Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[D365]

The 304s operated in the North West from new.

Could furnessvale have been thinking about the Class 305 or 308 units, which were transferred as an interim measure?

 

[northwichcat]

Northern Rail is a loss-making TOC that despite supposedly rising passenger numbers ('exponential rises' have been claimed here), continues to plan for 2 & 3-car trains that are supposedly loaded well in excess of capacity, (cue anecdotal reports of single Pacers with 250 on board), yet seems to have no enthusiasm to make their services fit this demand by having platforms capable of the 4 and 8-car trains that would be available to them. Surely the 'Northern Powerhouse' could justify a proper railway rather than hundreds of branch-line length trains, each with driver and guard/TM working them.

Some of the routes with overcrowded Pacers only get 1tph with some extras in the peak, a higher frequency of service is what's needed on such routes.

However, there are some lines which have very short services (in journey length) which are really a waste of valuable paths. Hazel Grove is a good example of this. At peak times what's really needed is a 4 car service to Buxton at a roughly 20 minute intervals, not 2tph to Buxton and some Hazel Grove only services at random times. As it is in the evening peak you can get a busy 4 car 150 to Buxton, followed by a 4 car 142 to Hazel Grove with very few passengers on the latter (no more than 40) wanting stations after Stockport, most of the passengers being for Levenshulme, Heaton Chapel and Stockport i.e. stations which can be served by any train going towards Stockport from Manchester.

One thing to note regarding Northern and subsides is Northern have on multiple occasions taken on additional rolling stock and lowered the subsidy following that, despite the additional costs involved with taking on and running more trains. TPE also managed the same despite taking on brand new 350/4s which aren't cheap to lease. On the other hand LM Euston passengers are claiming the 350/3s aren't enough yet the LM subsidy went up as a result of introducing the 350/3s.

 

[Wolfie]

They reduced from 4 to 3 years ago when the north west got secondhand 304s (I think that is the correct number).

God forbid that northerners get a seat when London commuters have had to stand on the same units.

Just because it may be impossible to cure overcrowding down south is no reason to ensure that the north suffers equally.

I certainly wouldn't spend money shortening trains for the sake of it. However, equally the idea of ever growing subsidies just to avoid any possible overcrowding is also unacceptable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the other hand LM Euston passengers are claiming the 350/3s aren't enough yet the LM subsidy went up as a result of introducing the 350/3s.

I'm perhaps unusual, but provided they could be made reliable (unlike the present joke of a situation with them that appears not to be afflicting Northern), I would be happy for LM to take on a large fleet of older units, even at the expense of losing some 350s, if that would allow them to move to 12-car operation on all trains during both peaks (approx 0600-1030 arrivals into Euston and 1530-1930 departures), and 8 cars at all other times (i.e. a complete end to all 4-car operation throughout the Euston-based network including Liverpool-Birmingham and so far as possible the Crewes). This would probably be more financially viable than more 350s. In the end I'd rather have a seat on an older unit than no seat on a new one.

However, LM's problem indeed is not as bad as Northern's - at least, when not short formed, LM trains usually do not leave passengers behind, and if they do the next one is normally not far off. What is needed in Northern's territory is some investment and a long term plan, which would involve platform extensions and infrastructure changes to move to a system with proper train lengths, i.e. with all stations other than branch lines able to take 160m trains, and branch lines progressing towards 80m trains. Even if this wasn't used immediately, it would future-proof the system for at least the next 15-20 years.

That should be done before any frequency increases, because increased frequency only serves to increase demand further by making the service more attractive.

Similarly the new TPE franchise should be let on the basis of 6x23m or 8x20m throughout the network at all times.

 

[northwichcat]

I certainly wouldn't spend money shortening trains for the sake of it. However, equally the idea of ever growing subsidies just to avoid any possible overcrowding is also unacceptable.

Would the users of profitable/break even franchises be happy to exchange their shorter EMUs/EMUs with SDO for older longer EMUs (where possible) to prevent loss making franchises incurring additional expense in running 8 car formations where 6 car would be adequate (or equivalent)?

 

[The Ham]

I certainly wouldn't spend money shortening trains for the sake of it. However, equally the idea of ever growing subsidies just to avoid any possible overcrowding is also unacceptable.

Shortening trains to 3 coaches can be beneficial (especially for trains which are a few years old, may have limited scope to be used as 4 coach trains and where a TOC is already using them).

First up, yes LONG term 8 coach trains would be useful, however short/medium term (circa 15 years) providing 6 coach trains in the peaks and 3 coach trains in the off peaks could provide enough capacity and reduced operating costs.

Even if 8 coach trains were needed towards the end of the life of the 319's there could be scope to lengthen stations to (just) fit 9 coaches so that three sets could run together to form a 9 coach train working in partnership with some 8 coach long (new) trains. Although it would be more likely that the 319's (shorter trains) would be timetabled when demand wasn't so high but higher than what could be provided by a 4 coach train (i.e. either a fairly early train or a train which was towards the end of main peak).

 

[158722]

I'm perhaps unusual, but provided they could be made reliable (unlike the present joke of a situation with them that appears not to be afflicting Northern), I would be happy for LM to take on a large fleet of older units, even at the expense of losing some 350s, if that would allow them to move to 12-car operation on all trains during both peaks (approx 0600-1030 arrivals into Euston and 1530-1930 departures), and 8 cars at all other times (i.e. a complete end to all 4-car operation throughout the Euston-based network including Liverpool-Birmingham and so far as possible the Crewes). This would probably be more financially viable than more 350s. In the end I'd rather have a seat on an older unit than no seat on a new one.

A very sensible and pragmatic post. I totally agree that perhaps the best compromise would be for a number of peak time only LM diagrams to go to 12x 319 vice 8x 350, given they would probably only work 2 perhaps 3 returns in and out of Euston. The freed up 350s ensure 8-car sets on other services and however many available for transfer elsewhere. The expected announcement for Northern and TPE on friday looks like being very interesting!

 

[edwin_m]

Going from 350s to 319s on London Midland would presumably confine them to the slow lines due to lack of 100mph paths on the fasts, unless VT was similarly decelerated. This might in turn reduce the total number of paths available to LM, unless the fast trains were further decelerated to avoid catching up the stoppers.

 

[AM9]

Shortening trains to 3 coaches can be beneficial (especially for trains which are a few years old, may have limited scope to be used as 4 coach trains and where a TOC is already using them).

First up, yes LONG term 8 coach trains would be useful, however short/medium term (circa 15 years) providing 6 coach trains in the peaks and 3 coach trains in the off peaks could provide enough capacity and reduced operating costs.

Even if 8 coach trains were needed towards the end of the life of the 319's there could be scope to lengthen stations to (just) fit 9 coaches so that three sets could run together to form a 9 coach train working in partnership with some 8 coach long (new) trains. Although it would be more likely that the 319's (shorter trains) would be timetabled when demand wasn't so high but higher than what could be provided by a 4 coach train (i.e. either a fairly early train or a train which was towards the end of main peak).

Recent posts seem to be ingnoring the fact that removing one coach from a 319 is not trivial and is expensive enough to make it not worthwhile, except for Porterbrook who would obviously profit from somebody paying for them to do the work.

 

[northwichcat]

Recent posts seem to be ingnoring the fact that removing one coach from a 319 is not trivial and is expensive enough to make it not worthwhile, except for Porterbrook who would obviously profit from somebody paying for them to do the work.

Porterbrook would also like to give them new nice looking front ends possibly with corridor connections.

I think they wanted to give the impression 319s are perfect for any scenario opposed to being round pegs that are available to fit in to square holes somewhere other than Thameslink.

 

[DJH1971]

319379 is now in service with Northern being noted on the Liverpool Lime Street to Preston service yesterday. That just leaves 319366 to enter service.

319366 is now here and was at Liverpool Lime Street today.

 

[northwichcat]

A 319 may have failed today as Northern say the 14:16 Liverpool-Airport and 15:40 Airport-Liverpool were cancelled due to a train fault, although RTT says due to an issue with the train crew.

 

[AM9]

Porterbrook would also like to give them new nice looking front ends possibly with corridor connections.

I think they wanted to give the impression 319s are perfect for any scenario opposed to being round pegs that are available to fit in to square holes somewhere other than Thameslink.

Thake the shoes off and functionally, 319s are no different to 321s, i.e. 4-car MKIII ac EMUs. Whilst not perfect, (no stock is) either class can fulfil a number of roles across Great Britain. They don't have safe passenger capacity in excess of 1500 per 12-cars nor is it worth fitting them with ATO so they are ruled out as unsuitable for any line with those sort of requirements.

 

[scrapy]

A 319 may have failed today as Northern say the 14:16 Liverpool-Airport and 15:40 Airport-Liverpool were cancelled due to a train fault, although RTT says due to an issue with the train crew.

The 0600 liverpool lime st to wigan encountered difficulties at Eccleston Park this morning and a 17 min delay. Was taken out of service at Wigan resulting in the cancellation of the 0703. Later went ecs to Allerton.

 

[MML]

Before we start suggesting shortening Class 319 from 4 to 3 car, we need to consider the future loss of seats which will no doubt result from fitment of PRM toilet facilities. 1/3 of a carriage will disappear to be replaced by the white elephant of a seldom used facility.
Replacement of the old seats (which are low and offer limited legroom) with new, upright, lightweight seats could assist in improving legroom and reducing the overall weight of the unit. A lighter 4-car unit should after all have improved acceleration.

 

[Greybeard33]

I believe there is also an issue with how long the trains take to do Dinting-Glossop-Hadfield-Glossop-Dinting. By the time the previous train leaves Dinting Junction towards Manchester the next one from Manchester is not far away. This is all single line so unless the direct Hadfield route is used there can only be one train east of Dinting Junction at a time. Hence an alternative infrastructure improvement might be to extend double track from Dinting Junction towards Glossop.

Indeed, redoubling Dinting to Glossop would give more flexibility and resilience than Dinting to Hadfield, since each off-peak round trip traverses the branch twice in each direction. Reinstatement of a second platform at Glossop would enable Hadfield- and Manchester-bound trains to reverse there concurrently, but unfortunately the land has been sold off as a car park.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, redoubling Dinting to Glossop would give more flexibility and resilience than Dinting to Hadfield, since each off-peak round trip traverses the branch twice in each direction. Reinstatement of a second platform at Glossop would enable Hadfield- and Manchester-bound trains to reverse there concurrently, but unfortunately the land has been sold off as a car park.

A car park isn't exactly a facility that would be hard to convert back if the right price were to be offered.

 

[156441]

A 319 may have failed today as Northern say the 14:16 Liverpool-Airport and 15:40 Airport-Liverpool were cancelled due to a train fault, although RTT says due to an issue with the train crew.

319366 did indeed enter service and promptly fail yesterday afternoon with a suspected motor alternater fault which left it stranded at Lime Street until the late evening. A ever trusty 156 filled in for it on the 2016 LIV-MIA and return

 

[Greybeard33]

A car park isn't exactly a facility that would be hard to convert back if the right price were to be offered.

No, but such a proposal would probably generate local opposition, because the car park belongs to the adjacent Co-op supermarket (which now occupies some of the former station buildings).

 

[8J]

319366 did indeed enter service and promptly fail yesterday afternoon with a suspected motor alternater fault which left it stranded at Lime Street until the late evening. A ever trusty 156 filled in for it on the 2016 LIV-MIA and return

Confirmed as MA fault. This resulted in the 17:13 and return working to be cancelled to.

 

[Nym]

What MAs are fitted to these units?

Is it some form of GEC MG3000 series unit?

 

[Class 170101]

Would a new traction package similar to what has been fitted to 317722 or 321448 be a potential solution?

 

[Nym]

Would a new traction package similar to what has been fitted to 317722 or 321448 be a potential solution?

For an MA Fault?

 

[323235]

Indeed, redoubling Dinting to Glossop would give more flexibility and resilience than Dinting to Hadfield, since each off-peak round trip traverses the branch twice in each direction. Reinstatement of a second platform at Glossop would enable Hadfield- and Manchester-bound trains to reverse there concurrently, but unfortunately the land has been sold off as a car park.

Surely doubling two sides of the triangle to allow passing of the trains in the station rather than wait before the viaduct would be beneficial for both scenarios too along with bidirectional working from the Dinting UP distant for the different working scenarios. The headway and speed profiles between Dinting - Glossop aren't really long enough to justify double track surely.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In what year was the current single track formation on the Dinting/Hadfield/Glossop triangle decided upon?

 

[Class 170101]

For an MA Fault?

No as a means of improving the acceleration of the 319's so that they could match 323 timings.

 

[edwin_m]

No as a means of improving the acceleration of the 319's so that they could match 323 timings.

It would make some difference but wouldn't change the fact that the 319 only has 25% of axles motored (33% if one car is removed) and the 323 has 67%.

 

[Greybeard33]

Surely doubling two sides of the triangle to allow passing of the trains in the station rather than wait before the viaduct would be beneficial for both scenarios too along with bidirectional working from the Dinting UP distant for the different working scenarios. The headway and speed profiles between Dinting - Glossop aren't really long enough to justify double track surely.

Well, unlike Glossop, the disused platforms at Dinting are (more or less) still there, so the lines through the station could be redoubled. However, I doubt that a quicker approach to Dinting would, in itself, enable a 319 to match the existing 323 end to end time from Piccadilly to Hadfield via Glossop. If a fourth off-peak diagram were to be added, to enable timings to be relaxed while keeping to the same paths at the Piccadilly end (still 3tph), I think that successive services would need to pass on the Glossop-Hadfield legs (via the north-east side of the triangle, which has never had platforms), not in Dinting station. Each diagram would have an additional 20 minutes layover at Hadfield (currently only 2 minutes), less the extra time that would be needed to allow for slower acceleration from all the stops in both directions.

 

[Altfish]

Northern Rail is a loss-making TOC that despite supposedly rising passenger numbers ('exponential rises' have been claimed here), continues to plan for 2 & 3-car trains that are supposedly loaded well in excess of capacity, (cue anecdotal reports of single Pacers with 250 on board), yet seems to have no enthusiasm to make their services fit this demand by having platforms capable of the 4 and 8-car trains that would be available to them. Surely the 'Northern Powerhouse' could justify a proper railway rather than hundreds of branch-line length trains, each with driver and guard/TM working them.
Unless there are specific geographical impossibilities, any station that is expected to handle large numbers of commuters of day passengers should be planned for 8-car or longer trains. I'm sure that if the DfT said that they could have enough new 4-car Electrostar EMUs on all these routes, something would happen fairly quick.
319s, like 321s and 455s are run in large numbers in the south-east. They do have problems with poor railhead conditions down here, especially in the leafy suburbs where local resistance to tree lopping often results in more leaf problems than should be the case. Most of the year they just get on with running the services.
As far as acceleration goes, it's true that the MKIII EMUs are not the fastest around but they regularly run in and out of 100-125mph stock on really tight headways and all the 8 and 12 car trains are really full! If the NW trains were longer, some of them could be dropped maintaining the same service capacity thereby releasing more paths and/or increasing headways - especially if the 'Northern Powerhouse' isn't all that the politicians have promised it to be.

Northern is a strange franchise. It is one of the only ones (only one?) that has all the 'fast' services in its areas removed to another franchise.
What I mean is, in the Northern Area TPE run the lucrative Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle; Scotland, Carlisle, Preston, Blackpool to Manchester Airport; East Midland run Liverpool, Stockport to Sheffield. Virgin have the London bound trains.
e.g. Compare to Great Western or East Midland franchises where the 'local' services are balanced with the 'fast' services.

 

[geoffk]

"Compare to Great Western or East Midland franchises where the 'local' services are balanced with the 'fast' services."

Yes, user groups and others responding to the Northern Invitiation to Tender made this very point. The separation, effectively creaming off profitable services and giving them to TPE, inflates the apparent subsidy to Northern.

Combining the two franchsies would make the subsidy per passenger mile look much better. On the 2013-14 figures TPE operating subsidy per pass'r mile is 5.95p, Northern 25.82p. If the two TOCs are combined this becomes 17.29p.