Aren't we being a little too precise about projected passenger volume increases?

 

[Class377/5]

So let get this right. The general suggestion is that Northern can cope with loadings over the next 10-15 years by simply getting 3/6 car trains? Where as TPE may need 8/12 cars?

I honestly can't understand the thought of not spending money to lengthen trains on the north to allow more passenger growth. We aren't taking billions here but actually spending tens of millions upgrading and making the train more attractive.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes the general suggestion is that Northern can go from 2/4 car services to 4/6 car services over the length of the next franchise. When combined with new services and increased TPE services and capacity.

TPE may need 8/12 because since moving to the hourly frequency they've picked up a lot of additional passengers as well as some previously using Northern services such that on Scotland services 2x185 are rammed while 2x350 are comfortably loaded and in high peaks have a few people standing unable to find seats. It becomes more urgent to find extra capacity on those services as by Dft guidance passengers shouldn't be unable to find a seat for more than 20 minutes yet with 30 minutes between stops people are standing.

So how come a 50% increase in capacity is just right but an additional 25% increase over that is overkill. Aren't we being a little too precise about projected passenger volume increases?

Realistic balancing of future growth with efficient use of rolling stock. Keeping an eye on the subsidy level and making cost efficient suggestions. Moving from diesel to wholly high acceleration EMU worked lines extra paths could be squeezed in. If the computer modelling shows that 4 car 319's cant maintain 323 timings and possibly result in the reduction of available paths on congested lines then they will not provide the needed extra capacity despite having more seats.

 

[AM9]

Realistic balancing of future growth with efficient use of rolling stock. Keeping an eye on the subsidy level and making cost efficient suggestions. Moving from diesel to wholly high acceleration EMU worked lines extra paths could be squeezed in. If the computer modelling shows that 4 car 319's cant maintain 323 timings and possibly result in the reduction of available paths on congested lines then they will not provide the needed extra capacity despite having more seats.

But the 319s will be used on the newly electrified routes which currently use DMUs. Apart from 185s which are TPE anyway, are you saying that 150s, 156s and even Pacers can out accelerate the 319s? If so then maybe all this slating of Pacers is porkies.

 

[Manchester77]

So why, precisely, are you complaining so vociferously about getting investment which will lead to demonstrably better trains than those Pacers you had this morning?

Meanwhile I continue to sit on my Pacer with no sign of it ever being replaced hoping that some scraps from the North Wests table may be coming my way...

I'm on the CLC liverpool route, no 319s for me - maybe an ex-LM 150 though?

 

[Class377/5]

I'm on the CLC liverpool route, no 319s for me - maybe an ex-LM 150 though?

Not wiring the CLC is silly. It needs to be done.