Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[LNW-GW Joint]

The enhanced Redditch service is covered by 323s displaced by 350/2s being deployed on the Walsall-Wolves, in turn made available by the arrival of the 350/3s. Bromsgrove will require an extra diagram, assuming every Longbridge service is extended, thus an extra 2 units.

So, over the next couple of years LM will require 2 extra EMUs for Bromsgrove, 4 for Chase valley and 1 or 2 for Coventry/Nuneaton, hence 7 or 8 units. I note that Northern require 9x 323s to cover Manchester-Alderley Edge-Crewe including the Airport stoppers, whilst 7x are required to cover the Stoke and Hadfield turns.

The DfT thinks LM already has its Bromsgrove trains: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/extra-trains-and-faster-journey-times-will-boost-capacity

Of the 40 carriages London Midland will receive, 12 will help deliver an internal rolling stock cascade that will provide additional capacity on the Cross City line in Birmingham. The frequency of peak and off-peak services between Birmingham and Redditch will be increased from 2 trains per hour to 3 trains per hour from December 2014. The trains will also enable electric services from Birmingham New Street to be extended to Bromsgrove from May 2015, assuming that the plan to relocate Bromsgrove Station is confirmed and electrification is completed on schedule

To be fair, when they were introduced the DfT announcement made no mention of Bromsgrove: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thousands-more-seats-for-london-midland-passengers

 

[northwichcat]

The DfT thinks LM already has its Bromsgrove trains: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/extra-trains-and-faster-journey-times-will-boost-capacity

It also was originally 7 x 350/3s for LM, which ties in with the '7 or 8 extra' which 158722 suggests, leaving an additional 3 extra trains for Euston services.

 

[snowball]

1116 Airport and back gone over to a 319 today.

Where does that unit spend the rest of its time?

 

[158722]

It also was originally 7 x 350/3s for LM, which ties in with the '7 or 8 extra' which 158722 suggests, leaving an additional 3 extra trains for Euston services.

Indeed, thanks for this correction and the various other comments.

That would seem to suggest the LM will require an extra 4 EMUs for the Chase line and possibly 2 for Nuneaton-Coventry/Coventry-Leamington, eventually. Whilst the latter services have to remain diesel, this could suggest LM retaining their 3x 150s for Bedford-Bletchley, but releasing all 153s when the Chase line goes electric.

Northern thus have a 'core' requirement for 7x (plus 1 spare) go-faster EMUs (323s!) for Hadfield and Stoke, so a possible 9 could be released if bidders go down that line.

 

[Viscount702]

Why would northern want to get rid of any 323s.

Maybe Crewe/Airport/ Alderly Edge trains could become 319s but the 323s could be redeployed on other routes where platform lengths are limited to 6 cars particularly in the peak period.

 

[adam9413]

Where does that unit spend the rest of its time?

It appears to be added to one of the 2 current diagrams:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2096792&postcount=4241

Previously, a 319 looks to have sat in Lime Street between 0945 and 1416. From looking at RTT today, that unit left P1 at 1116 on 1H47 and will return on 1F97 to arrive at 1346.

The 319 has thus replaced a DMU somewhere.

 

[northwichcat]

Northern thus have a 'core' requirement for 7x (plus 1 spare) go-faster EMUs (323s!) for Hadfield and Stoke, so a possible 9 could be released if bidders go down that line.

Although, the numbers might be reversed due to the additional Macclesfield services. Most Virgin and XC services go via Macclesfield meaning that line is most likely to need fast accelerating EMUs on stoppers.

Why would northern want to get rid of any 323s.

Personally I don't think they would unless they get something suitable to replace all the 323s.

 

[Cotty]

Actual 319 Cascade to Northern news...

Two sets made the journey north from Wolverton to Allerton today!

There are a few pictures of them on Flickr during their epic voyage and the photographers duly identified them as 319368 and 319382. Both sets appear to be sporting the now familiar Northern Electrics colouring and livery.

More trains, more trains.

 

[childwallblues]

Two further arrivals at Allerton from Wolverton are 319368 and 319382.

 

[Greybeard33]

Northern thus have a 'core' requirement for 7x (plus 1 spare) go-faster EMUs (323s!) for Hadfield and Stoke, so a possible 9 could be released if bidders go down that line.

Why would northern want to get rid of any 323s.

Maybe Crewe/Airport/ Alderly Edge trains could become 319s but the 323s could be redeployed on other routes where platform lengths are limited to 6 cars particularly in the peak period.

Although, the numbers might be reversed due to the additional Macclesfield services. Most Virgin and XC services go via Macclesfield meaning that line is most likely to need fast accelerating EMUs on stoppers.

With the introduction of the additional Macclesfield stoppers from 2017, the inter-peak Stoke services will no longer call at Adlington and Prestbury. With 95/100mph running for over 6 miles between Poynton and Macclesfield, 319s should be able to at least match the current all stops timings of the 323s between Stockport and Stoke. Equally the much shorter distance between Stockport and Macclesfield means that 319s should be able to fit between expresses on the new stoppers.

The 323s on the Glossop/Hadfield services could be replaced by a micro-fleet of fast-accelerating 313s or 314s - maximum linespeed on this route is 60mph. This would then enable all the 323s to be released.

An important factor in evaluation of the rival bids for the Northern franchise will be the bidders' ability to reduce the level of subsidy required. Replacement of the 323s by older stock, with lower lease rates, would be one way for the bidders to reduce costs.

 

[northwichcat]

With the introduction of the additional Macclesfield stoppers from 2017, the inter-peak Stoke services will no longer call at Adlington and Prestbury. With 95/100mph running for over 6 miles between Poynton and Macclesfield, 319s should be able to at least match the current all stops timings of the 323s between Stockport and Stoke. Equally the much shorter distance between Stockport and Macclesfield means that 319s should be able to fit between expresses on the new stoppers.

But at peak times (when most units and paths are in use) the Stoke services will continue to be all-stops. The most difficult train to path in the 2008 recast was apparently the 17:17 Piccadilly-Stoke (17:09 ex-Deansgate), which is apparently why it finished up running in what would normally be the Mid-Cheshire path with the Chester service departing at 17:09 instead and still only a small delay can hold up a later Pendolino service.

While with the peak time extra Mid-Cheshire services continuing to Manchester it may mean it's more imperative for peak time services stopping at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme to be fast accelerating EMUs.

The 323s on the Glossop/Hadfield services could be replaced by a micro-fleet of fast-accelerating 313s or 314s - maximum linespeed on this route is 60mph. This would then enable all the 323s to be released.

Not sure how full the peak time Glossop services are but replacing a 323 with a 313/4 would be a 13% reduction in train length.

An important factor in evaluation of the rival bids for the Northern franchise will be the bidders' ability to reduce the level of subsidy required. Replacement of the 323s by older stock, with lower lease rates, would be one way for the bidders to reduce costs.

Bidders do have to propose to fully refurbish older trains to give them a 'like new' interior.

 

[D365]

Not sure how full the peak time Glossop services are but replacing a 323 with a 313/4 would be a 13% reduction in train length.

If a PEP cascade is really going to be feasible, could platforms be extended for a Class 315?

Bidders do have to propose to fully refurbish older trains to give them a 'like new' interior.

One would hope they will instigate this in a reasonable timescale...

 

[northwichcat]

One would hope they will instigate this in a reasonable timescale...

It's required by 1st January 2020, so I imagine would be done alongside accessibility improvements for most rolling stock.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

An important factor in evaluation of the rival bids for the Northern franchise will be the bidders' ability to reduce the level of subsidy required. Replacement of the 323s by older stock, with lower lease rates, would be one way for the bidders to reduce costs.

Northern have to deliver an upgraded fleet spec.
That may rule out older types as they don't have enough life left.
In fact, the ROSCOs will now know, after years of uncertainty, the future demand for MOLA (ex-BR) EMUs.
They will now be able to make decisions on scrap/reconfigure/upgrade and feed this into Northern/LM/GA/Valleys bids.
What we really need to know is whether retractioning and reconfiguration is on the agenda.
There certainly looks like being a surplus of ex-BR units by 2018.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I have created a thread for discussion of the future of 323s as it seems to be a regular diversion on here. 323s... The future?

 

[Greybeard33]

But at peak times (when most units and paths are in use) the Stoke services will continue to be all-stops. The most difficult train to path in the 2008 recast was apparently the 17:17 Piccadilly-Stoke (17:09 ex-Deansgate), which is apparently why it finished up running in what would normally be the Mid-Cheshire path with the Chester service departing at 17:09 instead and still only a small delay can hold up a later Pendolino service.

The first Virgin train of the day from Euston does not arrive at Manchester until 0828, so timings are less critical in the morning peak. Admittedly the evenings would be problematic with 319s, but the timetable will have to be reworked anyway post Ordsall Chord. So there might be scope for negotiation with the other TOCs regarding timings and/or with the DfT/Rail North to propose skip-stopping.

While with the peak time extra Mid-Cheshire services continuing to Manchester it may mean it's more imperative for peak time services stopping at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme to be fast accelerating EMUs.

Currently only one Stoke service per day in each direction calls at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme. By 2017 the Hazel Grove to Preston services should be EMUs, as well as the Crewes and Alderley Edges.

Not sure how full the peak time Glossop services are but replacing a 323 with a 313/4 would be a 13% reduction in train length.

Part of the extra length of a 323 is taken up by the toilet compartment. By 2020 they will have to be retrofitted with a larger accessible toilet. Toileted stock is not really necessary for the 40 minute journey to Hadfield. The metro-style layout of a 313, with more space for standees, might be more appropriate for this line, pending TfGM's proposed conversion to tram-train operation.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think that a toilet is going to take up a full nine metres of carriage (69m versus 60m).
That would be absolutely absurd.
It will take up the equivalent of two metres of full-width train length at most.

 

[edwin_m]

A 313 (or 314 or 315) also has a crew vestibule behind each cab, further reducing passenger space.

 

[northwichcat]

Greybeard - I think you're looking at out-of-date timetables or looking at a Saturday timetable.

On a weekday there are 5 northbound Stoke-Manchester services per day with Heaton Chapel calls and 1 southbound service per day, as well as a northbound Macclesfield-Manchester service.

The first Virgin arrival at Manchester from Euston via Stoke) is slightly earlier than the time you gave. However, I think pathing is perhaps more of a concern than you think in the morning peak. The 06:57 Birmingham-Manchester has to go via Wilmslow due to there being no path for it via Stoke.

With regards to whether toilet-less stock can be used on Hadfield services TfGM/Rail North may agree to that on condition that Hadfield and Glossop have station toilets open from the first to last train and possibly Guide Bridge as well, with it being possible to change between different services there. However, once the station toilets are built how would you prevent vandalism? Glossop and Hadfield stations have a lot more trouble than stations like Hale.

The Hazel Grove-Preston and the daily Crewe-Bolton service which are currently DMUs can of course switch to EMU, if the services remain as they are. However, I think the requirement for an additional Chinley service remains in the evening peak so they'll still need to be a DMU working to Chinley via Hazel Grove. AFAIK there aren't any booked DMUs to Alderley Edge other than the daily Crewe-Bolton service but the Alderley Edge and Airport stoppers are the services where a DMU will fill in if there's a 323 shortage.

 

[Greybeard33]

Greybeard - I think you're looking at out-of-date timetables or looking at a Saturday timetable.

On a weekday there are 5 northbound Stoke-Manchester services per day with Heaton Chapel calls and 1 southbound service per day, as well as a northbound Macclesfield-Manchester service.

Yes, I was wrong to state that only one northbound ex-Stoke service calls at Heaton Chapel - although I now make it four not five (0807, 2046, 2146 & 2314 from HTC). But I still do not see how the slight difference in acceleration between a 323 and a 319 on these services would affect availability of paths for the additional Northwich to Manchester services, as you suggested? None of them, nor the 0640 southbound call, are at times of day when the Northwich service will be operating.

The first Virgin arrival at Manchester from Euston via Stoke) is slightly earlier than the time you gave. However, I think pathing is perhaps more of a concern than you think in the morning peak. The 06:57 Birmingham-Manchester has to go via Wilmslow due to there being no path for it via Stoke.

You are correct that the 0616 from Euston has a WTT arrival time at Piccadilly of 0825 - I gave the public timetable time of 0828, which includes 3 minutes padding.

With regards to whether toilet-less stock can be used on Hadfield services TfGM/Rail North may agree to that on condition that Hadfield and Glossop have station toilets open from the first to last train and possibly Guide Bridge as well, with it being possible to change between different services there. However, once the station toilets are built how would you prevent vandalism? Glossop and Hadfield stations have a lot more trouble than stations like Hale.

Glossop station already has toilets. There are coin-access public toilets just across the road from Hadfield station. I am not aware of any vandalism issues. Many Metrolink stops do not not have any toilet facilities in the vicinity, so why should TfGM require toilets on train journeys that are shorter than many cross-city tram journeys?

 

[northwichcat]

But I still do not see how the slight difference in acceleration between a 323 and a 319 on these services would affect availability of paths for the additional Northwich to Manchester services, as you suggested? None of them, nor the 0640 southbound call, are at times of day when the Northwich service will be operating.

? I suggested it could be an issue for pathing the peak time extras (currently Chester-Stockport) being extended to Manchester.

Many Metrolink stops do not not have any toilet facilities in the vicinity, so why should TfGM require toilets on train journeys that are shorter than many cross-city tram journeys?

When toilet-less trains are used terminus stations and interchange stations usually have toilet facilities. TfGM thought toilets were essential when Altrincham Interchange was redeveloped.

I wasn't aware Glossop had toilets. I knew there is a single unisex toilet near Hadfield station but if Derbyshire County Council are responsible for the toilets on non-station land and TfGM are been given responsibility for train services to Hadfield, Derbyshire CC could easily close the toilets or make them only available during certain hours without letting TfGM know.

 

[Greybeard33]

? I suggested it could be an issue for pathing the peak time extras (currently Chester-Stockport) being extended to Manchester.

Ok, but if timings are roughly as now, the 0633 ex-Chester (arr Stockport 0757, after several minutes pathing wait at Edgeley Jn) will be ahead of the 0717 ex-Stoke (arr Stockport 0803). In any case I cannot see that 319 performance will be an issue on the Slow line from Stockport to Slade Lane Jn, as opposed to the double track main line from Stoke to Stockport.

 

[northwichcat]

Ok, but if timings are roughly as now, the 0633 ex-Chester (arr Stockport 0757, after several minutes pathing wait at Edgeley Jn) will be ahead of the 0717 ex-Stoke (arr Stockport 0803). In any case I cannot see that 319 performance will be an issue on the Slow line from Stockport to Slade Lane Jn, as opposed to the double track main line from Stoke to Stockport.

When Northern were a 323 down for a few months and were using a 142 on a morning peak time Alderley Edge services calling at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme it caused major problems, even with re-timing the service to leave Alderley Edge 2-3 minutes earlier. The difference between a 319 and a 323 won't be as much as that but the better the acceleration the less likely it is to be caught up by following services not stopping at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme, even if the stopper is running late.

Don't forget some XC and EMT services run on the slow lines as well, which is actually why the off-peak Mid-Cheshire services which call at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme run five minutes earlier than they used to - they can't hold up the following XC service.

 

[edwin_m]

Anyone caught up in the incident yesterday when a 319 sat down at probably the worst time and place possible - platform 14 at Piccadilly at 1600?

 

[northwichcat]

Anyone caught up in the incident yesterday when a 319 sat down at probably the worst time and place possible - platform 14 at Piccadilly at 1600?

Was it the one Osborne named Northern Powerhouse? That was the first 319 to fail in service with Northern.

2N29 1536 Hazel Grove to Preston was badly affected. It eventually pulled in to platform 13 (instead of 14) at 16:28, having got to Ardwick Junction at 1556.

 

[AM9]

Was it the one Osborne named Northern Powerhouse? That was the first 319 to fail in service with Northern.

2N29 1536 Hazel Grove to Preston was badly affected. It eventually pulled in to platform 13 (instead of 14) at 16:28, having got to Ardwick Junction at 1556.

That's a worry, the 'Northern Powerhouse' thing is supposed to be forgotten after the election!

 

[Thomas6187]

Was it the one Osborne named Northern Powerhouse? That was the first 319 to fail in service with Northern.

2N29 1536 Hazel Grove to Preston was badly affected. It eventually pulled in to platform 13 (instead of 14) at 16:28, having got to Ardwick Junction at 1556.

I think it was 319362. The Preston service actually arrived on time onto platform 14b but ended up being shunted around the failure.

 

[8A Rail]

Was it the one Osborne named Northern Powerhouse? That was the first 319 to fail in service with Northern.

2N29 1536 Hazel Grove to Preston was badly affected. It eventually pulled in to platform 13 (instead of 14) at 16:28, having got to Ardwick Junction at 1556.

If I recall correctly that it was on the second day in service - failed on the 06.15hrs ex Lime St at Edge Hill.

 

[northwichcat]

That's a worry, the 'Northern Powerhouse' thing is supposed to be forgotten after the election!

I'm sure it's only supposed to be forgotten about if the Conservatives are in government after the next election. If they aren't then they'll want to bring it up all the time even if Labour press ahead with it - they've only released vague plans so they can keep saying they would have done more than Labour.

 

[AM9]

I'm sure it's only supposed to be forgotten about if the Conservatives are in government after the next election. If they aren't then they'll want to bring it up all the time even if Labour press ahead with it - they've only released vague plans so they can keep saying they would have done more than Labour.

For once, I fully agree with you.