Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[notlob.divad]

Someone has reported on another forum they won't be put in service by Northern but will be stripped of useful parts to hopefully help improve the reliability of other 319s. I don't know if that means the plan is to scrap some 319s after removing useful parts.

Well there is currently no extra electrified lines to run them on yet so if more are to become available before the electrification projects are finished, and the is no obvious home for them to move onto, cannibalizing some bits for spares would seem to make some sense.

 

[northwichcat]

Well there is currently no extra electrified lines to run them on yet so if more are to become available before the electrification projects are finished, and the is no obvious home for them to move onto, cannibalizing some bits for spares would seem to make some sense.

But Northern do have to introduce another 12 in service by December 2017 and they have to refurbish all their 319s by December 2019 so starting on refurbishments would be logical.

 

[Brian Aylott]

Someone has reported on another forum they won't be put in service by Northern but will be stripped of useful parts to hopefully help improve the reliability of other 319s. I don't know if that means the plan is to scrap some 319s after removing useful parts.

Report is probably pure fiction
Why not use units that have recently been made fully compatible (Universal toilets etc) for 2020, instead of their 319s that aren't yet compatible?
It makes no sense
Brian

 

[Bovverboy]

Originally Posted by DJH1971
No livery change as of yet it seems.

Someone has reported on another forum they won't be put in service by Northern but will be stripped of useful parts to hopefully help improve the reliability of other 319s. I don't know if that means the plan is to scrap some 319s after removing useful parts.

Scrapping them would be inconsistent with them having just been refurbished at Wolverton.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As a regular traveller on the Furness Line, I can assure you it not much fun travelling on a single car 153, compare to an 3-car 185.

I for one, wish that TPE was still operating on the Furness Line......

Which journeys are diagrammed for a 153?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Northern had a fancy electronic circular kiosk at Manchester Victoria today, with rolling footage showing off the Northern franchise.
It includes some moving pictures (CGI I suppose) of the new CAF trains, seemingly produced by CAF and Northern jointly.
It includes both EMU and DMU types, with some interior shots of seats and things like bike spaces.
Without looking too closely, the EMU/DMU front ends look pretty much the same, as you might expect.
The profile seems quite angular, compared to (say) the rounded 185/350 profile, more like the 323.

 

[DJH1971]

Northern had a fancy electronic circular kiosk at Manchester Victoria today, with rolling footage showing off the Northern franchise.
It includes some moving pictures (CGI I suppose) of the new CAF trains, seemingly produced by CAF and Northern jointly.
It includes both EMU and DMU types, with some interior shots of seats and things like bike spaces.
Without looking too closely, the EMU/DMU front ends look pretty much the same, as you might expect.
The profile seems quite angular, compared to (say) the 185/350 profile, more like the 323.

They had this at Liverpool Lime Street the other day.

 

[stanley T]

Northern had a fancy electronic circular kiosk at Manchester Victoria today, with rolling footage showing off the Northern franchise.
It includes some moving pictures (CGI I suppose) of the new CAF trains, seemingly produced by CAF and Northern jointly.
It includes both EMU and DMU types, with some interior shots of seats and things like bike spaces.
Without looking too closely, the EMU/DMU front ends look pretty much the same, as you might expect.
The profile seems quite angular, compared to (say) the rounded 185/350 profile, more like the 323.

Why did they go for CAF, I wonder, rather than Bombardier. Irish conditions are probably not as demanding as the UK, and LM seem to do alright with 172s. Also it would be nice to buy (at least some part) British rather than Spanish. They all have MTU engines, but at least that is now owned by Rolls Royce.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why did they go for CAF, I wonder, rather than Bombardier. Irish conditions are probably not as demanding as the UK, and LM seem to do alright with 172s. Also it would be nice to buy (at least some part) British rather than Spanish. They all have MTU engines, but at least that is now owned by Rolls Royce.

Bombardier didn't bid for the Northern DMU contract.
They don't currently offer a diesel (or bi-mode) option for the UK.
They are also busy with Aventras for Crossrail (and now East Anglia).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Why did they go for CAF, I wonder, rather than Bombardier. Irish conditions are probably not as demanding as the UK, and LM seem to do alright with 172s. Also it would be nice to buy (at least some part) British rather than Spanish. They all have MTU engines, but at least that is now owned by Rolls Royce.

Presumably the CAF Civity was the best value package on offer. Bombardier Transportation (a German-headquartered arm of a Canadian company, lest we forget!) I believe did not offer a diesel-only unit, 172s are no longer compliant with EU-mandated emissions regulations, which applied at the time of the tender and technically still do. Being isolationist with procurement is what gave us things like 141s and 142s, so is not necessarily the best option!

Also it is easy to get hung up on where the vehicles are put together, if you recall the right-wing media uproar about Siemens winning the Thameslink order, it turned out that the winning Siemens product actually had more of a domestic supply-chain than the Bombardier rival which would have been bolted together in Derby.

 

[stanley T]

Also it is easy to get hung up on where the vehicles are put together, if you recall the right-wing media uproar about Siemens winning the Thameslink order, it turned out that the winning Siemens product actually had more of a domestic supply-chain than the Bombardier rival which would have been bolted together in Derby.

Yes, that is how a modern economy works, bits and pieces from all over. Something Brexiteers seem to be unaware of.

172s being non compliant is surely just a matter of changing the specified engine, but if Bombardier are busy with other orders, then well and good.

 

[childwallblues]

Bombardier didn't bid for the Northern DMU contract.
They don't currently offer a diesel (or bi-mode) option for the UK.
They are also busy with Aventras for Crossrail (and now East Anglia).

Also Bombardier are building new units for London Overground.

 

[47802]

Yes, that is how a modern economy works, bits and pieces from all over. Something Brexiteers seem to be unaware of.

172s being non compliant is surely just a matter of changing the specified engine, but if Bombardier are busy with other orders, then well and good.

Well yes but it would probably have taken a fair bit of re-design and testing to accommodate a new engine and emission regs, on a Turbostar/Electrostar design which they are moving away from. Alternatively an Aventra Diesel would likely take even more work assuming its even possible and probably considered it wasn't worth the effort for the size of order, after all they were probably disappointed with the number of orders they managed to get for the 172.

I would imagine that Bombardiers highest priorities at present are to secure more orders for Aventra eg the Anglia order and in particular to try and get the next gen Tube order which could secure the plant well into the next decade along with the Hitachi plant as its now a joint bid with Hitachi, but clearly Siemens will be fighting hard for this as well.

 

[edwin_m]

It was said a few years ago that compliant engines would need extra equipment that wouldn't fit under the floor. CAF, Hitachi and Stadler seem to have found a way round that but perhaps the 172 would have needed a big re-design and Bombardier didn't see it as worthwhile for a limited market. Although I think the original announcement of the Aventra indicated diesel variants would be offered.

 

[Greybeard33]

It was said a few years ago that compliant engines would need extra equipment that wouldn't fit under the floor. CAF, Hitachi and Stadler seem to have found a way round that but perhaps the 172 would have needed a big re-design and Bombardier didn't see it as worthwhile for a limited market. Although I think the original announcement of the Aventra indicated diesel variants would be offered.

From discussion on the East Anglia bi-modes thread, it appears that the FLIRTs will have a diesel generator car in the middle, so engine above the floor? While the Hitachi bi-modes have 26m carriages with a high floor, which gives more underfloor space than on a 23m suburban carriage.

Perhaps one reason why the CAF 195s are diesel-mechanical rather than bi-modes is that a generator plus electric motors would need more underfloor space than the mechanical transmission?

 

[WatcherZero]

Above floor engine on the Flirts but will be near one of the cabs in the UK version not in the middle.

 

[47802]

Above floor engine on the Flirts but will be near one of the cabs in the UK version not in the middle.

Are we sure about that? the 'Railway Gazette' talks about 'diesel engines in a mid-train power module car'

 

[edwin_m]

From discussion on the East Anglia bi-modes thread, it appears that the FLIRTs will have a diesel generator car in the middle, so engine above the floor? While the Hitachi bi-modes have 26m carriages with a high floor, which gives more underfloor space than on a 23m suburban carriage.

Above floor engine on the Flirts but will be near one of the cabs in the UK version not in the middle.

I would expect the Flirt bi-modes to be essentially the same as the EMU version under the floor, and the EMU ones to have an extra passenger compartment in the space the diesel engine uses on the bi-modes.

Perhaps one reason why the CAF 195s are diesel-mechanical rather than bi-modes is that a generator plus electric motors would need more underfloor space than the mechanical transmission?

Possibly, but I think it's more likely to be down to cost.

Voyagers manage to fit a more powerful diesel-electric traction package between the bogies of a 23m coach, pre-dating the latest emission standards but including (if I recall correctly) motors in this area with cardan drive to the bogies. A 100mph DEMU has fewer problems with track forces so could put the motors more conventionally within the bogies. The 80x has a similar arrangement with a fully compliant engine, though they have had to raise the floor and I don't know where they have put the motors. So I don't think there is a big issue with fitting underfloor diesel-electric traction into a 23m bodyshell, though it will be interesting to see what happens if any more 20m DMUs are ever needed.

Otherwise all post-privatisation DMUs have had a mechanical/hydraulic drive, albeit with a gearbox instead of a torque convertor on the more recent ones. The 180 even pushed this configuration out to 125mph, although the service record of that fleet may suggest that was taking things a bit too far. Bi-mode changes the game here, as the obvious way is to have a diesel engine driving an alternator feeding the same electric traction package as is used in electric mode.

 

[Greybeard33]

I would expect the Flirt bi-modes to be essentially the same as the EMU version under the floor, and the EMU ones to have an extra passenger compartment in the space the diesel engine uses on the bi-modes.

Images of existing diesel/bi-mode FLIRTs appear to show the power module forming an additional short articulation towards the middle of the formation, with a Jacobs bogie either side (presumably to minimise axle loading). In which case the power module, and one bogie, could be omitted altogether from the EMU version, reducing the overall length of the unit slightly but reducing the weight substantially.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Northern had a fancy electronic circular kiosk at Manchester Victoria today, with rolling footage showing off the Northern franchise.
It includes some moving pictures (CGI I suppose) of the new CAF trains, seemingly produced by CAF and Northern jointly.
It includes both EMU and DMU types, with some interior shots of seats and things like bike spaces.
Without looking too closely, the EMU/DMU front ends look pretty much the same, as you might expect.
The profile seems quite angular, compared to (say) the rounded 185/350 profile, more like the 323.

The images it shows have been around for six months or so (you can find them on Youtube).

 

[Bovverboy]

The former TPE depots at Blackpool and Barrow have just signed 153s (to go with 156s and 185s).

Is there demarcation at Blackpool and Barrow between Northern 'were already Northern' and Northern 'ex-TPE' crews?

The thinking behind it is the Barrow line can't really accommodate 2*156s at a few stations, but a 156+153 would be more suitable. Plus, I understand, they want 153s with 156s on the Windermere branch as a single 156 is not a suitable replacement for a 185.

Last night (Thurs 6/10) the 2008 Preston to Millom was formed 156+153, the 2109 Preston to Barrow 2x153.

 

[Greybeard33]

Is there demarcation at Blackpool and Barrow between Northern 'were already Northern' and Northern 'ex-TPE' crews?



Last night (Thurs 6/10) the 2008 Preston to Millom was formed 156+153, the 2109 Preston to Barrow 2x153.

The 2008 Preston to Millom is an 'ex-TPE' service (part of the diagram that provides the 'middle shift' Windermere services), while the 2109 Preston to Barrow is an 'old Northern' service.

Northern was using 2x153 formations on some Furness line services under the old franchise, after it started subleasing 156s to TPE for the Blackpool to Airport services.

 

[Jamesrob637]

If Hazel Grove to Blackpool North needs to be kept as is, a through service, electrics won't start operating that until May 18 at the earliest

However, could oddities such as the 07:30 ish Crewe to Bolton become an electric with effect from December 17 and free up some DMUs?

 

[Mordac]

So December is fast approaching, and they're still nowhere near 12 319s having transferred. Any news?

 

[Brian Aylott]

So December is fast approaching, and they're still nowhere near 12 319s having transferred. Any news?

8 of the 12 went to Wolverton for store/attention, 2 of which then went to AN
All have been re-allocated to AN on TOPS/RSL
The other 4 will be OL and allocated to AN by early 2017 ie on time
Brian

 

[childwallblues]

So December is fast approaching, and they're still nowhere near 12 319s having transferred. Any news?

As soon as wiring is complete from Ordsall Lane to Bolton this traincould be converted to EMU thus freeing up 2 x DMU.

 

[Bovverboy]

Originally Posted by Jamesrob637
If Hazel Grove to Blackpool North needs to be kept as is, a through service, electrics won't start operating that until May 18 at the earliest

However, could oddities such as the 07:30 ish Crewe to Bolton become an electric with effect from December 17 and free up some DMUs?

As soon as wiring is complete from Ordsall Lane to Bolton this traincould be converted to EMU thus freeing up 2 x DMU.

Is it hoped that electrification to Bolton will be complete by December 17? Seems optimistic.

I've assumed that the second of the above quotes was intended as a response to the first. The 0722 ex-Crewe could have gone electric ages ago, I travelled on it recently from Picc to Salf Cres and there were hardly any passengers left on board after Deansgate. The most minor of timetable changes could create a realistic connection from Picc/Oxford Road to Crescent and Bolton - there are at least two trains available to provide one - and the return working of the 0722 (0930 ex-Bolton) doesn't really serve any purpose at all until Manchester Victoria.
Even now, the 0825 Airport to Blackpool is scheduled only seven minutes behind the ex-Crewe at Salford Crescent.

 

[northwichcat]

If Hazel Grove to Blackpool North needs to be kept as is, a through service, electrics won't start operating that until May 18 at the earliest

It will almost certainly be Hazel Grove to Preston in the December 17 timetable change as the Preston to Blackpool North line will be closed for 3 months starting in December 17 and when it reopens the electrics should be ready.

However, could oddities such as the 07:30 ish Crewe to Bolton become an electric with effect from December 17 and free up some DMUs?

There will be a complete recast of all Northern services to the Airport and Stockport in December 17.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 0722 ex-Crewe could have gone electric ages ago, I travelled on it recently from Picc to Salf Cres and there were hardly any passengers left on board after Deansgate.

Northern do have to provide a certain level of cross-Manchester services from Stockport to meet their franchise requirements so if that one is broken up a Chester or Buxton service would have to be extended instead, unless they get DfT approval to change the service provision.

There is a Chester service which departs Stockport 5 minutes prior to the Crewe-Bolton service so in theory they could switch paths. However, that would likely mean the Chester service would have to call at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme when it is already a rammed 2 car 150 so switching the services would mean the Chester service would need strengthening so you'd only end up freeing up 1 x 142 from the Crewe-Bolton service not both of them.

 

[Bovverboy]

Originally Posted by Jamesrob637
If Hazel Grove to Blackpool North needs to be kept as is, a through service, electrics won't start operating that until May 18 at the earliest

However, could oddities such as the 07:30 ish Crewe to Bolton become an electric with effect from December 17 and free up some DMUs?

I gather you mean May 2018 and December 2017 respectively. My mistake.

Northern do have to provide a certain level of cross-Manchester services from Stockport to meet their franchise requirements so if that one is broken up a Chester or Buxton service would have to be extended instead, unless they get DfT approval to change the service provision.

It says a lot for the franchising system when the level of service required to be provided in a particular situation bears little or no relationship to level of patronage.

 

[palmersears]

8 of the 12 went to Wolverton for store/attention, 2 of which then went to AN
All have been re-allocated to AN on TOPS/RSL
The other 4 will be OL and allocated to AN by early 2017 ie on time
Brian

Are any of them physically located at Allerton yet?

When I went passed last week I could only see a couple of units from the original batch of 319s that have been in service for a while now.

 

[northwichcat]

It says a lot for the franchising system when the level of service required to be provided in a particular situation bears little or no relationship to level of patronage.

At peak times it's sometimes not the level of service doesn't match patronage it's a case of services are poorly timed due to pathing constraints and a rammed train is followed by another which is lightly loaded, while if the rammed service was 10 minutes earlier the loadings would be much better on both trains.